WHY IS THE RIGHT HELPING OBAMA REWRITE THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?’

[Twana Blevins]

Definitions are easy, they are found in the dictionary. Yet, millions of Americans remain stuck in a quagmire of dissenting views and alleged expert opinions over the simple term natural born citizen, one of only a few strict constitutional requirements for the highest office in our land, President and Commander-in-Chief.

According to dictionaries dating as far back as Webster’s 1828 Edition, the term natural born citizen has a very simple and specific common meaning, and according to the framers of the US Constitution, a very important distinction.

Natural – Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.
Born – To be born, is to be produced or brought into life.
Citizen – In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.

Based upon the official definition of these words, we know immediately that the term natural born citizen is not based upon statute or any form of man-made law. It exists in nature, the result of natural law, by divine power, only able to be recognized or ignored by legislative process, but still inalienable via legal processes.

Many self-proclaimed experts insist that the US Constitution was written in some secret code, which can only be deciphered for the common folk, by legal scholars of the highest order. Yet on the basis of simple definitions, we know that if we are discussing any form of man-made law requiring the analysis of legal scholars, we are NOT discussing natural-born.

The term natural born citizen is of nature, not man-made law. The Constitution is written in plain and simple English, each word with a specific definition and meaning easily found in any English dictionary. Fortunately, not only legal scholars have access to dictionaries, making it possible for anyone who can read, to understand the Constitution, so long as they have a dictionary in hand.

After all, what good are unalienable rights that legal scholars are free to alienate via politically motivated interpretations?

FULL STORY with all the FACTS you'll ever need on the subject, at Patriots News!

 

http://thepatriotsnews.com/indx.php/content/81

 

Please support both Patriots News and The United States Patriots Union with a donation today!

 

 

JB Williams
Co-Founder
www.PatriotsUnion.org
www.ThePatriotsNews.com

[Paul Powell]

Jerry

remember this, that the media is dumbama's lap dog. and they will say or do anything that he tells them to do.

[Sandra Lee Smith]

I may be mistaken here, but I believe you got your states mixed up as to who got the properly worded endorsement from the Dems on Obama; I believe it was HI only that GOT the wording of Constitutional eligibility, and the other 49 states did not; at least everywhere I've seen any mention thereof, that's been the case stated.  Something about the wording of HI's state Constitution that required it, as I understand it.  Also, saw a notice earlier this evening that Abercrombie is having a hard time finding that long form BC, and can only find an unofficial hand written note mentioning Obama was born, but NO official documents proving HI birth at all.  Re the natural born issue, his Kenyan BC does list Obama, Sr. as the father...just like his grandmother there claims too.  But the key is to insure that ALL states get legislation on the books REQUIRING properly documented and vetted PROOF that the candidates presented for ALL future elections, especially Presidential, but all, since Obama wasn't even eligible to run for Senate either, ARE in fact Constitutionally eligible to hold the offices they're seeking to hold, BEFORE they can go on that state's ballots for any office!

[Durus Helm]

Many of you may remember that Obama said, "that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."

It is interesting that he said this, because if you think about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

 

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

 

1) Directly stated, No person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of the President.

 

2) Directly stated, No person except a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of the President.

 

3) Indirectly stated, No person who is a Citizen of the United States after the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of the President, except they be a natural born Citizen.

 

Natural born Citizens can be President.

Citizens of the United States at the Adoption of the Constitution can be President.

Citizens of the United States after the Adoption of the Constitution cannot be President, except they be a natural born Citizen.

[Cristi Ritchey]

In order to properly define "Natural Born Citizen" one must also go to the United States Federal Codes, which are the laws of the land. It defines a "Natural Born" citizen as someone who was born to a father who was a citizen of the United States of America. Much later the citizen's mother was included in the requirement. If a person is born in the US to a father who is a foreigner married to an American, the child is defined as a "Native Born Citizen" and is not eligible to run for the presidency.

[Twana Blevins]

‘WHY IS THE RIGHT HELPING OBAMA REWRITE THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?’
Source: Managing Editor - (1/20/11)

Definitions are easy, they are found in the dictionary. Yet, millions of Americans remain stuck in a quagmire of dissenting views and alleged expert opinions over the simple term natural born citizen, one of only a few strict constitutional requirements for the highest office in our land, President and Commander-in-Chief.

According to dictionaries dating as far back as Webster’s 1828 Edition, the term natural born citizen has a very simple and specific common meaning, and according to the framers of the US Constitution, a very important distinction.

Natural – Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.
Born – To be born, is to be produced or brought into life.
Citizen – In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.

Based upon the official definition of these words, we know immediately that the term natural born citizen is not based upon statute or any form of man-made law. It exists in nature, the result of natural law, by divine power, only able to be recognized or ignored by legislative process, but still inalienable via legal processes.

Many self-proclaimed experts insist that the US Constitution was written in some secret code, which can only be deciphered for the common folk, by legal scholars of the highest order. Yet on the basis of simple definitions, we know that if we are discussing any form of man-made law requiring the analysis of legal scholars, we are NOT discussing natural-born.

The term natural born citizen is of nature, not man-made law. The Constitution is written in plain and simple English, each word with a specific definition and meaning easily found in any English dictionary. Fortunately, not only legal scholars have access to dictionaries, making it possible for anyone who can read, to understand the Constitution, so long as they have a dictionary in hand.

After all, what good are unalienable rights that legal scholars are free to alienate via politically motivated interpretations?

History Confirms

Some self-appointed experts have gone so far as to intentionally twist history in an effort to reduce the meaning of natural born citizen to native born status, which is not the same thing and once again, you need only a dictionary to confirm.

Native - Pertaining to the place of birth; as native soil; native country; native graves.

As you can clearly see by proper definition, people focused only upon finding a real Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Obama are focused on establishing only his native born status, his place of birth, not his natural born status.

A birth certificate is a product of man-made law. A document designed by governments to establish and record the bloodline, birth place, circumstance and vital statistics of an individual’s birth - A means of identifying and tracking that individual throughout life.

At best, it could only confirm that Obama’s stated birth father is his birth father of record, in which case, confirming what we already know, that Barack Obama Jr. is the son of a foreign national, and as such, is not a natural born citizen of the United States even if he is a native born citizen of Hawaii.

The historical foundation for the term natural born citizen found in Article II – Section I of our Constitution is the Law of Nations, as mentioned in Article 1 – Section 8 of our Constitution. An international treaty in existence during the forming of our nation, which established internationally recognized standards for what constitutes a sovereign nation and citizens’ rights.

Emerich de Vattel published a book on the Law of Nations in 1758. In Chapter 19, § 212. Under Of the citizens and natives, Vattel states very clearly what constitutes a natural born citizen of any sovereign nation, in three simple statements…and our framers borrowed the term.

1. 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.
2. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
3. 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.

As easy as one, two, three… it’s all about the natural birthrights of the father. Nothing else…

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.

Barack Obama’s stated birth father was at no time in his life, a legal citizen of the United States. He was at all times throughout his life, a British subject and legal citizen of Kenya. As such, through natural birthright, Barack

Obama succeeded to all of his father’s rights as a natural born citizen of Kenya, and at best a dual citizen of the United States with divided national loyalties through the bloodline of his mother, alleged to be a legal US citizen.

On this basis alone, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is indeed constitutionally ineligible for the office he currently holds and every member of congress and the Supreme Court is well aware. This explains why both Nancy Pelosi and the
Democrat National Committee and the Democrat Party of Hawaii refused to certify Obama as “constitutionally eligible for office” in the 2008 election. He wasn’t, so they wouldn’t certify.

Dual and divided national loyalties is exactly what the framers were worried about and tried to avoid by carefully choosing the term natural born citizen as a condition for the highest office in our land. They were trying to stop dual citizens like Barack Obama from holding our most powerful political office.

However, lawyers, political elites and profiteering pundits are trying to rewrite the US Constitutional requirement for President and Vice President from natural born (bloodline of the father) to native born (place of birth). We know why the political left is doing it, making it possible for everyone “born on US soil” to become president, including anchor babies and replacing our foundation of natural law with man-made statute. But why is the political right helping the left by focusing on the native born issue of a missing birth certificate?

More importantly, why are so many citizens foolishly funding the effort to rewrite the definition of natural to mean native, by supporting organizations concerned only with Obama’s native born status when the answer to their question is found in every dictionary?

Simply stated, the answer to Obama eligibility can be found in the answer to that famous Ebonics question, “Who’s your daddy?”

If Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. is in fact Barack Obama’s real birth father, as he has stated repeatedly throughout his entire life, then Barack Jr. is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States and he cannot be President of the
United States, at least constitutionally. No birth certificate necessary.

If Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. is NOT his real birth father, then a birth certificate may be helpful to answer who his real daddy might be.  In this case, Barack Obama is a complete fraud and for this reason, he cannot remain President of the United States.

Either way, Barack Hussein Obama is definitely in the White House unconstitutionally. Get your dictionary out and check for yourself. The legal scholars and self-appointed experts are lying to you. The dictionary shall set the truth free! You don’t need legal experts to tell you what those three little words mean, you just need Webster.

Lawyers are still debating what the true meaning of “is” is… We already know the true meaning of natural born, so…

Barack, forget the missing birth certificate… WHO’S YOUR DADDY?

JB Williams

[Pat Hopkins / ret. 1SG.]

I myself think that they are trying to distract us from the current lies and corruption that is going on in the white house and congress.The main reason why I believe this is one word the Clintons. The reason I am saying this is as slick as the clintons are if Barrack Hussan Obamma was not a us citizen old fat hillary would be president god forbid her and obama are both scum.............

[Paul Powell]

Twana

I just received an email that I think you might be interested in. I just heard that the Dumbo eared pres. is planning a to issue id cards for the internet I have the email if you can tell me where to forward it I will be happy to do so.

[Durus Helm]

Facts are in evidence that Obama and the Democratic National Committee have admitted that:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Source: http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Paid for by Organizing For America a project of the Democratic National Committee

http://obama.3cdn.net/e4a70d2773a62919f1_kfbwmv67y.jpg

In the two comment request forms on that page, they do not refer to Obama as a "natural born Citizen".

Friend --

Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

A "native" Citizen of the United States after the adoption of the Constitution cannot be eligible to the Office of the President, except they be a "natural born Citizen".

Because of Obama's citizenship status at the time of his birth was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama like his father was a British subject at birth. Obama owes allegiance to the foreign sovereign power of Great Britain, the very foreign sovereign that our Founding Fathers declared their Independence from when they wrote the Declaration of Independence.

What was the purpose of the Founder's adding the following qualification for the Office of President in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution?

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

Their purpose could not have been stated more clearly than when, John A. Bingham excluded persons who owed allegiance to foreign sovereigns from being a "natural born citizen" in a statement before Congress on 9 Mar 1866:

"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”  --  John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

 

"I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you, gentlemen.—Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact."  --  John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770, US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826). View @ Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=SVosv-IF4cAC&pg=PA296#v=onepag...

 

[1h9a4w16swbte]

It is a sad day when any current politician would seek to transcend the intelligence of a Thomas Jefferson or the dedication of a George Washington!  Men such as these simply do not exist today because greed and self-service have supplanted the commitment and dedication seen in our Founding Fathers. 

Touch the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and one just heaps garbage on brilliance!

[Durus Helm]

More brilliance, which speaks to the intelligence and dedication of John Adams.

 

"I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you, gentlemen.—Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact."  --  John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770, US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826). View @ Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=SVosv-IF4cAC&pg=PA296#v=onepag...

[Paul Powell]

Thanks DURUS

I will look into them

[Paul Powell]

Carol

the pole cats we have today that call themselves politicians are nothing more than thieves and crooks and at times even killers just look at what teddy kennedy did way back when he committed murder and got away with it. So can you really give these thugs any leeway the answer is  a great big NO. if you give an inch they will every thing and then some. If you give them the benefit of the doubt they will stick a knife in your back. No these pole cats cannot be trusted at all not with nothing even some of the new ones that just came in have already subverted to the DC way of thinking so many of them cannot be trusted with anything not even a penny. you give a dollar and they will spend a thousand dollars, this is why the country is in so much trouble today, our pole cat-a ticans would rather spend everything down to the smallest amount and then say that the other person did it. This president can't even take responsibility for his own actions. so yes you are right these people that are in DC at this time are just heaping trash and garbage on everything they can.