• SiteMeter

Common Sense 2015

ThomasPaine

The hypocrisy of the Conservatives is amazing. For years they have berated, belittled, and ridiculed those that sought Obama bona fides be investigated. Unless as a conservative ostrich with your head in the sand, you know this is a fact. The likes of the Republican establishment have all but handed Obama everything he desires even if it goes against the United States Constitution or the will of the people. The Republicans were voted into majority the last election to stop the illegal act known as Obamacare. In mere weeks they folded, abdicated their campaign pledges, their sworn duty to uphold the law and not only caved, but surrendered the nation to a tyrant.

The Tea Party trolls and the Obama enablers will hail this as a ‘birther’ argument vs. what is really is; a Constitutional requirement. As the United States Constitution is a social contract between the governed and the government.

John Boehner has proven what a worthless POS he is and what his leadership consists of, nothing but a whinny ass.

But fear not the Republicans have worked out the plan with the Democrats to completely ruin this country after the 2016 election.  Read on till the end, and you will be how.

Hillary will not be the candidate, as her baggage will be dragged from here to eternity and everything from Vince Foster, Travelgate, the vast right wing conspiracy, bimbogate, Benghazi will be brought up in a never ending barrage to remind folks of the unethical, I’m above the law, the Clintons think they are. What difference does it make? Ask the widow of Ambassador Stevens or the others murdered at Benghazi, or better yet ask Stevens himself. Oh wait you can’t, but it might matter to him.

The Republican leadership has decided that it’s their turn to promote an ineligible candidate, just to prove that any party can get away with it.

The issue here is that there is ‘requirements’ for the Office of the Presidency. What are these?

You might want to investigate the United States Constitution, Article 2.

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

At no point, even after numerous attempts the above requirements have never been altered or amended.  These attempts have been documented on numerous sites and need not be listed here.

Currently the Naturalization Act of 1790 is being peddled as authorities hope for the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’. But they fail as they misinterpret the meaning of ‘citizens’ to mean either or, which is not the case.

So, let me get this straight, the 1790 Naturalization Act clearly states: “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”

How does a Cuban national equate to a US Citizen when the 1790 act clearly states ‘citizen’s (plural)? Even with a US mother, that does not meet the standard of a Natural Born Citizen, which the founders knew as ‘born in country to CITIZEN Parents (plural) or even as the United States Supreme Court stated in Minor vs Happersett.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Now you have the same folks saying the Supreme Court has never ruled on what a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is. Really, what not look at the numerous decisions where they have stated what it is. Why does the United States Supreme Court have to rule on what it has already stated in several cases? But facts ignored are still facts. I don’t have to be appointed to SCOTUS to be able to read their decisions.

Those who somehow believe the 14th Amendment “proves their case” should be told that Congressman John Bingham—who authored that amendment—said on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1862, “All from other lands, who by the terms of laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty [italics added], are natural born citizens.” Read that again and let it sink in. In 1862, the members of Congress understood that a natural born citizen was someone born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.

In 1866 Bingham stated, “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.”

In the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens [italics added] became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” That is, there was agreement by all legal scholars in 1885 that the term natural born citizen meant “born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents.”

Maybe I should post all the relevant cases starting in 1812 with The Venus, where John Jay United States Supreme Court Justice stated the following. (Remember it was John Jay that wrote to George Washington about the requirement of a Natural Born Citizen, so I think the person that wrote it, who was also our first Supreme Court Justice, knew what he was talking about.) or little did know that John Jay (our first United States Supreme Court justice) also wrote the following in the New York State Ratification of the United States Constitution,  (Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July 26, 1788. New York was the eleventh state to do so. The assent of Virginia and of New York was seen as essential to the success of the Constitution, and though they were tenth and eleventh to ratify, it is generally agreed that until they both ratified, succes was in doubt. New York’s ratification message is the longest by far, and includes a declaration of rights and many suggested changes to the Constitution. The following text is taken from the Library of Congress’s copy of Elliot’s Debates.)

That no persons, except natural-born citizens, or such as were citizens on or before the 4th day of July, 1776, or such as held commissions under the United States during the war, and have at any time since the 4th day of July, 1776, become citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be freeholders, shall be eligible to the places of President, Vice-President, or members of either house of the Congress of the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ny.html

The Venus 1812

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants.

Children follow the condition of their father.

Ted Cruz qualifies as a Senator, but he’s not eligible for the Presidency.

Sad thing is Cruz’s staffers refuse to respond to inquiries for information about the CRBA application.

How about this

Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period. As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.J.Res. 88

JULY 24, 2000

“The natural-born citizenship requirement is unjust and discriminatory. It is inevitable that one day soon a candidate will rise in America who was not born in this country that the American people would like to be President of the United States. Let’s amend the Constitution now so that all children who grow up in America can dream of one day becoming President. Let’s bring hope of equality in citizenship to all the children who are raised in America.”

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.HTM

Note the “was not born in this country” part…

Same with Marco Rubio, he was born in 1971 to parents from Cuba, who never naturalized till 1974, after Marco was born, again born to foreign parents.

Again, Bobby Jindal born in the US, but to foreign parents.

The game plan is for both the Republicans and their Democrat trolls to push the ineligible candidates and to finally have the Supreme Court rule on what they have already stated, they are avoiding the issue. Hence the Republican candidate that says all the right thing’s, is ultimately disqualified and the Democrat long shot, Elizabeth Warren (Obama II) is paraded into the White House. Not only as progressive as Obama, controlled by the progressives, but they finally have a female in the White House to usher in the collapse of the United States.

Think this is crazy?

For years, the media have claimed that Obama is a natural born citizen BECAUSE he was “born” in Hawaii. They never said, well even if he was born in Kenya he’s still a Natural Born Citizen. It would have made the Birther argument trivial in nature. But that’s no longer the case. Now we know Cruz was born elsewhere, and now we’re being told that it still doesn’t matter.

What else will not matter, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment?

You decide, they are playing you for the fool and giving away the bank and future to illegal’s and you sit and can’t even figure out what simple words mean that were fully understood 230 years ago as common sense.

 Common Sense 2015 – Tea Party Nation

I was going to include the following in the original post.

The following is from case law on Citizenship.

Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition
Under Jus Soli, the following is written “The Supreme Court’s first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102.
It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the ‘Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.

The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction.

Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state;  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So explain how “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

In 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard succinctly spelled out this intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States….

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…

Therefore again, children born to foreign parents was never the intent.

Tea Party Nation gets it wrong

Last week Tea Party Nation published the following;

Tea Party Nation is WRONG and lying.

(Between their misrepresentation, I will correct them in red)

When Barack Obama came on the scene running for President in 2008, a number of people began to question his eligibility to be President.  The left wing media dismissed those people as “birthers.”  What the left wing media wants most people to forget is that Hillary Clinton was the original birther.

 

Now that Ted Cruz is running for office, a number of people are popping up, claiming he is not eligible to be President.

 It is an important question.

 Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President?

 The Constitution of the United States is very specific.  No one but a “natural born citizen” may become President.  That mercifully spares us from people like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 But what is a natural born citizen?

 The Constitution is silent on a definition of a natural born citizen.  Those who attack Cruz as not being eligible and even those who make the same attack on Obama, like to cite an 18th century text and a couple of Supreme Court decisions.

 There is a specific hierarchy that is used in determining the meaning of provisions in the Constitution.  The hierarch goes like this.   First we look within the pages or as attorneys like to say, within the four corners of the document for a meaning.  If there is no definition there, then we look to Congressional statutes and then to court decisions.

 

In 1790, the Congress answered the question about Natural Born Citizens with the Naturalization Act.  The Act reads in part:

 And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

 There is the definition right there.

 Children born abroad whose mothers are United States citizens and whose fathers have resided in the United States are considered natural born citizens.

 This is where Tea Party Nation is out right lying. “Children born abroad whose mothers are United States citizens and whose fathers have resided in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

The 1790 Act is clear;  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

Get it: And the children of citizens of the United States

TED CRUZ was NOT BORN TO CITIZEN PARENTS, his father was a Canadain citizen, and CRUZ was born in Canada. 

This act was introduced in Congress in 1790.  That was three years after the Constitution was drafted.  If that definition of a natural born citizen is not accurate, the men who wrote the Constitution a mere three years earlier would have stood and said something about it.

The United States Supreme Court in numerous cases stated

 The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

 

Since some of those men were in Congress, it is unlikely such a bill would have passed at all.

 

The facts in the case of Ted Cruz, unlike that of Barack Obama, are not shrouded in mystery.  Cruz was born of an American mother and though his father was not an American citizen at the time, he had resided in the United States.

 That makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen.

WRONG, Tea Party Nation is wrong and lying.

Sorry TED, you are NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and you are NOT eligilbe to be President. 

Read more here on the definition of a Natural Born Citizen

Ted Cruz to Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign

CDR Kerchner (Ret)’s Blog | Protect the Constitution to Protect Our Liberty – Learn Who Is a “Natural Born Citizen” to Constitutional Standards – Obama’s ID Documents Are Forged// //

//

Usurpation 3.0 — Report: Canadian-born U.S. Senator Ted Cruz Set To Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign

Report: Canadian-born U.S. Senator Ted Cruz Set To Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign – Shame on Him!

Ted Cruz is clearly NOT constitutionally eligible.  Obama got away with it (with an enabling, anti-constitutional, left-leaning, major-media, main-stream press) and now many Republicans wish to try it with constitutionally ineligible candidates like Ted Cruz.  We are a Republic not a Democracy.  We need to live up to our Constitution and the Rule of Law.  No matter how much you may like Cruz’s politics, he is NOT constitutionally eligible.  He was born in Canada to a non-U.S. Citizen, foreign-national, Cuban father. Being born in the USA is a “necessary” but “not sufficient” part of being a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards.  Cruz is clearly not one. Being simply a basic “Citizen at Birth” gained via statutory laws and acts of Congress does not cut it.  Those laws do not even mention the term “natural born”.  What the Repubs are doing is a disgrace to their oath of office.  The leadership of the major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted by the founders and framers. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural” to being a “born Citizen”.   Adjectives mean something special in front of a noun.  And that particular adjective points to the Laws of Nature, not man, and comes from Natural Law and its principles. See section 212 of this legal treatise written in 1758 and used by the founders and framers to justify the revolution and write the founding documents: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/  Read this historical and legal U.S. Supreme Court information on the subject: http://www.art2superpac.com/html  Also read these rebuttals to the political party lawyers who are pumping the simple Citizen a Birth argument, dropping the natural adjective or trying to conflate the two terms.  This article addresses the NECESSARY part  http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html and this article which addresses the NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT parts and true definition http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html  

Again being born in the USA (which Cruz is unambiguously not) is a “necessary” but “not sufficient” part of being born a “natural born Citizen” of the USA.  Cruz knows better but he is putting his own political aspirations about respect for the Constitution.  He is showing himself to just another politician and is not a statesman and/or standing up for his oath of office to the Constitution.    CDR Kerchner (Ret) – http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Read more and comment here:  http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/report-united-states-senator-ted-cruz.html

Read historical information for who is and who is not a “natural born Citizen” to U.S. Constitutional standards at this website:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

2006 Associated Press Video: Obama’s Trip To Kenya; Welcome Home Senator Obama

 

 

2006 Associated Press Video: Obama’s Trip To Kenya; Welcome Home Senator Obama
More raw video has surfaced from Obama’s 2006 trip to Kenya that shows him with his Kenyan grandmother and mass murderer Raila Odinga being welcomed with a sign that reads, Welcome Home Senator Obama.

Some may recall back in 2011 Reuters video(embedded at end) surfaced of the same trip…

Obama was captured in the Reuters video recorded in Kenya stating:

I’m so proud to come back home…

The latest video was actually uploaded to Youtube a week before the Reuters clip was reported by BR…

It’s just now making the rounds. It would be nice to see the complete raw news videos from this trip…

2006WHOB


Remember it was also in  Sept 2006, when the following was stated by Obama himself;

In Sept 2006 Illinois State Senator Obama, while on an international trip was interviewed by Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times.

Obama: Africa lessons; look ahead. En route back to U.S.
By Lynn Sweet on September 3, 2006 8:40 AM |

N’DJAMENA, Chad–Sen. Barack Obama departed this capital city Sunday morning, en route on an Army military aircraft to Frankfort, Germany to catch a commercial flight back to the United States.

He leaves wtih a “great urgency” to pressure the U.S. and other players to force Sudan to accept a United Nations peackeeping force in the Darfur region. Obama’s last stop was at a refugee camp near the Chad-Sudan border where some 15,333 people who fled Janjaweed violence live. Of those he talked to, they told him almost to a person they want to return-but cannot unless there are UN troops there to guarantee their safety.

After this major Africa swing–he left Washington on Aug. 18–the Illinois Democrat revs up a heavy political schedule in advance of the November elections, stumping in Iowa on Sept. 17, a stop in the early presidential caucus state that fuels speculation about whether the White House is in his future.

Obama launches his national book tour for his second book Oct. 17 in Chicago.

He reflected on his trip at the back of a plane on Saturday, talking above the roar of the engines to the three print reporters who have been covering his trip.

Obama’s next big international journey will be in 2007 –he’s looking at China, India and Indonesia, “where ironicall I actually have more of a childhood than I do in Kenya.”

Link

Again, this blog has been vindicated!

Via TheObamaFile and CDR Kerchner

Dean Haskins says we spent a very long (and hot) day talking with many people on the island (Hawaii) and filming several scenes with the “big check” that will be compiled into a video once we get home.  There was one conversation, however, that I want to share with you tonight.  We spent at least a couple hours at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children today.  I got a call this morning from a reporter with the Honolulu Civil Beat who wanted to interview us, so he met us at the Medical Center.  His story should run tomorrow.
 
After that interview, we went into the records office, and Miki asked to file a form to get her son’s birth records.  While she was filling out the form, I happened to overhear a woman who was sitting at a desk say something about the “race” field on a birth certificate she was preparing.  I asked her if this was the office that responsible for filling out the birth certificate information for babies born there, and she said that it was.
 
Because she had just asked something about the “race” field on the birth certificate she was working on, I asked, “Back in 1961, would anyone have ever entered ‘African’ as the race of a parent?”  She said, “No, back then they probably would have listed a black person’s race as ‘negro.'”  I asked, “So, the word ‘African’ wouldn’t have been used, because that is a nationality and not a race, right?”  And she responded, “Right.  Nowadays we can use ‘African American’ though.”  To which I added, “But, the word ‘African’ by itself has never been used as an entry for race?”  And she simply said, “No.  Never.”
 
And there you have it . . . from the folks at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.

There were federal regulations in place in 1961 that provided the requirements to the states for birth certificates, including the acceptable values for “Race” — enter “227” in the “Page” text box and hit “Enter.”

As this blog has repoted prior to this admission

2. Race of Father, this is an official US document and again refering back to the US Natality doumentation, on what legal entries were exceptable. African was NOT an acceptable entry.  http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/ and the 1961 Guideline http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf  Refere to Section 5 for the Technical Appendix and look under Race

US Department of State confirms Vattel

The US Department of State posted the following and thereby confirms Burlamaqui and Vattel, both whom I and others here have stated defined the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as understood by the Framers, Founders, and signers of the United States Constitution.

“America’s Founders were inspired by the ideas and values of early Swiss philosophers like Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui and Emer de Vattel, and the 1848 Swiss Constitution was influenced by our own U.S. Constitution. Swiss commitment to democracy is an example for nations and people everywhere who yearn for greater freedoms and human rights.”

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/169371.htm

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama – foreign born, foreign spawn, foreign allegiance, foreign national.

 “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, 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.

Vattel

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following. 

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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.

Here are some of Burlamaqui’s statements about ‘members of society’

Burlamaqui refers to ‘law of nations, and that that even if Barack Obama was allowed to attain as Burlamaqui states the years of discretion, Barack Obama maintained citizenship, allegiance to the British Empire as a british subject and a Kenyan Citizen till 1983, into his adulthood.

As the 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and NOT SUBJECT to any foreign power, (excluding Indians not taxed,) are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

quote; “NOT SUBJECT to any foreign power”

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama has unequivocally stated that at birth he was a British subject, whose allegiance,  protection, and jurisdiction was to the British Crown and  WAS SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER.

Obama’s statement never acknowledges any United States citizenship, allegiance, or Jurisdiction, in any part thereof, nor any other country.

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama acknowledges only one allegaince and that is to a foreign power.

 “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, 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.

Michelle Obama stated ‘Barack Obama a Kenyan’

Michelle Obama  ‘When we visited Barack’s home country of Kenya’
A ‘citizen’ is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’, as proven by the distinction in the Constitutional eligibility requirements in the United States Constitution.

United States Constitution Art 1, sec 2

Representitive eligibility requirement.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have …been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, .

CITIZEN!

United States Constitution Art 1, sec 3

Senatorial eligibility requirement.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have…been nine Years a Citizen of the United States

CITIZEN!

United States Constitution Art 2, sec1

Presidential requirement.

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

If they equated to the same definition and meaning the Founding Fathers, Framers, signers of the United States Constitution would have used the same wording.

Letter to Sean Hannity – The great great great unAmerican and Traitor

 For the third night in a row, Sean Hannity, you the the great great great American traitor has broached on the Obama ‘birth certificate issue’.

 As a true un-American media mouth-piece that  knows little if anything about the United States Constitution, whereas Hannity repeatedly stated  that the United States Constitution requires you to be born in the United States to be eligible for the Presidency.

 In reality the United States Constitution Under Art 2 sec 1 – The President

 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 Where in the above Constitutional requirement, says that one has to be born in the country? It doesn’t. The requirement is a ‘Natural-Born Citizen’.

 Let’s educate Sean Hannity

natural-born-citizen-defined

 Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

 The Law of Nations – Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following. 

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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.

 The following statement was made by the author of the 14th Amendment.

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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 -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )

Or this statement by Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

The 14th Amendment states the following;

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Born in the United States but ‘JURISDICTION” is required.

Under Jus Soli, the following is written “The Supreme Court’s first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102.

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama stated the following on his campaign web-site;

“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

However, Barack Obama has not proven his claim of being born in the United States. The Obama COLB is not a Birth Certificate. It is, instead, cursory information that a birth occurred. It is superficial, it is not thorough or detailed as the long form that it supports to represent. The fact that the Obama COLB has been proven to be questionable at best and a forgery at the least, and as there are no records per the current Hawaiian Governor backing it up. If there are no records backing up the document, how was the document produced in the first place?

Sean, stop lying to the American people. According to new poll & survey — 91% of Americans doubt Obama is constitutionally eligible! You are only fooling yourself and betraying your country. Learn the facts.

Your failure is the reason that an 18 year Army career LtCol. Sits in Leavenwoth Prision for standing up and demanding Obama prove his eligibility. Learn about Terry Lakin, and you’ll see why you don’t deserve to be in the same room as him. Or Charles Kerchner, Mario Appuzo,  Theresa Cao, Walter Fitzpatrick, and a host of other REAL GREAT AMERICAN PATRIOTS. Shame on you Sean, you should hang your head in disgrace.

A real American that has served this country.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers