World News Korner

The Free Patriot: Obama Impeachment Not Required; Pitchforks Only Please

- Image Credit: Free Republic -

If I were to go to your company, introduce myself, flash some identification, tell you I had a degree in business finance, and then ask that you hire me for the open position as the head of finance, what would you say? Would you walk me around the company, show me my new desk, introduce me to my new subordinates in finance, and welcome me to my new job? Hell no, you wouldn't. You would ask me for a resume, some documentation, I would have to fill out some paperwork, a w-2, show my identification, and then I would wait while you ran a background check on me. So how is it that we have a sitting president that we know nothing about? Well, we actually do know something about him, but he denies everything we do know.

First of all, we know he is not a “Natural Born Citizen”, and therefore is not eligible to be president per Article II section 1 of the United States Constitution. Many opponents of this line of thought would try to muddle the subject by bringing up later constitutional amendments or even bills that have the word “naturalized citizen”. The solution to define this is simply noted in a letter dated 25 July 1787 from John Jay, to George Washington in which he wrote “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable 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”. The intent was to insure foreign influence would not be rendered over the office of president.

The constitution does not define “Natural Born Citizen” but there are court cases that do. In the Supreme Court Case 88 U.S. 162 Minor v. Happersett, argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875, the following opinion in part by Chief Justice Wait: “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.”

The very purpose of the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” was put into the Constitution to keep people like Obama out of the office of president of the United States. As Obama’s father was Kenyan, this would have foreign influence over Obama. You can see plainly that Obama was a dual citizen at birth, therefore not a “Natural Born Citizen”. Mario Apuzzo authored an excellent article for you to start with research, with many court references. If you research this topic, you will find there is ample documentation that tells that the definition of “natural born citizen” is based on U.S. common law, which is based on Vattel’s Law of Nations. Vattel’s Law of Nations, section 212 states: “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”.

Again, opponents would say, or have said, Obama received his U.S. citizenship through his mother who was a U.S. Citizen. That is fine, no-one is contesting whether he is a U.S. Citizen, we just know for a fact he is not a “Natural Born Citizen.” At this time, I would like to note that George Washington was not a “Natural Born Citizen”, thus the inclusion for “a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

It is important to note that the phrase is used in the Constitution is “Natural Born Citizen”, and not “Natural Born Subject”. Those that claim the phrases are the same are incorrect. The difference is the difference between “English Common Law” and “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural law”. This is made evident by one statement written from Benjamin Franklin to Charles William Frederic Dumas in a letter dated 9 December 1775 to wit: “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.” [...] Continued @ The Free Patriot.




Source