If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

BIRTH ON U.S. SOIL DOES NOT EQUATE TO “NATURAL BORN”

by JB Williams, ©2011

Emerich de Vattel published "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law" in 1758. President George Washington had borrowed the book from a local library and was found in May of this year to never have returned it.

(Oct. 2, 2011) — Team Obama has done a magnificent job of dividing the opposition and distracting attention away from the greatest Constitutional Crisis in American history by keeping his opponents arguing over the correct definition of Natural Born Citizen as the fraud continues in the people’s White House.

But the debate is long over, for two reasons…

1)      There are only three potential definitions for Natural Born Citizen of the United States and Obama cannot meet any of the three.

2)      The actual definition is easily found and proven beyond any reasonable doubt

Ninety-nine members of the US Senate got it exactly right regarding John McCain during the 2008 challenge of McCain’s presidential campaign. McCain being the only non-voting member of the Senate on Resolution 511, every other member of the Senate agreed on the definition of Natural Born Citizen, including Sen. Barack Hussein Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

So there is no avoiding the fact that ALL members of the US Senate know what Natural Born Citizen means, that John McCain is one, and that Barack Hussein Obama isn’t.

The McCain Resolution was based upon the official legal opinion of Tribe & Olson, posted here in pdf form. The Tribe & Olson opinion states clearly –

“We conclude that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.”

The Tribe & Olson opinion further states –

“These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.”

In short, Natural Born Citizenship is based upon the blood of the parents, without regard to “native born” status, or the birthplace, or soil, according to Tribe & Olson and the historical legal documents Tribe & Olson relied upon in their review.

The Tribe & Olson opinion was based upon an in-depth legal review of all related historical legal decisions since the formation of our country. But it all begins with a statement made on March 26, 1790 in 104 FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cn. 4. 1790

“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:”

Once again, no matter the birthplace of John McCain or any other child born of U.S. parents, whether born beyond sea, in or out of the limits of the United States territory – the natural born child of U.S. parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

Natural Born is based in Natural Law, on blood, not soil, borrowed from Vattel’s book on Natural Law recognized the world over in the 1700s, The Law of Nations. In this book, Vattel defined Natural Born Citizen as follows;

“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 [which defines Barack Hussein Obama II], it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Although Vattel states very clearly three different ways that “the country of the fathers is therefore that of the children” – the following line at the opening of the section has caused some confusion over whether or not both parents must be citizens in order for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen.

“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.

Proper interpretation of this section requires recognition of the time it was written, and the clear intent of the statement. Written in the 1700s, it was a true statement that both “native born” and “natural born” citizens would have been “of parents who were citizens” and “born in the country.” Travel in the 1700s was very different from travel in the 21st century.

However, our founding fathers in the First Congress only three years after the ratification of the Constitution made it very clear what they meant by Natural Born Citizen when they enacted 104 FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cn. 4. 1790 – which states – “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:”

Having set the facts before you, if people want to require that a president and vice president be both Natural Born (of bloodline) and Native Born (of soil), we can do that. But currently, the US Constitution only requires that one be Natural Born in order to hold the office of president or vice president. As a result, McCain passes the test, but Barack Obama does not…

Every member of the US Supreme Court and every half-intelligent member of the US Congress knows what Natural Born Citizen is, what the US Constitution requires for the offices of president and vice president, and that Barack Hussein Obama II is not eligible or otherwise qualified for the office he currently holds by way of the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

The fraud continues because the debate over the term Natural Born Citizen continues, even though Obama does not qualify no matter what definition you choose. The debate is long over… or at least it should be.

The Constitution does not include any definitions of any words that appear in the document. We have dictionaries for those who cannot decipher plain and simple English on their own.

We do not need any court to tell us what Natural Born Citizen means because history, logic and legal documents are quite clear on the subject.

All we need to know is the answer to this question – Now what?

Every member of the federal government knows or should know by now, that Barack Hussein Obama II is not a Natural Born Citizen and that on that basis — he is an illegal president and commander of the US Military. Everything he has done since the moment he fraudulently seized control of the people’s government is null and void as it was all done under the pretense of fraud, creating the greatest Constitutional Crisis in American history.

The only legitimate question left today is, what now? Now that we all know the truth, what do we do about it?

Congress has thus far refused to address the matter. The courts have thus far been running interference for Obama, not allowing the mountain of hard evidence against Obama to be presented in any court in America, because the evidence can only be ignored so long as it remains unknown.

All federal law enforcement agencies serve at the command of the White House, not the people. Since we have the fox guarding the hen house, all law enforcement has been ordered to stand down on the matter.

A pact between all federal officials is in place. They will not allow anyone to hold Obama & Co. accountable for this massive fraud against the entire nation and their reasoning is “national security.”

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party refused to certify Barack Obama as “constitutionally eligible for office” at the 2008 DNC Convention, because they knew they would be committing perjury if they signed a sworn certification of a known fraud.

Obama changed his mind at the last minute, deciding not to accept federal matching funds for his campaign because he learned that federal matching funds were not available for ineligible candidates. Based upon a recent FEC (Federal Elections Commission) decision, had Obama sought federal funding, he would have been denied on the basis of being an ineligible candidate, just like 2012 ineligible candidate and naturalized citizen Abdul Karim Hassan.

Obama cannot even pass a basic E-Verify employment check due to his fraudulent Social Security number. “SEATTLE – After Linda Jordan, a Seattle resident, entered Obama’s name, birth date and Social Security number into the E-Verify system, a system set up to determine employment eligibility, she received a “Notice of Mismatch with the Social Security Administration Records.”

Okay, enough! If there had been this much evidence against Al Capone, they would not have had to put him in prison for simple tax evasion. If there had been this much evidence against Richard Nixon, deep throat would have been inconsequential and nobody would know who Woodward and Bernstein were.

Yet Congress, the courts and the press remain complicit in an obvious fraud and why, might be the most interesting part of the story.

What would make the entire nation stand down in the face of the greatest Constitutional Crisis in American history, especially to protect a dimwit executive who is sinking faster than Snooki in public opinion polls?

I will discuss the WHY in Part II of this expose’ – stay tuned!

Join the Conversation

18 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I have to disagree with you on the natural born Citizen status for citizens born in a territory. Territories are not part of the country, they are possessions of the country. That is an important distinction. They are citizens by statue (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 – See Title 8, Section 1401 in relation to the Republic of Hawaii for instance), not birth. Not even Amendment 14 applies to them. That is one reason if you look at Title 8 you notice they distinguish between territories and in country.

    The country of the United States is comprised of 50 individual Sovereign States united in a Federal Republic. It is not comprised of 50 individual Sovereign States and territories. Remember, Washington DC is part of Maryland and the military bases inside of the States are part of the States. So I would have to disagree with you. The definition specifically says “Country”. A citizen by positive law is not the same as natural law.

  2. For those interested back in January/February 2010 with all of the attacks on people questioning Mr Obama’s eligibility I started doing some basic research. The result was this document

    http://dlaster.com/DOCUMENTS/Why_Barrack_H_Obama_Jr_is_not_President.pdf

    Feel free to download and pass around. A version of the document published by “The Post and Email” is at

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/28/why-barack-h-obama-jr-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

    1. drljr, thank you for that excellent document and explanation! It certainly clears up any confusion on my part and if you read my prior comment, I was obviously confused after reading Mr. Williams’ article. I’ve been saying for 3 years now that we have no president and I see you feel the same way. Makes me feel better knowing that anything he’s done can and MUST be reversed or considered null and void. Try telling that to all the sheeple that are trying to repeal the monster called Obamacare. I keep screaming “do no comply” but none are listening.

  3. I wouldn’t hang my hat on Tribe and Olsen.
    They got it wrong:
    1 McCain is NOT a Natural Born Citizen (No matter what Tribe, Olsen and the entire US Senate say).
    a. Because he was born in Colon which is NOT in the Canal Zone by the way (Specifically excluded from the zone in the treaty that leased the Zone to the US).
    b. See the comment by drljr (I agree with all he has to say)
    c. In addition: Tribe and Olsen say that Territorial Birth alone is good enough to confer Natural Born Citizenship (That would make Rubio and Jindal eligible – neither is).
    I quote from Williams article above:

    [The Tribe & Olson opinion further states –

    “These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, AND (emphasis mine) birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance.”]

    Tribe and Olsen are suggesting that these separate events (birth within a nations territory OR birth abroad to parents who were citizens is enough to confer Natural Born Citizenship). They are suggesting an either / or scenario is OK. I don’t think you want to hitch your caboose to that train. They are relying on ONLY the birth to citizens abroad part. Colon (Where McCain was born) was NOT “US Territory” – It wasn’t even part of the Canal Zone. Casting your lot with these two is nothing but trouble in the quest to remove Obama.
    Great comment by drljr
    – ELmo-

  4. Good article, but I am also taken by drljr’s analysis. Like drljr, It has been my understanding for a good long time now that BOTH parents must be US Citizens AND that the child in question must have been born within US jurisdiction/territory. The fuzzy part for me is whether or not the hospital where McCain was born was, in fact and under the law, within US jurisdiction. My understanding, faulty though it may be, is that the hospital was, indeed, within US jurisdiction. This underscores how important it is for a careful analysis and binding ruling by the Supreme Court–that is, of course, if, in fact, the court is actually capable of rendering an objective, apolitical analysis and ruling. What a conundrum.

    1. That is correct — Tribe and Olsen are saying that you can be a natural born citizen if you were born abroad to US citizen parents *or* born in the US regardless of the citizenship of the parents. This is definitely not what Vattel said: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Clearly, Vattel said that you must be born in the country *and* born to citizen parents.

  5. Some of this article I agree with. But I find it interesting that people still reference the 1790 law that extended natural born status to children born to US citizen parents overseas:

    “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:”

    even though that section was explicit repealed in 1795, thus removing the exception to the base definition of natural born citizen. And that people fail or refuse to accept the explicit definition of “natural born” that Vattel put into his text:

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country,
    of parents who are citizens.

    John McCain is not a natural born citizen. The Panama Canal zone while owned by the US is not part of the US. If the 1790 law was still in effect John McCain would be a natural born citizen, but because the law was repealed in 1795, and since John McCain was not born between 1790 and 1795 the law does not apply to him. And the description in “Tribe & Olson” would not apply since the law was repealed.

    Vattel gave a specific definition of natural born in Book 1, Chapter 19, Paragraph Number 212. He then described how primary citizenship flowed from the father. He did not change the definition of natural born citizenship. In one section he described an extension that the 1790 law made use of but he did not change the base definition. And if one looks at the original French it says the same. Natural born citizenship is a tripod.

    To be a natural born citizen one must be born in the country, the mother must be a citizen at the time of birth, and the father must be a citizen at the time of birth. If the person does not have all three legs of the tripod one is not a natural born citizen. One still gets citizenship in most cases but it is not natural born citizenship (See U.S. Legal Code Title 8, Section 1401). It is a form of naturalized or statutory citizenship. People need to read the text as written and not try to re-interpret the text. Just because technology has increased the speed of travel does not change the nature of travel.

    Still however, Mr Obama is not a natural born citizen, since at best, he has only 2 legs of the tripod – place and mother. But that is even questionable since prior to running for President he claimed to be born in Kenya and his paternal family has always said he was born in Kenya. And that would mean he only has 1 leg of the tripod.

    1. Clearly the OBOTS are going to continue with their deception and efforts to twist the truth. Thanks for your excellent post. Sadly, in a “dumbed down” generation of Americans, half-truths are used by the media, the Obama supporters, the Congress and the Obama Administration to easily deceived so many in our country. Regardless of the differences of many legal “professionals”; it is abundantely clear that the term “parents” means that BOTH PARENTS must be US citizens at the time of an individual’s birth for that individual to be a “natural born citizen”. No unbias, reasonably intelligent person can rationalize otherwise!!

      1. Djljr, it was 1979 when we signed a new treaty with Panama which transitioned the administration of the Canal Zone and operation of the canal to Panama over a period of 20 years.

        In 1903 we helped Panama secure its independence from Colombia by threatening to use force against Colombia if they did not accept Panama’s independence. For this support, Panama signed a treaty that leased to us the Canal Zone, an area 5 miles on either side of the 50-mile long canal to be built. This lease was signed “in perpetuity” and we paid Panama rent each year for the use of this land. In hindsight, Panama should not have agreed to a perpetual lease, but they were happy have their independence, and they knew that the canal would be very beneficial (as it did turn out to be) to them economically. Furthermore, they anticipated being able in the future to renegotiate the treaty and eliminate the “perpetuity” clause, which is in fact what they did and what happened.

        So, unlike Puerto Rico, which we won in a war with Spain (1898) and became its sovereign, we did not win the Canal Zone in a war, but rather signed a lease for the use of its land, and we were granted administrative powers as “if” we were sovereign. Panama had always been the sovereign of the Canal Zone.

        The US is the sovereign of the US Virgin Islands. The residents of the US Virgin Islands are US citizens. A child born in the US Virgin Islands to US citizen parents would be a natural born citizen. The same would be true of a child born to US citizen parents in Hawaii or Alaska when they were our sovereign territories. The child born to US citizen parents in these sovereign territories is born with exclusive allegiance to the US and not to any other sovereign nation, and this is exactly the characteristic of a natural born citizen.

    2. The US did not own the Panama Canal Zone. Panama, not the US, was the sovereign of the Canal Zone and of the land used for our military bases. The 1903 treaty allowed the US to administer the Canal Zone as “if” we were sovereign. We paid an annual rent to Panama for the Canal Zone, which we would not do if “owned” it. Hence, if McCain had been born in the Canal Zone, he would not have been born on US sovereign territory. McCain is not a natural born citizen (born in the country to citizen parents).

      1. From the controversy (1976?) when Panama was given control over the canal zone there was much debate about whether the US owned the zone or was “loaned” the zone. My understanding of the treaty which gave us the Canal Zone, after we helped free Panama from Columbia, was that the Canal Zone was ceded to us which gave the US total sovereignty over the Canal Zone. And this is the same as the sovereignty the US has over Puerto Rico. The zone is not and was not part of Panama from that time forward. The House of Representatives voted against giving the zone back to Panama. They specifically stated that the canal zone is and was US property as is Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Island and other US territory around the world.

        But a US territory is not the U.S. itself. Someone born in the U.S. Virgin Island to US citizens, while a citizen themselves, is not be a natural born citizen since they were not born in the country itself. That is why person born of US citizens in Hawaii and Alaska prior to them becoming a State is not natural born citizen. The tripod requires one be born in the country and an owned territory is not a part of the country itself.

  6. The theory that JB is offering flies in the face of research that has been offered by some very good attorneys in the obama lawsuits. I’m not convinced in the new definition because I can’t understand how Donofrio, Apuzzo, and others could have missed this obvious piece of research material.

  7. Great article. Always glad when someone touches on Senate Resolution 511 (the non binding resolution).
    SR 511 was a distraction to take the focus off Obama. The results of this was 99 Senators commiting fraud…. for John Sydney McCain is also inelgible to be on a Presidential ballot. He can never be anything more then a “Naturalized Citizen”. Fact.
    John McCain was NOT born on any base. He was born in Colon Hospital in Colon Panama.
    The The Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty in article 2 & 3 stated that the City of Panama City & the City of Colon Panama are excluded from Sovereign control of the United States & remained under Panamanian Sovereignty.
    America has been had.
    McCain long & short form Certificate Of Birth:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/27459297/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate-Long-and-Short-Form-Colon-Panama-1936

  8. Thank you for that very informative article!! I had not seen the First Congressional article before, that so obviously stated what a natural born Citizen was. Very interesting indeed. I’ve been hearing for almost 3 years that one had to be born on U. S. soil to citizen parents in order to be a nbC. Now I think we know better and that the “birther” argument holds no water. A disappointment for me for sure because they will never do anything about Obummer, even though his so-called Father was from Kenya.

    Looking forward to Part II!

    1. The 1795 Naturalization Act removed the words “natural born” and clearly stated that the foreign-born children of US citizens were “citizens” at birth. Many subsequent naturalization acts stated the same.

      Keep in mind that the 1790 Naturalization Act was just that, a “naturalization” act. The 3rd Congress probably removed the words “natural born” in the 1795 act because they realized that they could not naturalize a natural born citizen, for a natural born citizen needs no human law to establish his citizenship at birth. A natural born citizen is a citizen at birth by the laws of nature and not of the laws of man (such as naturalization acts).

      A natural born citizen, born in the country to citizen parents, is born with exclusive allegiance to the US, and no foreign country can lay any claim of citizenship and allegiance at the time of his/her birth.

      1. They did more than that. :-) The specifically repealed the it by name. Both the 1790 law and the 1795 law are available online at

        http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226
        http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227
        http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=538

        for people to reference. In 1790 Congress extended the definition and in 1795 reverted the definition to the base definition from Vattel’s Law of Nations.