HOME Page ~Welcome to obama- -nation.com

providing insights into Presidential  eligibility and verification~

 an amalgam of original essays and comments
by a.r. nash and others, from many web sources, covering the Constitution, history, philosophy, the law, and the birth certificates.  You’ll find here insights found no where else, and an aggregation of information like no other site contains.

“There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away.  There is a time to fight, and that time has now come.” – Peter Muhlenberg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE: DEAD LINK NOW FIXED; CLICK ON IMAGE

nazi-collage-thmb—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. 10 [1]

   “~All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

   ~It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

   ~For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, -a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“When an honest man discovers he is mistaken,
“he will either cease being mistaken,
“or cease being honest.”

Anonymous

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. they are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted”, February 5, 1775.

“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.  On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.”

H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun,  July 26, 1920.

Those who seek the truth should remember Joseph Story’s admonition that acceptable constitutional construction “can never abrogate the text; it can never fritter away its obvious sense; it can never narrow down its limitations; it can never enlarge its natural boundaries.”

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from “authorities” who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

Autobiography of Mark Twain

In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt penned these words:

“We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.

But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American,
-and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here.
Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.
~We have room for but one flag, -the American flag.
We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language
and… we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

a staunch constitutionist would be careful to remember Joseph Story’s admonition that acceptable constitutional construction “can never abrogate the text; it can never fritter away its obvious sense; it can never narrow down its limitations; it can never enlarge its natural boundaries.” – See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/alan-keyes-non-birther-rand-paul.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BirtherReportObamaReleaseYourRecords+%28Birther+Report%3A+Obama+Release+Your+Records%29#sthash.iPIVtAGO.dpuf
a staunch constitutionist would be careful to remember Joseph Story’s admonition that acceptable constitutional construction “can never abrogate the text; it can never fritter away its obvious sense; it can never narrow down its limitations; it can never enlarge its natural boundaries.” – See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/alan-keyes-non-birther-rand-paul.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BirtherReportObamaReleaseYourRecords+%28Birther+Report%3A+Obama+Release+Your+Records%29#sthash.iPIVtAGO.dpuf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHY BABY OBAMA WAS BORN IN VANCOUVER   Pt. 2

Publius Huldah Exposition: natural born citizen explained by 18th century authors

A simulation of Obama’s Hawaiian archive vital record pdf   ~Print-size 860 Kb jpg

A Technical Analysis of Obama’s birth certificate PDF by Mara Zebest

Her exposition on the essence of her analysis

White House Xerox copier produces similar pdf results

Dissecting Obama’s Selective Service Card; Pro & Con views

Obama’s SSN Investigation Results: Inexplicable

FORGERY-GATE: A Nation-wide Conspiracy of Silence

The Obama File: the history and fraud of the first birth certificate

Birther Report; the history of fake first birth certificate, + links

FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM;

  “Let Justice Be Done Though The Heavens Fall”

Principles of Citizenship explained in graphic form.

American Citizenship Explained

American Citizenship Explained

  Double Screen-size  Screen Size  Prints-size (8 x 11)

Large-Size png version  Medium Size   PDF Version

CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES DEFINING NATURAL BORN CITIZENS

PRINT SIZE

*   *    *    *    *    *    *

Don’t visit “American Sod”  (sowing the seeds-Of-Destruction) unless you can handle a big dose of reality. http://americansod.wordpress.com/

Pdf version; Citizenship illustration

half-size, negative

half-size, negative

Full-size

8 types of citizenship black & white

8 types of citizenship
black & white

8 Types of Citizenship Large view size, 190 Kb

8 Types of Citizenship Large size, small,  Print Size

8 types of citizenship 
black & white Adobe PDF versions (with some exceptions)

The presidential qualification  (“natural born citizen,”) was reported out of Committee on September the 4th , 1787, and adopted in the Constitution.
The Federalist contains a contemporary comment on it written by Alexander Hamilton. It reads:
“Nothing was more to be desired, than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.  These most deadly adversaries of Republican government, might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

   How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
(Federalist, LXVIII.)

Natural Citizenship is not defined by anyone’s “common sense” but by Natural Law and Natural Law alone.  It is not Natural Law melded, blended, amalgamated, fused, grafted, or combined with border-based human law nationality mandates.
That is a bastardization of Natural Law, a freaky Frankenstein, Siamese twins combo of the natural with the unnatural.

  No where in the history of the world has there ever been such a fusion of jus soli and jus sanguinis.  It is as unnatural as a melding of dogs & cats, Angels & Devils.   It is nothing more than a fantasy dogma, -or as James Madison described it “a visionary principle” not grounded in any reality.    A. Nash

Titles listed below are not included in the Header Navigation:

PDF copies

TRANSCENDENT, INVIOLABLE, A PRIORI CITIZENSHIP

The Alpha & Omega of Belonging; Blood Citizens vs Soil Citizens

What the Supreme Court Should Know But Doesn’t

FOUR WAYS TO ACQUIRE UNNATURAL  CITIZENSHIP

Natural Nationality; Britain, U.S., and Mexico

American Foreigners and Native-Born Aliens

Our Asinine U.S. Citizenship Perversion

Oaths, Obedience, & Allegiance in Action

Of Truth & Fiction; Power & Treason

Who Is An American Citizen?

Why Baby Obama Was Born in Vancouver Pt.1

Why Baby Obama Was Born in Vancouver Pt.2

Of Children & Families; Citizens & Empires

The Da Vinci Code of American Citizenship

Citizenship: by Destiny or by Destiny Event

Of Presidents, Hybrids  & “Term of Art” Fantasies

When The SCOTUS Did Wrong for the Right Reasons

Citizenship Truths Learned from Apples and Antarctica

The Origins of Citizenship:   Predestination vs Permission

What the 14th Amendment Doesn’t Say and Doesn’t Mean

Understanding Vattel, Citizenship, and Presidential Eligibility

Naturalization: The Key to Understanding Presidential Eligibility

Martians, Koreans, Kangaroos, and Natural Citizens

The Quasi-Citizenship of Women and Immigrants

Citizenship Illuminated by Various Examples

Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong

Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong Pt.2

Comparing Opposite Forms of Citizenship

Historical Views of Natural Born Citizen

Respect for Obama; Why it’s Impossible

Obama & The Time Machine Revelation

TRAITORS IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

OBAMA’S SECRET ORIGIN

THE DANDELION ANALOGY

BARRY OBAMA: FRAUD TO THE CORE

WHY OBAMA IS NOT A REAL AMERICAN

THE GREATEST FRAUD IN HUMAN HISTORY

FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY & PRIMAL LAW

WHY OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE BELIEVED

OBAMA’S UNBELIEVABLE NEWSPAPER BIRTH LISTING

THE NATURE OF HUMAN ORIGIN AND CITIZENSHIP

THE BRITISH ROOTS OF PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY

DUMBOCRATS; DUMB ENOUGH TO ELECT A FRAUD

SLAVES, HALF-BREEDS, TRANSEXUALS, AND OBAMA

THE NATURAL CITIZEN IN AMERICAN LEGAL HISTORY

MENDACIOUS & FABRICATED LETTERS OF VERIFICATION

FROM CORRUPTED LANGUAGE TO CORRUPTED GOVERNMENT

CITIZENS AT BIRTH ARE INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

ALLEGIANCE:  BASTARD CHILD OF ROYAL DESPOTS

CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS OBAMA DEPENDS ON

THE PRESIDENCY AND THE 20TH AMENDMENT

ADAM AND EVE AND NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

THE RULES OF CITIZENSHIP AND ELIGIBILITY

JUS SOLI AND JUS SANGUINIS CITIZENSHIP

ALIEN BABIES VS IMMIGRANT BABIES

 CITIES & CITIZENS; NATURAL vs LEGAL

WHO IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN?

THE OBAMA LIST OF FACTS

IS OBAMA A CAUCASIAN KENYAN?

NATIVE-BORN TADPOLE CITIZENSHIP

CITIZENSHIP BY LIFE & CITIZENSHIP BY LAW

PRINCIPLE vs POLICY; OBEDIENCE vs SUBJECTION

NATIVES, TRIBES, AND FORGOTTEN CITIZENSHIP TRUTHS

OFFICIAL STATE ERROR & A NON-CITIZEN PRESIDENT

   OBAMA vs The TRUTH ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT

PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY CITIZENSHIP PRIMER

NATIONS, CITIZENS, RESPONSIBILITY & NATURAL LAW

THE BASTARDIZATION OF CITIZENSHIP LAW & PRINCIPLES

THE IRON GATE THAT NO LONGER PROTECTS THE PRESIDENCY

VARIOUS REJECTED PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

FESTERING CITIZENSHIP QUESTIONS THE PRESS WILL NEVER ASK

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS

CITIZENSHIP BEYOND ALL LAWS

OBAMA: AN UNNATURAL HYBRID NATIVE

THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP

A BRIEF HISTORY OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

WHAT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN MEANS  & WHY

THE SIMPLE FACTS OF CITIZENSHIP -from A to  Z

HYPOTHETICAL OBAMA CITIZENSHIP SCENARIOS

 DANGEROUS QUESTIONS  &  EXPLOSIVE ANSWERS

QUESTIONS THAT WILL NEVER BE ASKED OF OBAMA

A  CITIZENSHIP PRIMER FOR THE  SUPREME COURT

AMERICA’S PROGRESSIVE GANGRENE

A NEW CITIZENSHIP PRIMER

~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~

FACTS VERSUS CERTAINTY

YOU ARE NOT A “LEGAL” AMERICAN!

OBAMA’S  QUESTIONABLE & COVERT CITIZENSHIP

DELUSION, CORRUPTION, & A CHARLATAN PRESIDENT

NATIONAL IGNORANCE & A CONSTITUTIONAL TRAVESTY

(THE QUESTIONS NEVER ANSWERED NOR EVER EVEN ASKED)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

US LAW vs OBAMA’S  UNNATURAL CITIZENSHIP

THE SOURCE OF OBAMA’S PRESIDENTIAL INELIGIBILITY

NATURAL vs ARTIFICIAL CITIZENSHIP/ the Gorilla Analogy

REALITY CHECK :  1789

~No Bastard Daughter of a Catholic African Alien Can Be President

THE VANCOUVER BIRTH SCENARIO

AN OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE SLUG-FEST

THE QUESTION REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS FEAR

THE THIEF-in-CHIEF WHO STOLE THE PRESIDENCY

THE WISDOM & INSIGHTS OF BHO’s  SPEECH WRITER

LARRY, MOE  and BARRY O.

OBAMA NEEDS TO BE OUTED

THE UNITED NATIONS OF AMERICA

OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE SHOOTOUT

A BLIND SHEPHERD & A NATION THAT’S LOST

THE  VAMPIRE PRESIDENCY Of  COUNT B. OBAMA

IS SURI CRUISE A NATURAL BORN SCIENTOLOGIST?

OBAMA: AN ADOPTED CITIZEN & ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT

BARRY’S BURIED PAST & COUNTERFEIT BIRTH CERTIFICATE

AN UNVETTED COUNTERFEIT PRESIDENT

ONE  IN 315  MILLION, -BUT THE WRONG ONE!

THE UNMASKING OF A COUNTERFEIT PRESIDENT

WHEN EXPERTS ARE IDIOTS & AUTHORITIES ARE FOOLS

OBAMA’S HALF-AMERICAN,  HALF-FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP

THE TRUTH ABOUT VATTEL’S DESCRIPTION OF SOCIETIES

SPOCK, OBAMA, JOHN THE BAPTIST & HEROD THE GREAT

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS & FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS

OBAMA:  CITIZEN BY GRACE and PRESIDENT BY FRAUD

“NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS” CAN’T BE  PRESIDENT

NATURAL LAW AND UNNATURAL DUALITY

THE NATURE OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

WHEN BRILLIANT MINDS ARE MORONS

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

MINOR Vs HAPPERSETT  by LEO DONOFRIO

VERTICAL      HORIZONTAL     ONE PAGE

~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

ANGELS, VIRGINS, NUNS,  & NATURAL CITIZENS

 THE PRINCIPLES of UNALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS

THE THINGS OF NATURE & THE NATURE OF THINGS

THE IMMUTABLE NATURE of NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

THE UNWRITTEN LAW of NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

NATURAL CITIZENSHIP:  BEYOND ALL LAWS

UNLIMITED & UNTOUCHABLE CITIZENSHIP

~ ~ ~

The BEAUTIFUL, BLISSFUL BLINDNESS Of OBAMA’S TRUE BELIEVERS

~ ~ ~

FROM SUBJECTS OF THE KING TO CITIZENS OF THE NATION

 A ZOMBIE PRESS, LOBOTOMIZED CONGRESS, & A NATURALIZED PRESIDENT

THE FOUNDATION of NATIONS/ NATURAL RIGHTS  & Unnatural Citizenship

The UNCONSTITUTIONAL  CARPETBAGGER PRESIDENCY of BARRY OBAMA

THE CONSTITUTIONAL TRUTH About An UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT

NIXON’S PARDON, A NATIONAL DELUSION,  & OBAMA’S ELECTION

WHY AMERICAN’S BORN ABROAD ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

“NATIVE-BORN” CITIZENS ARE NOT   CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

*

NATIVE BORN VS  NATURAL BORN   *   WHERE INMATES RUN THE ASYLUM

OBLIVIOUS TO THE ABSURDITY -14th AMENDMENT DELUSIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS & UNCONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD

CONSTITUTIONAL TREASON & AN AVATAR PRESIDENT

*

OBAMA:  A CITIZEN BY GRACE,  -THE PRESIDENT BY FRAUD

THE BAMBOOZLING of AMERICA At The HIGHEST LEVEL

THE ELIGIBILITY CREDIBILITY  Of ONE BARRY OBAMA

The LIBERAL LIE THAT ELECTED A PRESIDENT

THE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRESIDENT

INCOMPETENCE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL

*

THE DNC & THE HALF-BLOOD PRESIDENT

 EVERY TOM, DICK, & HARRY BUT NOT MY SON?

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP via STATE CITIZENSHIP

FROM CERTAINTY TO CONFUSION, TO IGNORANCE, TO TREASON

*

CITIZEN ZERO & THE CONSTITUTION’S BAN AGAINST OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY

NATURAL CITIZENSHIP vs CITIZENSHIP BY SUBSTITUTION

NATIVE-BORN FOREIGNERS & FOREIGN-BORN NATIVES

THE NATURE OF VATTEL’S CITIZENSHIP DEFINITION

*

NATURAL CITIZENSHIP versus LEGAL CITIZENSHIP

WHO IS A NATURAL AMERICAN and WHO IS NOT?

THE AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP CONUNDRUM

WHEN NATIVE-BIRTH CONVEYS NOTHING

NATURAL NATIVE Versus HYBRID NATIVE

YOUR ARE NOT A “LEGAL” U.S. CITIZEN

*

How “LADY & The TRAMP” DEBUNKS OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY

A MAN CALLED “HORSE” & A MAN CALLED “PRESIDENT”

SITTING BULL & OBAMA: A TALE Of TWO CHIEFS

JESUS & OBAMA: TWO UNNATURAL HYBRIDS

MOSES And THE HALF-BLOOD PRESIDENT

*

THE AUDACITY OF FRAUD; -AN UNNATURAL AMERICAN PRESIDENT

TALE Of A DEAD PRESIDENT‘ & HIS TWINS BROTHER’S CHARADE

AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PATH TO THE PRESIDENCY

WHERE’S THE BEEF? – OBAMA’S TVP CITIZENSHIP

THE END OF EDEN & THE RISE OF OBAMA

*

CAN CHILDREN of MASS MURDERERS BE PRESIDENT?

HOW MARCO RUBIO COULD DESTROY The APPLE CART

US AMBASSADORS & An UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT

THE AMERICAN HISTORY OF NATURALIZATION By MARRIAGE

AMERICA vs The CONSTITUTION -WHAT’S RIGHT vs WHAT’S BEST

*

THE TYRANNY OF GOOD INTENTIONS  WHEN THE EXPERTS ARE IMBECILES

FROM A NATION Of LAWS TO A NATION Of LAW-BREAKERS

MISSING THE POINT & IGNORING THE FACTS

THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN AMERICA

 THE PROBLEM THAT CAN’T BE SOLVED

MY MAJOR RANDOM THOUGHTS

  ~EQUAL RIGHTS & EQUAL LIBERTY

State seal appears as if by Magic!                                           all  essays except the last one are by

A. R. Nash  arnash1@gmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEW WEBSITE:  All images of  CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH pdf -layers revealed

NEW WEBSITEAMERICAN S.O.D.   sowing the SEEDS Of DESTRUCTION         

About Mr. Obama’s Birth Certificate  by Paul Murphy

When Is A Citizen Not A Citizen?  by Cindy Simpson

Alexander Hamilton & John Jay’s Letter to Washington   by John Woodman

Link to the original WH 9-layer PDF -376 Kb

There are several pertinent questions that people fail to ask, such as: By what principle is John McCain a natural born citizen even though not a native-born citizen?
By what principle could Obama be a U.S. citizen, and is it the same principle as that by which McCain is a natural born citizen?
Would Obama be a U.S. citizen if he had been born in a foreign location like John McCain?
Is Obama’s presidential eligibility not affected by his parentage while McCain’s was?
Can birth as a subject of a foreign sovereign nation make one a natural American citizen?

No person whose U.S. citizenship is derived from any legal source is a natural born American.  Any legal citizenship, including constitutional citizenship, is artificial citizenship because it is not the product of natural law, but of human law,  it’s membership-by-permission.  No one whose citizenship is by permission of the government is eligible to be the President of the United States.  The citizenship of natural citizens is beyond the authority of the government.  It cannot bestow it, nor rescind it, nor regulate it, nor infringe upon it.  The unalienable nature of natural citizenship supersedes the legitimate authority of all human forms of legitimate government because the right of the government to exist is granted by the will and choice of natural citizens, -not the other way around.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama was a provisional Commonwealth subject via birth in wedlock (?) to a named British subject father.  By not renouncing his American citizenship as an adult, his connection to Kenya thereby expired, along with his Commonwealth membership.  His Indonesian citizenship via adoption also was provisional if he did not live in Indonesia, requiring that he renew his Indonesian passport every two years following the first renewal at four years.  That was something that he would have done because it was his only form of official government identification since he had no birth certificate from any nation.

NEW: Feb. 2014:  It is a mistake to assume the Lolo Soetoro adopted Barry Obama under Hawaiian law even though he had a year to do so before returning to Indonesia.  It is also a mistake to think that the “original” birth certificate reveals it was amended to show a legal change of parentage which would have named Lolo as Barry’s father.  Such a secret is NOT what Obama has been hiding because no such alteration of the original Certificate of Live Birth would have been made because of Barry’s age at adoption (not an infant).  Adoption is only secret if the birth mother wants to keep her identity secret, which is only the case soon after birth, -not 6 years or 16 years.
The reasons that these three presumptions (birth in Hawaii, existence of a Hawaiian birth certificate, and adoption in Hawaii under its laws) are false is due to the fact that Barry’s mother was not able to acquire a Hawaiian birth certificate for him since the home-birth claim she made in an affidavit to the Dept. of Health could not be corroborated by evidence, as required, that she had lived for one year in Hawaii.

  That would be totally impossible if she spent the last couple months of her pregnancy in Seattle (seeking an adoptive couple) where she registered for college just two weeks after giving birth .
Without such proof, no birth certificate could be legally issued.  But assuming that a birth certificate was issued, Lolo would have no motive or need to adopt him under Hawaiian law since he was going to live in and grow up in Indonesia as his son.
Why not just adopt him in Indonesia since he could do that after returning there, even in the absence of Barry?  Or, better still, adopt him in Hawaii but through the Indonesian Embassy?
Who knows any reason why he could not and would not have done that?  That would have given little identity-less Barry official ID, which he lacked due to having no birth certificate.  The Embassy might have had to bend a rule or two but that’s how human affairs are conducted.
His mother could have shown them their marriage certificate and filled out an affidavit as evidence that she was his mother and guardian.  No problem.  Instant Indonesian citizenship, -the passport to his future identity being, literally, *a passport* from a foreign country which he obtained in order to return to Hawaii at age 7 or 8 for a Christmas visit, and later at 10 for good.

He then would have obtained a permanent resident Green Card, for which proof would still exist if it hasn’t  been purged from the archive.  Plus, his grandparents would have obtained legal custody in order to be his legal guardians.   ~   ~   ~

Obama’s narrative is that he was not born abroad but born in Honolulu of an alien father.  That fact, like the 14th Amendment, comes with additional baggage besides native-birth and it concerns those who were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the U.S. government that rules over all citizens and immigrants.  His father, like foreign diplomats, tourists, and all forms of guests of the U.S. government (i.e. transient Visa Card holders, -not Green Card holders) was not subject to that authority and could not be drafted as can citizens and immigrants, thus his son was born also not subject to it through him as a British subject under the protection of British law, as well as international laws and treaties.

Thus, with foreign birth not acknowledged, provisional U.S. citizenship was not a possibility since it does not pertain to anyone born on U.S. soil, and… was also not possible because U.S. nationality law at that time required that his mother be 19 years of age and she was only 18 when he was born.

 Barack Obama admited he was born a British citizen on his “paid for by Barack Obama” fightthesmears,com website (now shutdown):    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on the 4th of August, 1961,  Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

Obama-is-only-a-Usurper said…
You know if you read the Civil Rights Act of 1866 it makes amply clear that someone who was born “not subject to any foreign power” was a US Citizen.
Now Obama admits he was subject to a foreign power at birth.

 1866 Civil Rights Act   14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.   CHAP. XXXI.
“An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;…”

It’s crystal clear that if in 1866 a person of dual citizenship was not a US Citizen, then by all means in 1776 the founders would not consider a person who was not even a citizen to be a natural born citizen!!

Obama Agrees That Natural Citizenship Requires both Parents Be Citizens:  Senate Resolution 511 2008
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”–Barack Obama, co-sponsor

At the peak of the Rev, Wright flare-up, Obama played his Michelle trump card. “I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners,” he boasted in his bellwether speech on race, “an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.”

What if Barry O.  had married a Kenyan woman?  Would he have been viewed as presidential candidate material then?  What kind of citizen would he have been viewed as, natural? or something else?  What if he  had married a white woman? Would he have been viewed as presidential candidate material then?  How many black women would have voted for him?  What if his mother had been the Kenyan wife of his father?  What kind of citizen would he have been viewed as then?  Natural? or something else?  But what difference would it have really made?  Well, he wouldn’t have been a citizen at all through his mother nor able to pull off the greatest deception since  traitors in the upper management levels of the FBI and CIA were discovered.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense.” –Thomas Jefferson

In Dec. 2011 I discovered that NATURALIZED, NATIVE-BORN, and NATURAL BORN ARE DISTINCT in the official Immigration Service website which includes Attorney General Interpretations of Supreme Court decisions and Congressional Naturalization law.

I shared what I discovered with attorney Leo Donofrio .  Read his response on his blog NaturalBornCitizen  (Since Leo Donofrio no longer publishes comments to his site, I’ll publish my own comments in reply here. )      It states the following:

UPDATE: THE PAGE HAS BEEN MOVED ON THE CIS WEBSITE! The page displayed  now states:

404 – Requested Page Not Found on Site

This was the url perhaps for many years, possible a decade:  http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.htm

But the puppet-masters changed its address so the link that I’d found would no longer lead to it.  But by using the site’s search function I was able to relocate it.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

   Also, even though the CONSPIRATORS in Obama’s inner circle  altered the CIS website, the internet archive site “the WayBack Machine” has it recorded.  Here’s its copy of the moved page: http://web.archive.org/web/20110711184242/http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html  (the rats are on the run)

The pertinent sentence is the second-to-last stand-alone sentence.

Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.
Repatriation
(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it. ["paragraph 6"] but to restore the person to the status if NATURALIZED, NATIVE or NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Natural citizens can be born anywhere in the world because their parents are Americans, but “native-born” citizens, with immigrant parents, must be born in the U.S. or else the 14th Amendment does not apply to them.  They are constitutional citizens by the grace of the American people who passed the 14th Amendment, whereas natural citizens are citizens by nature and no law grants, governs, regulates, restricts or defines their citizenship.  It doesn’t come from government.  It precedes government.  Government can’t exist without naturally connected members to create it.

Natural citizenship is bestowed as an unalienable natural right just like Life, Liberty and and many others, including the right to marry and divorce, own and inherit property. The Bill of Rights was written to protect and declare rights undeclared in the body of the Constitution, and one of those undeclared rights is the inherited citizenship of children born to Americans without regard to where they are born.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen. Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951) “

There are actually five classes of citizens:  1. the natural born citizens, -who are one type of “born citizen”,  2. the native-born citizens who are born to foreign immigrants, also describe by me as constitutional citizens via the 14th Amendment) 3. the naturalized citizens, and 4. the derivative citizens who are automatically naturalized (children and wives of newly naturalized fathers, -or foreign brides marrying American husbands, -no longer the policy in the U.S.)  5. Provisional citizens; children born abroad to foreign fathers.  Their citizenship will become permanent but with the provision that they live x number of years in the U.S. during their youth.

There are eight  types of people in America; natural American citizens, naturalized American citizens, American Nationals, Native Americans without US citizenship, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants,  foreign guests and diplomats, and children of unions of various combinations of the preceding groups,

There are seven  types of children born in America; children born to natural citizens, children born to naturalized citizens, children born to legal immigrants, children born to illegal immigrants, children born to American nationals, and children born to foreign guests and diplomats, and those with mixed parentage combining the preceding groups.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.S. CONSTITUTION Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

  “No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,…”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The TEN RULES of Natural & Naturalized Citizenship

1.  No American is a natural American unless born to American parents.
2. Only children of American  parents are eligible to be President.
3.  American parents produce natural American children regardless of where they’re born.
4.  No American can father a child that’s a natural citizen of a foreign nation -even if born within that foreign nation, nor can a foreigner beget a natural citizen of a nation foreign to him, (such as the United States) even though his child may be born within its borders.

5.  No one born to a foreign Diplomat, Ambassador, Consul, soldier, visitor, tourist, worker, professor, or student is constitutionally an American citizen because he is what his father is, and his father is a foreigner who lives in a foreign nation and remains subject to its foreign jurisdiction, -not that of the United States.   As such, his child is not covered by the 14th Amendment.

6.  A foreigner, whether immigrant or non-immigrant, cannot father a natural American because his children will either be foreign citizens only or be both foreign and native-born naturalized-at-birth U.S. citizens. They won’t be native-born natural American citizens free of any alien nationality by blood.

7.  Anyone “native born” but with legal immigrant parents is a citizen by 14th Amendment automatic naturalization, having their foreign citizenship overlaid with naturalized American citizenship. They are dual citizens.

8.  Citizenship acquired by naturalization, (whether automatically or via process) is not natural citizenship because it was not naturally acquired.  Rather, it’s acquired via legal mean through the laws & policies of the nation.

9.  No foreigner who’s subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government, (nor one who is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government), can father a constitutionally eligible candidate for President because his children come into the world with foreign alienage attached to them.

10. No one born with foreign alienage is eligible to be President because they are/were dual citizens, not natural citizens, and are “tainted” with non-American foreignness.

Obama’s father was a foreigner who was not an American immigrant, but even if he had been, his son still would not be a natural born American because his father would be an un-naturalized  foreigner, -not an American father, making him only a constitutional naturalized citizen and not a natural citizen.  Any person with such citizenship is constitutionally ineligible to hold the Office of the President. Barack Obama, if such a citizen, would consequently be an unconstitutional President.

The Ten Rules of Natural Law Membership & Citizenship

1.  Everyone possess a natural right to be accepted as an equal member of the group into which they are born.
2.  No one possesses a natural right to be accepted as an equal member of any group into which he or she is not born.
3.  No natural group has a right to decide that the children of its natural members are not members.
4.  All natural groups have the right to decide when, how and why non-members are allowed to join their group
5.  All natural groups have a right to decide that the children of non-members are not members, even if born within the group’s territory.
6.  The location of one’s birth conveys no natural right whatsoever.
7.  No non-member who inhabits the land of a group other than his own and does so without the permission of the group, possesses any natural right to the full protection of the group in regard to defense against enemies or the violation of rights possessed by the members.
8.  Only non-members who have the official permission of the group to live among them are covered by the protections of the group’s rules.
9.  Children born to non-members are not natural native members of the group because they come from a mixed-blood or a foreign-blood origin.
10. Children who are not natural native members of the group, but are given permission to be members, possess no natural right to be equally eligible to be the Chief of the group.  Only natural members possess that right which they inherit from their member parents.

No one who is not a natural citizen of the United States, -who was not born to American parents, -who was born with mixed-blood or fully-foreign blood connections to a foreign power and is considered one of that foreign nations natural members through the father, is eligible to be entrusted with the knowledge of, access to, keys to and codes to nuclear weapons.  No nuclear nation on earth allows dual-citizens such access and permissions.

If immigrant parents from the former Soviet Union (or Iran) had received legal residence in the U.S. and produced children here who were constitutional citizens via the 14th Amendment, those children would never be allowed into the inner circle of Americans entrusted with the keys and launch codes for American nuclear-armed ICBMs, nor allowed to be a member of a nuclear submarine, nor a nuclear bomber squadron.  They would fail the test of possessing the necessary background criteria of full American parentage and American roots.  They would never be trusted like natural American citizens are trusted.

Yet the people of America placed into the position of Commander-in-Chief of all American military and nuclear might someone who could never be qualified to be a commander, nor even a crewmen, of any of our nuclear forces.  He wouldn’t even be trusted to serve to protect the President with a loaded weapon.  Thus, Barack Obama could never pass the requirements of natural US citizenship via birth to American parents which is required to guard himself as President.

Obama’s citizenship is not via the 14th Amendment as written because when it was written his citizenship would have been viewed as being solely that of his British-subject father.  His father could not produce a child that was not subject to the same jurisdiction as himself,  which, not being an immigrant, was British, not American.    Since he was only a transient alien here on a Visa and not a legally sanctioned immigrant his son was born as a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies (UKC subject).
Obama appeared with a highly questionable and almost mysterious citizenship, with a mysterious past, with a mysterious fake non-physical birth certificate, with mysterious hidden collegiate records and accomplishments, with a private, guarded law practice, law student/ law professor records, with mysterious friends with subversive backgrounds yet wants us all to just trust him and give him another chance to wreck the country further for another four years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SEVEN LIES THAT ELECTED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT

Ignorance is everywhere, -the deception universal.
The delusion infects all minds that are not seeking the truth.
SEVEN LIES that perpetuate Obama’s illegitimacy.

Lie #1. Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen from birth.
Lie #2  Anyone who’s a citizen from birth and can prove it is a natural born citizen.
Lie #3. Anyone with a State birth certificate is “officially” eligible to be President.
Lie #4. Only naturalized citizens are ineligible to be President.
Lie#5.  All “born citizens” are alike, whether born to foreigners or Americans.
Lie#6.  Constitutional citizenship, and natural citizenship are indistinguishable .

Lie#7.  Foreigners can be President if they’re born in the United States.

Ignorance?  Stupidity?  Group-think?  A combination of the three?  These delusions are so wide-spread that it’s unrealistic to assume that a great teacher will appear to make the American public aware of the truth.

Consolidated Fake COLB

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Delegates at the Constitutional Convention who were concerned with:

  “admitting strangers into our public Councils,” and feared that
foreigners without a long residency in the country …
bring with them, not only attachments to other countries,

but ideas of Govt. so distinct from ours that in every point of view they are dangerous.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Presidential Eligibility Primer Regarding Citizenship

~Guidelines for Presidential Candidates~
~Seven Truths About Eligibility

1.  The Constitution bars anyone with only foreign citizenship from being the President.

2.  The Constitution bars anyone not born with American citizenship from being President.

3.  The Constitution bars anyone with a father who is/was a foreigner from being President.

4.  The Constitution bars all immigrant naturalized citizens from being the President.

5.  The Constitution bars any mere  “native-born citizen” from being President.

6.  The Constitution bars all but a “natural born citizen” from being President.

7. The Constitution requires age discrimination & residency discrimination.

These facts demolish the legitimacy of Barack Obama as an eligible candidate for the presidency.

He inherited only a British nationality from his father, he wasn’t “a born citizen” by being born in the U.S. because he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States through his father (as required by the 14th Amendment) but instead was subject to the jurisdiction of Britain.  Only American citizens and legal “Green Card” permanent residents are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, -not foreign tourists, diplomats, visitors, or students.

In summation: no citizenship from his father, no citizenship from his mother, no citizenship from the 14th Amendment, and no natural citizenship via any of the above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The truth is what determines the legitimacy of the presidency of Barack Obama,  and it is not on his side.  He has not even attempted to provide any authentic authoritative and truthful refutation regarding the nature of his citizenship at birth, nor the authenticity of the birth document images that have been concocted on his behalf, which were not the product of the State of Hawaii, since no state in America releases digital image files as authentic birth evidence because digital files can be manipulated and counterfeited with ease on any computer, just like printing counterfeit money is now so easy to do (except for the extraordinary anti-counterfeiting measures that are now employed). Instead he has declared that he was born subject to British jurisdiction.  Therefore he would not have even been a U.S. citizen of any type for most of American history.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.   No person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President.

ONLY NATURAL BORN CITIZENS ARE ELIGIBLE

Emmerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations Bk 1 Sec. 212, states the following:

“Citizens and natives:  The natural [members] or natives, [Les naturels ou les indigenes] are those born in the country of parents who are its citizens. As a 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.

Each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.  The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.  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.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is a misunderstanding and misapplication of the word “natural” to ascribe place-of-birth to its meaning.  In the Natural realm the pro-creation of a natural off-spring does not depend on place of birth, but only on two things, which are:  two parents of the same species.

It’s the same in the political realm.  A natural citizen only needs two things; namely, a mother and father of the same nationality.

Is Barack Obama Constitutionally eligible to be President?   Is he a natural American citizen?  Or something else?

Natural  Natives  only come from Natives.

 Natural Citizens only come from Citizens

  What do we know about the circumstances of  Barack Obama’s origins?  The nature of his U.S. citizenship is rooted in the circumstances of his birth and parentage.  His eligibility for the office of President hinges on whether or not he can be described as a natural born citizen.

While that phrase, as used in the Constitution’s Presidential requirements, could be claimed to have a general meaning as well as a Constitutional meaning,  no Supreme Court has ever ruled on the issue regarding any President’s eligibility, but if one did, they would have to decide whether or not to ascribed a broader general meaning or the limited meaning which the framers had in mind.

They had in mind only one thing, and that is a citizen with no connection of attachment to any foreign power, -no loyalty-allegiance to, nor inherited citizenship with a foreign  potentate, nation or geo-political group.  Citizens with foreign fathers and dual-citizenship, with the resultant dual allegiance and duties of nationality, were not to be entrusted with the most powerful office in the land.

Hence, only those born to American citizens, in particular an American father (from whom citizenship was inherited by birthright) -having no connection to a foreign power, were allowed to hold the office of the President (and later, by Constitutional amendment, the Vice-President as well).

No other form of citizenship was sufficient.  No son of a loyal subject of a foreign King, whose wife happened to deliver on U.S. soil, was to be allowed to hold the office of President, especially one raised in his father’s country to be a proud subject and supporter of His Royal Highness and a believer in his infallibility and Divine appointment to power.

Hence, without an American father one cannot be considered to be a natural  American citizen because the only citizenship that could be viewed as natural was the citizenship passed naturally from the parents to the children.   To learn more read my treatise on Birthright Citizenship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama was born as a British subject by descent from a father born in a land governed by Great Britain.
Applying the British Nationality Act of 1948 to the accepted claim that Barack Obama Jr. was fathered by Barack Obama Sr. the deduction is that Jr. was born as a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (-a type of British subject which later became by The British Nationality Act of 1981 a “British Overseas Citizen” or a citizen of the Commonwealth).

Who is a British “citizen by descent”?  The British Consular Registry determines that which defines one by this section: Section 5-1
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

Then in 1963, Obama became a Kenyan citizen according to The Constitution of Kenya, Section 87, by virtue of the fact that his father was born in the Kenya colony. “Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on llth December, 1963, as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person, shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”
Thus, Obama Jr. became a citizen of Kenya, Dec. 12, 1963, when his father became a citizen.  While the Kenyan constitution prohibits dual citizenship for those 21 years old or older, it does not do so for minors.  But without taking steps to renounce his U.S. citizenship in a formal manner before Kenyan authorities, his Kenyan citizenship expired two years after he turned 21.  He therefore was no more a Kenyan citizen via birth to a Kenyan father overseas, nor through his Kenyan expired citizenship was he any longer connected to the British Commonwealth and therefore was solely an Indonesian citizen by adoption.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When the Constitution was written, it was universally understood that a child born to a living foreign father was not a natural born American.  But the Supreme Court of today might choose to impose its view of how “natural born citizen” should be understood and might expand its parameters to include not just birth-right citizenship being passed from the father, but also from the mother, meaning from the mother in the absence of a father.  If they so chose, then they would also have to present some guidelines for finding a father to be absent and irrelevant.

If the parents of a Presidential candidate weren’t married, nor living together when he was born, then the American mother and her child were not under the jurisdiction of a foreign father, nor that of a foreign power.  In that case, even though the child was not born to an American father, does the MIA foreign father’s nationality have any impact on whether or not his off-spring is a natural born citizen?  No one can say for certain.  The question has never been considered nor adjudicated,  -nor even arisen.

The Constitution gives Congress no power to legislate regarding natural citizens, only immigrants and foreigners.

If he were born  to married parents, -with an American mother,  and the foreign father was a naturalized citizen, the son would be deemed a natural born citizen via birth to citizen parents.

The nature of his citizenship is not determined solely by his place of birth but by his parentage and the jurisdiction his parents were, or were not, under.  But being deemed to be a U.S. citizen is quite different from being born a natural  citizen.
If a child was under British jurisdiction through the connection with the father, that would deny him birth as a natural  American citizen, even though he would be entitled to US citizenship due to his blood connection to  his American mother -if he were not born in the US.

Foreign citizens are under the protection of their own nation’s sovereignty over its own so not being citizens of the U.S., they are not subject to its political jurisdiction. Thus, if one is born on US soil to foreign tourists, he/she is not a US citizen by native-birth. But if foreign parents are no longer fully under foreign jurisdiction due to legal residence here, then their off-spring would rightly be considered US citizens at birth, but not natural born citizens because they lacked American parents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are (“natural born” citizens”  and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth.  They were not “granted” citizenship via that US statute, -rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by possibly ignorant immigration authorities, and the nature of their citizenship had to be recognized by voting officials who might ignorantly deem them unqualified to be President.  They were not citizens by any other means than Natural Law, and statutory law was written solely to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized and protected from disenfranchisement if they choose to run for the presidency one day.

If it were certain that everyone in the State Department would always get it right, then the statute would not need to have been written nor included in an immigration statute.  But confusion and ignorance are unavoidable in the people who administer the regulatory power of the nation.

Therefore for unusual circumstances (birth abroad), codifying natural law eliminated confusion and misunderstanding.    Consequently, they could be described as both natural citizens and statutory citizens since the statue did not explain the principle by which they were recognized as citizens.  It’s left as an unanswered question, a question answerable only by the principle of natural law.

The next Congress repealed that Act and re-wrote it, dropping the reference to natural born citizen because the Act was unrelated to the issue of Presidential eligibility.  The phrase “nature born citizens” has never since been included in any United States statute.  It remains as it was in the beginning, -a term defined by its common language meaning and has never yet been defined by the Supreme Court.  If they can avoid it, it never will be.  And it doesn’t need to be if one realizes that neither “citizen” “born” nor “natural” need to be defined by anyone because they are plainly defined by the English language.  Stringing them together does not change their meaning in any way, but it eliminates two ambiguities.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP

The conduct of a foreign person and his compliance with U.S. policy, tradition, and law.
The circumstances of one’s birth, i.e. its location and the nationality of the parents.
The actions and guidelines of the INS officers who administer immigration policy.
The directives of their superiors who head the CIS.
The opinions, written and spoken, of the Attorney General -the head of the Justice Dept.
The policy stance of the White House.
The force of Congressional legislation.
The force of constitutional law, in particular the 1st section of the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution is not underlying the above factors because it doesn’t deal with citizenship issues.
Underlying all of the above is unwritten fundamental natural law and the principle of natural membership.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While it can’t be proven that Obama is not a U.S. citizen, it can’t be proven that he was one at birth since it can’t be proven that he was even born within the United States.  The digital images that his office has posted online are rife with signs of manipulation that can’t be explained as legitimate and are not backed-up by any hard-copy that has ever been shown to the public or to experts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If he was born in Vancouver…

(http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/the-vancouver-scenario/  and  http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/reverse-engineering-dunham-obama/  and… http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/born-in-vancouver-the-seattle-scenario-pt-ii/)

-or Kenya, then he definitely was not an American citizen at birth because his mother was too young to convey American citizenship to him under U.S. law in effect at that time.  So he’s not natural born via natural law, nor “native-born” via the 14th Amendment since his father was not a legal registered immigrant and therefore was not “subject to (U.S.) jurisdiction” a la the 14th Amendment.

But the ignoramuses who administer immigration law view him, and every Tom-Dick-&-Harry illegal immigrant born here, as being a citizen, leading his bamboozled supporters to make the gigantic leap of proclaiming all domestically born citizens to be natural born citizens.  To them the word “natural” has no meaning whatsoever because if it does, then it means he is illegitimately serving as President.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that records of INS cards filled out by passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama’s birth.

The Meaning of Natural Born

The legitimacy of the presidency of Barack Obama rests on the meaning of the words “natural born citizen”.  Those words were not invented by a King, a Pope, a Lord, a Judge, a Parliamentarian, a Governor, or a legal scholar.  It is not an invented phrase with a meaning assigned by its inventor.  It is nothing more than simple English words used in conjunction for emphasis of what they were intended to describe.  They were intended to describe Americans who are the off-spring of American parents and no others.
The words “natural” and “born” are closely connected and related in a semi-redundant way that reinforces the purpose and meaning of both of them.

Natural relates to natural law, and how in nature things are what they are due to natural processes, such as pro-creation, as opposed to unnatural or artificial processes that do not follow a natural pattern.

Born refers to the natural pattern of conception, gestation, and birth.  That process produces a natural entity, -such as a cub, a kitten, a puppy, a pony, or a child.  Born does not have any connection to geography, nor man-made boundaries, nor made-made rules.  It has no connection to location.  In the natural realm, the location where a birth takes place has no connection to the origin of that which is born.
Born only refers to the conclusion of the organic process of the reproduction & transmission of life and nature from parents to child.  It is not dependent on boundaries, soil, gravity, or even the earth itself.  It can occur in outer-space.  The product of birth is a replication of the nature of the parents, whether it be their species, breed, race, or group affiliation.

By the process leading to birth, the one born is endowed with the same nature as the parents.  And group membership, along with that nature, is also transmitted to them.  That membership can be in a clan, a tribe, a colony/state, or a nation.   They are born into it, -not adopted nor granted membership as is required for outsiders .  Membership is theirs by birth.   Their membership is natural membership because it is by natural reproduction.

Natural reproduction does not include reproduction via a union with one who is not a member.  Such a union only produces a hybrid, -half member, half outsider.  That membership is not describable as natural because its origin is not via the pattern of natural-birth membership because hybrids of all kinds are unnatural, whether they be in botany, animal husbandry, wild nature, human society, or politics.
Any type or source of membership that is other than that produced by the natural pattern fails the test of being natural.  The source of its legitimacy is not natural inheritance but human choice, human permission, human law.

No one whose membership is via human permission is a natural member of any group.  No one whose citizenship is via human law is a natural member of any nation.
In America, there is no law by which natural citizens possess citizenship.  It is an unwritten law.  It never needed to be written because it was an unalienable right and an element of Natural Rights that humans are endowed with by their Creator.

With a visiting student foreigner (non-immigrant, non-permanent resident), as a father whose membership in the British Empire was the natural inheritance transmitted to his child, Barack Obama possessed no unalienable right to American citizenship because he was not a natural born citizen, but was instead a hybrid with no natural citizenship in any nation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I ask;  “What is the nature of Panamanian-born John McCain’s citizenship?  Is it natural citizenship or statutory citizenship?”  Congress has proclaimed him to be a natural born citizen by a vote of 99-0. Those who claim that native-birth creates natural citizens will avoid attempting to answer it because they know that the answer undermines the entire basis of their fallacious notion about why Obama should be accepted as legitimate.  McCain’s natural citizenship came from his American parents, not where he was born.

Failure to answer my question shows that all of the Titanic captains (which they worship as infallible experts) have made the same grave error by doing what they’ve been doing, namely, relying on  opinions of previous “experts” who relied on earlier “experts” who made erroneous assumptions based on the unnatural institution of monarchical rule legitimized by “the Divine Right of Kings” during the one & a half centuries of colonial rule, and not on the natural law of Natural Rights endowed to man by the Nature’s God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An inescapable fact is that even Republicans are mentally bound by group-think, and thinking that the President of the United States is illegitimate is beyond where their minds are capable of going.  They are a part of the process and power structure and thus were complicit in allowing his election.

That guaranteed them that no objection would be raised to John McCain’s eligibility.  They thought he might win so they were silent and unthinking.  Now they are painted into a corner in which it is unacceptable to question the legitimacy of the President of the United States, -as if that would be an affront to the Office of the President and the dignity of the first mixed-race victor in the battle for the White House, when in fact, not doing so is an affront to the Constitution.

Even so, speaking the truth may be calling for the dispensing of medicine that is worse than the disease, -the disease that’s part of the gangrene of the body politic which is rotting from within with each new unconstitutional mandate passed by Congress or the Supreme Court or Executive Order.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The loyalty of only the President is an issue addressed in the Constitution because of the power he wields.  The holders of no other federal offices are required to be natural born citizens, only the President.

Here’s the United States Oath of Allegiance for Naturalization  (it shows the length to which foreigners with dual allegiance must go to strip themselves of it and the doubt as to their loyalty to America and the Constitution that a second allegiance raises:

( The first officially recorded Oaths of Allegiance were made on May 30th, 1778 at Valley Forge)

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;… so help me God.”

compiled by a.r. nash

continued on Page 2   Click Here

The Obama File -dark suspicions

Natural Born Citizenship blog

Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer

The Patriot Post

American Thinker -Conspiracy to Hide a Supreme Court Holding

Constitutionally Speaking -Conspiracy to Alter the Constitution

Liberty Legal Foundation -Government Proclaims “No Limits on Congressional Power”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/media-cover-up-of-obama-impeachment-exposed/

PriklyPetesays:

This is not just about “BO”, it’s about the entire White House and the pigs now feeding from the public trough. They’ve trashed our Constitution, opened our borders, stole our social security, and all tax dollars the American Public have paid, borrowed more money than god could have ever imagined and continue their smoke screen while making this country a third world nation. Our war should not be with third world nations but with Washington, [Republicrats included] these pigs need to be removed physically before this nation is gone. DO NOT SIT FAT, DUMB, AND HAPPY, GET UP AND DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

Patriot1776 says:

The man who calls himself the President of the United States should not only be removed from that position but tried for his crimes against the United States. His co-conspirator, Nancy Pelosi should also share his demise. She knew when she sent his nomination papers to the Democrat National Committee that he was not eligible to be President. She removed from that document the words :”natural born citizen” before submitting it. However, the Democrat Committee in charge of the nomination did not challenge the removal of that passage, therefore, they, as well as she, have committed Treason long before the imposter did and should suffer the same consequences, whether they are re-elected or not. The sooner we rid our nation of these traitors, the sooner we can bring this nation back to what is was meant to be.

flag

Old Glory

Why Obama is an Alien by U.S. Law

ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED (U)
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 3 of 69

ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT

(CT:CON-522;0708-2014)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/L)

7 FAM 1131.1-1 Federal Statutes (CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)
a.
Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is
governed by Federal statutes. (1) Only insofar as Congress has provided in such
statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of
“jus sanguinis” under which citizenship is acquired by descent (2.) (see 7 FAM 1111a(2)).

1.) Note reference to “a” citizen parent. Singular.  That means the other parent was a foreigner. Together they produced a hybrid dual national of two nations.
2.) Don’t mis-read what that says.  It refers only to  a child of a mixed-nationality origin having only one American parent.  By Congressional mandate, a child of a single American parent can be deemed to be an American by descent, by transmission or conveyance of U.S. citizenship through a blood relationship with a citizen parent.

Such citizenship is not a right but is a quasi-right, a semi-right, a partial-right, but not a natural right because by nature and its principle, all parents are alike.  Same genus, same species, and usually the same breed.  Without likeness, reproduction is impossible, almost, with exceptions of animals of the same genus but different species, like a donkey and a zebra, a donkey and a horse (resulting in a sterile hybrid: the mule).

The variations within the dog family are even greater, from tiny lap dogs to Great Danes, from Bulldogs to Greyhounds.  But they are all dogs with nearly identical genes.  In fact, one species was discovered to almost universally have identical genes; the Cheetah.  They are all descendents of a few surviving pairs from long, long ago.

A parent born and raised as a member of a foreign nation and culture, having a foreign language, history, government, and law, cannot produce with an American a new natural American citizen child.  It can only be half American, so extending citizenship to one who is only half a citizen by birth, is a benevolent consideration of the U.S. government, and many other governments as well, (but perhaps not most) depending on the gender of the foreign parents.

The statement that jus sanguinis recognition of citizenship is provided solely by congressional statute means that it is discretionary and not the consequence of natural descent which requires no statute.  It is a kind of looking-the-other way and ignoring the foreign parent, and only making recognition of the American parent, the one with American blood that transmits U.S. citizenship to his or her child.

Such recognition of citizenship is a purely gray area since it is in the middle between being purely an American and purely a foreigner.  So the choice of the government could go either way, but in the post-14th Amendment interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898, the government has chosen in favor of the American parent and his or her child’s U.S membership.

b.
Section 104(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1104(a)) gives the Secretary of State the responsibility for the administration and enforcement of all nationality laws relating to “the determination of nationality of a person not in the United States.”

Note: Not only the enforcement of all nationality “laws”, but also all official opinions of the U.S. Attorney General, -opinions about the law, but which are not law themselves, merely being federal policy based on his opinion of what the law or a court opinion means.

It is by just such an Attorney General opinion, set in place in 1898 by John Griggs (about the meaning of what the Supreme Court wrote in its Wong opinion) that Barack Obama is even considered to be a U.S. citizen.  Without his opinion being followed, -or with it being different, Obama would have been considered to be purely a British-Kenyan citizen of the Commonwealth and Kenya because he was not born of legal permanent resident (domiciled) immigrants and thus was not born subject to the full sovereignty of Washington as the 14th Amendment requires.

Foreigners who are guests of the United States are not subject to its obligations as citizens and immigrants are.  They have no obligation to serve in the United States military, and thus cannot be drafted nor required to register, -nor can they be charged with treason, -as can citizens and immigrants, because they, like foreign ambassadors and diplomats, are exempt under international law, the law of nations, treaties, and even moral law.

As continuing members of their own society and nation, -still subject to their own government, and non-members of American society, they are outside of and not subject to the authority that governs Americans and Green Card immigrants. Consequently, so is any son born to them while sojourning within our borders.  He is subject to their authority, and through his father, to his foreign authority.  Thus the second requirement of the 14th Amendment cannot be met by a child of any foreign guest.  It is not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus is not born as a citizen.

7 FAM 1131.2 Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S. Citizenship

Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S. citizenship to children born abroad:
(1)
At least one natural parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the child was born. The only exception is for a posthumous child.

[NOTE: That is either an ignorant mistake or it is a deliberate lie.  In 1790, and for over a century after, any women who married an American became naturalized by marriage.  That means she was no longer a foreigner when she had his child but was an American like and through him (a derivative citizen of the State of his citizenship).  Similarly, if she was the American and she married a foreigner, she was no longer considered to be an American by many jurisdictions and authorities but as having adopted his nationality, -especially so if living abroad with him.  So there is nothing in those naturalization acts about only one natural parent being an America.  That is a falsehood.

Do you see a problem?  If the very government itself is ignorant of history, how can the public be expected to not be wrong about many things since we all were raised in an ignorant age?]

(2)
The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically present in the United States for the time required by the law in effect when the child was born.

[Note: That is probably only true beginning in the 20th century, though possibly slightly earlier.]

7 FAM 1131.4                     ~Blood Relationship Essential

7 FAM 1131.4-1 Establishing Blood Relationship
a.
The laws on acquisition of U.S. citizenship through a parent have always contemplated the existence of a blood relationship between the child and the parent(s) (1.) through whom citizenship is claimed. It is not enough that the child is presumed to be the issue of the parents’ marriage by the laws of the jurisdiction where the child was born. Absent a blood relationship between the child and the parent on whose citizenship the child’s own claim is based, U.S. citizenship is not acquired. The burden of proving a claim to U.S. citizenship, including blood relationship and legal relationship, where applicable, is on the person making such claim.

1.) Note:  Ignorance of the fundamental nature of nationality led the author to mistakenly use the plural “s” in parenthesis when such an error is actual heresy to a fundamental principle of American liberty.  Why, you ask?  Because of what is stated in that sentence at its very beginning.  “The laws on acquisition of U.S. citizenship through a parent…”; -that is entirely accurate; what is inaccurate is that there are laws on the acquisition of citizenship when both parents are Americans who have been residents of the United States.

There are no such laws because foreigners are not involved, nor is foreign birth and domicile.  Only American blood is involved, and it insures automatic citizenship without the involvement of government or laws.  Natural citizenship is not “acquired” when it is transmitted by descent from American parents.  American children of Americans are born being American citizens also, and their national membership is not “acquired” but is inescapable, unavoidable, pre-determined, and without need or permission of law.

What is government’s role when a child is born abroad of an American couple, both of whom were born in or lived in the U.S.?  It is not to apply the law to the child since there is no law. It is merely to determine if the child is the natural child of its parents or not, and that is determined by whether or not it was born of solely American blood and no other.  If it was not, then laws govern such a hybrid child who’s half foreign.

b.
Applicants must meet different standards of proof of blood relationship depending on the circumstances of their birth:
(1)
The statutes do not specify a standard of proof for persons claiming birth in wedlock to a U.S. citizen parent or out of wedlock to an American mother.
The Department’s regulations also do not explicitly establish a standard of proof. The Department applies the general standard of a preponderance of the evidence. This standard means that the evidence of blood relationship
is of greater weight than the evidence to the contrary. It is credible and convincing and best accords with reason and probability. It does not depend on the volume of evidence presented.  [It is a judgement call]
c.
Children born in wedlock are generally presumed to be the issue of that marriage.   However this presumption is not determinative in citizenship cases because an actual blood relationship to a U.S. citizen parent is required. If doubt arises that the citizen “parent” is related by blood to the child, the consular officer is expected to investigate carefully.

7 FAM 1131.6-1 Status Generally (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One exception is that they may be subject to citizenship retention requirement.

NOTE: The Supreme Court has essentially gutted 80 years of Congress presuming it had authority over the citizenship of new Americans.  It has none.  They are equal to all other citizens, and hence no residency rules are constitutionally valid unless they are added as a requirement before and as part of the naturalization of foreigners.  Once they become citizens, then Congress is out of the picture.
Don’t be deceived by the first sentence language: “Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally…”  Such persons are only half American and thus their citizenship is not by blood alone, not natural nor automatic, but governed by naturalization statute.

They are not citizens by birth, but merely citizens at/from/ or upon birth.  In a very real sense, they are naturalized at birth by statute.  But the children of American couples are not.  They are not considered to be natural-ized since they are natural by birth.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
a.
It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore eligible for the Presidency.
b.
Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible for the Office of President.”
c.
The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

NOTE:  That is the most ignorant statement of all.  The men who wrote the first naturalization statute (in the first Congress of the new United States ever elected) included many of the men who founded the nation, and wrote the Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights.  They knew exactly what they were writing and why.  They knew that they had failed in the Constitution to address American children not born in America, and so they took the first opportunity to correct that oversight in order to protect and assure their right to seek election to serve as President.

The author failed to explain what being “a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute” means, because it means nothing.  The only thing that that term is related to in all of American social and political life is the presidency, and it alone (with the arcane, and the then non-existent role of guarding the President and having access to and control over American nuclear weapons.  Those born of foreigners aren’t welcome to apply, and will probably be excluded by an unwritten rule if they do.  Can you imagine the son of a faithful and extremely devote Islamic Saudi father and an American Muslim mother being entrusted with command of an American nuclear submarine, including its 100+ nuclear weapons?  There might be a problem regarding trust and allegiance).

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term “naturalization” means “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.

NOTE:  The author again mistakenly conflated those born of Americans with those born of mixed-nationality parentage, with one parent being a foreigner.  Those born of Americans are not naturalized because they are born being natural American citizens, but those born with a foreign parent are not, and thus fall under Congressional statute, as previous shared by the author, so it is absurd to claim that they too are natural citizens by implication, and not naturalized at birth.

The difference between the two is about whether or not someone like Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President or is definitely not eligible.  That difference would affect only one person in 300 million, but that one person could greatly effect the lives of those 300 million, so his eligibility is not a small matter, nor is this point on which it would be based.

If it can be claimed and believed that a foreign-born child of an Adolph Hitler (having an American mother) is not subject to any naturalization statute and is therefore not considered a citizen by naturalization, then such a foreign threat to America would by extension be considered eligible to be President because there is no other relevant form of citizenship besides natural citizenship except actual adult naturalization.  Which would mean he would be considered to be a natural born citizen, -which would be insane.

No child born of foreign blood is a natural anything unless it is born of purely foreign blood, then it is a full natural citizen of its foreign parents’ nation, -not the United States.

7 FAM 1131.7       Citizenship Retention Requirements
a.
Persons who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad were not required to take any affirmative action to keep their citizenship until May 24, 1934, when a new law imposed retention requirements on persons born abroad on or after that date to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent.
b.
Retention requirements continued in effect until October 10, 1978, when section 301(b) INA was repealed. [following multiple Supreme Court holdings]  Because the repeal was prospective in application, it did not benefit persons born on or after May 24, 1934, and before October 10, 1952 (see 7 FAM 1100 Appendix L).
c.
Persons born abroad on or after October 10, 1952, are not subject to any conditions beyond those that apply to all citizens.

7 FAM 1132.4 February 10, 1855
a.
On this date, Congress enacted “An Act to Secure the Right of Citizenship to Children of Citizens of the United States Born Out of the Limits Thereof,” (10 Stat.6 04).
b.
It stated, in part, that: “persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and
considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States:
Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

NOTE: Nationality was membership that was acquired by descent from the head of the family; the nationality of the entire family was that of he who was its head, his wife included.  The nationality of his American children was NOT being established by the wording of that statute; -rather, it was being protected and declared for the ignorant, just as the rights of the States were meant to be protected by the words of the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retain by The People.”  That is protection language ordering the federal government how to act and even think (“construed”, “disparage”) regarding the inviolable rights of the State republics and the American people.

What everyone, including the author, fails to ask is “why are they so strongly declared to be that which they are by birth?”  Because boneheads have always occupied all levels of government.  Nepotism and favoritism have always been a factor in hiring, and that does not result in the most qualified, nor intelligent people holding important positions, including authority over American ports, and the people allowed to enter them.

But there is another class of possibly boneheaded officials, and they are the ones in the States in charge of which names are allowed on the State ballots for the election of the President.
Congress, with that language, protect their right to be recognized as American citizens, but that fact is not the end of the story, because there still remains the extremely important question of “what sort of American citizen are they exactly?”  The answer determines who is eligible to be President, and who is barred for life.

Are the American children who didn’t enter the world somewhere within U.S. borders really not qualified because of a circumstance that they, and perhaps their mother, had no control over?  What if she was the former first lady, or second lady (the VP’s wife) and was nine months pregnant and hurrying in an ambulance on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls to get across the border to an American hospital but gave birth in the ambulance before crossing?  Why would those brief moments, and that insignificant circumstance affect the child’s right (precluding it) for the rest of its life regarding service as the U.S. President?  Were the founders really dumb enough to endorse such a system of nationality assignment, -one so insanely unnatural?  Or did they reject that insane British system and embrace the “Law of Nature and Nature’s God”?

So the heart of the statue fails to answer those questions, and it failed to do so for a very strong reason, and that reason was the huge number of children born in America to immigrants before they became naturalized citizens.  If the statute had declared those foreign-born American children to be the natural citizens that they were by nature, and had made it plain that all persons who are not citizens by naturalization of any form are natural citizens by birth, then that would mean that all of those native-born and raised American sons could never serve their country as its President regardless of how patriotic, devoted, and even heroic they might be.
Needless to say, to state such a thing in the face of a large immigrant voting population that would strongly oppose it, would not be politically expedient; meaning “wise”.  It would not help any politician’s career to affirm and declare a fundamental principle of nature, which applies to one’s political nature so no one sought to attempt to do so since they would find them self attempting to swim upstream.  After all, the odds of a foreign-born American ever being in the running for the White House was very, very slim since their numbers were very, very small (percentage wise) so why stick your neck out for a “mere” principle when there might never be anyone to even benefit from your sacrifice?  That is why all of the Congresses after the first resorted to defending only the undefined citizenship of Americas born abroad, -but not their natural citizenship and eligibility to be President.  Only the first Congress had the spine to do that, -or the character.

Note the error of “-rights of citizenship shall not descend…”.  It was a serious mistake to add an “s” to “the right of citizenship”.  “Rights” are not citizenship, and citizenship is more than “rights”, but all of the dunderheads that voted for the bill with that error in it, didn’t really care very much about the subject or they would have spotted it and changed it.  The same stupid oversight happened again, or continued on, in the 1934 naturalization law re-write.  Take note from http://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf ; ~page 5:

THE “CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1934”:
On 24 May, Congress makes a major change to the“citizenship law” to now enable U.S. citizen mothers to also transmit U.S. citizenship at birth abroad. But for the first time the law now also creates a new burden by imposing a mandatory “subsequent five year residence requirement” in the United States, prior to reaching age eighteen, and an “oath of allegiance requirement” within six months of the child’s twenty-first birthday, for any child born abroad to parents, one of whom is an alien.
The new law states:
“Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth
of such child.
In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.” (Section 1, 48 Stat. 797
Their attention to detail was so poor that they failed to notice the change from mention of rights (plural) of citizenship to the right of citizenship (itself) when both sentences were meant to convey the same thing, but the Congressmen who passed it along without studying it, didn’t care.  After all, it wasn’t going to affect them or theirs in the slightest.

c.
The Act of February 10, 1855 did not repeal the Act of April 14, 1802

Note: The Act of 1802, like that of 1795, and 1790, stated that children of persons who became naturalized citizens, if dwelling in the U.S., were also citizens (through their blood relationship with a father who had become a new American).  That meant two significant things.  1. It they had left the U.S. or never emigrated with their parents, then they were not deemed to be Americans since they had chosen to remain foreigners.  2.  The children of foreign fathers, prior to their naturalization, were foreigners also just like their father.  The acts made no mention of nor exception for children born in America.  From the national perspective, it was not a matter of where they were born, but to whom they were born.

But from the State perspective, it was generally the opposite!  A divergence, a dichotomy, a clash of perspectives; with the States continuing to allow the age-old common law citizenship for all born within their borders, while the national government rejected British common law nationality determination and only embraced natural law, -rejecting as unAmerican the British common law custom and tradition of native-birth based life-long nationality assignment because it was contaminated with dual nationality which meant dual-allegiance and obligation, along with shared sovereignty, -and no nation at that point was interested in nor agreeable to sharing sovereignty with a foreign power.

But that was not a concern of the States since national sovereignty was a federal issue, -not an intra-State issue.  They didn’t care about an immigrant’s foreign government.  They were future citizens of the State, and so were their native-born children, so by the age-old common law, they were deemed to be citizens from birth.  Not so in the eyes of the national government.  They were aliens from birth, -just like their father whom they took after.  The only in-country consequence of the federal position was in regard to who was eligible to serve as President.  Nothing else, -since all citizens are equal (with that lone exception).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7 FAM 1132.6 May 24, 1934
a.
Section 1993 (48 Stat. 797) was amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, to permit American women to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad, regardless of the father’s citizenship.  [note: that was over a decade after the passage of the 19th Amendment which declared that the right to vote shall not be abridged on account of gender.]

b.
The amended Section 1993 was in effect from May 24, 1934, at noon Eastern Standard Time until January 12, 1941. The text of the amended law is shown in 7 FAM 1135.6-1. It was repealed, and superseded by the Nationality Act of 1940.

7 FAM 1133.3  Residence and Physical Presence Requirement

The INA specifies that residence or a period of physical presence in the United
States is required for transmitting U.S. citizenship on or after December 24, 1952.

     Requirements of Section 301 INA [Immigration and Naturalization Act]
(2)
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizens acquires U.S. citizenship at birth if, before the child’s birth, one of the parents had a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions. No specific period of residence is required. See 7 FAM 1133.5 for specific guidance for determining acquisition of U.S. citizenship by children born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents under INA 301(c)

Note: If neither American parent had ever lived in the United States, then that would mean that they were both foreign-born and raised, making them more foreign than American, so if they had a child, it would be viewed as fully foreign and citizenship would not descend to it, as had been the law going back centuries in England.

c.  Birth to Citizen and Alien: Unlike section 301(d), section 301(g)* does not require a continuity of stay. However, on the whole, its requirements for transmitting U.S. citizenship to the foreign-born child of a U.S. citizen and an alien are much more stringent: for children born prior to November 14, 1986, the U.S. citizen parent must have had ten years of physical presence, five of which were after reaching age 14, [Obama's mother fell short by about 4 months so her citizenship could not be conveyed to her son if born abroad.] in the United States or its outlying possessions; for children born on or after November 14, 1986, to transmit citizenship the U.S. citizen parent needs five years of physical presence, two of which were after age 14, in the United States or one of its possessions.  * (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA)

[Note: liberalizing by shortening the residency requirement so dramatically could have served only one political purpose: allowing more children to qualify for citizenship, and thus eligibility to receive U.S. welfare benefits, which would benefit the Democrat party which was and is viewed as the generous provider of welfare to one and all, and therefore the natural recipient of the parent's vote.]

7 FAM 1133.3-3 What Constitutes U.S. Physical Presence:
a. Current Practice
(1) The Immigration and Nationality Act does not define “physical presence,” but the Department interprets it as actual bodily presence. Any time spent in the United States or its outlying possessions, even without maintaining a
U.S. residence, may be counted toward the required physical presence.
(2)
Naturalized citizens may count any time they spent in the United States or its outlying possessions both before and after being naturalized, regardless of their status. Even citizens who, prior to lawful entry and naturalization, had spent time in the United States illegally can include that time. !!!!  WHY???  [More votes for Democrats.]

7 FAM 1133.5
Guidance for Determining Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Children Born Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents Under INA 301(c)

NOTE: This refers to foreign-born children of citizens who were also born abroad.  Not to children of native-born citizens.  This language and the principle behind it are crucial to understand the nature of 14th Amendment citizenship, subjection, and jurisdiction of the United States government.  It requires that a person be born subject to the full authority of the American government.  When it was written, that did not include children of foreigners since they were born subject to the jurisdiction of their foreign father, who was subject to his own government since he was not an American, -but in the eyes of the States his child was an American, regardless of the view and law of the federal government.

The Supreme Court issued the opinion in the 1898 Wong case that native-born children of domiciled, legal permanent-resident immigrants are born with U.S. citizenship.  It said not a word about children born of non-immigrant aliens, (-those present on a tourist or guest Visa and not a Green Card).  By the real meaning of the 14th Amendment, as well as their very limited opinion in the Wong case, permanent residency was paramount to the presumption that United States citizenship is conveyed to children of aliens.  What follows illuminates that fact.

a.  The concept of residence is inherently more complex than the more literal concept of physical presence. While no specific period of residence is mentioned in the statute, Congress’ use of the term “residence” requires a close examination, on a case by case basis, of the facts related to one’s stay in the United States to determine if it falls within the INA’s definition of “residence.”
b.
Residence is not determined solely by the length of time one spends in a place, [Obama's father had a one year Visa, but received three extensions to complete his education and receive a degree, -then he was ordered to leave the country; he was never considered to be a resident of the United States.] but also takes into account the nature and quality of the person’s connection to the place.

This is a very fact-specific test. However, at all times and in all cases, residence involves the connection to a specific physical place. [Obama Sr. had no connection to America as he was purely Kenyan]  Residence is not a state of mind that travels with a person. Department guidance clearly states that residence is more than a temporary presence and that visits to the United States are insufficient to establish residency for the purposes of citizenship transmission under INA 301(c). See 7 FAM 1134.3-2.
c.
Section 101(a)(33) of the INA defines residence as the person’s “place of general abode [meaning] his principal actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.” Under this definition, residence is much more than an address –e.g., a Post Office box is not a place of general abode or a dwelling place — it is one’s principal actual dwelling place. A person has a different relationship to his or her residence than to any other place. [a temporary college dorm does not constitute one's permanent residence; their home does.]

For example, someone who rents a vacation home in California for a month in the summer has not established a “principal actual dwelling place,” as that term is used in Section 101(a)(33). Similarly, someone who resides along the border in Mexico or Canada, but works each day in the United States cannot use his or her workplace to establish a residence. In both examples, however, the person could establish physical presence. Some examples of what constitutes a “residence” versus “physical presence” are described below. [excised]
d.
Owning or renting property in the United States is not a pre-condition for proving a residence. Similarly, owning or renting property outside of the United States is not necessarily incompatible with having a residence in the United States. Where a person owns or rents property is certainly relevant information that could help a consular officer make a determination of whether a person has or has not had a residence in a particular place, but other evidence is important as well –e.g., evidence that shows that the person actually lived in that property and conducted normal daily activities of life there. In other words, evidence that shows it is one’s principal actual dwelling place.
e.
Birth in the United States is usually sufficient to satisfy the residence requirement of Section 301(c) of the INA. For example, where a person is born abroad in wedlock to two U.S. citizen parents, and one parent was born in the United States, that U.S. citizen parent will meet the “residence” requirement as long as evidence is presented that demonstrates that the parent’s [foreign-born] mother was not merely transiting through the United States at the time of that parent’s birth. We note that a long form birth certificate usually includes the mother’s address, which normally suffices to show that the mother was not transiting through the United States.
f.
While the definition of residence is not dependent on a specific time period in the United States, the longer the duration of a person’s stay in a particular place in the United States (e.g., six months or more), the more likely it is that that place can be characterized as the person’s residence. On the other hand, if the stay at a place in the United States was relatively brief (e.g., a few months or less), then in order for that place to be considered a “residence” additional evidence may be required to show why the stay, though brief, was other than a temporary visit.  [Note: a long visit can also be temporary if it is predicated originally as a limited visit (a 1-year student Visa, for example).]
g.
The concept of “residence” should not be confused with the term “physical presence” which is used elsewhere in the INA as the test for transmitting citizenship, and which is a more literal concept that may be easier to apply. Section 301(g), for example, requires that when only one parent is a U.S. citizen, that citizen parent must have a specific duration of physical presence — not residence — in the United States prior to the birth of the child in order to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Unlike in Section 301(g), in Section 301(c), Congress chose to use the term “residence,” and not set a time requirement. The rationale being that the nature of a residence presupposes the sort of relationship to a place that mere physical presence does not.

[Note: Obama Sr. had no relationship to the United States, and his clearly expressed intent was to return home to Kenya after graduation, -to be part of his soon to be free country and possibly its government.]

h.  One important distinction between “physical presence” and a “residence” is the way that we consider the time spent in the United States in evaluating whether the terms are met. The time spent in a “residence” is time spent in that one particular place, not time spent in the United States overall. On the other hand, when computing “physical presence,” we consider any time a person has spent anywhere in the United States to count towards “physical presence.”

Thus, if a person spent a year traveling around the United States on a cross-country tour, and slept in a different hotel every week for a year, we would find that he was physically present in the United States for a year, but we could not find that he had a residence in the United States unless there was other evidence that supported the conclusion that one of the places where the person spent time was that person’s “principal actual dwelling place.” The United States is not a person’s dwelling place.

[Note: Obama Sr. was not domiciled in the United States since he had a family and home back in Kenya, to whom and to which he intended to return, so his principle abode, dwelling place, or permanent residence was in Kenya, not America.  That means his son did not fit the requirement of the 14th Amendment since his father was never an immigrant and remained subject to his own foreign government, (not the United States) as was stated openly on Obama’s own campaign website; he being subject to the British Nationality of 1948, “as were his children“, (!!!) -including one supposedly born in Hawaii.

i.  Examples of documents that can help demonstrate a residence include, but are not limited to, a combination of some of the following: property rental leases and payment receipts, deeds, utility bills, property tax records, automobile registrations, professional licenses, employment records or information, income tax records, stamped school transcripts, military records, income records, including W-2 salary forms, and vaccination and medical records.

[Note: they can "help" but they are not determinative.  Principle is what is determinative.  Real connection, "relationship", roots, attachments, are what determines if one is truly a member of American society, or merely a temporary transplant.  In the case of men, a more absolute test exists, and it is whether or not one is subject to military conscription.  Temporary guests of the US government are not subject to induction into the United States military.  They are exempt because they are not members of American society and thus owe it no debt of allegiance nor service, unlike citizens and immigrants.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTE:  This section deals with what can be called Provisional Citizenship:

g)   A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years’ residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien:
Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years:
Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years’ residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7 FAM 1135.2 Residence Requirement for Transmitting U.S. Citizenship Before January 13, 1941

Purpose:
a.
The aim of the residence requirements of Section 1993, R.S., and of earlier laws was to prevent the residence abroad of successive generations of persons claiming the privileges of U.S. citizenship while evading its duties.
b.
No citizenship law before the Nationality Act of 1940 explained what was meant by “resided in the United States” or when the parent’s residence in the United States must have occurred.

7 FAM 1135.3-2 To American Mother
a.
In about 1912, the Department began to hold that a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother (before May 24, 1934), acquired U.S. citizenship through the mother if she previously had resided in the United States. It was considered [an opinion] that in the absence of a legally recognized father, the mother, as the sole parent, would have the rights normally attributed to a U.S. citizen father [as head of her "family"]. This also avoided statelessness for the child.  [quite reasonable]
b.
This view was overruled in 1939 by the Attorney General who stated that in such cases Section 1993, R.S., must be held to preclude transmission of citizenship because Section 1993 R.S., as originally enacted, did not permit women to transmit citizenship (39 Op. Atty. Gen. 290).
c.
The Attorney General, who recognized the harshness inherent in his holding, expressed hope that legislative relief could be given retroactively. This was done in section 205 NA (see 7 FAM 1134.5-4)

NOTE: That situation provides unmistakeable evidence of the authority of the Attorney General when it came to opinions regarding the meaning of nationality statutes.  It was his opinion as legal chief executive of the executive branch which determined what “the law of the land” was.  If his opinion was faulty, flawed, erroneous, or illogical, it nevertheless stood as federal policy that all officers of the government with authority in a given area must follow.  One can say that his legal opinion is or was the “opinion of the land” but not the actual law of the land, since it is what Congress actually wrote, or what the Supreme Court actually wrote as their opinion regarding congressional statutes or the Constitution.

Barack Obama is considered to be a U.S. citizen based solely and entirely on just such an opinion of an Attorney General, -A.G. John Griggs to be specific, although it may have never been put into a formal statement or “Interpretation”.  It nevertheless was adopted by the foreign-affairs consuls world-wide, and it is all that governs the presumption that Barack Obama is an American citizen.

He is not a citizen by any law, nor by the 14ht Amendment, nor by the Supreme Courts opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case which construed, by the court’s opinion, what the 14th Amendment citizenship clause means.  They stated that Wong was a citizen from birth because he was born of domiciled Chinese immigrants engaged in business in the United States.  That’s all.  But that was not enough for that Attorney General, who on his own non-authority expanded it to include all children born of all foreigners in America except those of foreign ambassadors.  Talk about a gigantic leap!

Well guess what…. -that opinion still stands as the brain-dead policy of the United States to this day!  It is totally entrenched into American nationality views as being the actual “law of the land” when it is nothing more than an illegitimate opinion of an unelected man who had no authority to make his own law, nor to rewrite the 14th Amendment, nor the opinion of the Supreme Court, but who did it anyway.  And because he did it, Barack Obama as president was made possible because everyone is under the misconception that native-birth is all that is required to obtain citizenship, and worse still, that U.S. citizenship from birth is all that is required to be eligible to be President, -being ignorant of the fact, as was I, that he must be a natural born citizen, -not simply any native-born citizen.

7 FAM 1135.7-2 To American Mother
a.
On May 10, 1939, the Attorney General indicated (39 Op. Atty. Gen. 290) that it was not clear that children born abroad out of wedlock to American women acquired U.S. citizenship and that new legislation was desirable to clarify their status. However, the Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service have held administratively that children born out of wedlock to American women while Section 1993 R.S., as amended, was in effect acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if their mothers previously had resided in the United States (4 I. & N. Dec. 440 (1951)).

[Note: Since there was no law governing that situation, and response to it had to be made by the State Department and the INS, it was left up to the Attorney General or the INS to come up with a policy to follow, -one that would have the force of law, since it would be enforced, but which would not have the real authority of real law.  It is by just such self-determined executive federal authority that Obama is considered to be an American citizen.

That determination is outside of any law of Congress, -outside of the 14th Amendment, and outside of the Wong opinion of the high court.  It instead exists and stands alone as pure administrative fiat based on nothing whatsoever other than a form of the dog returning to its own vomit of British imperial common law custom.

By that custom, abhorred by the federal government, every soul born within the King’s dominion was claimed as his subject for life, -with no option to decline subjection to him and become a citizen of another nation.  American rejection of that British rule was the basis of the American revolution.  The American colonist, -the founders in particular, were through with being his subjects for life, and would form their own nation and governments to better serve the cause of their liberty and security.

7 FAM 1135.8 Retention of U.S. Citizenship Acquired Under Section 1993 R.S., As Amended by Act of May 24, 1934
a.
When it amended Sec 1993 R.S. to give women the right to transmit U.S. citizenship to their foreign-born children, Congress was concerned that a child with one citizen and one alien parent might have divided loyalties, particularly if the father was an alien through whom the child had acquired foreign nationality.

To reduce conflicting ties of allegiance and to ensure that foreign-born children would regard themselves as Americans, Section 1993 R.S., as amended, required such children to reside in the United States for at least 5 years before reaching age 18 and to take an oath of allegiance to the United States within 6 months after reaching age 21 or forfeit their citizenship.
b.  [Provisional citizenship]
The retention requirements did not apply if both parents were U.S. citizens or if the child had been born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen woman. In such cases, it was felt that foreign influences and ties would be less likely to occur.

NOTE:  The circumstance of a child born to an American mother and an alien father is the same wherever the child is born if the father is not an immigrant member of American society but is a continuing member of his own society, and country and nation because native-birth is irrelevant to how such a child will be raised.

There is no requirement that mother and father and child live in the United States to prevent attachments to the father’s foreign nation if the child was born in the U.S., even though there should be the same sort of requirement as for a child not born within U.S. borders since they both could be raised in identical circumstances and develop into loyal citizens of a foreign nation with an un-American view of the rights of government by being raised and acculturated there.

So the issue really is not where a child was born, but to whom it was born and where was it raised, but for the native-born, that second question falls between the cracks of American nationality law, completely overlook and unaddressed.  It’s a flaw that did not exist until citizenship by descent was reassigned from strictly flowing from the father to the family, and became ascribed to the wife and mother as well.  Previously a child such as Barack Obama was (for over half of American history) considered to have only the nationality of the father, which made him a foreigner as well.  Everyone needs to ask how a child who for such a long period, from the very founding of the nation, who was an alien during all of that period in the view of the federal government, could be considered now to be a natural born citizen.  Indeed, how?

Plus, -if Obama had been born 40 years earlier, and the Naturalization Act of 1907 had not been repealed 15 years later, Obama’s mother would have lost her U.S. citizenship because of her marriage to an alien (regaining only after their divorce) and he son would not have been perceived as being a dual citizen since neither parent would have been an American, descent would have been solely through his father, and the 14th Amendment would not have applied due to birth to a transient alien and not a domiciled immigrant.  So it appears incontrovertible, that from any angle, Obama not only was nothing like a natural born citizen, but he was not even a United States citizen at all.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

by Adrien Nash  July 2014  obama–nation.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers