The US Constitution

Please Go Here to Read All About our United States Constitution, it’s history and valuable information you should know.

The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen

Even many conservative  columnists and pundits seem confused on the issue of natural born  citizen, even though the matter is really quite clear.

History answers the question of  what “natural-born citizen” means, and  leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven purposes.

The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at  the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the  Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to  offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born”  into question.

Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time  of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his  2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local  hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in  Panama.

As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack  Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a  presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US  soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress,  therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born  citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US  citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander.

However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and  here’s why;

The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But  the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage  or the bloodline of the father.

The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a  treaty between nations which established certain universal standards,  one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”

The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads  as follows;

“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.”

Note the following text—“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.”

Further clarification—“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 the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“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.”

The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely  consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born  citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the  father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our  nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution,  under Article II—Section I—Clause V;

“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 “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born”  citizens can hold the office of president.

The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written  that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the  United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in  the world he might have been born.

A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A  “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a  child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth  took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth.

Some argue that the XIV  Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and  subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United  States;”  However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as  it was written to address issues of “immigration” and  “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or  “natural born” citizens of the Unites States.  In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They  are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized  citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed  “citizens” with otherwise equal rights.  As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.  was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a  British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for  Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United  States.  It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a  constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House.  Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution  via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in  which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born  citizen?”

Only the people can decide…

But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I  of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and  preservation, then nothing in that document matters  anymore.

If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution,  then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of  the US Constitution or the American way of life.

If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of  America no longer stands.

Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?