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”
I Took The Red Pill 
“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.
The Wrotnowski CT case is now on SCOTUS docket for Dec 12 Conference
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm
Sweet. I’ll mark it down on my calendar as a day that absolutely nothing will happen.
Bogwan Raneesh,
Thank you for your comment.
Yes, on the same day that SCOTUS denied Donofrio’s case:
Justice Scalia referred Wrotnowski’s case to the court and distributed for conference this Friday:
It sounds like Donofrio may have called this correctly earlier today:
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.
No, Jax, the “Blue Fairy” appears to be Obambi.
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.
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?
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:
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.
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:
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.
Thanks for the quick response, but I still don’t see the term “native-born citizen” anywhere in Jay’s letter.
“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:
Nuance.
But like I said in my previous comment, this is only one of several things that disqualify Soetoro/Obama.
Also see http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
“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?
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.
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”:
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:
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.
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?
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.
It’s funny how a British Imperialist is masquerading as an American conservative. :)
Natural Born Citizen Chart
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.”
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.
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.
That wasn’t the only anomaly she found… follow the link for more.
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
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:
And now this is in the news…
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.
I like this web blog very much, Its a really nice place to read and obtain information.
Pingback: Citizen Files Complaint Against NY Board of Elections for Misstating Presidential Birth Requirement| The Post & Email
Speaking of the 14th amendment, check out how the Obama campaign initially claimed:
But then they scrubbed that text and replaced it with this:
UPDATE: George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”
They’ve updated that page again…
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Now redirects to
http://www.attackwatch.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYKRokgX00
“Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:
Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:
And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:
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.
I have archived the content of
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html
at
http://www.webcitation.org/650PTtNcN
From Obama’s own 2008 campaign web site:
Note: Obama’s own campaign web site said that he is a “native citizen”, not a “natural-born citizen”.
Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?
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”.
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.
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:
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.
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:
But then they scrubbed that text and replaced it with this:
—————-
They’ve updated that page again…
http://web.archive.org/web/20110504021510/http://my.democrats.org/page/content/president-obama-birth-certificate
————–
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:
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.
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.
Pingback: Whose footprint is this? And what is this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this? Ummm… | ofthehighest
And now to consider how this conversation extrapolates to Cruz. Clearly he is neither native-born or natural-born. I am confused how the Republican party is willing to overlook this fact, especially in light of the fight they put up against Obama on this say issue.
Note well the date of my tweet: March 31, 2015… Long before Ted Cruz announced his run for President
I have continued with additional tweets both then and more recently, which you will see below.
https://twitter.com/ITTRP/status/582912672901046272
https://twitter.com/ITTRP/status/582912886495977472
https://twitter.com/ITTRP/status/582921307303604224
https://twitter.com/ITTRP/status/684811237729906690
https://twitter.com/ITTRP/status/684811933070016512
https://twitter.com/ITTRP/status/684813468441141249
https://twitter.com/ITTRP/status/684816682368385024