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
WELL DONE, Twana!
Keep this good information coming!
Democracies always self destruct(proceed tyranny) , that is why our founding father, gave us a Christian Constitutional Republic.
The unconstitutional Obama Regime is without controversy or doubt whatsoever: is Anti-God, Anti-Family, and Anti-America!
Then will someone please explain these laws, of the land at the time, here is what I have found so far....
The 1882 Edmunds Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S. citizenship, denying them the right to vote, serve on juries or hold office. Not dissimilar to current immigration raids, U.S. federal agents hunted and arrested polygamists. Polygamists were forced to leave the country or risk jail.
Linda, JB listed his email address and invited anyone who has questions to contact him and he'll go over it with you or anyone who really wants to get to the truth of these matters. I suggest you use it and ask him (since he's the one that has researched this for 10's of years) instead of asking anyone who didn't write this and haven't put in the study time and seen all the twists and turns politically agenda driven people constantly use to divert our attention so we can never be unified on this.
When I first seen this post, I didn't even wanna post it because I knew this crap would start. Any time something of great substance is posted ... it starts.
I sent it to him and he was kind enough to send me back a reply...Thanks so much !
These issues are discussed thoroughly in the column above. There are HUGE differences between "citizen" - "inhabitant" - "Native Born" - "Naturalized" - and "Natural Born."
The laws you ask about are directed at "citizenship" NOT "Natural Born Citizenship." The same is true of the 14th Amendment (Immigration and Naturalization Amendment) and ALL 14th related cases.
As for Mormon doctrines, they have no bearing at all upon the Constitution or U.S. Laws.
Last, wikipedia, snopes and factcheck are all open propaganda sites - NOT legitimate research sources for any topic.
Linda, Thank you for posting that. I have searched and searched for that. Romney was the only GOP candidate who did not list his complete heritage on his website. I wondered why. Also, I was thrown off a website for quoting Vattel, JB Williams, and a Constitutional lawyer on this very issue. I was called a RINO and all sorts of terrible names by some who post often on here and are now praising Williams.
As a GOP State Delegate who has worked very, very hard since 2007 to keep Obama away from DC, I have now washed my hands of the process. Both parties want power. Money talks. Far too many people would rather blog than work against our present tyranny. The Democrats manage to get almost all of their precincts represented - the GOP has historically had less than 50% of theirs represented. My precinct was represented for the fist time in 2010, by me. Not one soul would even make phone calls to help the cause. My precinct will not represented again. Lip service does not get the job done.
God bless you for questioning! And, please, keep it up! I am worn out.
I`m all for removing Obama from office. Not just for this, but for where he`s leading this nation. My question however is, What if the mother is a U.S. citizen? After all the Constitution makes no mention of the word parents as for presidential requirements. So i`m just a bit confused.
Joe, please read the column above very carefully, making notes along the way if need be. This issue is discussed in the column. I make NO assumptions in this column, I quote directly and completely from Vattel's Law of Nations, which is the known point of origin for the Founders use of the term Natural Born Citizen.
In short, just as the family surname and lineage follows the bloodline of the Father, so does the Natural Right of Citizenship. As Vattel put it very clearly, the country of the Father's is that of the children.
It is no more complicated than that and there is no escaping the truth.
Due to U.S. 14th and Immigration statutes, a Mother can confer "citizen rights" - but NOT Natural Born Citizenship. This special type of citizen is passed from Father to child, period.
Until today I`d never hears of Vattel1s Law of Nations. So I thank you for that information. However at the time that the 14th admendment was ratified July 9th 1868, women did not have voting rights, or at least i don`t they did. So shouldn`t that admendment be changed just a bit?
Is the goal to establish "progressive" women's rights? - Or to establish the truth regarding a very important Constitutional Crisis in America today?
Is the goal to define Natural Born Citizen and Article II? - Or to alter it to suit the agenda of one voting bloc or another?
Exactly the point, JB! Equal rights does NOT mean special rights. These special interest groups have formed a cabal of fools (lawyers) to do the bidding of the special interest; whereby, creating "Protected" classes within a classless society set forth by the Constitution.