Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC).

While a natural born citizen is obviously a citizen at birth, not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal.

There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401, that grants “natural born citizenship” to anyone. The legal term of art “natural born citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Title 8 Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “citizen” or a “national” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., a basic “citizen at birth”. The Section 1401 law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law, not by nature. The legal term of art “citizen at birth” is not the same legally as the legal term of art “natural born citizen”. Simply note that in one case we are talking about who is at least an ordinary, basic “citizen” at birth with no adjectives in front of the word citizen, and in the other case we have two very important adjectives placed in front of the word citizen by the framers of the Constitution, i.e., “natural born” citizen. That specific type of citizenship and “legal term of art” was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise “The Law of Nations”, published in 1758, in which he said that … a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country. And this group or class of citizens are the most populous group of any nation.

Most citizens of the USA are natural born citizens. Most citizens of the USA were born in the USA to two parents who were citizens of the USA. And that is the pool of citizens that must be chosen from for the singular most powerful office in our nation, the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. Simple citizenship at birth by being born in the USA without regard to the citizenship status of both your parents … or by naturalization and swearing an oath to this country and renouncing all allegiances foreign kings, princes, and potentates later as an adult, is adequate for the offices of Senator, Representative, or a Governor of a state. But it is not sufficient to be the President under Article II, to Constitutional standards. Article II requires that the person to be eligible to be President must be a “natural born citizen”. And that means that person must be born in the USA … AND … both his parents must be citizens of the USA.

Natural born citizenship status in a nation is granted by the facts of nature of your birth. No law or statute is necessary to grant it. The nations can make any law they wish to make a person a citizen at birth or later. But natural born citizenship can only be conveyed by nature by the facts at birth of the child. If you are born in the country of two citizen parents you are “naturally” … a “natural born citizen” … a citizen too … but a specific kind of citizen who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military since the child when born has sole allegiance to this country and there is no claim on him/her by a foreign country or power as to their citizenship at birth by that country too. Natural born citizens have unity of citizenship at birth. A natural born citizen is NOT a dual citizen at birth. A natural born citizen has no divided loyalty issues by his birth since the child was born in the country to two citizens of the country.

See this chart showing the five types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S Constitution:


And natural born citizens are not rare in the USA. The natural born citizens are by far the most populous group in the nation. And it from this group, under Article II of our Constitution, we are to choose our President and Commander-in-Chief, the group with sole allegiance at birth to the USA and only the USA, not someone who has foreign and/or dual citizenship and divided loyalties at and by birth.

Obama’s father was not a citizen of the USA, nor was he an immigrant to the USA, nor was he even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject via his British Subject father, per the British Nationality Act of 1948 which governed the status of children born to British Subjects. Obama thus was born with dual citizenship and allegiances and a foreign claim on his allegiance. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA and he is not eligible to be the President under Article II of our U.S. Constitution. He is a Usurper.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al

Source: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA”

  1. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Natural born citizens have unity of citizenship at birth.”

    Who says, other than Vattel, and what evidence is there that the writers of the Constituition followed him in this? They did not accept many Vattel recommendations, such as the one that said that each nation should establish its own state religion and force people to worship in it.

    Natural Born was a common legal expression in the colonies before the Revolution, and it simply meant born in the colony, regardless of the number of parents who were citizens or subjects.

    And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)


    Gov. Bobby Jindal, who delivered the Republican response to Obama’s speech, said: “Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President’s personal story – the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.”

    Jindal, of course, would be even less of a citizen under Vattel’s concept because neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. His mother was about three months pregnant when they came to the USA.

    There are a couple of other arguments against “the two parents plus born in the USA theory” besides the common law.

    The first of these is the strict construction approach. If the framers of the Constitution had wanted us to understand that “Natural Born Citizen” should mean either two US parents or two US parents and be born in the USA, surely they would have said so. By not saying so, they certainly knew that people could think that they meant the common law definition of Natural Born Citizen as the equivalent of “Natural Born Subject.” So, for them to not clarify, must have meant that the Common Law definition was just fine.

    A second point is with the logic of the parents being citizens at the time of birth. Under this theory if one of my parents gets naturalized one day after I was born, I’m not eligible. If both are naturalized a minute before I am born, I am eligible. This may be useful as an arbitrary breakdown of who should and should not be president, but what is the REAL sense behind it? Does the fact that someone was naturalized before really make a difference to someone’s loyalty? What evidence is there that the framers though this, instead of the more commonly used rule of birth in the country, used by the Common Law?

    And finally, does the allegiance of the parent really affect the loyalty of a child at all? If my father was a Baptist, does this mean that I have to stay a Baptist all my life? No, of course not. And, the same about my father being a Kenyan. If my father were a Kenyan, in later years I might have an allegiance to Kenya, or I might not—just like my allegiance to the Baptist religion. There is no evidence that the framers of the Constitution thought any differently. They did require that the president must be 35 years old, 14 years a resident and a natural born citizen. But Natural Born Citizen does not require the president to wear suspenders and a belt. All he has to be is born in the USA—and, of course, elected.

    So, would the Supreme Court rule that Obama was not a natural born citizen? At least two justices had fathers who were born in Italy (Alito and Scalia), and they are the ones who would be asking “If my father was naturalized after my birth instead of before my birth, would I be any less loyal?” And they are among the strict constructionists who would be asking: “If the framers had meant to require two parents who were already US citizens at the time of birth, why didn’t they say so?”

  2. Sally Hill says:

    I believe both Alito and Scalia – if true Judges – would recognize that they would never be allowed to be POTUS. Being born, raised, and loyal to the US are wonderful qualities, and just because you aren’t a natural born citizen, doesn’t make you any less American than the next guy. A citizen, is a citizen no matter what – but when it comes to the Commander in Chief, I think the founders knew exactly what they were doing in insisting that person be free of any and all possible outside influences upon loyalty and allegience.

    Obama said he was born in Hawaii – and I believe him.
    Obama said he was born with governance by British Law – and I believe him.
    Obama stated in a speech that he is a Citizen of the World – and I believe him.

    How can a self-proclaimed Citizen of the World (one who pledges NO allegience to ANY nation) governed at birth by British Law, be a natural born citizen of the US?

    Some say his British citizenship expired on his 21st birthday…but that SHOULDN’T have to happen…there should be NO doubt as to his citizenship at birth or at age 21. If he was a natural born citizen there would be NO other citizenship than that of US citizenship.

    You can poopoo this issue and say – he is as American and you and I. But then, my response to that is…I’ve never travelled to Kenya (the land of his father) to campaign for a paternal relative who happens to believe in Sharia Law. I wouldn’t do that, because as a Natural Born Citizen, both my maternal and paternal parents are US Citizens – so my allegience is simple and without question – United States.

    You can poopoo this issue and say – well, he wasn’t acting out of loyalty to his father. But then my response to that is….perhaps then he believes in the very Un-American ideal of Sharia Law as evidenced by his appointment of Harold Koh as a legal advisor. Koh not only believes in Sharia Law, but also the very Un-American ideal of TRansnationalism. If you don’t REALLY know what these terms mean – I would invite you to look them up.

    So….can be we 100% certain, given not only the facts (Kenyan father), confession (Citizen of the World) and Obama’s own actions (travelling to Kenyna) that he has one and only one allegience – that of the United States?

    The unfortunate answer to that is no. He may be as American as Apple Pie and as pure as the driven snow – but by his own heritage, words, and actions we have no way to know that 100%.

    I believe Obama – do you?

  3. ramjet767 says:

    Meet the User ID SMRSTRAUSS (or is it a paid team of OBOTS using that ID). So a Google search on that User ID and see the number of hits generated.



Leave a Reply

Tweet With Me