Is Obama Ineligibility a Side Show or the Main Event?

BIRTHERS, HISTORIANS AND OBOTS’ DEFINITIONS OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

by JB Williams, ©2011

The Certification of Live Birth does not contain the details, nor resemble the format, of a long-form birth certificate which the state of Hawaii now contends cannot be released to anyone

(Apr. 13, 2011) — Despite monumental efforts to keep Obama’s entire past completely under wraps, questions persist over who and what Barack Hussein Obama really is and how a half-term senate political neophyte with a totally blank resume managed to defeat the Clinton machine to become the most secretive president in U.S. history. Is it a side show, or the main event?

Because Obama has refused to release his official vault birth certificate, college, passport records or family history including all medical records, and because he and those covering for him insist that there is ‘nothing to see here’ – many Americans are increasingly interested in how Obama was able to happen to America.

His many overt anti-American and anti-constitution policies have driven speculation that not only is he not a natural born citizen eligible for the office he holds, he may not even be American at all.

Business mogul Donald Trump appears ready to run for office on the search for a real Obama birther certificate. Not a COLB, but a real authentic birth certificate that looks just like every other American birth certificate.

The press is largely responsible for the ongoing circus, as they have been completely uninterested in the matter for almost three years now.  Never before in history has the press taken so little sincere journalistic interest in what could be the greatest scam ever perpetrated on American voters.

They still claim that Obama’s COLB (Certification of Live Birth) is an actual birth certificate, even though we all know that it isn’t. We have seen real Hawaii birth certificates from people born in Hawaii on the same day Obama claims to have been born, even from the same hospital.

But is the missing birth certificate the real issue?

We all agree that the constitution requires one to be a natural born citizen of the United States to be 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;” – But there is more than one definition of natural born citizen being proposed.

  • The Obot definition is simply citizen – native, natural, naturalized, hatchet, all being one in the same, using 14th Amendment naturalization arguments which are actually unrelated to the subject.
  • The birther definition is one line borrowed from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations – “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” – But this definition ignores everything else Vattel said on the matter.
  • The historians definition also comes from Vattel’s Law of Nations, but relies on the entire body of work; 1) 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; 2) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; 3) 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.

According to the Obot definition, all American citizens are natural born citizens eligible for office, including 14th Amendment citizens, which means, Article II – Section I – Clause V of the constitution means nothing at all.

According to birthers searching for an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate, confirming Obama’s birthplace, or native born status, will establish whether or not Obama is eligible for the office he holds.

Obama is happy with both of these definitions. The Obot definition of “citizen” sets the bar so low that Obama is confident he can meet that test, as could any anchor baby or 14th Amendment citizen.

Once birthers help Obots establish that native and natural born are the same thing, Obama will likely find his missing birth certificate, even if the ink is not yet dry.

His opposition will claim that the runny ink on the wrong paper proves it is a forgery, but Obama’s defense team, known as the U.S. Justice Department, will argue that it is authentic. Leftist self-made Academics at FactCheck and Snopes will confirm and the press will say, “See, we told ya so!”

The Supreme Court that has dodged the question for three years will continue to dodge the question. Obama’s name will appear on the 2012 presidential ballot in all 50 states and anyone opposed will be labeled a racist.

But the historian’s definition is not only factually correct – it leaves Obama no escape route and we don’t even need to find the missing birth certificate.

1) those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers;

2) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;

3) it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;

The true historical meaning of the term natural born citizen is based in natural law, not man-made law.

The Law of Nations is the foundation, but not just the line birthers choose to hang their hat on, but the balance of the entire work, which clearly identifies the bloodline of the natural birth father as the source from which all rights succeed, specifically, natural born citizenship.

We do not need a Hawaiian birth certificate because Obama has repeatedly identified his natural birth father as Barack Hussein Obama I of Kenya, who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama I could not have passed U.S. natural born citizenship to his son, Barack Hussein Obama II.

As a constitutional law student, certainly, Barack Hussein Obama knows this, and that is why he is thrilled that people continue the silly search for a missing Hawaiian birth certificate, which would only affirm his native born status and also identify Barack Hussein Obama I as his natural birth father.

Because natural rights are transferred to offspring via the bloodline of the father, Barack Hussein Obama II cannot be a natural born citizen of the United States, no matter where he might have been born.

Why are birthers still in search of a birth certificate? What do they think they can gain from finding that missing document?

If the goal is to uphold the constitution and preserve the future of the constitutional republic, then they need only remove Obama from office, along with all who participated in the grandest scam ever perpetrated upon American voters.

Members of Congress and the Supreme Court either know this truth, or they should. They are either looking the other way for political gain, or they are horrifically unqualified for the jobs they currently hold. Either way, they are complicit…

The ongoing search for a birth certificate is a dangerous distraction from the search for truth. The future of freedom and liberty hang in the balance. The people must get this one right, or they will get nothing else right.

This matter is no side show – it is the main event!

———————–

JB Williams is co-founder of the Patriots Union.

22 Responses to "Is Obama Ineligibility a Side Show or the Main Event?"

  1. KellysHeroes   Monday, April 25, 2011 at 11:11 PM

    Politicians can become president. Only leaders can effectively serve as Commander-in-Chief.

    Teenagers and young adults who proudly don uniforms of our armed forces, fight our wars, and many who return from battle crippled or dead, have far more integrity than Obama.

    See The Military’s Moral Dilemma article at World Net Daily.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117857

  2. Francis J Donovan   Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM

    I am a New York lawyer. I have handled a number of adoptions in New York. In New York it is the practice to change the father’s name on the birth certificate, I would like to know the practice in Hawaii. If it is as in New York there may be a foreign citizen listed as his father. I then wonder if the child Obama ,lost his US citizenship and became a citizen of his father’s country.

  3. jtx   Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM

    Jedi Pauly:

    You have made a specious agrument since at the time of Vattel’s writing the mother’s citizenship was controlled by her marriage to the father as Mario Apuzzo has pointed out. It was only later on that parental citizen distinction became separable with the mother having her own citizenship determination.

    The balance of the section 215 in any event says nothing to declaim the idea of the “born in the country” notion regardless of maternal citizenship but merely shows that Vattel is saying that Obama the younger was a Kenyan and the maternal citizenship does not affect that one way or the other.

    You guys are dancing too many angels on the head of the pin. The Vattel definition certainly holds in the case at hand – and Barry (or AKA whatever) ain’t one (nbC) by what little has been put “out there” by his political operatives.

  4. Linda C.   Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 1:09 PM

    This is one of the best articles I have read written on this subject. The author is quite correct – it is the main event. The answer is right under our eyes and everyone is still searching for that birth certificate. But, then again, perhaps it is to prove who his father really is. Don’t know. If everyone that was hanging on the Hawaii thing shifted their focus to the father’s non-citizenship, perhaps we could get somewhere. True, he has not provided the information he was required to provide to be a candidate – and he will never provide it, as it’s part of the plan to destroy what we are founded on. But think about shifting your focus to the father’s non-citizenship. What would the media do then? They’d have no comeback at all and the matter would have to be proven.

  5. jtx   Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM

    “Congressmen with guts”??? “Supreme Court Justices with guts”??? VERY Funny since both descriptions are a contradiction in terms.

    In fact, it’s quite likely that even the historian’s definition isn’t required to put this bozo where he belongs (jail, not the O/O). Hear me out.

    No matter WHO his real birth father might have been or WHERE he was born, his mother and 2nd hubby took the kid to Indonesia (then a closely-controlled police state) and soon enrolled him in school. This was allowed only for Indonesian citizens which he now was by the act of the immigration to the country and the marriage since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship.

    When the Indonesian citizen Barry Soetoro returned to HI to live with his Grands a few years later to enter the US legally he would have to have applied for and be granted US naturalization AND he would have to have legal papers to change his name to Barack Hussein Obama (from Soetoro). None of that paperwork exists meaning that the guy now sitting in the O/O is NOT an American but an Indonesian or – more likely – an illegal alien … “undocumented” in the best PC sense of the word just like the 20-plus million of others streaming into this country.

    The other criminal frauds he has perpetrated are minor in comparison – but still seriously criminal offenses.

    I believe that it is time to start calling him “El Presidente Wetback”. Might as well call a spade a spade (and for you lefty dimwits out there, that’s an old saying and not a racial slur).

  6. jim renn   Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 11:24 AM

    Wow. Arizona really made it difficult for someone to run for President there. They made it so difficult that carrying out their logic? that the son of a terrorist who is born here can be elected POTUS. Really? Who are they trying to kid? What a joke.

  7. Dennis Varnau   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM

    So, the next thing that came to mind was “rope.” But all I could find was one inch diameter rope, “Made in China,” with the caveat: “Not guaranteed for supporting loads weighing over five pounds.” What’s a patriotic American supposed to do these days?

  8. BD Katt   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 10:15 PM

    Obama’s eligibility is clearly defined in the minutes of
    The First Congress, Sess. II, Ch.4, March 26, 1790
    Quote–“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.” —He is not eligible!
    Do we have any congressmen with guts? He should be removed & prosecuted along with all who are complicit in the fraud.

  9. Dennis Varnau   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 10:15 PM

    You know what BURNS me up to no end? Having to pay $5 to scribd to download a document [Jack Maskell’s Memo to Congress] that was paid for by me through my taxes to create in the first place. It’s the principle of it, not the $5. I wish everyone would wake up to the fact that both political parties are complicit in destroying our nation. Both corrupt as the day is long. They all need to be thrown out not only the office, but the country too, or at the very least “tar and feathered,” but they have the tar costing too much these days to even do that!
    ————————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I have a paper copy of the document and can fax it to anyone who requests it.

  10. Revbo   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 9:44 PM

    You’re absolutely right, JB. It doesn’t matter where Barry was born. He might be an American citizen, but one with divided loyalties, and that is, as you contend, a disqualifying problem for him.

    The birth certificate, and all the other documents, educational, legal, medical, etc, are important, though, so we can know the truth, so history can be written accurately, and for posterity to learn the lesson to fully vet your public officials.

    If you’re not careful, you might just elect a foreigner to be your president, kids.

  11. Miriam Mata   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 8:31 PM

    Yes, Stock, I got so upset when I read it. It came to my mind if that is what our Congress relies on to ignore our Constitution. Some of the replies from members of Congress look like a carbon copy of what that report says. I would like to know if any Constitutional lawyer like Apuzzo or Donofrio have responded to that report?

  12. Jedi Pauly   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 8:30 PM

    As a matter of applied law, being born to a citizen father DOES EXCLUDE ANY INVOLUNTARY ALLEGIANCE to any other jurisdiction. Why do you think the 14 year residency requirement is in Article II? There is no problem with being born on foreign soil or having a foreign mom. All Positive Law jurisdictions recognize that they cannot force one to owe an allegiance to their State unless you have a father who is a citizen. I have not missed anything and neither has JB. The Natural Law Theory that I have PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT accounts for everything. There is no loyalty or allegiance issues as long as you are born to a citizen father. Legal Privileges of citizenship only cause you to develop voluntary allegiances that can easily be gotten rid of by voluntary consent. There is no conflict. The idea of being born without any other jurisdictions present is BOGUS and accomplishes nothing because anyone can be born to two U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil jurisdiction and then immigrate to another jurisdiction and take up citizenship there. So what difference does it make? Any allegiance thus developed can always be gotten rid of as well. That is what the 14 year residency requirement is for. No child born as a baby on foreign soil owes any allegiance to a foreign State anyway. They must first grow up and become legal age to give their consent to any other country before any allegiance is owed. It’s not like a foreign king can force a child to owe him an allegiance for heavens sake. Lets apply common sense shall we? The father is different because the political rights inherited from a citizen father are considered to be Natural Unalienable Rights that come from the Laws of Nature not Legal Right Privileges from Positive Law. By definition, Unalienable rights cannot be gotten rid of. You cannot give them up by voluntary consent. They are with you for life. You either choose to claim them or not but no one can take them from you. Now do you get it? This is what Mario and other Unity Theorists cannot wrap their mind around. Also, look at Mario’s response to my Article where I PROVE the Natural Law Theory and debunk the Positive Law Theory and Unity Theory. Mario is forced to interpret Vattel when he says father as; Oh, he (Vattel) does not mean father when he says father he (Vattel) means mother and father both. BALONEY. Vattel means exactly what he says. He says father and he means FATHER, NOT BOTH MOTHER AND FATHER. It is clear that the Unity Theorists take everything entirely out of context and ignore or fail to comprehend Vattel. Examine this statement referring to me made by Mario Apuzzo:

    (He (Jedi Pauly) also says that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not require birth in the U.S. How could he make such an argument when Vattel says that the positive law of nations are binding in this regard. Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 215 (“their regulations must be followed”)

    Now read the rest of the section in the very next sentence and stop ignoring what Vattel reports regarding what the other nations regulations that are binding have said:

    §215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country. It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;

    Vattel clearly is reporting that the regulations of other nations that “must be followed” recognize the preeminence of the Laws of Nature that force citizenship and political rights to be inherited via the father alone and that foreign soil birth is IRRELEVANT.

    That IS what the other nations regulations say and what I have included in the Natural Law Theory that Unity Theorists IGNORE AND DO NOT COMPREHEND. Want further proof? Just look at the proof that was dug up by Leo Donofrio that shows that Italy’s own Positive Laws recognize the sovereign political rights of a child born to an Italian immigrant who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his child’s birth, to cause the child that was wrongfully arrested in Italy, for Italian military duty, to owe no allegiance to Italy once the Italian government learned that the Italian father had taken U.S. citizenship prior to the birth of his son:

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/03/atty-donofrio-state-department-has.html

    It is clear. The Positive Laws of every country throughout history have recognized and protected the preeminence of the Laws of Nature when it comes to inheriting your citizenship and political rights to rely only upon a citizen father according to the Laws of Nature.

  13. Stock   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 6:50 PM

    I dont know if you guys read it-or know about it -but I went to the site regarding the Jack Maskell Memorandum (see the first post here by Mata) it just about made my head explode-please everybody spread the existence of this thing around-it forms the basis for all the denials we hear from official Washington-legislators-candidates-etc.,! It must be widely exposed

  14. 5th Generation Texan   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 6:22 PM

    I think we need to get this article to the Trump campaign. Or has that already been done by anyone?

  15. Birther Deluxe   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 5:56 PM

    We need the birth certificate to confirm the babydaddy (and the mother). May not be BHO Sr.

    There may not be a father listed – then what is the controlling statute?

  16. AuntieMadder   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 5:02 PM

    “His place of birth, while of SOME interest, is not what makes Obama ineligible. ”

    Unless, of course, he was born in Kenya. Or if neither of his parents were Americans.

  17. Miriam Mata   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 4:11 PM

    TODAY’S QUESTION: Why do you believe President Obama’s citizenship is still being discussed?
    Please visit

    http://www.columbiamissourian.com/

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/41197555/41131

    Here is a good reply to Maskell.

    http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/

    …” When Maskell drafted his memorandum and affixed his signature, it is unlikely that he had any concept of the terrible consequences of his words. If only he had folded it into a paper airplane and tossed it out the window…”

  18. The Old Coach   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM

    I occurs to me that one prime reason the Founders put the natural born citizen requirement into the document is that they knew full well that imposition of foreigners as Monarchs in England, for the benefit of powers other than the English people, had been a major cause for rancor and even bloody revolution in the previous 200 years or so.

    There’s been millions of dollars paid to high-priced lawyers to keep Obama’s history secret. He himself never has had that kind of money. Someone, (singular or plural) has enough interest vested in having this pliable man in the office. A man whom they can control completely by, among other things, blackmailing him with the very secrets that they themselves are paying to hide. A man whose predispositions are more to their liking than, say a Christian American citizen. The imposition of a foreigner on the USA, for the benefit of powers other than the American people. The simplest solution that fits the facts. Lord, let it be that we the people can throw off this yoke without resort to the calamities that rent England all those years ago.

  19. Robare   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 1:18 PM

    Amen, Amen AAAAmen!!!

    I cannot tell you how grateful and excited I am to read your article. The non-citizenship of Obama’s father is THE Issue; it is the Only issue, really. I applaud you for urging all of us to STOP this worthless quest to find Obama’s birth certificate. His place of birth, while of SOME interest, is not what makes Obama ineligible. He has had DUAL citizenship since birth and this is THE reason Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to be President. What’s more, it is EASY to explain his dual citizenship to most any American. Again, Thank you!!
    Robare

  20. Texas Lady   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 1:00 PM

    We need to ask direct questions of those who we believed to be on the side of “we the people”, such as: O’Riely, Hannity, Fox, all Republican who seem to be covering for Obama on the release of his qualification issues.

    Question: “Why are you covering for Obama and criticising voting citizens for asking the obvious questions, (which you failed to ask). We have been watching this administration destroy our country while you talk about it. But when we ask the tough questions, you turn on us.

    “Is it fear or were you paid off”? Why are you risking losing your audience and the country because of this man? WHY???????

  21. thinkwell   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM

    The obot eligibility definition is that anyone who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. This includes those born to just one citizen parent and even anchor babies born with both parents being illegal aliens. Their definition admits anyone without regard to where they were born just so long as they were a citizen at birth. The only class of citizen they generally exclude are those who naturalized as adults (many of them even are pushing to eliminate this if such citizens have lived here in the USA long enough).

    Mr. Williams (and Jedi Pauly) look to history and come closer to the original message of the Founders, but they too have lost sight of their original intent and the overarching purpose of the eligibility requirement for our Commander-in-Chief. The Founders clear told us what they were attempting to do and it is really quite simple and straightforward.

    The expressed purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was and remains to ensure both that our Commander-in-Chief be born and raised with exclusive dedication and allegiance to the USA and that no other country have any legitimate claim of fealty or duty from our CiC under any circumstance.

    That the self-admitted citizen-of-the-world Obama (or whatever his real name is) could ever be classified as a natural born Citizens is an anathema to the Constitution, the security and protection of our country and the intent of the Founders. One only need look to the guidance of their clearly expressed intent to protect the nation from foreign interest and influence to see that such an ill spawned classification of “natural born Citizen” should never be allowed.

    Obama is a usurper. He knows it and the majority of the press and the political class know it too.

  22. Bob1939   Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 12:16 PM

    This sure explains a lot !!! “Obama Birth Certificate LIE – updated (1/2) – 04-12-2011” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD77MXJSEaI&feature=share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.