The REAL birther question

Now I am not the kind of person to write blogs and such but mostly short quips on twitter (@jdmeac). But something has been getting at me lately which has been pointed out on Andrea Shea King’s show. It seems that some online radio show hosts, with an example being Glenn Beck seem to be misunderstanding the underlying issues of the so derogatorily named ‘birther’ movement.

After looking at the issue over time, and listening to some online radio shows, I have reformed my view slightly from the question of where Barry Obama was born, to the correct Constitutional question of is Barry Obama a ‘natural born citizen’ from the original intent of the Constitution. The non Constitutional following left wing keeps trying to phrase the question to citizen to try and make out us ‘birthers’ as crazy as ‘truthers’. This is outright misdirection.

As been pointed out on several shows I listen to, Founding Truth for example, I have been gratefully educated on why we need use original static intent instead of living morphing contract. By using an unchanging static definition, we have a standard set of rules by which the government knows and (should) stay within its bounds. Though that’s not to say the Constitution can’t be changed by the means of Article V.

We can learn the meaning of many terms the Founding Fathers used by going to the books of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations. The reason of going to The Law of Nations instead of British Common Law, is because the Founding Fathers wanted to divorce from British system as much as possible. Now the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in the Law of Nations is this:

Book 1 Chapter 19 ( )

§ 212. Of the citizens and naturals.

“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.”

Did you catch that? Born of parents who are citizens. Considering even this (likely forged) COLB proves he isn’t eligible. For even using Barry’s own book OR even their OWN Fight the site, his father Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was a British citizen at the time of his birth. This would make Barry, nothing more than a dual citizen, which means he could NEVER be a ‘natural born citizen’.

Anyway you look at it, with alittle research/resources, Barrack Hussein Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, and is therefore NOT eligible to be President of the US. You may say that ‘he won, it’s too late, get over it’, well, is it too late if the candidate never was eligible in the first place? It’s like saying it’s ok for a guy to win Miss America AFTER you find out it’s a guy.

Which reminds me about Senate Resolution 511. This resolution was passed saying,

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So according to the Senate, John McCain is a ‘natural born citizen’ because he was born to parents who were American citizens, not just one citizen parent.

So then what do we do about the issue? We continue to question boldly those who don’t make this an issue. We continue to fight against the ignoring of the original contract of the States with the Federal government. We continue to educate what the original intent of the Constitution is, and that it shouldn’t be changed by ‘adopting’ different definitions of the words used in it. We need to continue to make this an issue by holding those who were elected and swore an oath to following the Constitution. Barry Obama swore an illegal oath if he is NOT a ‘natural born citizen’ according to the facts that we know. So if we do nothing about this, then the Constitution means nothing.

(Real comments relating to the issue please, this is quite a serious issue.)


2 Responses to “The REAL birther question”

  1. Bigfoot Says:

    If I’m not mistaken, Senator McCain was not born in the Canal Zone, but in a hospital in a nearby Panamanian city. If so, it would mean that he doesn’t fit the “born in the country” part of Vattel’s definition. Which means that BOTH major presidential candidates were ineligible.

    Is this your first post? Welcome to the blogosphere.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: