Will the Real President Please Stand Up?

by Chrue Blue
March 27, 2014

There has been great effort paid to the definition of Natural Born Citizen. There seems to be as many definitions as those who wish to use such extraordinary definitions to underwrite their particular purposes. However, since there is a finality to all arguments (one would hope that to be so) as to what constitutes one thing or another, it is compelling that someone should examine the basis of that term, that we may put an end to this ongoing (and remarkably redundant) exploration.

It is well known that the definition of Natural Born Citizen (NBC) is not persuaded in the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it has been widely accepted that to find the definition, recourse must be made to avail ourselves of other means of description as pertains to the term and it's final meaning.

We cannot find it in the Federalist papers, nor can it be found in James Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention, nor in Alexander Hamilton’s notes on the same. It should be pointed out that, during the lives and times of those noble men of our foundation, such a required definition was not necessary; just as it is not necessary to explain what the meaning of pizza is, nor what it normally consists of, to have absolute general agreement as to what a pizza IS (for crying out loud). Any 4 year old knows what a pizza is!

Yet examine it we must, to bring finality to this exhaustive inquisition.

Let us resort to the most commonly held understanding of the Framers and Founders of our nation that were held at the time of the writing of the great manuscript which gave composition to the under-structure of the country we call the United States of America, and to the man who advanced such understanding to their usefulness: Emmerich de Vattel.

In 1758, Vattel's “Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns” was published . Vattel drew heavily from Christian von Wolff and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's writings, preferring their examinations of natural conditions more valuable than John Locke's or Thomas Hobbes' utilitarian collectivism. Additionally, Vattel considered that Christian values were the underpinnings of natural law. Vattel showed that Christian charity was far more instructive of natural law, by advancing Christ's commandment to “love you enemies” as more in keeping with the Creator's form of natural law than any other resource.

In order that we may fully appreciate what is going on in this mass hysteria over the definition of NBC, let us consider how this concept was formulated by the writers and philosophers just mentioned (not that there aren't others, but since that would take much more space and time to read than this short exploration, we will confine ourselves to the shortest possible route to the answer).

Let us first take Leibniz: In philosophy, Leibniz is most notable for his optimistic view of man. His conclusion that our universe is, in a tethered sense, the best possible one that God could have designed. Leibniz (along with Descartes and Spinoza) was one of the great 17^th century advocates of rationalism, even though in that advocacy as it anticipated modern logic and analytical philosophy, his personal view drew back to the scholastic tradition, in which conclusions are produced by applying reason to first principles (or prior definitions) rather than to empirical evidence. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”.

Christian von Wolff was a student of Leibniz, but went on to form his own philosophy on rationalism. “ Wolff emphasized that every occurrence must have an adequate reason for happening or there arises the impossible alternative that something might come out of nothing. ” Thus, even though Wolff was slanted to the more sterile philosophy that there must be a rational basis for all things, he advanced the same concept that something cannot logically be created from nothing.

Let us now turn to Locke and Hobbes. John Locke is widely regarded as the father of Classical Liberalism. Locke contended that labor creates property, but that it should also have containment to its accumulation: ie, man’s capability to produce and man’s capacity to consume. According to Locke, unused property is a waste and an offense against nature. This is antithetical to the law of nature, since God Himself pronounced that man should be fruitful, to produce and become plentiful in his results, thereby having the ability to share with those who could not accomplish such amassing of goods. There is still an Orthodox Judaic command that the corners of fields should remain unharvested, for the widows and the orphans to come and gleen from, for their situation is less favorable than the owner of the fields. Thus, it is proper to be generous with one's over production for the good of the unfortunate; Another of Christ's teachings to be merciful to others. (This is not meant to be an endorsement of the rampant welfare nanny state however).

Hobbes is even more pernicious however. Thomas Hobbes published his work, “Leviathan” , which argues for a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign. Hobbes wrote that civil war, and the brute situation of a state of nature could only be avoided by a strong undivided government. However, Hobbes did not mean a divided but equal condition of governing (such as our own 3 supposedly co-equal branches of government); indeed, Hobbes greatly favored a form of elitist government, along the lines of Plato's “Republic” and Thomas Moore's “Utopia”. Such types of structure lend themselves only to tyranny from the Elites over the serfs and favoritism to those of a nobility, whether artificially produced or through monarchical inheritance and/or hierarchical position. This is counter-intuitive to our original form of a Federal Republic.

We shall now take on Vattel and his divine understanding of natural law. In Book 1 of Laws of Nature, Chapter XIX, § 212. Citizens and natives, he writes this:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

In 1775, Charles Dumas wrote to Benjamin Franklin and sent along with that letter 3 copies of Vattel's Law of Nations. Franklin wrote back: 

 

“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...”

Going on, in § 213. Inhabitants, we find this: 

 

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

Also, here: § 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

From just these few examples, (and there are a vast number of others) we can ascertain that in the understanding of the Founding Fathers, the writers of the Document giving this nation it's bedrock foundation, the issue of NBC needed no further definition. A natural born citizen is a person born in the country (this country, for our purposes here) to 2 citizen parents. Since Mr. Obama aka Soetoro aka Dunham-Soetoro, aka Soetoro Sobarkah or by whatever other name he would like to present for his own depraved purposes, has only admitted to a paternal individual known as Barack Hussein Obama (Sr) and since that individual is well known by legitimate documentary evidence of two well known university's to have been a foreign student on temporary scholastic visa with the nationality of Kenyan, and therefore a British subject to the Crown of England (Kenya being a British protectorate in 1961), it is impossible for Mr. Obama-Soetoro-Sobarkah-Dunham to be a natural born citizen, according to the understanding of the writers of the Constitution of the United states under Article II, Sec. 1, Clause V.

Since Mr. (Whatever his name is) is therefore not an NBC, it is technically and constitutionally impossible for him to be eligible to the office of the Presidency or the Vice Presidency, since the requirement extends to anyone who may have to serve as President, the VP being second in line of succession and most closely apt to assume office under the incapacitation of the POTUS.

Furthermore, the oath of office recited by Mr. (?) is not legally binding to the performance of the office since he is not eligible to OCCUPY the office; however, it's illegal issuance is certain to endanger the man (and those with foreknowledge of the fraud who participated in it's continuance and/or cover-up) under various and wide ranging felonies, up to and including treason. Many of the abstractions, misconstructions and egregious violations of law that have been committed under his hand, toward the enrichment and comfort of US enemies has left the United States undefended by a legitimate Commander in Chief, and vulnerable to hostile forces from without our borders.

Under the massive fraud of this unchecked usurpation and the serpentine actions of previous administrations, we are on the very precipice of utter economic collapse. The unchecked allowances those in the seats of power have gifted themselves with,  their unmistakable attachments to international concerns and ideologies, along with the brazenly unscrupulous extortion of the morality of their offices (by way of the massive financial benefits reaped from  intertwining nefarious associations), not to mention the vacancies of their virtues, our governmental environment has become a cesspool of mercenary corruption that knows no limit to it's scandalous depravity!

 If that isn't enough, consider the nearly incomprehensible constitutional crisis that has been imposed upon our country in view of the fact that we have a fraud, a Usurper, an imposter in the most powerful office of our nation, who has access to the most delicate, sensitive and secret national security information our country can possibly possess. His closest advisers who are demonstrably progressive socialists are also privy to this extremely classified information. The treasure, fruit and preservation of our nation is in the hands of the enemy!!

It makes the thinking man delirious with apoplectic disquietude...HOW IN GOD'S NAME DID THIS HAPPEN??? How did our nation suffer this great and overwhelming seizure? 

 

Disengagement. Apathy. Complacency.  Evil succeeds when good men do nothing.

There is an enemy in our nation. It is destroying her with it's toxic infection from Powers that you cannot see, but are ever so real...and even more deadly than you can imagine.