Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Haley: NOT "Natural Born Citizens" and NOT eligible for president of the United States.

Now as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is:  A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.  This is the settled definition of the clause under American national common law.

*********

The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers required that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military be “natural born Citizens.”  They required this because they wanted to protect these unique and singular and all-powerful civil and military offices from monarchical and foreign influence.  For the sake of the safety of those offices and the national security of the nation, they wanted to make sure that all future Presidents and Commanders be born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States.  Barack Obama (maybe born in Hawaii, but born to a U.S. "citizen" mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father), Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S. “citizen” mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father), Marco Rubio (born in Florida to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), Bobby Jindal (born in Louisiana to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), and Nikki Haley (born in South Carolina to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents) were not born in the country (BIC) to citizen parents (BCPs).  Because they acquired foreign allegiance from either being born to one or two alien parents (all of them) or from being born in a foreign nation (Cruz and maybe also Obama), none of them were born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States.   Under all of the above logical statements, none of these individuals are “natural born Citizens.”

The inescapable conclusion is that since Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are neither “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” they are not eligible to be President.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html

Sunday, June 2, 2019

The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”

The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

June 2, 2013

Reposted June 2, 2019

The Illinois Board of Elections Got It Wrong: Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. - February 5, 2016

The Illinois Board of Elections recently found that Presidential contender, Senator Ted Cruz, is an Article II “natural born citizen.”   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-natural-born-illinois_us_56b10542e4b0a1b96203f393 .  Lawrence Joyce and William Graham objected to Cruz being placed on the presidential primary ballot in Illinois, contending that he is not an Article II natural born citizen.  The Board rejected the challenge and found that Cruz “is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth." The Board so found because it said he "did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth."  The Board also had the audacity to cavalierly state:  “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary." The Board erred.  The Board’s ruling is an expression of Congressional Research Service attorney Jack Maskell’s baseless thesis of his definition of a natural born citizen.  Not only is Maskell’s definition a fabricated and revisionist definition of a natural born citizen, it also is nonsensical.   See Mario Apuzzo, The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen,” http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html (June 2, 2013) (demonstrates how Maskell’s thesis is erroneous); Mario Apuzzo, The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause:  A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter,http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html  (July 19, 2013) (same). 

READ MORE

If Winston Churchill Was Not Even a Citizen of the United States, How Can Ted Cruz Be Its Natural Born Citizen?

Senator and presidential contender Ted Cruz was born in 1970 in Canada to parents who, unlike Senator John McCain’s parents, were not serving the U.S. national defense. He therefore was not born or reputed born in the United States. He was also born to presumably a U.S. citizen mother, and to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was Cuban). Hence he was also not born to two U.S. citizen parents. Cruz is at best a “citizen" of the United States “at birth,” but only by virtue of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, a naturalization Act of Congress (assuming that he was born to a U.S. citizen mother). But failing both constitutional common law requirements for being a natural born citizen, i.e., born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, he is not nor can he be a natural born citizen.

On the contrary, Cruz does not agree that this common law definition of a natural born citizen under which he is not a natural born citizen is the only definition of a natural born citizen that has ever existed in the United States since July 4, 1776. Rather, he tells us that it has been settled law since the adoption and ratification of the Constitution that a child born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father like him is also a natural born citizen.

I have written several articles demonstrating why Cruz is not a natural born citizen and that he is wrong to maintain that he is. These articles can be read at www.puzo1.blogspot.com

I read a comment by Ghost posted on January 17, 2016 at http://theconservativemonster.com/constitutional-lawyer-mario-apuzzo-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen/, which asked: “was Winston Churchill eligible to become President of the United States? Churchill’s mother was an American citizen! of High Society Brooklyn and NYC.” This question led me to investigate the matter and this is what I found.

READ MORE

“Two citizen parents and born on the soil.” --Ted Cruz

The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
9-8-09
Updated May 21, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Bottom line: Ted Cruz is not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. constitution

Cruz was born in Canada, presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. He can be a citizen of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress (section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952). He is not and cannot be a natural born citizen under the common law because, while he was born to a U.S. citizen mother, he was not born in the United States and he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father.

Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to two non-U.S. citizen parents. They are both citizens of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. They are not and cannot be natural born citizens under the common law because, while they were born in the United States, they were born to two non-U.S. citizen parents.

READ MORE

Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. - May 25, 2015

EXCERPT:

President Obama, Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal are all "citizens" of the United States "at birth,” but only by virtue of some non-common law positive law. None of them are "natural born citizens" by virtue of common law which provides the only definition of the clause which is a child born in a country to parents (father and mother) who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Obama (if born in the United States), Rubio, and Jindal are “citizens” of the United States “at birth,” but only because of the Fourteenth Amendment, by the only fact of being born in the United States. Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” but only because of a naturalization Act of Congress, by the only fact of being born to one U.S. citizen parent. None of them were born with the complete facts and circumstances needed at birth to be a natural born citizen and which allows one to be a natural born citizen and therefore a citizen without the aid of any positive law. They are all missing either birth to two U.S. citizen parents or birth in the United States. Obama was born a citizen of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus soli if he was born in the United States) and Great Britain and then Kenya upon conversion through its independence from Great Britain (through jus sanguinis from his father). Cruz was born a citizen of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus sanguinis if his mother was still a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth) and born a citizen of and in allegiance to Canada (through jus soli) and Cuba (through jus sanguinis from his father). Rubio and Jindal were born citizens of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus soli) and Cuba (through jus sanguinis from both of their parents). They are all therefore under U.S. law not born with sole allegiance to the United States, but also subject to a foreign power and with natural sympathies for those foreign nations, a condition that the Framers did not allow future Presidents and Commanders to have. Being born subject to foreign powers and influence and with such sympathies, they are not nor can they be natural born citizens. Not being natural born citizens, they are not eligible to be President.

READ MORE

Eligibility attorney Mario Apuzzo explains why Ted Cruz, like Obama, is NOT a "natural born citizen"

Excerpt from The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter by eligibility attorney Mario Apuzzo:

Squeeky Fromm also comes to the aid of Ted Cruz in her June 25, 2013 article published at http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/with-2020-foresight-the-once-and-future-apuzzo/ .   In this piece, which she passes off as a decision against me rendered by an imaginary judge, she argues, albeit without any historical or legal support, that my definition of a “natural born citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth is wrong.  She maintains that Cruz, who was born in Canada to a non-U.S. “citizen” father and a U.S. “citizen” mother is a “natural born citizen.”

She attempts to dismiss Minor as being irrelevant to the issue of both Obama and Cruz’s eligibility, arguing that Minordid not define or deal with children born inside the United States to alien parents. This is incorrect. Minor told us that at common law with which the Framers were familiar, such children were “aliens or foreigners.” Here is the quote from the Court:  “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.”  We can see from what the Court said that at common law if a child was born in the United States to alien parents, the child was an “alien or foreigner.”  It also follows from this common law rule that at common law (not to be confounded with statutes), any child who was born out of the United States, regardless of whether born to “citizen” parents or alien parents, was also an alien or foreigner.  This common law rule was reflected in Congress’s Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 which treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and naturalized at birth children born out of the United States to “citizen” parents or naturalized them after birth if born to alien parents.

She states that the clause “natural born citizen” “was discussed at length in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.” This is false. Wong Kim Ark discussed at length the English common law and an English “natural born subject.” The English common law defined neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen.”  Justice Swayne in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785 (Cir.Ct. D. Ky. 1866) (No. 16,151), told us that neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen” were defined by the English common law. The court said that “British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject.  . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject. ”  Id. at 788.  So, Wong Kim Ark, which spent much time on analyzing the English common law, could not have been analyzing the meaning of a “natural born citizen” which clause was not even found in that law. 

Squeeky Fromm quotes Wong Kim Ark’s comment that the English common law jus soli rule continued “to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” This statement does not prove that a “natural born citizen” was defined under English common law and not under the law of nations. What this statement means is that through the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the states, which selectively adopted the English common law until abrogated by state legislatures, decided who their citizens were and that they to some undefined degree used the jus soli English common law rule to make that decision. These state citizens became “citizens of the United States” upon the adoption of the Constitution. But then in 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, followed by that of 1795, 1802, and 1855. After that, the states, to whatever degree they still applied the English common law, could no longer naturalize anyone after birth and their state citizens were no longer recognized as national citizens or what the Constitution called “citizens of the United States.” The only common law rule that Congress did not nor could abrogate was that of the law of nations/American national common law which the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers used to certainly and uniformly define a “natural born citizen.” And that definition was a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

Squeeky Fromm repeats that “citizens at birth” are equivalent to “natural born citizens.”  But like Jack Maskell, she begs the question that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens.” Other than just assuming, like Jack Maskell, that her statement is true, she fails to provide any evidence that her statement is true. Hence, that the Fourteenth Amendment or a Congressional Act might declare someone born either in the United States or out of it to be a “citizen at birth” does not prove that that person is a “natural born citizen.”

She argues that Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g).  Here, she makes the absurd argument that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” by way of a naturalization act of Congress.  Using her logic, the “natural born citizen” clause would have no meaning or limits if Congress could simply naturalize anyone at birth which Squeeky Fromm then considers to be a “natural born citizen.”  She looks to the Naturalization Act of 1790 for support. Regarding whether children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents are “natural-born citizens,” the Naturalization Act of 1790 does not help Squeeky Fromm because the 1795 Act, with the work of James Madison, repealed it and replaced “natural born citizen” with “citizen of the United States.” Despite her statement that Congress never did so, the 1795 Act, with James Madison’s influence, plainly shows from its text that “Congress intended to limit the rights of foreign born citizens at birth to some quanta less than that of a natural born citizen.” Furthermore, Wong Kim Ark informed us that the Fourteenth Amendment “has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” So, Wong Kim Ark told us that children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents become “citizens at birth” under Congress’s naturalization powers. That means they are naturalized at birth. By her own concession, if they are naturalized, they cannot be “natural born citizens,” regardless of when they obtain their citizenship. . .

Legal analysis of Georgia state (Iranian) Judge Malihi's flawed decision

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 3, 2012

All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”

JUDGE RULES AGAINST OBAMA - UPDATES

"...second time in the U.S. history a sitting President is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the President and a number of high ranking individuals."

OBAMA MUST APPEAR IN COURT JANUARY 26, 2012 - ATLANTA, GEORGIA- AND PRODUCE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30563

Posted on | January 20, 2012 |

It has been 3 years of 24/7/365 fight. I was defamed, viciously maligned by so many Obots (Obama bots), pro-Obama media thugs, by a few corrupt officials and judges. 

Recently even people, who claimed to be on my side turned sides and viciously defamed me and attacked me. 

Among them were Arlen Williams, Dean Haskins, owner of a blog Birther Summit, Ben Nelson-owner of a blog Birther Report or ObamaReleaseYourRecords, Helen Tansey -owner of a blog art2superpac and even attorneys, who should’ve had some professional ethics. 

Attorneys Gary Kreep and Philip Berg filed insane pleadings, saying that I tried to hire a hit man to kill Lisa Liberi, legal assistant of attorney Berg and kidnap children of a web master Lisa Ostella. It has been 3 years of total nightmare, these people were like a pack of wild dogs attacking me and coming up with each and every accusation in the book. 

Now I am vindicated. My legal action is with merit. We are going to trial on January 26, 2012. I issued subpoenas.

  

Barack Obama through his attorney Michael Jablonski filed a motion to quash my subpoena and all the other subpoenas. 

I was attacked yet again in this motion. Judge Malihi just issued an order. Motion to quash my subpoena was denied. 

Barack Obama, President of the United States will have to appear in court on January 26 and comply with my subpoena and produce all the documents, that I demanded. 

Interesting, that two other attorneys are representing plaintiffs on similar matters: Van Irion and Mark Hatfield. They could have an opportunity to examine Obama with me, however either because I was maligned so badly or because they were scared to press the most explosive charges, these attorneys filed motions for their cases to be severed from my case. Their motions were granted. Irion’s case will be heard first. He stated on the record, that his case will take only 10 minutes and will be limited to ascertainment if Obama is legitimate based on the precedent of Minor v Happerset. Obama will not be answering any of his questions. 

Second will be a case presented by attorney Hatfield. He, also, severed his case and did not issue any subpoenas. In his motion to sever he stated that he did not want to be joined in the same complaint with me, because he did not want to be part of a  case, where I brought forward allegations of elections fraud and social security fraud committed by Barack Obama. Hatfield was saying that he was afraid that his clients will be prejudiced by such explosive allegations.  Yesterday, after I filed an opposition to motion to quash, attorney Hatfield tried to follow suit by filing a notice to appear, however notice does not have as much of a  force as a subpoena and I do not believe Obama will be complying with a notice, particularly since Hatfield’s complaint does not entail the same charges as mine. My case will be heard third.  My case will not be limited to definition of natural born based on a case Minor v Happersett. I will be also presenting a case, showing that elections fraud was committed by Barack Obama, that he is using a forged birth certificate, stolen or fraudulently obtained Social Security number and that there is no evidence to believe that the last name he is using is legally his, due to the fact, that in his mother’s passport he goes under the name Soebarkah and in his school registration in Indonesia he went by the last name Soetoro. There is no evidence of legal change of name.

I wanted to thank people who helped me along the way with donations, who did not stick a knife in my back, like the ones mentioned before. I am asking my supporters to donate to this work, as I am paying for  airfare and hotel of witnesses and a number of other expenses. Also, if you are a CA Republican please, download my nomination for the US Senate and sign and circulate it.

nomination papers

Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate2 or ObamaForgeryGate.  I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting President is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the President and a number of high ranking individuals.

I feel extremely proud to be a part of this historic moment. I guess an American dream is still alive, as this subpoena was issued by an immigrant, who was raised in a communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union and came here with one suitcase with a couple of dresses, who had to study English, to study law at night, while working as a dentist  and raising a family with 3 children. Only in America is this possible.

Humbly,

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com

UPDATE:

WND: Judge whacks Obama in eligibility case

GatewayPundit: Georgia Judge Orders Obama to Appear at Hearing

SeattlePI: Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

Washington Post: Georgia judge orders Obama to appear in court for hearing on attempt to keep him off ballot

The Post & Email: Breaking: Georgia Judge Denies Obama's Motion To Quash Subpoenas

UPDATE #2:

Re: "An Obama campaign aide says any attempt to involve the president personally will fail and such complaints around the country have no merit."

What else would you expect an Obama person to say??? Just because a 'campaign aide' says that, doesn't mean it's true. Besides, with something of this scale, no campaign aide would ever know about this--only Valerie Jarrett, Michal Jablonski, and Robert Bauer along with maybe someone else, but very close and high up.

Re: "The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president’s lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up."

What happened to the rule of law? Presidents aren't supposed to be above the rule of law (remember Watergate?). So it's ok for Obama to just not show up if he doesn't feel like following a judge's orders?

"The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up."

Orly Taitz:

Huckabee [on the Bill O'Reilly show] advised Romney to challenge the media and demand that when Obama releases his college records, to show whether he was admitted as a foreign student, then Romney will show his tax returns. . .

VIDEO

My prediction: he will start something with Syria to avoid this...or just not show up like he's the King of America. If this was his second term, I'd say he would simply go golfing to really give a big FU to the country.

UPDATE #3:

Posted on | January 22, 2012 |

Can someone reach Drudge report and let them know, that NBC erred, state court judge definitely has jurisdiction over Obama...

www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30679

EXPERIENCED ELIGIBILITY ATTORNEY MARIO APUZZO EXPLAINS WHY ORLY IS RIGHT:
Is Obama Guilty of Identity Fraud Rather than Ineligibility?

And did you hear: Former Obama staffer arrested for identity theft (ID is starting to become a theme of this administration!)

UPDATE #4:

THE POST & EMAIL

Update, 9:48 a.m ET: The White House presidential schedule now reflects the UPI posting noted above, but no schedule is posted for the remainder of this week. Obama's previous weeks in office have shown full daily and weekly schedules.

Is Obama doing his job this week? How busy is he? Why is the White House showing no schedule for either Obama or Biden? Is Obama really running for re-election, or just going through the motions?

NOVEMBER 23, 2010: Obama eligibility in Supreme Court

From CITIZEN WELLS:

Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)

Obama's eligibility to be president: 2 cases on their way to the Supreme Court

Supremes more likely to rule on substance of eligibility case - Lawyer: 'Environment is more favorable for judges to decide on the merits without fear'

November 24, 2010:

Taitz recently presented the U.S. Supreme Court with a petition for a writ of certiorari in her case, Orly Taitz v. Thomas D. MacDonald, et al. A writ of certiorari means the court agrees to review the decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court is scheduled to reply to the new filing and announce whether it will hear the case on Nov. 24...

Taitz v. MacDonald is now the second case challenging President Obama's eligibility to serve in the Oval Office up for review by the Supreme Court...Taitz v. MacDonald was originally brought on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes, an Army flight surgeon questioning the validity of deployment orders issued under Obama's signature. The case argues that Obama has not proven that he is a "natural-born citizen" of the United States, which Article 2 of the Constitution requires any president to be. A "natural born citizen" was considered at the time the Constitution was adopted as an individual whose parents are both American citizens. Obama's father was a British subject when Obama was born in 1961.

But Taitz vs. MacDonald goes beyond Obama's legitimacy to raise the possibility of Social Security fraud...

November 3, 2010:

Taitz v. MacDonald follows on the heels of Kerchner v. Obama, a case also arguing that Obama has failed to prove he is a "natural born citizen." The court is scheduled to announce its decision whether to hear Kerchner v. Obama on Nov. 3.

LAWYER TAKES OUT "OBAMA LIED" AD TODAY

From Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama, September 13, 2010...New Ad – Obama Ineligible! I Tried and Lied But It Won’t Go Away! Washington Times National Weekly – 13 Sep 2010 Issue – Pg 15.

READ MORE AT CITIZEN WELLS

I Believe The Fix Was In for the 2008 Election and The Cover Up is Still Going Strong!

by: Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Posted 24 January 2010 at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

I believe that the RNC and DNC at the highest levels in 2008 were both complicit in shutting down all discussion of Obama's eligibility issue in the Main Stream Media, print press, and in the leading Conservative Talk Show radio stations. I believe that the RNC and the DNC were complicit in subverting Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our Constitution as to the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President, i.e., the person eligible for that office must be a natural born Citizen", i.e., one born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country such that the child born has singular and sole allegiance at birth to the USA and no citizenship at birth with any other country via his parents or due to the place or location of birth. A natural born Citizen needs know law or resolution of Congress to give or clarify citizenship status. Natural born Citizenship status can only be obtained by the facts of nature at the child's birth. This is natural law. This is what the founders and framers of our Constitution required for the singular and most powerful office of the President and Commander in Chief of the military. John Jay and George Washington put that requirement into the Constitution for exactly the reason that the person serving in that office would have no foreign influences on him/her at birth due to the facts and circumstances of his/her citizenship at birth. Only "natural born Citizenship" in the USA per natural law guarantees no other allegiance or citizenship claims by an another country at birth. If you are born on the U.S. soil of parents who are both citizens, no other country can claim you as a Citizen of their country and you are only governed by the laws of the USA at your birth. This is natural law as written by Vattel in 1758 in his legal book, "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law". This book was used as a reference to set up our new new nation in 1776 in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and also in drafting the new form of federal government in 1789 and the writing of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation. Obama was born British. How can a person be born a British Subject be considered to be a "natural born Citizen" of the USA, to constitutional standards? He cannot. Our founders must be rolling over in there graves witnessing what transpired in the 2008 election cycle.

Both parties put up questionable candidates in 2008 as to their birth citizenship, Obama was born as a British Subject and McCain was born in Panama, and then they proceeded to cover up for each other and helped shut down the media and talk radio totally via their respective high contacts in the media industry and elected officials within the sitting Bush administration and in Congress as well as within their own respective presidential campaign organizations...

Read more

What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Citizenship Status?

These are the reasons for the existing doubts regarding Obama's place of birth...