"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."
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1
A Question Of Eligibility: Is Obama's Presidency Constitutionally Legitimate? (DVD)
Natural Born Citizen – Circa 1787.
If ever there was a debate that screams for a wild analogy just to bring the debate back to earth, it’s the silly debate over what the Founding Fathers meant by the term “natural born citizen” at the time they wrote those words in Article II – Section I of the U.S. Constitution, ratified by the original thirteen colonies, later agreed to by all 50 states.
Allow me to mix yesterday’s “intent” with today’s “circumstances” in order to illustrate the insanity in the ongoing debate, which is really nothing more than a contrived effort to subvert the language and intent of the Constitution.
Imagine if you will that Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1741 instead of 1961. That instead of being the son of an under-aged white American mother and black Arab-African father, who was also a British subject and legal citizen of Kenya rather than the U.S. .... he was born the son of an under-aged white American mother and King George of England.
That after ratification of the Constitution in 1787, Barack Obama decided to run for president, an American born son of King George. Would the “natural born citizen” clause in Article II – Section I have prohibited him from running for the office of president, while the Founding Fathers who wrote those words, were still alive?
According to St. George Tucker, the natural-born citizen requirement for the President of the United States had one purpose:
“The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.”
In short, would the son of King George, even if he were born on American soil to an American mother, be trusted in the office of Commander-in-Chief? - Would the Founders have accepted the son of King George as the chief executive of the United States, and if not, why?
Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”
President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” -
“Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. -- And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.”
On this basis, how would the Founders react to news that King George’s son wanted to be president of the United States?
No imagination is required here... Could the son of King George have any loyalties to his father or England, which could be at odds with American interests? Under the heading of “blood is thicker than water or politics,” would the Founders have had a reasonable objection to King George’s son being president of the United States?
He could have been a “citizen” of the United States, living with his mother. He could have even been a “native born citizen,” born on American soil. But the mere fact that his father was King George would have been a factor at the heart of the Founders “natural born citizen” clause, in that the son of the British Empire would certainly have had questionable loyalties and at best, dual loyalties with another nation.
For this reason alone, the Founders were very specific in the three basic requirements for being president of the United States.
First and foremost – “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;”
Not “citizen” or “native born citizen” or “naturalized citizen,” - - NO PERSON EXCEPT a “natural born citizen.”
What was the key determining factor in this idea?
Even the U.S. Senate, under the control of Democrats, was able to answer this question... v“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
Taken from the Senate Resolution clearing John McCain to run for President in 2008 and then Senator Barack Obama agreed, as did all members of the U.S. Senate.
However, this same interpretation of “natural born citizen” is NOT being applied to King Barack Hussein Obama. Why not?
Well, because he cannot pass Article II – Section I requirements under this interpretation, so a new progressive interpretation is needed, and since the senate answered this question just last year, it will be hard to come up with a better interpretation for Obama without noting the blatant double standard involved in such an effort. So, we are told to focus on the missing birth records instead...
Clearly, Barack Hussein Obama was NOT “born to American citizens on an American military base” like John McCain. He was instead born the son of a foreign British subject and citizen of Kenya. He is therefore, for the very reasons expressed by the Founders, NOT a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.
A “citizen,” maybe, though no authenticated proof has been offered by Obama. Even a “native born citizen,” maybe, though again, no proof has been offered by Obama. But a “natural born citizen” he is NOT, no matter when or where he was born.
As the son of a foreign father with a family tree abroad, his loyalties are in doubt. End of story! On this basis alone, he cannot be Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.
Now for a more modern day example:
Imagine that for some reason, Kenya decided to side with Russia, Cuba and Venezuela against the U.S. and war was imminent.
Is there a chance that Barack Hussein Obama would feel compelled to notify his family in Kenya of an impending U.S. invasion of Kenya? Or maybe resist the need to invade altogether, on the basis that his family in Kenya would be at risk? Or maybe share secrets that could save the lives of family members in Kenya that could jeopardize the national security mission of the USA?
The answer is YES to all of the above!
The “natural born citizen” clause is a matter of national security. The office of president is the highest office in this land and the most powerful political office in the entire world. It can be entrusted to No person except a natural born Citizen, according to Article II – Section I of the US Constitution.
Ignoring the “natural born citizen” clause and allowing someone with dual or divided loyalties to sit in the Oval Office is a matter of unnecessary and unwanted national security risk.
America is currently at war with Arab-Islamic terror organizations scattered all over the globe. Our Commander-in-Chief is the son of an Arab-African Muslim father, with family living in a part of the world which is heavily corrupted by both Extreme Islam and Communist dictators, some of whom happen to be blood relatives of the Commander-in-Chief.
It is clear to any level headed American that Barack Hussein Obama is EXACTLY the situation that the Founding Fathers tried to prevent with Article II – Section I of the Constitution.
Yet not ONE member of the U.S. congress is willing to even raise the question.... not one court is willing to hear evidence, and half of Americans see no problem whatsoever.
To add fuel to the fire, realize that Obama was raised by people like Communist Frank Marshall Davis, schooled by mentors like Bill Ayers, funded by Saudi Royalty front-men like Dr. Khalid al-Mansour and international socialists like George Soros, preached to for 20 years by Black Nationalist thugs like the Rev. Wright.
Despite being 50% Caucasian-American on his mother’s side, there is not an ounce of evidence that Barack Hussein Obama has a drop of American in him anywhere.
Obama is the very man the Founders wrote Article II – Section I for, and yet, he is the only man in America that the clause is not being applied to???
Still, no state legislature, no member of congress, no court and no American news agency will seriously raise the question. What’s wrong with this picture? It amounts to national suicide...
There is NO honest debate over what “natural born citizen” means or that Barack Obama does not meet the definition. All efforts to debate the matter are contrived efforts to subvert Article II – Section I on Obama’s behalf, via Ivy League Law School mental masturbation full of childish what-if scenarios not grounded in history or law.
Since not a single elected official in America wants to raise the issue, what does that tell you about EVERY elected official in America?
There is no honest debate over this issue. Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a constitutional president; he is a fraudulent resident of the White House. This means that the constitution no longer stands, that the federal government is operating without authority, and that the American people are in deep excrement....
The only debate worth having at this point is - what are the American people prepared to do about it, since their elected officials have left the matter in the hands of the people?
The pressure continues to mount.......
Supreme Court Justice Scalia is following through: The pressure continues to mount of getting suspicious records about Obama and his county of origin.
SNOPES confirms that Occidental College did, indeed, release records that Obama had been admitted to that California college as Barry Sortero ( one of Obama's known 6 names) on a Fullbright Scolarship with his country as INDONESIA!!!! Finally, just maybe the mask will come off. TRUTH OR FICTION takes a neutral position.
Smoking Gun Found? So what will happen now? Wonder why the media has not reported on this?
AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya, and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim.
The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy, and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.
Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front- page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K.
In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his person al records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
What Passport Did Obama Use?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.
It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
Q:Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
- He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
- He traveled with a British passport, or
- He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
A:No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's"no travel" list in 1981.
Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
Obama's 'birth certificate' not acceptable in Hawaii?
The Hawaiian certification of live birth Barack Obama posted on his campaign website and distributed to select news
organizations as proof he was a "natural born citizen" would not be accepted as a "birth certificate" even for some Hawaiian state
government eligibility issues, WND has learned.
Read full article
White House 'dialogue' site scrubbed of eligibility posts
With more than 200 individual threads and thousands of comments on the eligibility issue alone, moderators of the White House website on "open government dialogue" have been working tirelessly to edit the dialogue about Barack Obama's elusive "long-form" birth certificate.
Many of the top-rated threads are from citizens calling on Obama to release his birth certificate. The postings in the "top rated" category have received the most "looks promising"
votes from users. New threads on the topic of Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president are appearing by the minute.
Read full article
Obama flack laughs off birth certificate question
Somebody finally asked Barack Obama's White House press secretary about the president's elusive birth certificate.
When asked by WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving why the president, who has pledged transparency in his administration, would not release his long-form birth certificate to
establish his constitutional eligibility for office, spokesman Robert Gibbs guffawed in unison with members of the Washington press corps about the concerns of 400,000 petitioners
who have demanded it.
Read full article
Who is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America
A "Natural born citizen" - the most crucial concept of the moment in America - is confusing (and deliberately confused) so much that Internet searches deliver a mess. This concept is used in the Constitution of the US (Article II, Section 1) as a precondition of presidency, being clearly distinguished from ordinary citizenship. Yet it has never been defined in the Constitution and later codes. Why? Because it had been self evident in the time when the Constitution was written, reaffirmed in the then contemporary encyclopedia "The Law of Nations" (1758) by Emerich de Vattel.
In it (chapter 19, §212), the concept "Natural born citizen" is based on a twofold criterion: both parents must be the citizens, and the birth must take place in the concerned country. The last precedent when such a criterion was applied was the Senate resolution 511 in 2008, when Sen. McCain was acknowledged a natural born citizen.
Often "Natural born citizenship" is confused with §1401 of the US Code "Nationals and citizens of United States at birth". Although the words sound similar, §1401 defines only ordinary citizenship including such shallow as that of anchor babies (born to illegal residents of guests of the country, §1401(a)). The Constitution clearly and explicitly excludes ordinary citizenship for presidency. If it also defined the "Natural born citizenship" as clearly and explicitly, there would be no reasons for confusions. These confusions emerge in a general trend of erosion of the basic concepts (inconvenient for contemporary progressives).
The arguments in favor of the definition according to Emerich de Vattel are the following. The Framers (in their correspondence) explicitly wished to exclude dual loyalty,
and explicitly required that the US citizenship of the president be something more than ordinary citizenship (and more than their own). After all, any one can acquire an ordinary
US citizenship in some point of one's life, and the Framers clearly excluded this kind of citizenship. On the contrary, the Natural Born Citizenship cannot be acquired: it may be
only inherited. What else than the definition of Vattel could the Framer possibly mean? After them all the presidents (except the current one) did satisfy this definition,
demonstrating continuity of the meaning "Natural born citizenship" consistent with that of Vattel.
Pouring Oil on Troubled Waters
The calming effect of oil was known to the ancient Greeks. In 1762, Benjamin Franklin repeated an experiment first performed by Pliny, which he reported in A Letter from Benjamin Franklin to William Brownrigg, 1773:
I then went to the windward side where they (the waves) began to form; and there the oil, though not more than a teaspoonful, produced an instant calm over a space several yards square which spread amazingly and extended itself gradually till it reached the lee side, making all that quarter of the pond, perhaps half an acre, as smooth as a looking glass.
A strong wind that goes by many names is troubling the waters in America. I don t have enough metaphorical oil to calm the metaphorical troubled waters of all America. However, maybe I have enough oil to calm the trouble stirred up by issues surrounding the Grand Jury effort to indict AKA Obama.
Something as dramatic as citizens themselves deciding to take action by forming Grand Juries to indict a President is certain to stir up emotions on both sides of the issue. My goal in this essay is to replace impulsive emotions with facts and reason.
Let me start with the dangers that emotions can present as a component to solving problems.
Every thought we think changes the activity of specific chemicals in the brain called neuropeptides. What we are thinking about determines what our emotions are.
Interestingly, certain kinds of thinking produce more emotional chemicals than other types of thinking. Analytical, organizational, logistical, and mathematical thinking produces very few emotions. That is why accountants, technical professionals, and mathematicians seem to be so emotionally flat.
Conversely, creative, poetic, descriptive, and interpersonal thinking produces many emotions. People like actors, writers, musicians, and artists frequently have enough emotions for a family of four all by themselves.
Emotions cloud our thinking, cause us to be impulsive, and alienate others. Problem solving is better served by reason than by feelings.
So let s begin with all of those irrational fear mongers who are trying to discourage people from participating in a Grand Jury. From them, we are hearing things like: People can t go around just starting their own pretend Grand Juries. That has got to be against the law. You ll get arrested. You will go to jail for falsifying a court document and impersonating a court official. You have no right to do such a thing!
Compare such scare tactics aimed at frightening citizens to this clearly stated, rational wording in the Handbook of Texas:
The grand jury's investigation of any matter may be initiated by the court, the district attorney, its own members, or any credible person. The grand jury may summon witnesses by subpoena and examine them under oath. On completion of an investigation the grand jury determines by vote whether or not an indictment should be presented to the court; nine votes are necessary for a decision to indict, and nine members also constitute a quorum.
I have also heard anti-grand Jury people making emotionally driven arguments like: Ordinary people can t just go around making decisions in Grand Juries without being supervised by a lawyer. The whole justice system will fall apart if lawyers aren t supervising Grand Juries. Who knows what horrible injustices they will commit without a lawyer to guide them?
In many states governmental lawyers are not only NOT welcome in Grand Jury sessions, they are actually banned by law from any participation in Grand Jury sessions. Take Virginia, for example. The mere presence of a lawyer representing the government will invalidate any decision of a Grand Jury. Without the dramatic rhetoric, see how the State of Virginia explains the Grand Jury s relationship to any such attorneys.
To keep the Grand Jury free from any pressure from the State, Virginia makes it illegal for any attorney representing the State to appear before the Grand Jury, except as a witness.
If, however, members of the Grand Jury have questions about their duties, they may ask the Commonwealth's Attorney for advice.
Except for these two cases, if a Commonwealth's Attorney appears in the Grand Jury Room while the Grand Jury is there, any indictment returned "A True Bill" by the Grand Jury is invalid (no good). Therefore, while a Grand Jury may request the appearance of the Commonwealth's Attorney to testify as a witness or to explain some principle of law about the discharge of their duties, they cannot seek his advice as to whether they should return an indictment as "A True Bill." If a Grand Jury finds that it is in need of advice as to its duties but doesn't know if it can invite the Commonwealth's Attorney into the Grand Jury Room to explain, it should notify the judge that it desires further instructions, and it will receive such instructions in open court.
So, far from citizens not having the authority to form Grand Juries, and far from citizens not being able to function in a grand jury without the advice of an attorney, we discover that the Grand Jury option is designed to be initiated by citizens and to function free from the influence of governmental attorneys.
Although the laws may vary from state to state, Grand Juries are viewed the way United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sees them,
In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people."
Also, United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):
Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.
Clearly stated: The Grand Jury is a separate and equal Constitutional power.
The Grand Jury is not a tool for government to use against its citizens.
So my first teaspoon of rational oil is to still the waters roiled by those who intentionally promulgate unfounded rumors. They are so threatened by the constitutional power of the Grand Jury that they irresponsibly spread their reckless gossip in an attempt to frighten citizens away from exercising their legitimate constitutional rights.
My second teaspoon of rational oil is to be used to still all the angry anti-AKA Obama citizens who use more rhetoric than reason to express themselves.
There are not going to be any lynch parties for politicians. As much as we might mention torches and pitchforks, the only revolution I support and the only revolutions supported by the leadership of the Grand Jury movement is a revolution as defined by the U. S. Constitution. Our forefathers had the wisdom to provide a way for citizens to redress their grievances in a peaceful way.
If you personally have any other intentions, please remove yourself from my email list and do not post on this blog. If you express irresponsible rhetoric that even hints of any action that is not covered by your constitutional rights, please disassociate yourself from the Grand Jury movement. Such attitudes are more of a liability than an asset to the cause.
We welcome and appreciate patriots who are committed to the principles of Constitutional Government.
A little reminder from some old friends of mine:
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Call to Action!
We the people have the power to make REAL change. We are the Fourth Branch of Government equal in power to the other three branches.
The US Constitution Says Judges and Prosecutors Need to BUTT OUT!! of Grand Jury Affairs It's none of their business who we want to indict.
Carl now looking for more former Military Officers to come forward and file the same complaint along with Citizens following suit...
Game plan is still the same, Top Down and Bottom up approach. State AG s and State US Attorneys form the top and local Judges and Sheriffs from the bottom.
This is really it, end game is upon us&"
If you have difficulty contacting Carl Swensson, please let me know and I'll hook you up directly.
bigg Bill Please advise, should you no longer wish to receive emails from me.
William G. Steiner, BS, M.Ed (PA Dept of Correctional Education, Retired)
133 Center Ave.
Mt. Pleasant, PA 15666
724-547-7107
Cell 412-582-0644
Email:
P.S. Dr. Orly Taitz is coming to Atlanta on May 6th. We will be
visiting The Capitol and delivering the Georgia Grand Juries
Indictments and her Quo Warranto to various State officials. If you'd
like to join us on this journey, please contact me (Carl Swensson)
at--
prevere@riseupforamerica.com
www.orlytaitzesq.com
