OBAMA CONFIRMS - NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

[Penrod]

The whole birther thing has always been a distraction perpetrated by Obama to hide the simple truth. He is not qualified to run for president never mind be the president. Only a natural born citizen can run for that office. That would include most of us in the US but not Obama

OBAMA CONFIRMS - NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

By J.B. Williams
April 29, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

[Disclaimer: The opinion expressed in this article are solely those of JB Williams and not necessary the opinion of NWV, its staff or other writers.]

As the media blitz to silence questions about Obama’s eligibility for office become shrill, Obama finally releases his so-called “long form” birth certificate (aka, a birth certificate), confirming once and for all that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States in compliance with Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Let the impeachment begin!

The document posted on the White House web site, reported to be Obama’s actual birth certificate, appears to be a very poor forgery even to the untrained eye. But that’s not really the big story here…

The release of this document actually proves a few things much more important at this stage of the debate.

    • Obama lied – having claimed for two years to have already released his birth certificate, which birthers correctly identified as only a COLB (Certification of Live Birth). Now he has released his birth certificate, allegedly.
    • The press lied – swearing to Obama’s lie, also claiming over and over and over again for two years, that Obama had already released his birth certificate. He had not. Now he has, maybe.
    • Barack Hussein Obama I is his natural birth father – and since he was never a citizen of the United States, Barack Obama II cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States.
    • Most people don’t know what natural born citizen means.

To be or not to be a natural born citizen

The official definition of natural born citizen is as follows –

    1. natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
    2. those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
    3. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens
    4. 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.

For those still having trouble following along, a natural born citizen is one born the natural offspring of a father who was at the time of birth, a U.S. citizen.

Now that Obama has confirmed that his natural birth father was a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. He has confirmed that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

As a result, the U.S. Constitution says he cannot be president of the United States, just as birthers have claimed for over two years. Article II – Section I – Clause V of the U.S. Constitution is very clear on the matter –

“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;”

Case closed!

As the confirmed natural born son of a foreign father who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and he cannot be president of the United States, just as many suspected and the constitution states unequivocally.

However, now that all Americans know the truth, what can they do about it?

Impeach immediately!

Some have claimed that Obama cannot be impeached because he was not legally elected, as a candidate who was a fraud from the start. I’m not a lawyer, but I disagree.

From the moment that Supreme Court Justice Roberts administered the oath of office to Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, he has sat in the people’s White House as the official president of the United States and has in fact made a disaster of our nation and much of the free world while sitting in that chair.

Not only can he be impeached, he must be. He must be impeached, removed from office and maybe put in prison for life for his intentional outright fraud.

Further, all in his administration, in congress and in the Supreme Court who knew he was a fraud and did nothing to stop this nightmare, must immediately resign and be charged with conspiracy to commit fraud as well.

In any free representative republic, there is nothing more vital than the integrity of our system. Once the people have lost faith in the integrity of the system, there is no system. No individual or group of politicians is more important than the preservation of our system of self-governance. All who were complicit must be held accountable in order to protect and preserve our constitutional republic.

    1. I call for the immediate impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama for the high crime of fraud and breach of the public trust.

    2. I call upon House Representative Allen West to initiate impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama at once.

Allen West is a retired Military Colonel who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and the people of the United States, twice, as a soldier and as a House Representative.
He took an oath to protect and preserve against all enemies, foreign and domestic and he currently has the confidence of the American people as an honorable man.

Last, the main stream press who has lied on Obama’s behalf, misleading the American public for almost three years regarding the fraud in the people’s White House, must be held accountable too. I call upon all American citizens to boycott all of the media outlets and personalities that carried water for the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public.

I would also like to know why all the conservative media hasnt picked this up. Is it a conspiracy? Are they shamed by the so called birther movement. All his BC proves is he is not fit to serve as he is a British citizen. Just who the NBC clause was meant to prevent from running.

[obumazombie]

This is dated over a year ago.

[Carl]

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9679.html

INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH


 Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

 (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Unless someone can get the SCOTUS to overturn this part of the US Code it is presumed the law of the land.

[Penrod]

This is dated over a year ago.

So has Obama now have a new father? Ive been preaching this since before he was elected as have many other who have all been totally ignored. It was even emailed to Trump who never used it. Mc Cain isnt an NBC either lol. He was born in Panama . Yet congress made him one but never inquired about Obama. You cannot make some one an NBC through congress. natural means just that. You dont need any law to make it so. it comes naturally.So we had two non qualified men running for president.

[Penrod]

The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  It does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.”  When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment.  Hence, they surely did not write the clause into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.  And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”  Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards. 

Again, Minor v. Happersett confirmed the American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which Minor said the Founders and Framers were familiar with and used when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause. That definition is a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”  Id. at 167-68.  Minor left open the question of whether a child born “within the jurisdiction”  of the United States to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.  As we have seen, this is a different standard as that which applies to defining a “natural born Citizen.”

Wong Kim Ark answered the single question left open by Minor.  It held that Wong, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents who were neither diplomats nor military invaders was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.  The Court’s single task was to interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment, not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.  The Court found that Wong’s parents being domiciled and residents (not “citizens”) was enough to give jurisdiction to the United States over them and Wong when Wong was born.  Again, since the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” clause, Wong defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.  In fact, Wong’s specific holding uses the phrase “citizen of the United States,” not “natural born Citizen.”  Hence, using that amendment to find someone a “citizen of the United States,” regardless of whether that person is a “citizen” from the moment of birth, has no direct bearing on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”  After all, Article II says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen,” and is applied for presidential eligibility.  What the Fourteenth Amendment can do with reference to a “natural born Citizen” is increase the pool of parents who become “citizens of the United States” and give birth to “natural born Citizens.”   

The clause “natural born Citizen” is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause, which has a very special meaning as confirmed by Minor.  It is constitutional error to conflate and confound a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment with a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.  A “natural born Citizen,” being the standard for the President and the Commander in Chief of the Military, requires allegiance and citizenship only to the United States from the moment of birth.  A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from birth does not have the same allegiance requirement and can even be born with dual and conflicting allegiances, a condition which the Founders and Framers did not permit future Presidents and Commanders to have when born.  They were very specific as is evident from the plain text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that after the adoption of the Constitution, one had to be a “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “Citizen of the United States.”     
NBChttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/

[obumazombie]

Unless you can prove he was born outside the US, and not in Hawaii, to a US citizen (his mother), you will not gain very much traction.

[Penrod]

The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  It does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.”  When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment.  Hence, they surely did not write the clause into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.  And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”  Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards. 

Again, Minor v. Happersett confirmed the American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which Minor said the Founders and Framers were familiar with and used when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause. That definition is a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”  Id. at 167-68.  Minor left open the question of whether a child born “within the jurisdiction”  of the United States to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.  As we have seen, this is a different standard as that which applies to defining a “natural born Citizen.”

Wong Kim Ark answered the single question left open by Minor.  It held that Wong, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents who were neither diplomats nor military invaders was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.  The Court’s single task was to interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment, not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.  The Court found that Wong’s parents being domiciled and residents (not “citizens”) was enough to give jurisdiction to the United States over them and Wong when Wong was born.  Again, since the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” clause, Wong defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.  In fact, Wong’s specific holding uses the phrase “citizen of the United States,” not “natural born Citizen.”  Hence, using that amendment to find someone a “citizen of the United States,” regardless of whether that person is a “citizen” from the moment of birth, has no direct bearing on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”  After all, Article II says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen,” and is applied for presidential eligibility.  What the Fourteenth Amendment can do with reference to a “natural born Citizen” is increase the pool of parents who become “citizens of the United States” and give birth to “natural born Citizens.”   

The clause “natural born Citizen” is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause, which has a very special meaning as confirmed by Minor.  It is constitutional error to conflate and confound a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment with a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.  A “natural born Citizen,” being the standard for the President and the Commander in Chief of the Military, requires allegiance and citizenship only to the United States from the moment of birth.  A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from birth does not have the same allegiance requirement and can even be born with dual and conflicting allegiances, a condition which the Founders and Framers did not permit future Presidents and Commanders to have when born.  They were very specific as is evident from the plain text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that after the adoption of the Constitution, one had to be a “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “Citizen of the United States.”     

NBChttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/

[Penrod]

So we should ignore the constitution. Being born in the US does not make you a natural born citizen of it.
It currently makes you a citizen.

[Carl]

Additional reading...

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26823

Defining a “natural born citizen”
        
       The Courts have taken other ideas into consideration when determining who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.”
        
       United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). On March 28, 1898, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court for United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court had to determine, “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,” Justice Gray stated, “In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.”
        
       “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”

No matter how one wishes to wordsmith it this is simply a non issue and that is why it never saw much of the light of day much less went anywhere.

[Ballygrl]

Oh! that's why Hannity's board banned you, they hated discussing the birther issue.

[Penrod]

Read the link I gave you. Its covered
Wong Kim Ark answered the single question left open by Minor.  It held that Wong, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents who were neither diplomats nor military invaders was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.  The Court’s single task was to interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment, not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.  The Court found that Wong’s parents being domiciled and residents (not “citizens”) was enough to give jurisdiction to the United States over them and Wong when Wong was born.  Again, since the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” clause, Wong defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.  In fact, Wong’s specific holding uses the phrase “citizen of the United States,” not “natural born Citizen.”  Hence, using that amendment to find someone a “citizen of the United States,” regardless of whether that person is a “citizen” from the moment of birth, has no direct bearing on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”  After all, Article II says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen,” and is applied for presidential eligibility.  What the Fourteenth Amendment can do with reference to a “natural born Citizen” is increase the pool of parents who become “citizens of the United States” and give birth to “natural born Citizens.”   

The clause “natural born Citizen” is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause, which has a very special meaning as confirmed by Minor.  It is constitutional error to conflate and confound a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment with a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.  A “natural born Citizen,” being the standard for the President and the Commander in Chief of the Military, requires allegiance and citizenship only to the United States from the moment of birth.  A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from birth does not have the same allegiance requirement and can even be born with dual and conflicting allegiances, a condition which the Founders and Framers did not permit future Presidents and Commanders to have when born.  They were very specific as is evident from the plain text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that after the adoption of the Constitution, one had to be a “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “Citizen of the United States.”     

There is no other U.S. Supreme Court case that has changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” as confirmed by Minor.  That definition, which is the definition from the Founding, it therefore the supreme law of the land and stands today until amended by Constitutional amendment.  And that definition is  a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” 

[Penrod]

I posted more on that than anything there lol.

[Carl]

Look,just as most of us here feel obamacare flies in the face of the Constitution it has just been ruled upon and until under another challenge is overturned or repealed by Congress it remains intact.

The case above more then gives credence to the idea that birth on this soil constitutes Constitutional citizenry and as cited above is part of the US Code.
If you disagree that is fine,take the matter to court with your opinion,try to get it heard before the Supreme Court and have them throw it out.
Until then it is not a thing nor is there even sufficient reasoning to think so.

[Penrod]

You just dont get it do you. It may make him a citizen but in no way does it make him an NBC Read the constitution man. It doesnt say you must be a citizen to be president . it has a special required. That you must be an NBC. What if Obamas father had been the king of England. We would now have the King as president. There is no doubt he is not an NBC. I dont see how any conservative can argue against this.

[formerlurker]

You just dont get it do you. It may make him a citizen but in no way does it make him an NBC Read the constitution man. It doesnt say you must be a citizen to be president . it has a special required. That you must be an NBC. What if Obamas father had been the king of England. We would now have the King as president. There is no doubt he is not an NBC. I dont see how any conservative can argue against this.

Wait... you have to watch NBC to be president?     

[formerlurker]

Does 30 Rock count?    Shoot.. did I just admit out loud that I watch 30 Rock.... damn damn damn....

[Penrod]

How do you quote here. I hit quote and nothing happens?

No you must watch MSNBC lol

[formerlurker]

How do you quote here. I hit quote and nothing happens?

No you must watch MSNBC lol

Oh forget it then.. unless I can keep the sound off.   Then maybe if I ever start drinking again. 

[Carl]

You just dont get it do you. It may make him a citizen but in no way does it make him an NBC Read the constitution man. It doesnt say you must be a citizen to be president . it has a special required. That you must be an NBC. What if Obamas father had been the king of England. We would now have the King as president. There is no doubt he is not an NBC. I dont see how any conservative can argue against this.

No,what we get is coffee shop musings on Constitutional interpretation carry no weight in regards to how our civil society is structured.
Again,if you disagree with the US Code and its basis in Court findings follow the mechanism proscribed to change it,it can not be done by fiat or decree.

[Carl]

How do you quote here. I hit quote and nothing happens?

No you must watch MSNBC lol

NO...not THAT!!!

[Penrod]

Therefore, to handle all the possible classes of citenship in the US, it is necessary to distinguish between natural law citizens, Constitutional citizens and statutory citizens, and also to distinguish between native citizens and non-native citizens:

       Native (from birth)    Non-native (post birth)
    Natural Law    Native citizen per natural law
    Natural born citizen    Non-native citizen per natural law
    (Those who become citizens of a newly-created nation)
    Constitutional Law    Naturalized native citizen per Constitutional definition    Naturalized non-native citizen per Constitutional definition
    —Does not (currently) exist—
    Statutory Law    Naturalized native citizen per statutory definition    Naturalized non-native citizen per statutory definition

Of course, in other countries, other classes of citizenship may exist, and classes of citizenship that exist in the US may not. For example, some countries don't have Constitutions or even legislatures, and others have monarchs who may have the power to grant citizenship (a power the US President lacks.)

We can use the term "Constitutional natural born citizen" to refer to someone who is a "natural born citizen" according to the natural-law based definition intended by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. The term must be understood in that sense when it appears in the Constitution or in a Constitution-related document such as a Supreme Court decision.

We canl use the term "statutory natural born citizen" to refer to someone who is deemed a "natural born citizen" by Federal or State law.

These distinctions are not my invention. The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual—7 FAM 1130 (page 9) says:

    ...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes

If we were to define "natural born citizen" to mean anyone who is a "citizen at birth", our definition of "natural born citizen" would be statutory because it would depend on the statute or law which defines "citizen at birth." Under existing law, all children born outside the United State to parents who are citizens are "citizens at birth". Therefore, using our hypothetical definition of "natural born citizen" as anyone who is a citizen at birth, all those born abroad to US-citizen parents would be statutorily defined as "natural born citizens" because their status as citizens at birth would be granted by statute. So that definition of "natural born citizen" would mean that Congress could change the meaning of "natural born citizen" by changing the rules of naturalization. It would also mean that Congress, simply by changing the naturalization rules, could also change who was or was not eligible to be President.

That cannot be what the Founders intended. Had it been, they would simply have granted Congress the power to dictate who shall or shall not be a citizen (or any sort,) and who could or could not be President. But they pointedly did not grant Congress any power to determine who would or would not naturally be citizens, nor who would be eligible to be President. The only power they granted Congress regarding citizenship was to make rules regarding naturalization of citizens (the making of citizens who would not be citizens naturally.) And they granted Congress no power to determine Presidential eligibility rules at all.

It may be—and this essay so argues—that all natural born citizens are also native born citizens. But the reverse cannot be true without not only creating logical contradictions, but without granting Congress powers that were clearly intended to be denied to them.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Does 30 Rock count?    Shoot.. did I just admit out loud that I watch 30 Rock.... damn damn damn....

I finally figured it out.  Barack Obama was born on the remote controlled airplanes from 9/11 as his father shot JFK and his mother faked the moon landing.

[thundley4]

Wait... you have to watch NBC to be president?     

I'm sure Obama does or at least PMSNBC.

[obumazombie]

Penrod, you've got some passion, but did you notice this line of attack doesn't produce any traction ? It's a wheel spin. The more you hit the gas the more and faster your whees will spin.

[Carl]

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26823

 State Department Foreign Affairs Manual
        
       • U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization.
        
       • U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
        
       1. Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
        
       2. Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
        
       • Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” or conferring of citizenship upon a person. Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. Under U.S. law, foreign naturalization acquired automatically is not an expatriating act.
      

It sounds like what you are basing things on is that since they did not use the exact term "Natural Born Citizen" in Wong Kim Ark then they clearly meant it to be something else.
This is a little like telling a teen when leaving on a date at 7:00 PM you want them home by 11 and then they argue the next day you didn`t specify PM or AM.

In fact it was clear what they meant because in his dissent Chief Justice Fuller adopts your position.

“t is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

Had that been the majority opinion then what you say would be correct but since it was not and clearly shows what type of citizenry was being determined we are back to square one.

Simply put in the Minor case it was open to interpretation...

“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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

It is not at all unusual for a later court to clarify or reverse an earlier courts decision and that is what you have here.