Natural Born Citizen

“The Obama Eligibility Problem”

by Paul R. Hollrah

The Obama Eligibility Problem – Part I

The Obama Eligibility Problem – Part II

The Obama Eligibility Question – Parts III and IV

The Obama Eligibility Problem – Part V



Should We Elect An American President?

by Alan Korwin

Can just anyone be elected President of the United States? No, of course not. Foreigners for example are not eligible. The Constitution spells out the eligibility standards:

Article II, Section 1: “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.”

As you can see, Article II distinguishes between Citizens and natural born Citizens. Although we know the Founding Fathers used language with extreme care, this is now raising a ruckus. I’m a researcher, I’ve done the legwork, so let me set the record straight. The answers we need are right there in the historical record. This is not a judiciable matter for courts as has been recently suggested, along with other modern-day distractions and red herrings. Here’s the short version.

At the time of our nation’s founding Benjamin Franklin obtained three copies of Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel. There is a record of the acquisition from Franklin backing this up that still exists today. I’ll quote that in a moment. It was the preeminent guide on the subject. Franklin put one in a library, sent one to the College of Massachusetts, and brought one to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia for the delegates to use, which they did.

This book they used defines “natural born citizen” clearly as a person born in a country, both of whose parents are citizens of the country at the time of birth. It’s a plain, clear definition of the term they used in the Constitution.

It’s a three-part requirement. It allows for no foreign birth or parentage in a person who is a natural born citizen. It is distinct from ordinary citizenship. Article II in the Constitution recognizes the distinction.

John Jay, who became our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, sent a letter to George Washington, which also still exists, which I’ll also quote in a moment, confirming that the only way to ensure the U.S. presidency remains free of what today we would call “foreign entanglements” was to require that eligibility be limited to natural born citizens only. Washington replied, thanking him for the advice. In editing the final version of the Constitution, the Framers changed Article II from citizen to natural born Citizen, capitalized that way. Records of all this exist.

There, in a nutshell, is the entire situation.

No court decision is needed. The idea that a court must weigh in because the Founders didn’t define the term in the Constitution is nonsense. It is the same type of nonsense modern people have created to undermine other fundamental elements of our Constitution. The Founders knew exactly what the term meant, just like they knew what “weights and measures” meant when they used that (without defining it) and they used it with precision, for deliberate reason.

The presidency is the only office in our entire legal structure that has this requirement. Citizen appears throughout the law. Natural born citizen appears in one place and one place only—as a requirement for the highest office in the land. You can stop here and you have the truth of the matter, or read further if this interests you and you want the details.

This White Paper is not about liking one candidate over another—I do not endorse or oppose candidates, as people who know me are well aware. This is about liking the Constitution over any candidate. It would be wrong to let the fact that we have allowed a person into office who somehow avoided proper review and does not meet the eligibility requirements stated in our Constitution, to justify offering up additional candidates who similarly do not meet the fundamental test set out in our nation’s charter.

A Way Out of Our Dilemma
Those running who fit this category of ineligible to hold the office of President would do the nation an immense service, cement their place in history forever, and find the love of their countrymen, by stepping down gracefully and with honor. They can state publicly they have seen the light and have come to understand the facts as they should properly be understood. The Constitution comes first.

“Sometimes wisdom comes late,” as Justice Antonin Scalia presciently said. Since they cannot all rise to the top, it would be a far more elegant, courageous and honorable departure than simply conceding the race to someone else based on poll numbers. Such a tactful move would leave them, admired and respected, available for virtually any other office in the land.
[Editor: Short version, 796 words to here]


The documentation

From Ben Franklin’s letter to Charles William Frederic Dumas:
Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.
“…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. Your manuscript “Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel…”
The letter addresses other matters concerning employment of colleagues, and translations of the proceedings of the Congress.

Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen:

Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at § 212:
§ 212: 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.

There is more, concerning ordinary citizens, inhabitants, naturalization, duties and responsibilities of citizenship, renouncing citizenship once you become of age, children born of foreigners, or at sea, it is a complex subject and a big book. Read it all here if you wish:

John Jay Wrote to George Washington:

July 25, 1787
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

In Sep., 1787, the “Committee of Eleven,” chosen at the Constitutional Convention to work out details on numerous occasions, changed the presidential requirement from citizen to natural born citizen, after receiving Jay’s letter. The Convention accepted the changes, hence the wording we have today.

Additional valuable resources

Attorney Mario Appuzo has made this situation a core of his life’s work and has assembled, in one place, the references, if you care to delve more deeply, with links to the complete edition of Vattel and more. He has been attacked by everyone who wants to hide all this from public view. His lawsuit on this issue on behalf of retired Navy Cmdr. Charles Kerchner and others reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was declined.

The Publius Huldah blog has serious flaws but makes interesting reference to the vast array of wild conjecture that has effloresced lately as to what a natural born citizen is, based upon nothing but idle speculation and blather, giving these examples:

Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress may define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.

Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” (available on Amazon) and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868. (For the record, the 14th Amendment did not amend or even address Article II.)

Human Events claimed in 2012 that anyone born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President, and based on a “common-sense logical approach” that includes any foreigner naturalized or otherwise obtaining citizenship as eligible. No support is included (because there isn’t any).

Jake Walker at Red State confuses natural born subjects (a function of the British Crown) and natural born citizens (in this Republic which we fought a war to achieve).

I’ve seen worse examples on TV but didn’t take notes. Rush Limbaugh suggested on radio the issue is not an issue. Bill O’Reilly said on his FOX-TV show The Factor definitively he will not mention the matter again. The collection of official sounding commentary, from Harvard to hashtags, is mind boggling. One learned fellow tells me Article II was added to keep foreign-born Alexander Hamilton out of office, which makes little sense since all Founders were British subjects when the nation began, and Article II accounts for that. CNN has aired a bewildering array of self-contradictory pontification on who is eligible with barely any reference to history, much of it from talking heads whose ignorance of the subject is self evident.

Tokaji and the Tribe Approach
The Donald Tokaji paper for the Michigan Law Review (Vol. 107, 2008), often cited and excellent as far as it goes, puts forth credible arguments for why virtually no one will make it through federal or state courts with challenges to aspirants on natural-born-citizen grounds. Fascinating, well reasoned arguments. It seems he misses only one, addressed at the end of this paper.

Lawrence Tribe, a preeminent scholar of today wisely suggested the matter may never be satisfactorily resolved, saying, “there is no single, settled answer.” He also dubiously said, “There is no defense now for retaining the clause in the Constitution. It really needs to be removed,” according to the venerable New York Times (which went on to suggest removing it, “with a bit of constitutional copy editing,” seriously.)

The National Constitution Center makes reference (as do many) to the 1790 Naturalization Act, to support a broad interpretation, for people born abroad, but that definition includes, “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States…”, not “children of a citizen,” singular. Replete with imperfections and replaced five years later, an act doesn’t amend the Constitution. Tribe believes concepts at the time of adoption would appeal best to originalists, as if this is a flaw. Katyal and Clement, in the Harvard Law Review, argue that one candidate was a citizen from birth, and so is a natural-born citizen, conflating the two terms. And so it goes, expert after expert, none the same, ad infinitum.

A person can become a citizen in many ways, and hold any office, except the presidency, unless the person is a “natural born Citizen” as cited in the Constitution, and for good reason. Natural born citizenship can only be acquired at birth. Let me explain, first by example.

Examples Help Clarify
If both of Marco Rubio’s parents, for example, were Syrian refugees instead of Cuban, we would likely not be having this conversation. Few people would entertain any notion of his eligibility, as if they were the Framers themselves. Likewise, if Ted Cruz had been born in communist North Korea instead of friendly Canada, to an American mom and an Iranian dad, instead of a communist Cuban refugee dad, it would boggle the American psyche—as it would our Founding Fathers, and for the same reasons—possibly divided loyalties and questionable allegiance. Does this help shake your thinking free? Instead of continuing the permutations—

This interesting conundrum riddle teases out the logical errors:

If your parents’ nationality is the requirement—

How can Marco Rubio be eligible?

If your place of birth is the requirement—

Then how can Ted Cruz be eligible?

If both blood and soil are required—

Then how can either be eligible?

If neither is required—

Then who is not eligible?

And if only one out of three is required—

What combination of enemies can be excluded?

So what protection for the office did the Founders provide?

Surely the Founders intended some protective wall around the office in Article II. The deceptive answer being thrown about today is that the Framers believed any toe in the water was sufficient to qualify a person to be Commander In Chief and (to mix time frames) gain access to the nuclear launch codes. North Korean parents? A dad from the Khmer Rouge?

How foreign is too foreign?

The Founders wisely decided that, to avoid any split allegiance, any possibly divided loyalty or conflict of interest, the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, the Chief Executive and President of the United States had to be 100% American. How foreign is too foreign? Any amount of foreign is too foreign—that was their plan, right there in Article II. It can only be changed by amending that specific section of the Constitution itself. That has not happened.

Only pure American by parentage (in Latin it’s called jus sanguinis, by blood) and by place of birth (jus soli, by soil), would do. Vattel defined the constitutional term “natural born Citizen,” and the Founders put it, capitalized that way, in Article II. People are arguing about nbC today, for good reason, and that gets pretty ugly, but they didn’t back then. Let’s proceed, step by step.

When the Constitution was drafted, the presidential requirement distinguished between the Founding Era (“a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”), because no one was a citizen yet, because the nation had just begun. Talk about being precise! This was not a haphazard draft. After the starting period ended, the nbC rule applied. And there you have it.

The sense of things

People have a natural attachment to the land they were born upon, it’s only natural, plus the ancestry of their parents. Proud Americans say they’ve got Greek roots, or are of Irish extraction, or they’re of French descent or Italian stallions and have the T-shirt to prove it. There are lots of T-shirts, worn with fervor and dedication, and for good reason. God bless ’em all.

The news media in 2016 refers to two presidential candidates as Cuban Americans (or a Canadian American). Good for them, but maybe not for the office they seek, if our Founders have anything to say about it. Bobby Jindal (both parents from nuclear-armed India), and Rick Santorum (dad from Italy but perhaps a citizen by the time of birth), dropped out of the race and the public eye early.

Having a native-land attraction is healthy and good. Culturally. But would our Founders believe one parent from an enemy (or any other) foreign nation—and birth on some other country’s land—make a person eligible for the presidency? Now you know—they would not.

A few months ago communist Cuba was a mortal enemy, a human-rights atrocity (still is), willing to deploy nuclear bombs aimed at us. Now they just want to sell us cigars, which unlike cigarettes with fine Virginia leaf tobacco, are highly prized. How do these loyalties switch so fast? (Please skip the tobacco hypocrisy for now.) A bunch of old dead white tobacco growers who got the U.S. started would counsel caution.

The Old Days

All manner of intrigue was the politics of the Founding era, not all that different from today really. The Founders were deeply concerned that the Chief Executive—as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces—should have absolutely undivided loyalty to the nation. The Commander’s allegiance could have no foreign claims or foreign fealty whatsoever. How do you do that?

Back then, your legience (allegiance in modern terms) sprang by the very nature of things, from two natural forces—blood and land. These were natural laws you hear so much about, brought up in the Declaration of Independence. The standards among nations differed, with some recognizing duties and privileges of citizenship based on soil (the place you were born), and others seeing it as a function of blood (parenthood). Some nations considered both relevant. They applied these to subjects. We championed the idea of citizens.

You cannot escape your natural native heritage, even if you hate it, it’s yours. You’re German, Nigerian, Cuban? It is what it is, you are what you are, our Founders understood this. You do too, unless you’re in denial.

Where parenthood was concerned, the mother’s (matrilineal) or father’s (patrilineal) blood was a key, though obviously, the father’s lineage (which Britain favored) could be questionable. No one asks a pregnant woman, “Are you sure it’s yours?”

Blood and soil combined guarantee the greatest likelihood of love and devotion to a nation, so two citizen parents—at the time of birth on native American soil was—many would say wisely—seen as the best natural pedigree to hold the highest office in this land. It is perfectly reasonable. A British officer’s son born to an American woman in Spain who lived there for ten years might have divided loyalties, yes?

The Modern Day

Chris Matthews of MSNBC told Ted Cruz on air about the two-parent requirement (Cruz has only one, his dad’s Cuban). Matthews then referred to the so-called “Boss” requirement (“Born in the U.S.A.,” from the Bruce “The Boss” Springsteen song). Cruz, proud of his foreign birth (he was born in Canada, and held Canadian citizenship until 2014), replied by denigrating Donald Trump on unrelated subjects.

Matthews seized this golden opportunity by not following up, for reasons that remain unclear at press time. All four “questionably” eligible 2016 candidates have argued they are just good enough to go. One drop of American contact, it seems, is enough to satisfy the Constitution in the days of a pen and a phone. And there, my friends, is the root of the real problem.

McCain Grilled by the Senate on C-SPAN

As luck would have it, I flipped on the TV back in April, 2008, and got to watch the entire Senate hearing over John McCain’s eligibility to run for president. It was fascinating, at least to me. With a little tortured logic the committee decided, in a nonbinding resolution, the Panama Canal Zone was indeed U.S. soil, and since both of McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens, he qualified and was good to go.

What was stunning to me however was that the subsequent hearing, for the candidate where there was a real deep eligibility question, the candidate with the Arabic name, was never held. I could never get an answer as to why or how the Senate evaded that hearing. Lots of conjecture and speculation, all of it nasty, and just no examination. And it wasn’t really about the long-stalled birth certificate, though that might have mattered. It was about the acknowledged Kenyan father (and lots of “sealed” records, conveniently ignored). The Kenyan American got a pass.

And now we’re at the real reason, the ugly reason, why Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and the rest will not be found ineligible to become President under Article II, the one item Tokaji omitted, even though you can see they are ineligible. Because: If current candidates are officially determined to be ineligible to be President under Article II, it would mean the person currently in the office of President is ineligible for the same reason. This would lead to a constitutional crisis and charges of misprision of treason beyond anything America could withstand.

A blogger writing as bob68 framed it perfectly, let him speak here:

The reason the meaning of natural born citizen has been tortured into meaning virtually anyone is one is because this discussion is taking place after the commission of a crime “too big to prosecute,” by a lot of rich, powerful and influential people.

Once Congress allowed and assisted the ineligible, identity fraud con artist Barack Hussein Obama to usurp the presidency there was no one complicit in Obama’s successful takeover of America’s highest office, and her military, who was not going to fight, with everything in them, to insure he remains officially a legitimate president. Anything else subjects the complicit, many at the highest possible level, to charges of treason for literally giving America’s government and her military to the enemy.

No amount of history, common sense or anything else will ever get an admission from the media, Congress or the others involved that they were complicit in, as a minimum, misprision of a felony [18 USC §4] or misprision of treason [18 USC §2382] for their part in the biggest hoax in history. Obama must be protected from the truth about him being fully revealed and acted upon. When a regime owns the courts, Congress and the media, that job becomes doable, no matter how compelling or plentiful evidence to the contrary may be.

Supporting and defending as many ineligible presidential candidates as possible is a way of protecting Obama’s false eligibility, as ineligible candidates are molded into natural born citizens by those who want the Obama fraud and their paid assistants to just fade away. Every ineligible candidate accepted as “eligible,” no matter what it takes for that to happen, helps them reach their goal. Those complicit believe their personal freedom could depend on continuing the charade of legitimacy they have surrounded Obama with, both by their actions and inaction.

In Conclusion

So there you have it. The Founders wanted and specified a totally American president: two citizen parents and born here. It is documented beyond reproach in the historical record. Modern wishes that this weren’t so count for nothing. The Founding Fathers’ fears have been realized—all sorts of pretenders have been and are aspiring to the seat of power. Arguments and hyperbole running rampant today confirm the wisdom of the original requirement: Only a natural born Citizen as the Founders understood the term may legitimately hold the office.

If the U.S. Supreme Court gets hold of the issue, which now seems likely, it may find itself compelled to water down the answer to “How foreign is too foreign?” to satisfy the mess we find ourselves in. And as we perhaps officially abandon our Founders’ sage instructions, that dilemma and its unsavory result will afflict this nation for as long as it may continue to exist. May God bless and keep us all.



This White Paper is not about liking one candidate over another—I do not endorse or oppose candidates, as people who know me are well aware. This is about liking the Constitution over any candidate. It would be wrong to let the fact that we have allowed a person into office who somehow avoided proper review and does not meet the eligibility requirements stated in our Constitution, to justify offering up additional candidates who similarly do not meet the fundamental test set out in our nation’s charter.

A Way Out of Our Dilemma

Those running who fit this category of ineligible to hold the office of President would do the nation an immense service, cement their place in history forever, and find the love of their countrymen, by stepping down gracefully and with honor, stating publicly that they have seen the light and have come to understand the facts as they should properly be seen.

“Sometimes wisdom comes late,” as Justice Antonin Scalia presciently said. Since they cannot all rise to the top, it would be a far more elegant, courageous and honorable departure than simply conceding the race to someone else based on poll numbers. Such a tactful move would leave them, admired and respected, available for virtually any other office in the land.

One preemptive word to critics…

… who are already asking where I come off disagreeing with scholars from Harvard (as if this formerly unassailable school still lives up to its reputation), seasoned attorneys (and I’m not even a lawyer), constitutional geniuses (who have the undebatable truth locked down), journalists (though I’m widely published and a 25-year member of the Society of Professional Journalists) and other know-it-alls who I should not dare to impugn, question or challenge:

I faced similar opprobrium when common wisdom insisted the U.S. Supreme Court had said little about guns and everything was a settled matter of law, until I published, after six years of labor in 2003, Supreme Court Gun Cases, with the 92 gun cases the High Court had decided up to that point in time.

By the time the Heller case was decided, the total had risen to 96, the word firearm (in some form) had been used in decisions more than 2,900 times and virtually all the cases were consistent with an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. To this day, “geniuses” like the Associated Press and other ivory-tower scholars insist that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it always used to mean, and doesn’t support the idea that we have gun stores all across this nation for the public to use. My work on natural born citizens and Article II stands despite the interest of some to deny it and concoct realities that do not exist.


Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained



Did Ted Cruz enter the U.S. illegally in 1974?

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD February 11, 2016

This article is a statement of the facts, and is not meant to, or intended to, be interpreted as a political endorsement, or lack thereof, of any political candidate. Family Security Matters takes no political point of view whatsoever.

Exactly how and when did Ted Cruz obtain U.S. citizenship?

The fact that it is still an open question at this stage of the Presidential campaign is a testament either to the galactic ignorance of our political-media elite or their willingness to place political expediency ahead of the
Constitution and the law.

There is no third alternative.

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970 and remained a Canadian citizen until he officially renounced it on May 14, 2014, eighteen months after taking the oath of office as a U.S. Senator. At the time of his birth, Cruz’s father was a citizen of Canada and his mother was a U.S. citizen.

Legally, Cruz could have obtained US citizenship through his mother consistent with Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; the relevant section being 301 (a) (7):

“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

In that case, Cruz’s mother should have filed a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate after the birth to document that the child was a U.S. citizen.

According to Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier, Cruz’s mother did register his birth with the U.S. consulate and Cruz received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.

There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.

First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the “Act of 1947,” Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970. The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?

Second, no CRBA has been released that would verify that Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth.

It has been reported that the then nearly four-year-old Ted Cruz flew to the U.S. from Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1974.

Ted Cruz could not have entered the U.S. legally without a CRBA or a U.S. passport, the latter of which was not obtained until 1986.

If Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth, as his spokeswoman claims, then the CRBA must be released. Otherwise, one could conclude that Cruz came to the U.S. as a Canadian citizen, perhaps on a tourist visa or, possibly, remained in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant.

It is the responsibility of the candidate for the Presidency, not ordinary citizens, to prove that he or she is eligible for the highest office in the land. Voters deserve clarification.

Even assuming a CRBA was filed, the weight of the legal evidence indicates that Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen because he was born outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. and obtained U.S. citizenship by an Act of Congress (Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution). As a naturalized citizen, he is not eligible for the Presidency (Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution).

It is disturbing to this writer that, Ted Cruz, a man who claims to be a “principled conservative” and a staunch supporter of the Constitution, should be so opaque about his personal history and unwilling to release his records.
Does that sound familiar?



Sheriff Arpaio Lead Obama Investigator Talks Article II Presidential Eligibility – 1


Sheriff Arpaio Lead Obama Investigator Talks Article II Presidential Eligibility – 2


Getting Closer! Help Launch The Article II Truth Ad Campaign
Update From Wheres Obama’s Birth Certificate

We would like to thank those that thus far contributed to the Article II Truth Ad Campaign.
As previously stated this is will be an ongoing campaign, and it will only be successful with the help of contributors.

We plan to launch the first Internet ads beginning the last week of January. That gives a little over one week left to raise the initial funds needed to get started. The ads will focus solely on the Article II “Natural Born Citizen” requirement and the 2016 ineligible candidates including Barack Obama a.k.a. Barry Soetoro.

Since the American news media continues to blackout and not report the truth about the Article II eligibility clause we must go around them and inform the American electorate as to the Founders true meaning and intent of the Article II natural born Citizen Requirement.
We release more on are next show on 01/20/201

Help make this campaign successful by contributing today.

Click Here to Donate


Is Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz Eligible for President Of The United States?

In an Article posted in NewWithViews.Com by J. B. Williams on Dec 4, 2015, the issue of Ted Cruz being a Natural Born Citizen and being eligible to hold the office of President of the United States is thoroughly discussed. However, not only is Cruz ineligible for the Presidency but he may be ineligible for the US Senate as he remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing that citizenship in May of 2014!
Please click here to read entire article


What’s a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ and why a U.S. President Must Be One, with KrisAnne Hall


This is an excellent website to understand the term “Natural Born Citizen”


This is an excellent website to understand the term “Natural Born Citizen”


This loads slow

The Smoking Gun – New Additional Evidence Revealed Proving Obama Birth Certificate and PDF Document a Compu…



By J.B. Williams

April 10, 2015

Not so long ago, Americans placed little faith and trust in ambulance chasers (aka lawyers) or politicians, and wisely so according to our Founders who had no faith or trust in any person seeking power and dominion over others. Now, too many Americans place all of their faith in people seeking power and dominion over others, and even worse, a class of people who have already proven most dangerous to the Constitutional Republic and Rule of Law… the lawyer law-makers…

Ever since Barack Obama stole the show at the Kerry Convention in 2004 and rocketed from total obscurity to the most powerful political office in our land four years later, the subject of Article II requirements for the Oval Office has been a subject of great debate, all over three simple words, natural born Citizen (NBC), aka “True Citizen.”

Where did it come from, what does it mean, why did our Founders limit access to only two political offices in our nation to no one other than a natural born Citizen, and what do we do now that we know Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States? These questions have been the source of much political debate, confusion and anxiety, now threatening the GOP as a result of numerous potential 2016 GOP candidates also failing to meet the requirement.

Some of the most blatantly insane arguments have been floated…

“Well, the constitution does not provide a definition for the term”… which is of course true, since the US Constitution provides no definition for any word found in the document.

“Our naturalization laws define natural born Citizen” (when in fact our naturalization laws only pertain to naturalized citizens, immigrants seeking basic citizen rights from congress).

“The courts will have to tell us what the term means”… despite knowing that it is the courts that created terms of art like “undocumented citizen” (aka illegal alien) and “Constitutional Rights for non-citizens and even enemy combatants” (while denying American citizen any constitutional protection of natural rights at all) and “social justice” (the opposite of real justice under Constitutional Law).

Others rely upon “legal scholars” also known as lawyers of the political class in line for political appointments and eager to please those in positions to help them ascend to those lofty positions in the judiciary, ignoring the reality that these scholars have powerful political motivations for the opinions they write, and that no opinion has the power to amend the US Constitution except by amendment process.

The simple truth is that Article II of the US Constitution has only been amended once in US history, by Amendment XII extending the requirements for President to the Vice President as well. It has not been otherwise amended, despite at least eight failed attempts by congress to eliminate the natural born requirement for high office. Further, no amendment has ever mentioned, changed or in any way altered the original meaning of natural born Citizen as intended by our Founders and ratified by all fifty states.

So, the term natural born Citizen means the same today as it did in 1787 when the Founders placed that requirement in Article II… unless you buy into the notion that naturalization statutes or amendments, or scholarly legal arguments carry with them the legal force to amend the constitution – in which case, the term has no meaning at all, and neither does anything else in our Founding documents.

Before Barack Obama arrived on the scene, the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and no verifiable past, not too many Americans ever thought about the term. Most Americans assumed that no one would ever be bold enough to attempt such a massive fraud by falsely claiming natural born eligibility, and they assumed that if anyone ever did make such an attempt, our strict election laws, free press and national security agency oversight would surely catch it, expose it and stop it from happening. These assumptions have proven to be wrong… in fact, such attempts are now becoming common place. Barack was the first, but now there are others…

Most Americans have entered the discussion from a purely political purpose, attempting to either qualify their political messiah of choice, or disqualify another. But the natural born Citizen concept is actually far more important to our society than merely who can and cannot hold the office of Commander-in-Chief.

I was recently asked a question I have been asked literally thousands of times since I started writing on the subject, how do I know for sure what the Founders meant by natural born Citizen?

How do we know what any word or phrase means? Most people reach to their book shelf and grab a dictionary when they want to know the true definition of a word of phrase. Most people have never come upon a word or phrase that they needed a lawyer, or a court, or anything more than a dictionary to properly interpret… I find this to be the case here as well.

People don’t have any trouble understanding the word “born” (the moment of birth) or the word “citizen” (a legal member of a society). The word people seem to struggle with is “natural.”

At this moment, a collective effort is underway to claim that the following three words are synonymous… natural – native – naturalized…. Which would make anyone eligible for the Oval Office, including the courts new citizen class the“undocumented citizen.”

People trying to disqualify John McCain in 2008 decided that natural and native are synonymous terms and people now trying to qualify Obama, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are claiming that natural, native and naturalized are all synonymous terms of art. Before they can eliminate the NBC requirement from Article II, they must first make the term ambiguous, potentially having more than one meaning… of course…

Any dictionary will disagree with these claims

Naturalized – “to admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country.”

Native – “being the place or environment in which a person was born.”

Natural – “existing in or formed by nature.”

Clearly, these three words have three very different definitions and meanings, only one of which is related to the Constitutional requirement for the Oval Office… “Natural.”

As a simple dictionary review confirms, these three words are in no way synonymous. It is not possible for the following three terms to be synonymous,natural born, native born and naturalized. Yet, many will continue to make the false claim that they are… because they believe these claims to suit their political agenda of the moment.

Many know exactly what natural born Citizen means, and still, for political expediency, they refuse to stand on this truth. Just this morning another “political commentator” wrote me this…

“NATIVE BORN CITIZENS ARE DIFFERENT… .. I see the reference to the father’s citizenship alone as determinING the birthright of the child… BUT YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT AINT GONNA FLY today NO MORE THAN DENYING WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE. YOU WILL ALIENATE HALF THE COUNTRY WITH SUCH NONSENSE”Scott Rohter (exactly as sent to me, yelling caps and all)

As you can see, Mr. Rohter first confirms that he is aware of the truth, before shifting to all CAPS to scream his refusal to stick to the truth, referring to that truth as “nonsense” because that truth will offend some who do not like this truth. It is this practice which has made the NBC term appear “ambiguous,” opening the door for the lawyer law-making political class to enter the discussion with new invented definitions of the term.

As Mr. Rohter confirmed in our exchange, we agree on 99% of the issues… unfortunately, the 1% we disagree on is the most important – of critical importance, especially at this moment in history, when every American must deal only in truth. Mr. Rohter is not alone in his position. Numerous others have made the same false claims for exactly the same reasons.

The Harvard Lawyers are intentionally lying to the people when claiming NBC is synonymous with naturalized citizen at birth. But people like Rohter are also intentionally lying to the people for their set of political reasons. Both are responsible for allowing unconstitutional candidates to seek and hold the most powerful office in our land, that of Commander-in-Chief.

The term natural born Citizen is based on historical concepts as old as all recorded time. If you want to know where and why the Founders borrowed the term for Article II, I cover that in this piece… and if you want to know the true historical definition of the term, I cover that in this piece.

Natural born Citizen is a term based in biblical teachings based upon the concepts of a patriarchal society wherein in the Father is the head of the family unit. The intentional destruction of the family unit has greatly complicated the discussion with scholarly changes in the definition of words like marriage, family and shifting gender roles forced by liberal restructuring of American society, also for political purposes.

14th Naturalization Amendment terms like “citizen at birth” and “birthright citizenship” have been intentionally been tossed into the mix to further complicate the understanding of three basic English words defined in every English dictionary. The purpose of all these efforts is to eliminate the NBC requirement for office by simply redefining the term. But that is not the only purpose…

Setting politics aside for a moment, natural born Citizenship is the inalienable natural right of every child to inherit the country of their natural birth father upon birth, not only due to no application of man-made statute or legal opinions, but inalienable by these means.

When people begin to play with definitions, it is an overt effort to alter our Founding principles and values and Constitutional protections of all inalienable Natural Rights as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a much larger issue than who can or cannot occupy the Oval Office, although this is indeed an issue paramount to the sovereignty and security of these United States.

Contrary to the intentional mis-education of American society, we do not enjoy “constitutional rights.” We have long enjoyed “constitutionally protected Natural Rights.”

Beginning in 2008, when folks were trying to disqualify John McCain, born the son of American parentage stationed abroad in Panama on the service of our country with the U.S. Navy, some plucked a single sentence from the proper source of the Founders NBC term, The Law of Nations by Vattel, as if they believe that it was unnecessary for Vattel to take great care to write an entire chapter on the subject, when a single sentence says it all.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

As already demonstrated above, natives and naturals are in fact two different things, which confirms that the structure of this single sentence is not the definition of any one thing, but rather a general statement about more than one thing… Reference to “parents” does not mean both parents within the family unit, but rather all citizen family units which bear “citizen” children.

Why did these individuals not pluck any of the following single sentences from Vattel, appearing in the same paragraph Section 212 of Chapter XIX of the Law of Nations?

“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.”

Or this one – “as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”

Or this one – “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

Or even this one – “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.”

When trying to sum up natural born Citizen using a single sentence from Vattel, any of the four sentences above would be accurate. So, why didn’t the people who cherry-picked the unrelated general sentence pluck any of these other single sentences from the same paragraph?

There are two reasons… first, the truth did not suit the political agenda, which was to disqualify John McCain on the basis that although he was born to a citizen father (and mother), he was born in Panama, not on US soil – and second, because the progressive shifting definitions of marriage and family, along with gender roles lead many to believe that the original definition and Founders intent of the term are antiquated and outdated. It leads many to falsely think it is some offense to women’s rights…

The Citizenship Act of 1934 pertaining only to “naturalized citizenship” is the cornerstone of today’s effort to destroy the NBC term and thereby eliminate the requirement from Article II. FDR’s Naturalization Act was the result of an international treaty from a Pan American conference of December 26, 1933, essentially agreeing that there should be no distinction between the sexes as it related to nationality under legislative processes. Of course, this pertained only to “naturalized citizenship” under congressional naturalization legislation.

Still, it has since been improperly used to claim that citizenship and even natural born Citizenship can pass from either Father or Mother, as a matter of alleged gender equality. Yet, this claim pertains only to naturalized citizenship, which is mutually exclusive of natural born Citizenship.

As all governmental power in the United States is limited in nature and derived from the people, nothing beyond what which was ratified by the people in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is under the consent of the people. The people have not consented to any alterations of Article II requirements for high office, so no alterations have been legally made.

Why natural born Citizen is non-negotiable

Much more than a political ambition or agenda is at stake here… The Natural Right of every child to inherit the condition of their birth family, specifically that of the Father (patriarch), the head of the family, is a constitutionally protected Natural Right.

Americans must understand that everything our Founders created was based upon inalienable Natural Rights, not man-made laws via legislative process or judicial review. When anyone begins to mess around with natural born, they are in fact messing around the Natural Law and all Natural Rights, the cornerstone of our Founders creation and any form of freedom and liberty.

If a child born to an American Father is stripped of their Natural Right to inherit the country of their Father, what other Natural Rights can be stripped from the child or the parent by mere man-made statute, court interpretation or Harvard Law Review? The answer is all of them…

In my personal opinion, the three most important words in all of the US Constitution are natural born Citizen… because all Natural Rights flow through this patriarchal social concept and the sovereignty and security of our Constitutional Republic are protected from foreign invasion at the highest level by these three simple words, natural born Citizen.

Once any citizen of any type, by any means, including “undocumented citizens” can occupy the Oval Office, then any foreign entity can occupy that office, controlling the future of this nation and form of freedom and liberty itself as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force on earth.

Mere momentary political interest is not enough reason to let everything die…

I pray that Americans will cease to be so blind and foolish…. quickly!

© 2015 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved



United States Constitution
Article. II. Section. 1.

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.


Natural Born Citizen Part I

Natural Born Citizen Part II

Check out