Posts Tagged ‘Natural Born Citizen’





First off, let me start by saying that I respect Senator Ted Cruz, and I think he is a true statesman & warrior for liberty. I honestly do. However, as much I like him, I still have the knowledge that he is not eligible to be the President of the United States under the Constitution’s eligibility clause. This post will go into great detail to educate my readers on the facts and the intent of the founders when they wrote the constitution.

Lets start with a short prayer & spiritual verse —


“Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.” ~ 2 Tim 2:23   

Since Monday, March 23, 2015, when Senator Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for the POTUS, there are folks who are all on board with him and believe that he is eligible because they like him. There are also the liberal lefties that are yelling that he’s not eligible because they hate him. The republican establishment hates him too. Remember John McCain & the “Wacko Bird” comment last year? Planned Parenthood hates him. Whoopie Goldberg hates him.

All of these are GREAT REASONS to support him.





The Constitution and its meaning — “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.”

Now lets delve, in depth, on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

1st – The founders used a reference book called the ‘Law of Nations’ by Vattel.

“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 indigenes, 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. . .”


Read more here.
Now I’ve seen several articles recently posted that argue that the word ‘indigenes’ was changed in Vattel’s english translation AFTER the constitution was written. “Indigenes” was changed to “natural born citizen” in 1797. Here’s one of those articles;






Click any image to enlarge it.    







“In 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote a gracious note to Charles Dumas, for “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.” Franklin also stated that Vattel’s treatise was, “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress.” (From a letter, Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas, Dec. 19, 1775.) …”


[It is unknown whether or not the edition sent to Franklin was in English or French. Franklin could read both languages as could many of the founders.]


Vattel’s treatise was first published in 1758, in French. The first edition contains the exact same passage as the 1775 edition give to Franklin by Dumas. In 1759, the first English edition was published in London, translated as follows:

“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 indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature”, E. de Vattell, (London, 1759), § 212, pg. 92. (App. Pg. 159.)

“Les naturels, ou indigenes”, was not accurately translated. The proper translation of “indigenes” is “natives”. The 1759 London edition makes the mistake of repeating the same word twice, once in English and once in French; “natives or indigenes” means “natives or natives”.

The influence of the U.S. Constitution may have played a part in correcting the error, since, in the 1797 London edition, and thereafter, the French passage was correctly translated as follows:

“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.” (Emphasis added.) “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature”, E. de Vattell, (London, 1797), § 212, pg. 101.
(App. Pg. 161.)


Now let us look at the author


Jacobson is a 1981 graduate of Hamilton College and a 1984 graduate of Harvard Law School.


Jacobson goes on to say  —


Additionally, Vattel did not purport to explain the meaning of the term in the context of British law or the common understanding in the British American colonies or newly formed United States. It is, at best, highly speculative to assert that the Framers looked to Vattel for the definition of “natural born Citizen.”


Sorry if I don’t put ANY FAITH in what a Harvard Law Graduate has to say.


2nd item – People are claiming this is factual because of the “Legal Scholars” that wrote it.

Notice at the TOP it says — “Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement written March 11, 2015.”

Remember, Lawyers say things like, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

Yep, This is not liberal at all <sarcasm>
Let’s look at Neal Katyal for a moment — He’s Part of the Clinton & Obama Cabal.

And Paul Clement — He’s just another Indoctrinated Lawyer





3rd item – The founders while writing the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, were well aware of the term “Natural Born Subjects” used in many historic documents.

As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.
The rule of jus soli goes back to at least 508 BC in Athens, when it was used to establish citizenship in districts called demes. The Romans mainly used jus sanguinis to organize the empire into national groups each with its own legal system (although they had to introduce the office of praetor peregrinus to adjudicate disputes between members of different groups). However, the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD made jus soli the rule for the entire Empire. The rule was carried to France and England under Roman domination, and the Normans adopted it and spread it to Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.

However, jus sanguinis prevailed in many Eastern and Central European countries at the time Vattel wrote, and spread to other countries on the European continent. It displaced jus soli in Britain in 1983 and in France in 1993, mainly in response to immigration of persons of different ethnicity.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz

Born December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, of a father who was a citizen of Cuba, and a mother who was a citizen of the U.S.

Sen. Cruz is not eligible to be president…



Jon Roland Bio




4th item – Those arguing the Naturalization ACT, or the 14th Amendment, are completely irrelevant. Those items are refering to citizenship and NOT the Natural Born Citizen clause of the US Constitution.



5th item – Go dig up your OWN Birth certificate. Look at it. Who was it issued by? It is issued by either the STATE in which you were born, or maybe the ‘County’ within the STATE that you were born. We are not citizens of the USA, we are citizens of a Sovereign State, that is a PART of the United States of America.

Senator Ted Cruz can not be eligible as a natural born citizen because he was not born in any of the sovereign states that make up the USA. He is considered a US Citizen, due to his mothers citizenship but he does not meet the requirement of being a natural born citizen. Plus his father was a Cuban Citizen at the time of his birth. As we’ve established above, citizenship follows the Father. As does a last name. Only in the Liberal world of misfits here in the USA can a child take a mothers last name or a hyphenated name — Those dang Wacko Birds!


Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge





6th item – Here is a link to every president and what made them eligible or not.




Misc. Links








Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Fifth Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen.

Read Full Post »

Update February 3, 2012 – Judge Malihi ignores the evidence presented and sides with Soetoro.

It’s a sad day. Our beloved Republic has died.


Update January 31,2012 – 1st Court Transcript released:



I’d suggest each of you save a copy of this PDF file offine for future reference.

Update – “Judge Malihi was “Prepared” to enter a default judgment but that would have been without any testimony being heard. We had to get the testimony in the courts records so the offer of a default was refused and the case proceeded, without a Defense council presentation. Now we will await his ruling on this and the various motions submitted by the Plaintiffs.” (via Carl Swensson)


The Georgia Secretary of State has already stated that he will follow the Judges Recommendations.


Here’s a little more thorough report from this morning.


By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am  EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.

Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.

After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.

Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his, and his clients peril.

Game on.

5 minutes.

10 minutes.

15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.

20 minutes.

It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plantiffs table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.

Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?

Certainly not.

Court is called to order.

Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

June 27th 1962 is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the freedom of information act.

Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.

Carl Swensson takes the stand.

Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.

2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.

Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.

RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.

DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.

Dreams From My Father entered.

Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.

Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.

This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.

At this point, the judge takes a recess.

The judge returns.

David Farrar takes the stand.

Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.

Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.

Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in the year 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

Same SS number came up with addresses in IL. , D.C. , Mass. , and Conn. (Note -The Mass. reference here is for the location of the PHONE Records associated w/ the SSN. See the Scribed.com link at the bottom of this post)

Next witness takes the stand.

This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.

Linda Jordan takes the stand.

Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E-Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

Next witness.

Mr. Gogt.

Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in photo shop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.

States this is a product of layering.

Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.

Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.

Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.

Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided in MA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.

Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.

Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Soetoro, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.

Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.

Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.

Taitz shows records for Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.

Taitz takes the stand herself.

Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.

Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.

Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.

And with that, the judge closes the hearing.

What can we take away from this?

It’s interesting.

Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.

One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.


Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his social security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.

One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.

What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.

It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.

Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.

Message posted  January 27, 2012 on Facebook from Carl Swensson:

I’m not perfect and in a moment of weakness made a bad judgement call. This is what I just sent to all involved…

Dear Cody Judy,

I do have regrets that I mentioned her and her case in a negative way and can offer no excuse since any difference I have must be delivered in person. That situation did not occur yesterday though I was fully prepared for that. What you saw was my frustration at not being able to deliver that message.

As to what went on yesterday… It has taken 2 years of constantly getting before my State reps with special emphasis on Brian Kemp, to get these challenge hearings established which he did. For that I will forever be in his debt as a voter and now staunch supporter. His assigning this Judge meant a very special alignment of the stars had just occurred and the opportunity to get, on open record, the issue of nbC status which we did. That has been and remains the focus of my efforts. Remember, this was a challenge hearing, not a court case. Orly did use this as a platform to get her issues on record but has never acknowledged the hard work of others to make this day happen. Yeah, I find that a bit disconcerting and again, that’s unfortunately, what came out.

My thinking, whether some feel it’s flawed or not, is to take the direct approach to get him off the ballot based on the only pleadings that could be applicable in this hearing. If or once that occurs, the criminal issues will necessarily follow and that is where She can do the most good. ALL the records are now entered into evidence and both Mark and Van did a masterful job of crafting them submitting them and entering them. Both were extremely careful to draw the line of separation between what we were doing and what Orly intended to do. Only Mark put forth the motion to shift the burden of proof from the Plaintiff’s to the Defense and that has yet to be ruled on. If we get a favorable ruling on that one point alone, all future Pres. Candidates will have to put up or shut up when seeking their name placement on GA’s ballot.

So, in closing, I’d like to offer you my apology for making the derogatory statement concerning her actions in court. I reduced myself in that moment. We are all in this fight and I agree this type of infighting is uncalled for. My bad.

Please share with everyone on your list.

Carl Swensson

Other links and information:










Addendum #1 –


There is an urgent need to send messages of support to Judge Malihi, the judge who heard the Georgia Obama Ballot Challenge on 1-26-2012. We need to send Judge Malihi a note of thanks for his courage and willingness to stand for the US Constitution.

Here is Judge Malihi’s web site.

Send your appreciation to:

Contact:  Valerie Ruff for Judge Malihi Case Management Assistant

Tel: (404) 651-7595   

Fax: (404) 818-3751


Call, email respectful appreciation. Some have said it’s essential for Judge Malihi to sense that “we the people” are behind him and his action. So let’s remove any doubt the Judge might have of the strong support we’re offering.

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Sixth Day of January in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand Twelve.

Read Full Post »