DrD

Archive for December, 2010|Monthly archive page

What does Natural Born Citizen really mean?

In American Sovereign on December 29, 2010 at 10:49 am

 

WHO CARES WHERE OBAMA WAS BORN?

By J.B. Williams
December 29, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

International leftists and anti-American Democratic Socialists like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews care, that’s who! These folks are the real “birthers,” desperate to prove that Obama is US born, with absolutely no help from their political messiah.

They care where Obama was born because they want to make the issue of presidential constitutional eligibility all about birth place, aka “native-born” status, instead of “natural-born” status, which has nothing to do with birth place.

Leftists want anyone “born on US soil” to be eligible for the office of president, including “anchor babies” and even 14th Amendment citizens, none of whom are “natural-born citizens” of the United States. They want to rewrite Article II – Section I – Clause V via precedent and so far, they are doing a fine job of doing just that!

Leftists and even many ill-informed on the political right have worked tirelessly to make the issue of Obama’s eligibility all about nothing more than his birth place, alleged to be Hawaii. But birth place is only a demonstration of “native-born” status, not “natural-born” status.

History is Clear

Few modern day lawyers know what the US Constitution says or what it means. But historians do know and history is quite clear. History begins with understanding the difference between “natural law” and man-made statute. The term natural born citizen is based in natural law, and as such, it is a foundation for many man-made statutes.

During the formation of our new country, it was necessary to establish national sovereignty for the purpose of national security. The terms used to accomplish this had to meet standing international laws and treaties of the time, in order for our nation to be recognized by all other nations as a sovereign nation with sovereign citizens and citizens’ rights.

The international standard in place then and now is known as The Law of Nations. We see this term referenced in our US Constitution under Article I – Section VIII – the Enumerated Powers section of our Constitution, wherein it states that Congress shall have the power – “To define and punish – Offenses against the Law of Nations; – note that Law of Nations is capitalized, referring to the international treaty defining national sovereignty and citizenship the world over.

To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well. – More history here

The Law of Nations treaty is the foundation for our national sovereignty and the term “natural born citizen” is found, and was studied by our nation’s founders, in a book written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. The book was a scholarly in-depth look at what constitutes a sovereign nation, a citizen and citizen rights, recognized throughout the civilized world.

In it, Vattel defines “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” – which became the standard that must be met by anyone seeking the highest office in our land, the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.

Book one chapter 19, § 212. Of the citizens and natives. – reads as follows – pay particular attention to the sections in BOLD.

“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.”

The following section has created confusion for some – “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Yet this statement is not in conflict with the balance of the overall section. Both “native” and “natural” born citizens are indeed “citizens” by birth, born in the country (on US soil), of parents (two parents) who are citizens. This means that anchor babies, while “citizens” due to 14th Amendment laws, are neither “native” nor “natural” born citizens. They are only “citizens, via man-made laws related to immigration and naturalization statutes.

However, the sections pertaining specifically to the topic of “natural-born” citizens is very clear – “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 country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; – 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.”

Intentional Confusion in the Political Class

The political left, which has worked for more than a hundred years to dismantle the US Constitution via judicial fiat and broad interpretations of constitutional text that borders on subversion and treason, hopes to limit the term “natural-born citizen” to nothing more than birth place, or “native-born” status and they don’t even see a need for a legitimate birth certificate from the applicant for President.

The political right hopes to rewrite the term “natural-born citizen” as well, adding to the “condition of their fathers” requirement put in place by our founders, a birth place and mother’s citizenship requirement.

People who opposed John McCain’s bid for the White House developed this interpretation from thin air for the purpose of disqualifying McCain’s campaign for the Presidency. However, this interpretation is just as improper as the left’s interpretation, which asserts that essentially all citizens are natural-born citizens, including 14th Amendment naturalization citizens.

Intentional Misdirection

As Chris Matthews attempts in the MSNBC video clip linked here, leftists continue to speak about whether or not Barack Obama is a legal US citizen. Of course, the debate is not really over whether or not Obama is a legal US citizen, although that might be a valid question under his highly unusual family circumstances.

The constitutional question is based upon whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural-born citizen” as required for the office of President under Article II – Section I of the US Constitution, which reads – “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution (our founding fathers), shall be eligible to the office of President;”

According to the actual definition of natural born citizen placed in our Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the Unites States no matter where on earth he may have been born. At birth, he naturally inherited the “condition of his father,” who was at no time in his life a US citizen.

Barack Obama’s father was a foreign national, a citizen of Kenya – then ruled by Britain. Inheriting the condition of his father at birth, Barack Hussein Obama was born with the natural citizenship rights of his father, a British subject and citizen of Kenya, not the United States.

As such, Barack Hussein Obama was born with foreign loyalties and as a result, he violates the natural born citizen requirement for the office he currently holds and everyone including all members of the US Supreme Court know it.

Barack Hussein Obama is precisely the type of citizen the founders were attempting to block from holding the highest office in this land. Yet, Barack Hussein Obama is the sitting President of the United States, in great part due to the intentional misinformation floated and perpetuated on the matter.

No Matter Where He Was Born

Was Barack Hussein Obama born in Hawaii?

The truth is – nobody knows because Obama refuses to provide any legitimate proof answering this question, not even a simple birth certificate that every other natural born citizen of the USA has in their possession.

Was Barack Hussein Obama adopted by Lolo Soetoro as a citizen of Indonesia and did Obama naturalize to US citizenship upon return from Indonesia?

All evidence available says that Obama was indeed adopted by Lolo Soetoro, making him a citizen of Indonesia at the time. What happened next, nobody knows, once again, because Obama refuses to answer the questions.

Does Barack Hussein Obama have dual or divided loyalties?

Based upon his known family history as well as his focus on international interests versus national interests, one must honestly conclude that Barack Hussein Obama does indeed have at best, dual and divided loyalties.

Does being born in Hawaii answer the question of constitutional eligibility?

No… a birth certificate for Hawaii will result in establishing only the place of his birth, his “native born” status, NOT his “natural-born” status. His natural-born status is already answered in Obama’s own statements, that he is the son of a foreign national. If a birth certificate shows someone other than Barack Obama Sr. as his natural birth father, then Barack Hussein Obama is a fraud and cannot hold office for that reason.

So, I say again, who cares where Barack Hussein Obama was born?

A much better question is who is going to remove this fraudulent thug from office in handcuffs?

If Republicans don’t address this issue upon swearing into power in January, then Republicans are complicit, the constitution is dead, and the people are on their own. The American patriot either gets this one right, or they get nothing else right. The world is not laughing at Obama, they are laughing at the ignorant spineless Americans who prefer politicking over their own constitution. As long as we fail to clean up our own house, the rest of the world has no reason to respect our opinions on anything else.

We right this wrong, or all wrongs stand! The entire free world is watching and so far, nobody is impressed!

© 2010 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of Freedom Force USA and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the power to the right people in America.

Advertisements

THE BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT

In American Sovereign on December 29, 2010 at 10:16 am

This is forwarded from an email I received from Jerry Stanton.  Your comments would be appreciated.

The only way to have rights in these United States.

THE BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the man who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in the flesh.”
“The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”
— United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 540 (District Court, M.D. PA. 1947)

Once one hires an Attornor, and tell (testifies to) the Attornor (the enemy’s spy and Officer of the Court) what has happened, the Attornor is required by law to share (Discovery) ALL evidence, which he obtains from his Client, with the Prosecutor. “You have the right to remain silent, everything that you say (to any of these devils), CAN and WILL be used against YOU.” Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436(1966). You would be wise to remain silent! “Open mouth, insert foot!” It is all a game, you are a pawn; and you have been prearranged to be the looser. Here is another good one, learn to answer a question with question. The master asks the question and the slave or servant answers.

Never APPEAR ‘Pro se’, ‘Pro per’ or ‘Pro’ anything, not even ‘In propria persona’. Never allow the Black Robed Devil to proclaim that you are there ‘Pro se’, ‘Pro per’ or ‘Pro’ anything. Never appear!!! Abate Always Abate , If you are dragged in always, take exception. One does not object to the de facto Judge’s utterances, one takes exception. One objects to the Prosecutor’s utterances. The Supreme Court in all of its ultimate wisdom made this ruling about those who APPEAR ‘PRO SE’: “If there is any truth to the old proverb that ‘[o]ne who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,’ the Court by its opinion today now bestows a constitutional right on one to make a fool of himself.” — Faretta v California, 45 L Ed 2d 562, 592 (1975); also, found at last page of 422 US 806 and 95 S Ct 2525. To become a good belligerent claimant one needs to learn the “Faretta Defense”. The court nor the state does not have the right or the need to know ones, family, work, military, educational or religious background. All that is needed is that one is able to read, write and speak America’s English. Stop, volunteering information. The more information one volunteers the more these devil have to use against their victim.

If one, out of necessity, must be present, then that presence, not appearance (things unseen are that which appear), should be under protest of threat duress and intimidation. To appear ‘Pro Se’ or ‘Pro’ anything is to accept a temporary appoint to the BAR, . Attorney’s are Esquires. Esquires are apprentice Knights or Squires, who are practicing to become Squires and you pay for their practice. The Florida Bar as an example has 70,000 members; however, less than 2,800 members are Certified as Competent. Do you really wish to be one of their guinea pigs?

It should, also, be noted that the United States Supreme Court in ALL of its ultimate wisdom gave full immunity to Judges, Attorneys, Court Reporters, Stenographers, Law Enforcement Officers and Expert Witnesses (such as Shrinks and Psychos, Sorcerers) who testify for the STATE against both civil and criminal prosecution for perjury. They all have received an indulgence (permission or license) to BEAR FALSE WITNESS again YOU. Read it and weep, Briscoe v LaHue, 460 US 325; 75 L Ed 2d 96, 103 S Ct 1108. Do you really want to play cards at this table?

Welcome to the Fascist States of the United States, a British Crown State.

The Black robed Devil (false accuser) is God [vicarius dei = substitute for deity; The Defense Attornor is the vicarius filii dei = substitute for the son of deity] All other officers are lesser Deities. Therefore, stop using the term God. PERIOD. What part of the word stop do you not comprehend. God = Gaud (old English) = G⤠(Hebrew, SH #1408 and 1409) = the deity of good luck, good fortune, or troops; a deity of Babylon (The Luciferian Idol, which stand in New York Harbor). You ask this Black Robed Devil for your God-given rights and he will give them to you, maybe even 5 to 10 in one of their iron bar hotels. Get the point! One is hung by their own tongue.
[All Officers of the Court are Agents or Representatives of the IRS. – Fed. Civil Rules, Rule 81(f).]
Devil (SG #1228) = false accuser. GODS = idols = demons (SG #1140) =idols, false deities.

Welcome to Babylon!

Who is your boss? What is a “boss” anyway?

In American Sovereign, children on December 26, 2010 at 9:08 am

My 9 year old son started a conversation in the car the other day when he asked me “Dad, who is your boss?”

To which I quickly replied, “James, I don’t have a boss.  As a service provider I market my skills directly to customers.” or something like that.

He says, “Dad, everyone has a boss.  You know, the person that gets all the money when you work and then tells you how much you get to keep.”

I said, “James, then in that case my boss is your mother.”

Isn’t it amazing the way children can put things into perspective?  So which would you rather have as a boss?

A Fiat currency doesn’t work if the people don’t trust it.

In American Sovereign on December 23, 2010 at 10:50 pm

A free people should have complete access to the workings of their currency.  After all, it’s only value comes from their trust.

Secrets don’t work anymore.  It’s time to out the Federal Reserve.

The repeal of don’t-ask-don’t-tell means, we are going to start asking the Treasury to print it’s own money, and the Fed is going to start telling everyone about the 100 years of fraud, not backed by the American people.

All creditors who “own the debt” of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA need to start looking to the share holders of the Federal Reserve Bank and it’s member banks for consideration, (these are most likely the same people so they will be chasing their own tail) because Americans should not support such a corrupt, shameful display of greed pretending to be a sovereign government.

The gig is up.  Here is one option being to proposed to Congress as we celebrate the holidays.  You would do well to try to understand this document.

Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill;

2010-NEED-ACT

Digital currency removes the need for human ID

In American Sovereign on December 23, 2010 at 8:08 am

We have the technology to create a debt free digital currency.  The amount in circulation can be confirmed at any time by anyone on a website preventing counterfeiting.

Once the money is safe, there is absolutely no need to keep track of the humans involved.  This technology is so cheap.  Every community or organization could create their own currency backing it by what ever they think worthy.  This would create huge opportunities for local banks to act as exchange centers for all the competing currencies.

You know the difference between and outlaw and a criminal, right?

In American Sovereign on December 20, 2010 at 7:39 am

I am sure everyone knows the difference between and outlaw and a criminal, right?  Well just in case you haven’t thought about it in a while let be try to explain.
When you swear allegiance to a government and promise it you will obey it’s laws you become susceptible to a chaotic display of various opinions suddenly given the force of government law.  As hard as you try, the larger the government gets the more likely you will living “outside” the law and thus an outlaw.

There are only three crimes;  A “criminal” commits one of these acts.

Killing another human being.

Stealing or destroying things that don’t belong to you.

Through threat or coercion forcing someone to do something against their will.

Now, which group of humans commits the most crime?  Outlaws or Governments?