Brothers and Sisters, as you read comments, be mindful of posts I've recently posted and sent out lately. Then you can/will start to see what I see here and other sites on a continuous basis.
Also, as you read this and if your thoughts move toward 'but what about the mother' - ask yourself if maybe that is the feminazi movement mindset that have been drilled into our brains, by the so-called/self-titled womens rights movement that claims to be for womens rights but turns a blind eye to true wars on women and instead fights to demoralize, demonize, berate, and dominate men AND fight to kill their babies. That movement, is also part of the communist movement intended to destroy social fabric, allowing communism to advance in any society ill-prepared to defend. Same as turning men into women.
Penned By J.B. Williams
June 11, 2012
The recent release of my previous column titled Rubio Can Lock the Election for Obama resulted in numerous reader emails that demonstrate a continuing confusion over the indisputable definition and application of the term Natural Born Citizen. This follow up column is written to remove all confusion from the topic, once and for all.
Sadly, most of the people concerned with this topic believe they each know the truth, even though they do not agree on what the truth is. Most opinions are based upon second source or third hand information, most of it motivated by political agenda.
My objective is to establish through first source evidence the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen as used by our Founders in Article II of the Constitution, and spread the truth, no matter who it helps or harms in the political arena. I have written on this subject extensively and my only loyalty here is to the truth, no matter who it serves.
The true definition of Natural Born Citizen
Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a second (or more) generation citizen by birth right. None of the Founding Fathers were Natural Born Citizen as they all became first generation citizens the moment they created our nation. As a result, they had to exclude themselves from the NBC requirement, even though most of them were born on soil (aka Native Citizen), or none of them could have held the office of President.
The term Natural Born Citizen was borrowed from Vattel's treaties The Law of Nations, based upon the unalienable rules of Natural Law. Most people understand and agree on this. Then, they begin cherry-picking their facts from there, in all cases, based upon their individual political agendas rather than a careful and complete study of the facts.
I direct you to four sections in particular...
The Law of Nations - Book 1 - Chapter 19 - Sections 212, 213, 214 and 215 - The true definition of NBC is given in these sections.
§ 212. Citizens and natives (the section most people are familiar with) READ IN ENTIRETY PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO SECTIONS I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED.
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
212 - Defines Natural Born Citizen as the natural offspring of a Citizen Father. Vattel explains this three times in this section. Just as all birthrights follow the blood of the father, so does natural rights of citizenship. This debunks the theory that "both parents" must be legal citizens at the time of birth of any offspring. Only the Father confers Natural Born Citizenship.
§ 213. Inhabitants (Refers to situations like Rubio's)
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity."
213 addresses "citizen" and "inhabitants" - not Natural Born Citizens defined in 212. Rubio falls into this category as he was born in the U.S. - however, his parents (specifically his father) were legal citizens of Cuba at the time of Marco's birth. Due to our 14th Amendment based upon this section from Vattel, Marco became an inhabitant at birth, and an "anchor baby citizen" via our current immigration and naturalization laws. But because his Father was a legal citizen of Cuba, his father conferred natural citizenship rights to Cuba upon Marco's birth. It is on this basis that Marco Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
§ 214. Naturalization (58) (confirms everything I just told you about Rubio)
"A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner."
215 answers the question of soil, or Native Born versus Natural Born
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country (NO born on soil requirement)
"It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also."
This pertains to John McCain, who was born in Panama due to his father’s military deployment. As Vattel explains in section 215, where a person is born cannot take away the Natural Born Birthright that passes via Natural Law from Father to Son. Because John McCain's Father was indeed a well-known legal citizen of the United States at the time of John's birth, no matter where the birth took place, Natural Born Citizenship passed from John's Father to John at birth. John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, no matter what else people think about John McCain.
In this regard, the United States Senate got it exactly right in their 99-0 Sen. Res. 511 clearing John McCain to pursue the office of President in 2008. Using the exact same definition used to clear John McCain, Barack Hussein Obama and Marco Rubio would fail the test. The fact that the U.S. Senate is on record getting it right demonstrates that the entire U.S. Senate is complicit in the fraudulent seating of Barack Hussein Obama in the people’s White House. It also proves it was a premeditated crime…
NOTE: This also relates to Mitt Romney - “I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also." – Mitt Romney’s Father may have held dual citizenship as a result of being born in Mexico, the natural son of a U.S. Citizen Father. This could disqualify Mitt’s Father from holding the offices of President and Vice President. However, Mitt was born in the USA the natural son of the legal citizen Father, with no direct divided loyalties. While Mitt’s Father may have been disqualified, Mitt does not appear to be.
Just in case there is any doubt concerning McCain, Vattel goes further on the subject of the McCain circumstance in section 217
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state (John McCain)
"For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory."
One does not quit citizenship rights when deployed abroad by our government. In fact, even if a soldier deployed abroad sires a child, with a foreign mother, that child is still a Natural Born Citizen of the USA as those rights pass from Father to child at birth.
Are you with me so far? Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA, John McCain is.....right? Barack Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen no matter whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.... right?
Now for Romney....
According to all available records on Romney, his Grandfather was a legal citizen of the United States who became an "inhabitant" of Mexico long before Mitt's birth. Mitt's father was born in Mexico, the natural offspring of a legal US citizen living in Mexico. Remember from above that soil changes nothing. According to all evidence available at present, Mitt's father was born a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, even though his parents were "inhabitants" of Mexico at the time.
Mitt's Father later returned to the United States and became Governor of Michigan, something a non-citizen could not do. Mitt was born in Michigan, the natural offspring of a legal citizen Father, making Mitt a Natural Born Citizen of the United States at birth.
So, McCain and Romney both pass the NBC test according to Vattel and The Law of Nations. Rubio, Obama and others like Jindal DO NOT pass the test. Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court knows the truth presented in this column, as do every member of the U.S. Senate, most members of the House and almost every judge in the country.
This is why there is a concentrated effort to redefine the term to mean any citizen, protecting all who remain involved in the greatest electoral fraud ever perpetrated on any democratic society. The reason the Natural Born requirement must be eliminated is it is not possible to stand up a Global Government in the United States so long as only Natural Born Citizens can lead our government. That’s why our Founders placed the requirement there – and that’s why people are hell-bent to remove it.
Before you spread any more false information regarding the subject, I welcome any challenge you want to raise to any of the information provided here. If it is truth you seek, you now have the truth. If you seek something else, the truth will not serve that agenda.
One final time – If the natural birth Father is a legal U.S. Citizen at the time of the child’s birth, the child is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. If the natural birth Father is not a legal U.S. Citizen at the time of the child’s birth, the child is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. End of story!
Last, if Marco Rubio truly wants to earn the title of An American Son, he should immediately pronounce himself “ineligible” for the offices of President and Vice President and explain why, which would immediately turn all focus upon the current Fraud-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, and secure the defeat of Obama’s international assault on the United States of America. If Rubio does not do this immediately, he is not what many Tea Party supporters had hoped…
© 2012 JB Williams - All Rights Reserved
JB, you are absolutely correct! All of this "birther' nonsense is a distraction. A distraction to keep people's minds off the truth that is exactly what you have presented. The old adage of "Those who do not study history are bound to repeat it." is correct. History tells us in 1866 Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”* Temporary Sojourner? Would that include a Student Visa for someone who was planning on returning to his native country after graduation? I should believe it does.
As far as Rubio, some state that his father became a 'naturalized" citizen (not Natural-Born) thereby conferring to Rubio the Natural-Born per the Naturalization Act. Not true say I. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens (not Natural-Born citizens...just citizens) themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a naturalized citizen father.
It seems that the media cannot differentiate between the words 'Citizen', 'Naturalized citizen' and 'Natural-Born citizen'. One sleazy congress critter, when ask about Zero's birth said "I believe that he is a citizen." Note he did not say Natural-Born citizen. Therefore, like you, I believe that the entire congress are in on this.
JB, you and I have been harping on this since about 2010 and the 'birthers' keep distracting the uninformed. Keep up the good fight my brother, I will stand beside you throughout.
Indeed Fred and no matter how crystal clear you make it, there are some who want to debate. This is because they have an agenda separate from arriving at TRUTH. When truth does not support that agenda, the debate begins.
Rubio's parents DID become Naturalized citizens of the United States, but not until more than five years after the birth of Marco.
As a result, Marco's Father could not confer at birth, a right which he did not possess.
This is a very good explanation and it is as I have always been taught. Thank you for putting it out again. I am very tired of the media pundits, including Fox News, who keep proposing Rubio as the ideall VP candidate.
The decisions we make can never be any better than the information used to make them. If TRUTH is not our starting point, then we have no starting point.
I have brought these same points out and am always presented with the Supreme ourt Case of Wong Kim Ark, and Democrats saying this ruling makes BHO a Natural Born Citizen. Could you review it and respond please. They say this ruling by the court over rules anything written in this article.
14th Amendment cases have NO bearing upon Natural Born Citizens as it is an immigration and naturalization amendment.
Further, the entire basis of Natural Law and our Founders use of that foundation is that Natural Law cannot be altered or abolished via man-made statutes, including constitutional amendments.
Natural Born is a condition that exists in Natural. Although many Natural Laws are recognized by men and governments the world over since the beginning of time, the point of origin for these laws is Nature, not man.
Hence, the Founders use of "Endowed by our Creator" rather than legislated by men.
Barbara. Wong Kim Ark is about CITIZENSHIP! Who is a citizen, who is called a citizen. NOT the definition of NATURAL-BORN citizen. The court said that Wong was a native-born citizen of the United States. NATIVE born...not NATURAL born. These are distractions from your Democratic friends who parrot talking points and media mis-information. You must understand that they can easily get confused because both words start with a 'n'.
You can read the Supreme Court decision here:
Just read the very first paragraph and it should explain the Wong case to you. The rest is for enlightenment.
Correct, you are making my point. This and other 14th Amendment cases deal only with "CITIZENSHIP" - NOT "Natural Born Citizenship."
People have raised 14th Amendment arguments for the purpose of convoluting the discussion, intertwining "citizen" with "Natural Born Citizen" - Natural Born rights with 14th Amendment Immigration and Naturalization rights - Man-made laws with Natural Law.
I am VERY family with this a dozens of other 14th Amendment cases that people have used to change the discussion from "Natural Born Citizen" to simple "citizen."
There are two very different things. The confusion is intentional, not accidental.
I have been told that until the Supreme Court rules that this is the definition of NBC then it is incorrect and anyone can be President whether or not he is eligible according to Vattel's treaties. My argument is that the Supreme Court did not even exist when the Constitution was written and I am called ignorant by Democrats and other "unknowledgable" people.
Barbara, the Judiciary has taken control and allows NO citizen the right to redress of our Constitutional rights via their arguement of "standing". We the People have standing under the Constitution which proves that the Judiciary has usurped our rights. (check out the cases in Tennessee on The Post & Email for example) Also you state "Vattel's treaties", did you mean treatise or writings?
Barbara, please stop believing what you are 'told' and do your own research. Here is a good place to start with 4 different Supreme court decisions dating back to 1814, again in 1830, again in 1875 and finally in 1898.
After reading this you can tell those who 'told' you the Supreme Court needs to look at this that the SCOTUS has looked at it on four (4) separate occasions dating back to 1814 and have concurred on the definition each and every time.
The Supreme Court has ruled, and that ruling is found in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.162 (1875).
It seems pretty clear to me, but I don't have an agenda aimed at maintaining the status quo. Romney is OK, but Rubio is NOT a "natural born" citizen. If Romney cynically chooses Rubio for VP (an obvious sop to "the Hispanic vote"), I can't give him my support, whether financial or with my vote. I expect Romney to pander to someone, so, why doesn't he choose Allen West as VP? Col. West satisfies Amendment XII, and he loves America in addition to being a conservative (Today's "conservatives" are the folks who used to be known as "Americans"!). Further, Col. West (like it or not, it's the truth) will siphon a lot of votes from members of "the 'black' community" who have not fallen victim to this "Black Liberation Theology" nonsense.
Spend a couple of hours on Minor v. Happersett and you will no longer be "ignorant" of what is happening, nor will you be unknowledgeable. There is a huge "push" for Romney to nominate Rubio, with those who are behind that pressure hoping that there will be no move after Barry's presidency to rescind all of the EO's and so on that have been enacted during his watch. "If we can get a large majority of 'the American people' to support the idea that any 'native' birth produces a 'natural born' citizen, Barry's destruction will stand as legitimate." Never mind that The Constitution is supposed to overrule the unconstitutional will of the majority. Socialism works best with a populace that is complacent, lazy, ignorant, and/or stupid, with special emphasis on "complacent".
As for having to wait for a Supreme Court ruling (Never mind that this has already happened)...
...Do we have to have a Supreme Court ruling about everything, or are we able to do some research and reasoning on our own and determine what is right and what is wrong? The Supreme Court has never ruled that groceries are mine after I have paid for them. Never. Does that mean that some random individual can legally take them from me as I carry them to my car in the parking lot? How about coming into my home and taking them from me there? There are some things that, simply, don't require a bunch of guys in black robes to "rule" upon in order for us to determine the "rightness" of them. "Natural born" citizenship is among those things. ("That all depends upon what "is" is...)