Natural Born Citizen vs. Native Born Citizen

There is a difference between being a “natural” born citizen versus just a “native” born citizen.   If Barack Hussein Obama II was indeed born in Hawaii  as the son of British subject Barack Hussein Obama, then Barack Hussein Obama II is a “native” born citizen (due to birth on U.S. soil), but he is not a “natural” born citizen (due to his father’s British citizenship being passed on to the son, in accordance with British law).

Again, Obama could be a “native” born citizen without meeting the Constitutional requirement of being a “natural” born citizen.

The Constitution of the United States explicitly states that “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Note that Obama’s web site says he is a “native” born citizen.  It does not say he is a “natural” born citizen.

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

But note that that very same page gives two indications that Obama was born a British subject:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

The land now known as Kenya was a British colony when BHO II was born.  His father was a British subject who passed British citizenship to his son.  When Kenya became independent of Great Britain, both BHO Sr. and BHO II had their British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship. 

It really is irrelevant whether or not BHO II’s Kenyan citizenship “automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982″.  What is relevant is that AT BIRTH BHO II was a British subject – PRECISELY the type of person our founders intended to disqualify from holding the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces.  Hence, the “natural” born requirement.   Being a British subject at birth means that BHO II is not a “natural” born citizen of the United States, even if he was born in the United States and is a “native” born citizen.

Natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Again, note that “Fight the Smears” does not claim that Obama is “natural” born, only “native” born.

But guess what?  Obama swore under oath that he is a “natural” born citizen. 

Donofrio vs. Wells challenges the “natural” born citizen eligibility of three Presidential Candidates (Obama, McCain and Calero) . 

If the Supreme Court of the United States decides in favor of Leo Donofrio, that Obama is not a “natural” born citizen, then not only is Obama ineligible to hold the office of POTUS, he is also guilty of perjury.

Hat Tip: Monique Monicat
Secretary of State Requests for Documents, Sample Letter, Contacts, Responses, Proof Obama’s qualifications never verified

UPDATE: Michelle Obama, Birther

UPDATE: George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Natural Born Citizen vs. Native Born Citizen

  1. Jax says:

    “If the Supreme Court of the United States decides in favor of Leo Donofrio, that Obama is not a “natural” born citizen, then not only is Obama ineligible to hold the office of POTUS, he is also guilty of perjury.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama

    Literally, the first thing they did this morning. If you had waited, you could have posted an eight paragraph rant on the Berg lawsuit, which will also be rejected, but at least would have been topical.

  2. Bogwan Raneesh says:

    The Wrotnowski CT case is now on SCOTUS docket for Dec 12 Conference

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm

  3. Jax says:

    Sweet. I’ll mark it down on my calendar as a day that absolutely nothing will happen.

  4. Bogwan Raneesh,

    Thank you for your comment.

    Yes, on the same day that SCOTUS denied Donofrio’s case:

    Dec 8 2008 Application (08A407) denied by the Court.

    Justice Scalia referred Wrotnowski’s case to the court and distributed for conference this Friday:

    Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
    Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.

    It sounds like Donofrio may have called this correctly earlier today:

    On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.

    I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.

  5. Jax says:

    Also, I heard that if you wish on the first star that appears in the night sky, the Blue Fairy HAS to grant whatever wish you ask for. So you guys basically don’t even need the courts at this point.

  6. No, Jax, the “Blue Fairy” appears to be Obambi.

  7. Jax says:

    Wow, gay too, huh? Personally, I think it’d be pretty neat to get the first gay president and the first African-American president at the same time, but considering your track record of being wrong about absolutely everything, I’m going to go ahead and remain skeptical. I don’t think people would take you seriously at this point if you claimed that Obama inhaled oxygen and exhaled carbon dioxide.

  8. Loren says:

    I’m unaware of a statutory or Constitutional definition of “native-born citizen.” If you say there’s a difference between that and “natural-born citizen,” presumably you mean that a court has declared that to be the case. Otherwise, how could you claim there’s a legal distinction if no authority has ever said there’s one?

    So where did you get that term from?

  9. Loren,

    Thank you for your comment.

    From Natural Born Citizens: Or How to Beat a Subject to Death with a Stick:

    On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    John Jay was the First Chief Justice of the United States, among many other things, and it was this letter that caused Clause 5 of Article II to exist.

    It’s not a mere technicality. There is a very good reason why the “Natural born” citizen (not “Native born” citizen and not mere citizen) requirement is there.

    The Presidency is unique from all other offices in our government. The President is Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. For this reason, one must be a Natural born citizen. It is intentionally designed to prevent a person with divided allegiance to any other country from ever commanding our troops.

  10. There are only three qualifications that must be met in order to hold the office of President of the United States:
    1) Natural born Citizen,
    2) Have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and
    3) Been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The importance of checking the candidate’s qualifications is re-emphasized by the 20th amendment (ratified less than 76 years ago) which includes the following:

    If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified

    There are several questions surrounding Soetoro/Obama’s qualification as a Natural born citizen, and different lawsuits cover them differently. (That page is no longer being updated, but it gives you an idea of how many lawsuits are going on around the country regarding Soetoro/Obama’s eligibility for the office of POTUS)

    1) Birth location: Was Obama born in the US? The COLB (even if it were authentic, which it’s not) cannot prove Obama was born in the US, because COLBs were given to people born outside of the US (like Obama’s sister Maya)

    2) British citizenship via father: If Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. truly is the father, then the son was a British subject at birth.

    3) Indonesian citizenship via adoption: Lolo Soetoro adopted him and made him Indonesian citizen Barry Soetoro

    4) Indonesian citizenship might have been used to travel on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan, as an adult, in 1981.

    It’s bigger than just the Birth Certificate. But the fact that he’s hiding it makes everyone wonder what else he’s hiding.

  11. Loren says:

    Thanks for the quick response, but I still don’t see the term “native-born citizen” anywhere in Jay’s letter.

  12. “native-born citizen” is not in Jay’s letter.

    “native-born citizen” means that you are a citizen and you were born here.

    The meaning of “Natural born citizen” comes from Natural Law.
    The post I linked to goes into this in detail. If Obama’s father was truly Barack Hussein Obama Sr., then Obama was born a Natural born subject of the British crown.

    Obama’s web site says he is a “native” born citizen. It does not say he is a “natural” born citizen:

    The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

    Nuance.

    But like I said in my previous comment, this is only one of several things that disqualify Soetoro/Obama.

  13. Loren says:

    “Obama’s web site says he is a “native” born citizen. It does not say he is a “natural” born citizen:”

    It doesn’t “born” at all. And in any case, the website was surely written by a staffer. Why are you putting more stock in what somebody wrote on a website than what he personally claimed under oath?

    And if you’re alleging that he lied under oath, then why claim that the unsworn website text is more trustworthy on this matter? If he was actually willing to lie under oath, what reason would there be to resort to intentional nuance on a website?

  14. Loren says:

    And I forgot:

    ““native-born citizen” means that you are a citizen and you were born here.”

    According to what law or court decision? You’re claiming a legal distinction between “natural-born citizen” and “native-born citizen,” but you haven’t said where the legal meaning of the latter comes from.

  15. What matters here are the Constitutional eligibility requirements to hold the office of President of the United States. The burden of proof is on the candidate to prove that they qualify. That is why the 20th amendment says, “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”.

    Obama swore under oath that he meets those requirements. But he has yet to produce documentation that proves that he does qualify. To the contrary, he has provided evidence to prove that he does NOT qualify.

    It is unclear whether or not Obama claims to stand by the materials posted on FightTheSmears.com. That material is both fraudulent in content (the COLB is a forgery) and deceiptful in wording.

    That site most certainly does mention “born” and “native citizen”:

    The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

    but it does not claim he is a “natural born citizen”.

    Donofio and Wrotnowski’s lawsuits concede that Obama was born a U.S. Citizen in Hawaii, but that he is not a “natural born citizen” because he was also born a subject of the British crown. FightTheSmears itself says:

    As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Barry Soetoro (also known as Barack Hussein Obama II) was a British subject at birth. That is uncontested. And it also means Barry was not a natural born citizen of the United States.

  16. In Good Comany says:

    Sorry, but BRITISH law does not determine who is a natural born citizen of AMERICA. We are a sovereign nation with our own laws, if you did not know.

    At the time that the Constitution was authored, there was no legal definition of “natural born citizen.” It was assumed that somebody born on American soil was a natural born American citizen. Under British law of the time, all of us were still British citizens of the empire, just living in an area that was in revolt. This lasted all the way up through the war of 1812. Americans in ships at sea could be and were impressed into the British navy, under the idea that they were British citizens. Are you seriously advancing the case that the British were in the right here.

    Now, according to the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution, all persons born on United States soil are citizens. Those persons are citizens naturally and at birth. That is the definition of “natural born citizen”.

    It doesn’t matter if his father was a citizen of the moon and his mother had illegally immigrated from the merry old land of Oz. If she plopped him out on a beach in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen.

    That is Constitutional law.

    You DO believe in our Constitution, don’t you?

  17. In Good Comany says:

    Oh, by the way… there is no separate clause or law anywhere that establishes what citizenship means, apart from the 14th amendment. That clause which states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” is the only thing in the body of U.S. law which establishes your citizenship and my citizenship. You’ll note there are only two conditions present in the clause: “born or naturalized”. If you’re naturalized, you’re not natural born. If you’re born here, you are natural born.

    So, if being born in Hawaii does not make Barack Hussein Obama II a natural born citizen, then nobody is a natural born citizen. Nobody is eligible to be president.

  18. In Good Comany says:

    It’s funny how a British Imperialist is masquerading as an American conservative. :)

  19. Beth says:

    From Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (non-whites) (1862)
    “We have NATURAL BORN citizens (Constitution, article 2, section 5), not made by law or otherwise, but BORN. And this class is the large majority; in fact, the mass of our citizens; for all others are exception, specially provided for by law. As they became citizens in the natural way, by BIRTH, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to DECITIZENISE a citizen, who has become such either by the natural process of birth, or by the legal process of adoption. And in this connection the Constitution says not one word, and furnishes not one hint,in relation to the color or the ancestral race of the “natural born citizen.”…The Constitution itself does not MAKE the citizens, (it is in fact made by them). It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural-home-born-and provides for the NATURALIZATION of such of them as were alien–foreign-born–making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former…”
    ….”It follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, PRIMA FACIE a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance……….And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the ALIENAGE of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provides that “persons,”….”persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and hereby declared to be citizens of the United States….. It is an error to suppose that citizenship is ever hereditary. It never “passes by descent.” It is as original in the child as it was in his parents. It is always either born with him or given to him directly by law.”

  20. There is absolutely no question that Obama was born a British citizen. Obama’s own “Fight the Smears” web site admitted this fact.

    There is question whether or not Obama was also born a U.S. citizen. If he was born in the U.S., he was born a U.S. citizen. But Obama has never released proof, directly from the State of Hawaii, that he was born in Honolulu. The only evidence was produced at the Obama campaign headquarters, and only shown to a small, unqualified to determine a forgery, friendly audience.

    That doesn’t pass the smell test.

    That COLB was never declared authentic by the State of Hawaii. Dr. Fukino never said it was genuine, and never said Obama was born in Honolulu. The Associated Press and Fact Check would like you to believe that she said there is “no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii”, but that is a lie.

    If there is nothing to hide, authorize the State of Hawaii to release a certified authentic Certificate of Live Birth.

    unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation.

    1) Obama was born a “subject of another nation”. That is an undisputed fact. However, his birth was not “by his own voluntary act”.

    2) There is reasonable question as to whether Soetoro/Obama did, by his own voluntary act, expatriate himself and become a citizen of Indonesia. Travelling under an Indonesian passport would have been evidence of Indonesian citizenship.

  21. It has been advanced that both papers printed identical lists as the general rule. As I mentioned before, this was pointed out to add more “weight” to the (ahem) proof these newspaper birth announcements lend to obama’s birth story… So I pulled a sample size of ten days from each paper. I began the splendidly tedious process of comparing the incidence of the same birth announcements being listed in both papers. Mainly with an eye towards how often they matched in exact order.The only time this occurred in that particular way within the ten days that I researched, was on the dates that had obama’s birth announcements.

    And I even took the extra steps of comparing editions to a three day range (edition before, same date, edition after) of the sister publication. So, I tried to cover all the bases in a fair comparison.

    Well, OK. The ONE and ONLY time that the two papers published the birth list, beginning at the first announcement, in order, was in the editions that obama’s birth announcement appeared. This was indeed the only time that these announcements were printed this way, as the closest the papers came to doing this again never had all the same names listed in the exact same order. I figured the ten day sample would give conclusive data as to if this was uncommon.

    That wasn’t the only anomaly she found… follow the link for more.

  22. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, does not define “natural born citizen”, and six years later, in 1874, the Supreme Court case of MINOR v. HAPPERSETT stated “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” In 1874, the Constitution included the 14th Amendment. So again, the Supreme Court itself said that “The Constitution [including the 14th Amendment] does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”

    Obama’s Eligibility: It’s a Matter of Faith

  23. The topic of this post is “Natural Born Citizen vs. Native Born Citizen”.

    A different, but related, topic is “Natural Born Citizen vs. Natural Born Subject”.

    On 2010/06/16 at 10:44 pm, in a comment on a different thread, I said:

    Do you understand the concept of sovereignty? Do you understand that in 18th century England, the King (or Queen) was sovereign, and the people were subjects? Do you understand that in the United States, We the People are sovereign citizens, and the government is subject to the citizens?

    I have said this many, many times before, but you refuse to listen. You cannot equate subjects and citizens. They are two very different things. And you cannot equate “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen”.

    And now this is in the news…

    Many words were crossed out and replaced in the draft, but only one was obliterated.

    Over the smudge, Jefferson then wrote the word “citizens.”

    No longer subjects to the crown, the colonists became something different: a people whose allegiance was to one another, not to a faraway monarch. [Ed: The people were no longer subjects, they were now sovereign citizens.]

    Scholars of the revolution have long speculated about the “citizens” smear — wondering whether the erased word was “patriots” or “residents” — but now the Library of Congress has determined that the change was far more dramatic.

    Using a modified version of the kind of spectral imaging technology developed for the military and for monitoring agriculture, research scientists teased apart the mystery and reconstructed the word that Jefferson banished in 1776.

    “Seldom can we re-create a moment in history in such a dramatic and living way,” Library of Congress preservation director Dianne van der Reyden said at Friday’s announcement of the discovery.

    It’s almost like we can see him write ‘subjects’ and then quickly decide that’s not what he wanted to say at all, that he didn’t even want a record of it,” she said. “Really, it sends chills down the spine.”

    I have said this many, many times before, and I’ll say it again:
    You cannot equate “subjects” and “citizens”. They are two very different things.

    And you cannot equate “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen”. They are two very different things.

  24. Maricela Yankovitz says:

    I like this web blog very much, Its a really nice place to read and obtain information.

  25. Pingback: Citizen Files Complaint Against NY Board of Elections for Misstating Presidential Birth Requirement| The Post & Email

  26. Speaking of the 14th amendment, check out how the Obama campaign initially claimed:

    The truth about Barack’s birth certificate

    Lie:
    Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

    Truth:
    Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080614132523/my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

    But then they scrubbed that text and replaced it with this:

    The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate

    Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

    The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

    Next time someone talks about Barack’s birth certificate, make sure they see this page.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110318175449/http://www.fightthesmears.com//articles/5/birthcertificate.html

    However, note that that page also says the following:

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    Obama’s own campaign web site admitted that his “citizenship status” was “governed by” The British Nationality Act of 1948, because his was father was a British subject, not a U.S. citizen.

    Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II was also born a British subject… subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown.

  27. They’ve updated that page again…

    http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

    In 2008, President Obama’s campaign released his certification of live birth—the legal birth certificate provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state.

    But conspiracy theorists have continued to question the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate in order to manipulate voters into thinking that the President isn’t an American citizen.

    It’s time to put an end to this fake controversy—and refocus on debating how we grow our economy, create jobs, get our fiscal house in order, and educate our children for the challenges of the 21st century.

    To move on from this distraction, President Obama directed his attorneys to request a waiver from the State of Hawaii to release the long-form version of his birth certificate. That waiver was granted.

  28. The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born.

    “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”

    Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:

    “The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” (Emphasis added.)

    Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:

    “(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

    The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.)

    And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:

    “The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.” (Emphasis added.)

    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48438.html

    Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status.

  29. From Obama’s own 2008 campaign web site:

    The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

    Note: Obama’s own campaign web site said that he is a “native citizen”, not a “natural-born citizen”.

  30. I also recommend that you read this:
    http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/proof-it-was-in-front-of-our-faces/

    There is evidence of some kind of irregular “vital records” on file with the HDOH for Obama.

    And we know that he was adopted. Not only by Lolo Soetoro but also by Hartford and Mary Black Eagle, Crow Reservation, Lodge Grass, Montana during an adoption ceremony in May 2008, when he was given the name “Awe Kooda Bilaxpak Kuxshish”.

    http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/awe-kooda-bilaxpak-kuxshish/

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/19/scenes-from-the-trail-obama-in-montana/

  31. dan says:

    Your are using the wrong court case and predetermined law.

    “Blacks, whether born or in bondage, if born under the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States, are natives, and not aliens, They are what the common law terms natural born subjects…The better opinion, I should think, was, that negroes or other slaves, born within and under the allegiance of the United States, are natural-born subjects, but not citizens.

    Citizens, under our constitution and laws, mean free inhabitants, born within the United States, or naturalized under the law of congress…” Commentaries of American Law, James Kent,, 7th Ed, Vol. II, at 275-78.

    “But birth will not confer these advantages upon a negro or an Indian. If so, a man may acquire, by the accident of birth, what the government itself has no right to grant. No negro, or descendant of negroes, is a citizen of the Union, or of any of the States. They are mere ‘sojourners in the land,’ inmates, allowed usually by tacit consent, sometimes by legislative enactment, certain specific rights. Their status and that of the citizen is not the same. Vattel, book 1, Sec. 213. But the clause of the Constitution in question, applies to citizens, not to sojourners or inmates.” State v. Clairborn, 1 Meig’s Rep. 331, 335.

  32. If the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, then Barack Hussein Obama II is the son of Barack Hussein Obama, who was a natural born subject of the British crown. And since the father was a British subject, the son was born a natural born British subject, under the jurisdiction and allegiance of the British crown.

    Obama’s own campaign web site admitted:

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    Obama’s own campaign web site admitted that his “citizenship status” was “governed by” The British Nationality Act of 1948, because his was father was a British subject, not a U.S. citizen.

    If the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, then Barack Hussein Obama II born a natural born British subject, subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown, regardless of his birth location.

    He was “born under the jurisdiction and allegiance of” the British crown.

  33. And speaking of the 14th amendment, check out how the Obama campaign initially claimed:

    Speaking of the 14th amendment, check out how the Obama campaign initially claimed:

    The truth about Barack’s birth certificate

    Lie: Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

    Truth: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080614132523/my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

    But then they scrubbed that text and replaced it with this:

    The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate

    Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

    The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

    Next time someone talks about Barack’s birth certificate, make sure they see this page.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110318175449/http://www.fightthesmears.com//articles/5/birthcertificate.html

    However, note that that page also says the following:

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    Obama’s own campaign web site admitted that his “citizenship status” was “governed by” The British Nationality Act of 1948, because his was father was a British subject, not a U.S. citizen.

    Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II was also born a British subject… subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown.

    —————-

    They’ve updated that page again…

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110504021510/http://my.democrats.org/page/content/president-obama-birth-certificate

    In 2008, President Obama’s campaign released his certification of live birth—the legal birth certificate provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state.

    But conspiracy theorists have continued to question the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate in order to manipulate voters into thinking that the President isn’t an American citizen.

    It’s time to put an end to this fake controversy—and refocus on debating how we grow our economy, create jobs, get our fiscal house in order, and educate our children for the challenges of the 21st century.

    To move on from this distraction, President Obama directed his attorneys to request a waiver from the State of Hawaii to release the long-form version of his birth certificate. That waiver was granted.

    ————–

    And now,

    http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

    redirects to http://www.attackwatch.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

    which is no longer branded as “Attack Watch”, but “Truth Team”, and has NO content about the Birth Certificate.

    So… from “Fight the Smears” to “Attack Watch” to “Truth Team” with no statement at all.

    :lol:

  34. dan says:

    The point of my comments were that it is a “specific” class of man that qualifies for the Natural born category as specified in the Organic and original constitution. The Category of “Citizen” is within the “sovereign citizen” not the “subject” citizen. Obama could never qualify under the Organic Original meaning in the Constitution which was written under the common law as it was defined at the time it was written. Obama does not qualify as a “posterity” within the meaning of the word at the time it was written. He does not qualify as the class of “Citizen” within the meaning at the time it was written.

  35. dan says:

    I have read your article, and believe Obama is a “natural born subject” persuant to a court case I have. I you are interested, let me know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s