The Natural Born Citizen Issue and Barack Obama, continued

US CONSTITUTION, Article 2, Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows...

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.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

...Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation

:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."




In 1833, in Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473

“ It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for 14 years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen [to speak of those to who fought the Revolutionary War] to become President is an exception [read: "the only exception" -- Brianroy] from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits and painful to their sensibilities.

But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.”

See Story’s bio: http://www.constitution.org/js/js_001.htm

If Story is correct as to Constitutional Intent, Obama is disqualified in allegiance and residence in a foreign country, i.e. Indonesia, even as a boy, in that regard.

Treaty Obligations:
The NY Times stated that it was investigated and ruled that FDR JR. “never can carry that great name back into the White House”, because he was born in Canada, despite being born to two natural-born US Citizens themselves. This FDR Jr. was the second so named, born in 1914. Because of a Treaty with Canada, FDR Jr. was never to have anything near a "natural born" status, no matter how liberals abuse and manipulated the wordings of naturalized with native-born ( NY Times, May 26, 1946). Because of Treaties with Great Britain, there must be a legal distinction made in regard to Barack Obama's multi-national status. He was born a natural born citizen of Kenya in 1961, with an "anchor birth" second class US citizen status IF: 1) his mother was of age 19 under 1961 US Law (which she wasn't); and, 2) no foreign power could lay claim sole nationality upon him.
In Kenyan Law, the only recognized citizen status is that of Kenyan with a British Commonwealth duality. Kenya does not allow dual national citizenry with any other nation than the United Kingdom. In Indonesian Law, the step-father adopted Barack to an exclusive Indonesian citizenry that does NOT recognize dual US, Kenyan, or British nationalities. To be a citizen of Indonesia, is to be a loyal and allegiant Indonesian. Each day, Barack pledge loyalty to the Dictator and Nation of Indonesia at school. The mother under US Law abandoned allegiance to the US by marrying a foreign soldier in a foreign army, and moved to that one's home country. She abandoned her US Citizenship by that act. Barack atended the same school as the grandchildren of Indonesia's dictator, meaning a written and verbal pledge of fidelity with a loyalty background vetting was conducted. If Ann Dunham-Obama-Soetoro had married a Russian Communist Army Officer and moved Barack to Moscow, USSR, and that step-father adopted Barack, would the Communist-Socialist Left still have a problem electing Barack to be President? Really? A Communist zealot with anarchist tendencies against Democracy and Christianity would have any reservation electing a Communist to subjugate the US? Obama is equally as guilty a traitor and foreign usurper as if he had been taken to Moscow and adopted instead of Jakarta, Indonesia under US Law. The same US Law that those Quislings in power will not allow to be openly presented in a Court of Law, or in a nationally televised US Senate hearing on the matter.

A Partial Listing of Relevant Material Involved in stating the Illegality of Obama, focusing on the Natural Born Status and related material:
Supreme Court Cases that would be cited:

1. THE UNITED STATES v. VILLATO, 2 U.S. 370 (1797)
2. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
3. Jackson ex Dem. People of State of New York v. Clarke 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 1 (1818)
4. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
5. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830)
6. Dred Scott 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 (1856)
7. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
8. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
9. Rector, etc. of HolyTrinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
10. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
11. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
12. Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
13. Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)
14. Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
15. Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944)
16. Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946)
17. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)
18. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
19. Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958)
20. Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)
21. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
22. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)
23. School Dist. of Abington TP. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963)
24. Kennedy v .Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)
25. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
26. Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
27. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969), dissent
28. Rogers v. Bellei 401 US 815, 826 (1971)
29. Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
30. Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981)
31. Steel Co. v. Citizens, 523 US 83 (1998)
32. Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001)
33. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
34. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

District Case
1. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al. (1992) 14th Amendment

Documents that would be cited:
1. Charter of Georgia: 1732
2. Resolutions of the Continental Congress October 19, 1765
3. Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress OCTOBER 14, 1774
4. Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777
5. Letter of John Jay to George Washington July 25, 1787
6. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
7. 113 Congressional Record 15,880 (1967) (Brief of the Hon. Pinckney G. McElwee): note 15
8. DoD 5220.22-M, "National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual," 2/28/2006
9. Dunham /Obama divorce decree (missing Barack's Birth Certificate on p.11)


Acts and Codes:
1. US Constitution, Article 2
2. US Constitution Article 5
3. US Constitution, Article 14
4. The Logan Act (est. 1799)
5. Hawaiian Act 96 (effective 1911-1972)
6. The Act of May 24, 1934, ch. 344, 48 Stat. 797
7. 11CFR 9036, Campaign laws
8. 2 USC 437, Campaign laws
9. 2 USC 438, Campaign laws
10. 8 USC 1401(a)(7) {repealed in1972}
11. 8 USC 1401 (a)(1)
12. 8 USC 1481(a)(2)
13. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 @ 301

What is natural born in American Law? In America, I would argue that this is understood as an archaic Christian term. Natural Born is a status term, as far as the US Legal definition is concerned, that is rooted in our nation's founding history and Protestant Christianity.

This nation was founded through Christian pilgrims, Christian migration, and Christian refugees more than on any other in the first century of its founding. Perhaps the first mass migrations beginning after King Charles dissolved Parliament in 1629, sparking an exodus pioneered by the Puritans in 1630 with another 1200 vessels of people and ships that soon followed after.

In 1632, taxes first began to appear in Watertown, and with it, began the rise of American colonists to demand to be represented in all matters, with the implementation starting in 1634. Roger Williams taught that civil government has not the power over man’s conscious duty to G-D or to his relationship with the Deity, or words to this effect. The only difference between Church and State was that worship should not be “forced”…because “forced worship stincks”, he wrote. By 1639, the lands of Connecticut were being settled, and the formation of local government quickly organized the inhabitants of recognized towns into voting 4 town representatives to meet and represent their interests at the general assembly of the Commonwealth, now already having their own constitution.

The representatives were to be those who lived among and would intimately know and represent the interests of the town they were sent from. The representation was to be a natural representation from the view of wilderness survival, which is what Connecticut still essentially was at the time.

Because these were extremely Biblically literate societies being raised up, mixing Christianity in their Government until well after the 1790s, they would have used a Biblical over a Civic or Secular definition of ”natural born” as it has been idiotically agnosticated in our day.

The natural born definition as opposed to unnatural born, is derived from the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. In Genesis 3:15, we find that Christ is born supernaturally, of a virgin…of a woman. A natural born child then receives his origin from the seed of his father.

The theology then points to a coming Christ or Anointed One in the Bible, who is a natural born descendant of the fathers of a particular lineage until the supernatural or unnatural birth through a final daughter whose fathers were of such a lineage. Religiously, then, “natural born” follows the lineage of the fathers, even as Jesus Christ was able to claim to be of the seed of David through his natural born mother, He himself was NOT natural born but supernaturally born.

If Israel had a Constitution that declared only a “natural born” citizen of the tribes of Israel had the right to be President or Prime Minister, Christ would be disqualified by that language from that office. He was born supernaturally by only the mother, and had no citizen father, or the seed of one in Him. Since Christ is theologically the rightful King of Israel, he wouldn’t need to be its President or Prime Minister anyway. So on the America’s time period of 1609 to 1790, Congress issuing Christian Bibles to read and study in school, the Ivy Universities being mostly untainted seminaries and the like, natural born is an easily understood term by those NOT Biblically unknowing or illiterate.

Barack Obama’s father was not a civic leader or representative of Honolulu, Hawaii
or anywhere in the United States or of one of its territories. He did not vote; he did not own land; he did not file papers to in anyway attach himself to the United States or any part of it. Barack Sr. had NO natural attachments to the US or any part of it. Any offspring he had, would never be “natural born” in regard to a US citizenship in 18th Century American or US Constitutional interpretation, regardless of the race or ethnic aspect.

In at least 24 Supreme Court Cases, as cited in the first 29 above, not once is there a natural born US citizen outside the presumption of being birthed from the seed of a US Citizen Father or one who is presumed to be a US Citizen Father. If Barack's Kenyan Father was not known, the issue would rest on his Indonesian status v. US status, because the father would have been presumed as a US Citizen Father. This is not the case. Because Obama's father is known as a foreigner with foreign allegiances his entire life, it is impossible to call Barack Obama a US natural born...he can only be a natural born of the country of his father, which is Kenya. Hence, Barack has illegally obtained the US Presidency and needs to resign immediately, be arrested, tried, and convicted. That conviction sentence in severity or lightness would be up to Justice Roberts and the US Senate, apparently.

By Constitutional Law, we have the right to demand the dismissal of BOTH Barack Obama and Joe Biden, as cited in the opening of this post. It seems that this is our only recourse, pending an emergency election. Because Nancy Pelosi was complicit, she should also face prison time and Felony Charges, including Conspiracy - Fraud - Treason, along with Barack and Joe. It will be a new experience in US Politics, and untrodden ground.

In Romans 13:1-3, we find that the Scriptures allow us to challenge Obama peacefully and legally within the Law of Ordinances, the "diatage", that have been given us. We
therefore, when faced with someone who has atained power by unlawful means - conspiracy - and deception, are called to take legal and peaceful recourse, and are allowed by US Law and (if it please Him) by Almighty G-D to challenge Obama in such a manner. We show respect to the Office and extend the proper courtesy, but we...like Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael in ancient Babylon in Daniel chapter 3... will not bow to Satan's ambassador nor sing his praises, even if it means a violent death for peaceably obeying G-D. That is my input.