Obama is a Natural Born Citizen?

Unlike the European Universities, the Founding Fathers who attended college were trained in Hebrew in regular curriculum in at least the Universities of Harvard, Yale, King's College (later Columbia), Princeton, and the University of PA. That practice of Hebraic biblical studies was in place on average some 50 years or more when men like John Jay and Thomas Jefferson attended one these, and followed the biblical concept of familial tribal relations and assured citizenship in Israel as seen and through the genealogies, Father to son, Father to son. John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59 (in English) and Vattel's Law of Nations (in French, a vital language to know as the French-Indian War proved) governed the interpretation of Natural Born Citizen in most of the States, but American states were not always in concurrence on the meaning, even during the Confederacy of the United States from 1776 - 1787. In 1795, for example, Zephaniah Swift ("A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut" Volume 1, 1795 print) wrote that in contradistinction to other states, a child born in Connecticut were native and natural born subjects (not citizens). But we need to read further on in his 9th Chapter to ensure that we also NOT take him out of context. Children born to fathers from another state were still "inhabitants" because, as Swift said, the place of birth of the child belongs to where the father is its citizen. "An infant can never acquire a settlement but he belongs to the place of his father's settlement unless in the case of a bastard and then his settlement is the same with his mother." (Page 169) And yet, he seems to say that a child born in Connecticut is still its subject subservient to its laws and allegiance as a State, even though its birth is as if affixed somewhere else if born outside of acquisition of settlement through 6 year (naturalization) residency and approval by town elders and the Connecticut community in which it resided? So if a child was born in Connecticut to someone resident of a London, England residence, the nationality of the child was affixed there unless the alien father was attached to the Community (perhaps from day one rather than after 6 years) through its elders and community naturalization process, which the State simply accepted as if by Common Law. But again, if the child was born to a father living in Connecticut but affixed in New York City, the child was as if born there...unless.... Unless the father, like Villato ( THE UNITED STATES v. VILLATO, 2 U.S. 370 (1797) ), affixed himself to the Community and the elders of the Community in which he resided adopted the foreign national as one of its citizens, and took community responsibility to house and feed him and his family if he went bust. In Connecticut, you needed to obtain permission of the town to move in, and permission even to move from one part of the State to the other. But Zephaniah Swift wrote his work 2 years before Villato v. US, 2 U.S. 370, which over-ruled alien citizen attachment to a community constituted citizenship to a state or even the United States. In fact, Villato affirms in light of Swift, that the citizenship of the Father on a National allegiance is essential before one can call a child of such a United States Natural Born Citizen. Further, Swift wrote on page 169 that: "An infant can never acquire a settlement but he belongs to the place of his father's settlement unless in the case of a bastard and then his settlement is the same with his mother." We do not follow the interpretation of natural-born citizen of any one State, nor the Common Law of England which viewed people as natural-born subjects or even natural-born slaves / property of the King to be manipulated, beaten, trodden, abused in any way the King's Pleasure so desired. No. In 1787, John Jay stressed that we install only a Natural Born Citizen (born to a United States Citizen Father on US Soil -- or US flagship traveling from one US State to Another US State and Sam Adams inferred) into the Presidency. And another clarifier is that the child born to a United States Father, reared from birth to manhood (age 21) also be born without dual nationality. "...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.” The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414 This was affirmed in various Supreme Court Cases and was a major sticking point in Wong Kim Ark as well as the 14th Amendment (cited by Minor v. Happersett). Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)@180 states that: “a law repugnant to the constitution IS VOID. . . .” and “in declaring what shall be the SUPREME law of the land,the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned;and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution, have that rank.” That also covers an illegal Presidency, making Obama's Presidency and all laws and regulations passed, voidable, because according to the United States Constitution in its Original Intent, (cf. the naturalization laws passed by Congress in 1790, 1795, 1802) without a United States Citizen Father, Obama automatically is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen. That in itself is a story for Newsbusters to bust Obama on.