How Can We “Move On” When the Question Hasn’t Been Answered?

THE U.S. CONGRESS:   COWARDS ALL

 July 26, 2011

Does Congress have no shame in failing to answer constituents' questions about Obama's eligibility?

Dear Editor:

I hand delivered the following letter to my congressman over two years ago. It was resubmitted a couple of weeks ago via certified mail – return receipt requested. During these two-plus years, I have sent his office dozens of emails on the subject of Obama’s ineligibility for office, and have confronted him at numerous town hall meetings. Most recently, he told me I need to “move on.” Here is the letter:

July 5, 2011

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner
120 Bishops Way, #154
Brookfield, WI
53005

Congress and the High Court owe an answer to this Nation. They have to address the issue of Obama’s ILLEGITIMACY for Presidency due to:

*his British Citizenship at birth,
*his Kenyan citizenship from age 2, and
*his Indonesian citizenship from around age 5 until now.

And they have to respond in regards to all the illegal activity surrounding him and his supporters. The Nation has to see all the proper documents and vital records.

Sir, we are worried, we are unsettled, we are disturbed and this issue is not going away.

This issue isn’t going to go away and considering all of the evidence, the public concern and the repercussions of such a weighty matter, it is your duty to immediately and publicly investigate the issue.

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro is not a Natural Born Citizen: To be a President and Commander in Chief one has to be a Natural Born citizen, born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Both the Founders and the first Congress, which passed the 1790 Naturalization Act, defined a “natural born” citizen as one “whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country”. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was designed to make it clear that people born overseas to American parents are already “natural-born” and do not need to be “naturalized.” Whoever drew the Act followed closely the various parliamentary statues of Great Britain, and its language in this relation indicates that the first Congress entertained and declared that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, “natural-born citizens.” The Act is declaratory: but the reason that such children are natural born remains: that is, their American citizenship is natural, the result of parentage, and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements. By drawing on the “natural born” term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance. In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children whose fathers were natural-born subjects, regardless of where the children were born. Thus, the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.

If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, it would only have been necessary to say, ‘no person, except a native-born citizen.

Regarding original intent, citizenship flowed from the father to his wife in forming one allegiant parental unit: natural-born citizenship requires two citizen parents, which is consistent with historical facts and law. The Framers and Congress viewed citizenship as naturally flowing from the father to his wife and children. Citizenship/allegiance flowed from the father to the child(ren), not because of birth location, but because of the “right of citizenship.”

The meaning and purpose of Natural Born is not ambiguous or nebulous. It is a child of no uncertain allegiances, with no possible alienages.

Persons born of citizens have no partial allegiances.

Historical references and definitions of ‘natural born’ from Vattel, Blackstone, John Jay, and the Common Law support the singular allegiance of a natural born citizen, or subject. Suffice it to say that nationality has historically devolved from the father.

A child born of a U.S. mother and foreign father cannot be Natural Born. Not ever. Not even a little bit. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the writers of the 14th Amendment made it clear what ‘natural born’ was. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature children inherit the condition of their father.

Even though Vattel writes that “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” (Book I, Section 212), he states that “the place of birth produces no change” in the “law of nature” that children follow the citizenship “of their fathers” (Book I, Section 215). Therefore, Vattel states that one’s country will “only” be the place of birth for a child born “of a foreigner” (Book I, Section 212), of a foreign father whose foreign citizenship also belongs to his wife. This is precisely reflected in our early naturalization laws. In the vast majority of cases, then and now, natural-born citizens are born of two citizens within their own country, so they are also native-born, but being native-born is not sufficient to being natural-born.

If the language is clear (intelligible and unambiguous), then we must apply the plain meaning, and our inquiry ends. A natural born citizen is born to two parents of one nationality. Such an interpretation is supported by natural law, writings of previous authors of immigration law, and the 14th Amendment. One certainly wouldn’t call a 14th Amendment ‘anchor baby’ a natural born citizen. Two U.S. parents bearing a child on U.S. soil is obviously, and according to Sen. Bingham, natural born. A child of mixed nationalities, especially a foreign father, may be a U.S. citizen, but is not natural born.

The whole notion of a natural-born citizen is designed for the purpose of making sure that the chief executive would not have politically divided loyalties. As Joseph Story observed in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States permitting a citizen, other than a natural born citizen, to be President of the United States was an exception to “the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.” This, he observed, “cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.”

Obama had dual nationalities at birth, and is therefore not natural born. Obama had a Kenyan national as a father. Obama is therefore not natural born, but of dual nationality which required application of Kenyan/British and U.S. naturalization statute. Natural Born status was a requirement to minimize international intrigue and prevent the highest office in the land being held by someone with foreign allegiances. Obama’s traumatic interference with the Kenyan elections during 2007 and 2008 is proof enough of foreign allegiances detrimental to U.S. foreign policy and interests.

Obama has openly acknowledged that he is “native born” and not “natural born” and that his father, Obama Sr., was not a U.S. citizen. Despite news reports to the contrary, no Hawaiian official has ever stated that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961. There’s a world of difference between the terms “natural-born” and “native-born”. On his own campaign website, Obama acknowledged that he is a “native born” citizen and that his father, Barack H. Obama, Sr. was a Kenyan native whose citizenship, as well as the citizenship of Obama Sr.’s children, was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948 and that Obama had dual citizenship with Kenya until age 21.

It is possible that Obama may not even be a U.S. citizen!

This is not a violation of the President’s rights but it is a violation of the rights of every American citizen. IF Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court are silent on this issue and are taking no action, they are de facto colluding with Obama, they are de facto aiding and abetting commission of massive fraud upon the citizens of this country, they are aiding and abetting treason in allowing a Foreign National, a person of MIXED NATIONALITY, a person with a mixed identity, one who is certainly not natural-born and is possibly not even a citizen of the United States, to usurp the White House, the position of the President and Commander in Chief.

Your seeing to the rights of the American people is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,