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

nazi-collage-thmb—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[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.”

“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.”

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



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


  “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



*   *    *    *    *    *    *

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


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


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

What the Supreme Court Should Know But Doesn’t


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






















































~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~







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





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




























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



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








~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~
































































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


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.


   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.
(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.



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.



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.


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.



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”



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.


Old Glory

40 Obama Quotes That Prove He’s a Muslim

577 obama muslim





B. Hussein Obama is only hard to understand if you try to make sense of his actions against the backdrop of what we have come to expect as “typical’ United States presidents. Part of that criteria includes having the interests of the country foremost, and not working to destroy the nation you took an oath to protect. Generally our leaders have held Christian beliefs as well. B. Hussein Obama is different. His own words and actions tell us so, but we must be willing to listen.

This is some excellent information, compiled with links to the individual sources. It is not pleasant to look at, but sometimes that is how it is with the truth.

20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam and Mohammed

#1 “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

#2 “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

#3 “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”

#4 “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

#5 “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.

#6 “Islam has always been part of America”

#7 “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities

#8 “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

#9 “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

#10 “I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”

#11 “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

#12 “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”

#13 “In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”

#14 “Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

#15 “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality

#16 “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’”

#17 “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”

#18 “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.”

#19 “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

#20 “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Christianity and the Bible

#1 “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”

#2 “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”

#3 “Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?  Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination?  Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?”

#4 “Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.”

#5 “The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.”

#6 From Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: “I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”

#7 Obama’s response when asked what his definition of sin is: “Being out of alignment with my values.”

#8 “If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they.”

#9 “This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.”

#10 “I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.  I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.  That’s just not part of my religious makeup.”

#11 “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.”

#12 “I’ve said this before, and I know this raises questions in the minds of some evangelicals. I do not believe that my mother, who never formally embraced Christianity as far as I know … I do not believe she went to hell.”

#13 “Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God’s will–they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths.”

#14 On his support for civil unions for gay couples: “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount.”

#15 “You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

#16 “In our household, the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology”

#17 “On Easter or Christmas Day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.”

#18 “We have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own”

#19 “All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — (applause) — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer.  (Applause.)”

#20 “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.


Rick Wells is a conservative author who believes an adherence the U.S. Constitution would solve many of today’s problems. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.

a note by nash:  Did you notice that Obama references justice, equality, tolerance, and progress but never ever mentions the words LIBERTY or FREEDOM.  That’s because they are diametrically oppose to his oppressive Allah that demands all filthy humans bow to his almighty greatest 5 times a day as his subservient, obedient dogs who were not create in his own image as free and autonomous beings made to live their outward lives on their feet and not on their knees.


The Asinine Errors of Maskell’s & Mario’s N-B-Citizen Bullsh*t

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…

“Congressional Research Service Attorney, Jack Maskell, argues in his, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement”, dated November 14, 2011, [accessed here] that any born citizen, regardless of where born, to whom born, and by which law so made, is a “natural born citizen”.  He arrives at his thesis by manipulating, distorting, omitting, and misstating historical and legal evidence. The absurdity of Maskell’s thesis can be readily seen by the following.

Maskell’s theory does not explain or provide any evidence on how the Founders, Framers, and ratifiers defined a born citizen. Rather, his is one that is based on what the definition of a natural born citizen ought to be today.”

Maskell wrote: “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates…”

He went wrong right from the start by appealing to “authority” for a factual matter and not an opinion matter.  “The weight” refers to exactly how much weight?  55%? 65%?  The Supreme Court itself, as often as not it seems, has its weight on the side of that which is totally unconstitutional, as we all saw with the court opinion on the unAffordable Care Act, (and Wichard v Filburn).

Throughout its history, the weight of opinion in the realm of science  has always been on the wrong side of reality and truth, as consensus opinion was eventually destroyed by newly discovered facts.  Atheists depend on that phenomenon since it gave them “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, as well as a sun-centered solar system.

I’ve just read an amazing report about the 94 yr. old  Dr. James Lovelock, a guru of the Green Movement, and author of a powerful global warming scare book that polarized everyone into action. Billions will die!  Well, he recants it all now, relating that everyone was WRONG! That data and absence of change destroys what has become a religion.

Opinions can all be wrong, just like the view of two centuries that Black Americans who claimed that Thomas Jefferson was their ancestor were simply promoting not truth but foolishness and lying self-invented myth.  And yet opinions were all that Maskell consulted. He did not consult the meaning of the words themselves or else he would have recognized that any opinion that failed to recognize the meaning of the word “natural” was inherently wrong.

So what was his goal from the beginning and was it the correct goal?  It was not, because it was merely to ascertain what the historical consensus opinion had been, -and finding that there was none, he simply declared both competing views to be correct.

He continued:  “that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth‘” thus rendering the crucial word “natural” meaningless.  Even worse if possible, he bastardized the three word term by placing quotation marks around the two adjectives.  They have no business having quotation marks around them, (“natural born”).  Why would he do such a thing?  Those quotation marks appear in nothing ever written until he dishonestly added them in an attempt to alter the character of the meaning of the three words in combination; Citizen, Born, Natural.  Citizen-born means born of citizens.  It has a hyphen between the two words to indicate a unitary term.  “Natural born” never has a hyphen because it is not a unitary term nor an adjective phrase when used in conjunction with the word “citizen”.

That fact is evident in the letter that the president of the Continental Congress, John Jay, wrote to the president of the Constitutional convention, George Washington, exhorting him to not allow anyone to wield the power of the Command in Chief position except a natural born citizen.  [his underlining]

That shows that they were used as two unrelated adjectives, and not as a adjective phrase attached to “citizen”.  That means that “natural” attaches to “citizen” (natural citizen) and not to “born”.  The difference is seen in an example like “natural-born athlete.  It requires the use of the hyphen and precludes the underlining of either adjective.

He also lazily and deceptively employed a word that has no defined meaning; the word “entitled”, which raises the question; entitled by what? By Natural RIGHT? or by human tradition? or common law? or statutory law? or constitutional law? or what exactly?  What is the source of his claimed entitlement?

He did not address that issue because his entire exploration was a mile wide but only an inch deep.

It was superficial, -shallow, -involving zero principles that determine the boundaries of human life and membership within civilization.

Emmerich de Vattel, in his influential work “The Law of Nations” (1758) addressed the entitlement he referred to, and it was birth to a father who was a member of a nation. Mario’s listed on his blog on April 7th a whole slew of historical statements that all supported that entitlement of every American father; -membership via blood inheritance, -one  which does not stop at the water’s edge.

Maskell wrote: “…entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’”

So… by that logic, Frankenstein is “a human being” either “by birth” or “by creation”. Let’s see… “by creation”, (just like “at birth”) implies something is produced, effected, -something which (without intervention) would not naturally come to be.  “At” is a reference to the time of commencement of citizenship, a factor that could easily be delayed for a year or a decade depending on the will of lawmakers.  Whereas “by birth” refers to the origin of national membership, it being the blood of the citizen parents whose life produced the birth.

So in Maskell’s Bizarro World that which would be naturally produced, “by birth” is equated as being indistinguishable from that which is the result of human designation and action of law. So Frankenstein is just another human being.  His origin is of no consequence in characterizing his nature.  He’s basically no different from everyone else.

-So in “The Terminator” future, humans produced by humans and machines produced by machines are essentially identical in nature. What’s the difference? They exist “by birth” or by creation. They both have a discreet beginnings of “life”.  Hard to see a difference, right?  They are both sentient beings “at birth” or “at creation” so they can be logically equated as indistinguishable based on having something in common.  ~ASININE!

“either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; [or] by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents;”

So you have two completely unrelated circumstances; the alien-born in America given citizenship by the rule of law, and the American-born born anywhere in the world as Americans by nature, and, like dogs and cats, they are of the same species of citizenship???  ~ASININE!

Correlation does not equal Causation. His logic was so absent that he failed to notice that natural citizens are citizens by inheritance, -not native-birth, but he avoids that fact, lumping them in with those for whom native-birth is absolutely essential, -the alien born.  Without it they are not Americans, but the American-born are American citizens regardless of where they are born, -a whole different creature.

He failed to explain why and how the term; “born citizen” was not actually the correct label to describe the common link that he was referencing in connecting dissimilar citizens.
Everything he wrote applied simply to “born citizen”, so his implication is that the founders added the word “natural” for no discernible reason. After all, it was only The CONSTITUTION!!  -And only written for all the ages to come!
But hey, why avoid throwing in an occasional superfluous word here and there? After all, no one would ever come to a dispute about the difference between a “born citizen” and “a natural born citizen”, would they?
Hamilton’s suggestion that no one “but one born a citizen” must be considered to have been adopted, -only with a slight, inexplicable, unnecessary, irrelevant linguistic embellishment; -the word “natural”.  ~ASININE!

Mario wrote: “Here is Maskell’s argument which shows that I am correct in maintaining that he is arguing that all born citizens are natural born citizens“.

Maskell is implying that it is his opinion that several authoritative others held the opinion that the word “natural” adds no meaning to the words “born citizen”.

You can’t say that he is arguing that one is definitely the same as the other when he is essentially only saying that it appears by historical opinion, that people were of two opinions, and the truth need not be ascertained because we can all just have a hand-holding Kumbaya consensus by simply accepting and embracing both diametrically opposed opinions (!!!).  ~ASININE!

Why the heck bother to determine which opinion was correct? That takes too much time and thinking. The low road, the short cut, is far preferable when one can be doing something else requiring payment of prevailing Attorney’s fees.

“or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”

So his short-cut understanding of citizenship takes the position that natural citizenship is legal citizenship and legal citizenship is natural citizenship.  So… one’s legal children (adopted) are really no different from one’s natural children?  ~ASININE!

Get this straight; nothing that exists by Nature (like natural membership) is a legal thing, and nothing that is a legal thing is a natural thing. Two different universes!

Natural membership is from the same realm as the power of juries to nullify laws, -the power of judges to hold people in contempt and strip them of their freedom without trial. The power to throw out a jury verdict and render a verdict direct from the bench.  Where the heck is that found in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?  No where.  Why not?

It’s a matter of sovereignty. It rests with the People and with their judges. Neither of those two sovereign authorities can be questioned by anyone (other than a superior court administratively ruling on a lower court’s action, -something avoided if at all possible).

Such natural authority, like natural membership, is antecedent to government authority, like the right to natural resources appropriated by the first souls to populate a new land. Their rights precede the rule of later laws and are superior to them.
So is the RIGHT of all American parents to pass their national membership to their children. Government does not make their children Americans. Natural inheritance does. Government has no say in the matter of the membership of those who created it, nor their progeny.

Mario continued:  Apart from all his intellectually dishonest tactics, Maskell does not explain by what means or mechanism(s) the Founders, Framers, and ratifiers saw a person become a born citizen.

Mario does an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in Maskell’s asinine logic, but unfortunately, he is guilty of his own asinine logic.

Exhibit #1. Aliens give birth to aliens or citizens-by-law. Natural born citizens give birth to natural born citizens. Aliens do not give birth to natural born citizens and natural born citizens do not give birth to aliens.

But in the church of Mario, natural born citizens DO give birth to aliens!
If the son of a President who was the son of a President who was the son of a President was born on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls he would be an alien in need of naturalization even though he was born with ancestors who were all natural born citizens going back ten generations and more.

In the Apuzzonian dogma such a son has no natural right to be recognized as being an American and is dependent on the benevolence of government in order to be allowed to be a naturalized U.S. citizen.

He is thus barred forever from his unalienable birthright to serve as leader of his country like his ancestors.

That is what Mario believes and teaches and he justifies it not by Natural Law but by the invented legal fiction he calls “American common law”.  ~ASININE!

In colonial and post-colonial America, the common law remained what it had always been; English. But by claiming that the common law of nations was what America switched to, he then redefines that non-existing world-wide rule of citizenship/subjectship to be something that no “authority” on earth had ever claimed or endorsed.

But regardless, citizenship that is natural is NOT defined by citizenship which is legal, -with his definition of “American common law” based not on a natural principle but on human criteria defined by him, namely; citizen parents and native birth.  By American law, children of foreigners can’t automatically be Americans without native-birth, but by Mario’s law the children of AMERICANS cannot be Americans either without native-birth.  SAYS WHO???  Says Mario.  ~ASININE!

So, do natural born citizens give birth to aliens by Natural Law? or by human dogma?  Mario does not have an answer.

How can a child be something innately different than the parents that produced the child?  Mario does not have an answer.

How can foreigners and their children visiting the U.S. (even born here) be naturally still subject to their own foreign nation and yet American babies born abroad are NOT naturally subject to the U.S. government and under its umbrella? Mario does not have an answer.  If they are naturally subject then they are by definition natural citizens of the U.S. and not aliens.

By what constitutional authority can the U.S. government block citizenship from American children if their parents are natural born citizens?  Mario does not have an answer.

How does the issue of naturalization apply to anything other than aliens and their children, and NOT Americans and theirs?  Mario does not have an answer.

By what mechanism does the political nature with which one is born get determined by an incidental, momentary, transient factor such as geographical location at birth and man-made borders?  Mario does not have an answer.

By what crystal-clear logic could John Jay underline the word “born” if together the three words constitute a “term of legal artifice” which must be taken as a unitary phrase with the individual words being inconsequential as individual words?   Mario does not have an answer.

Can the mechanism by which a human is human and a “Terminator” is non-human be combined into a new natural mechanism?

The English eventually pretended to do just that by calling the England-born children of aliens with the same label as applied to the natural subjects born of Englishmen, -calling them both “natural born subjects”.  What did the two groups have in common?  The same king and the same rights, so all differences were ignored, verbally and legally that is, but not when it came to offices crucial to national survival.  Then the hair was split and only true natural subjects, -the sons of Englishmen and not foreigners, were allowed to wield command and be trusted with national security secrets.

Where and when and why did the founders of our nation decide to hold ransom to geography the non-U.S. born children of American Ambassadors and all U.S. citizens and military personnel located or visiting abroad?   Mario does not have an answer.

If instead, the children of U.S. Ambassadors were deemed to be Americans but the children of their equal fellow citizens were deemed to be aliens, how could the founding fathers reconcile such an obvious unequal treatment with fundamental American principles of equality?
So…, by serving one’s country at the request of the President, one’s foreign-born child’s right to be an American and  also be President one day would be decapitated?  ~ASININE!
If not, then children of Ambassadors would have to be assigned to a special class, -a superior class, an aristocratic class, one which was totally banned in America.

What kind of morons would establish and validate such an insane system?  Our Founding Fathers?  Yes, according to the legend in his own mind; Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Well, you’re supposed to just take it on faith, unquestioning faith in the gospel of Nativist citizenship as preached by the august scholar so widely known and considered infallible; the honorable Sir-Dr.-Professor Esquire Don Mario Apuzzo himself, of course. [Sarcasm intended, -and earned.]

~“now, now little ones, don’t do all of your own thinking for yourselves… that would be silly. Here, let me do part of your thinking for you. That would be so much better. You can trust me to not mislead you, honest, I really really know what I’m talking about. At least I’m convinced that I do.

   ~ Only Nature’s jus sanguinis principle of natural inheritance and natural membership produces natural citizens who are bound together by natural bonds of common origin (the blood of citizen parents) and natural national membership, with government having no hand in their membership in their own country.

But the mindless souls that totally embrace the gospel of absolutely necessary native-birth will never, ever acknowledge any truth that invalidates their faith, -no matter how clear, -how factual, -how logical, -or how incontestable.  They are True Believers.  Faithful to the end.

And how does their devotion to native-birth help to de-legitimize the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama?  It does not help one damn bit.  In fact, it obstructs and obfuscates the spread of the truth by spreading a false “truth” in its place, just like a false doctrine of faith, -a heresy that deserves all of the condemnation that can be heaped upon it.

by Adrien Nash  April 2014,  obama–nation.com


Why most citizens of “The United States” can’t be President -pt.2

Which government’s nationality is sovereign over the native-born children of immigrants in America; -the one of their foreign father who is still subject to his own government, or the one of the nation of the State republic in which his children were born?

The new national government, facing a Europe with which it might find itself at war at any time being as it was still ruled by despots, chose to not recognize the children of foreigners as being American citizens nor American nationals. They were foreign nationals born of foreign nationals even though born in America. They were alien-born. A child could not have a nationality that was different from that of the father who produced him.

So the States had one citizenship recognition process while the central government had another, and it was in relationship to something beyond the purview of any State government; namely foreign relations, -along with the conduct of war.
Suppose that a European Prince & pregnant wife had a baby while visiting an American State which by law bestowed its citizenship to all born within its borders, (-without regard to whether or not they were immigrants or merely visitors). Suppose they all traveled back to their European kingdom where the young Prince would grow up. Suppose that he was murdered.

Would it be an issue involving the American government because it involved the murder of an American?
No, because he would not have been viewed as being an American by the American government even though he was a citizen of one of the States.
Suppose he was murdered by his American illegitimate half-brother? Would the nation of the deceased prince view the murder as merely one American killing another, or as an American killing one of their own subjects, -a royal one at that? The question hardly needs to be asked since the answer is so obvious.

His true nationality was determined by blood, not his birth place. They would not care if his half-brother killer was viewed in his home State or home nation as a fully recognized citizen or as a mere American national. “Citizenship” would not be even considered; only nationality. American? or not? It would not be couched as “U.S. CITIZEN, or not?”.
They would view the murderer as a national of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA, -without regard to which State republic he was born in and a member of.

Suppose the “American” half-brother had been born in Europe and not America; what would determine his nationality? Answer: Within marriage, the nationality of the head of the family; i.e., the boss and master of the house; the father.
Everyone in the family had one nationality and it was his. They were a single unit within the greater units of county, State and nation. His one vote was the vote of the family unit. A wife, per the wedding vow to obey her husband, yielded to the authority of her husband and his decisions, whether family decisions or political decisions, and she took his name and nationality.

But an out-of-wedlock half-American son might be seen as an American through his mother, -unless the foreign father acknowledged paternity.
The government of the Prince would not be required to recognize such a son as a citizen of the nation because he was illegitimate, perhaps might be a fraud, and perhaps might have been born anywhere, or at least not in his kingdom. Thus, in the founders’ era, the child would probably be stateless, -having no nationality whatsoever, -an international conundrum due to infidelity and illegitimacy.

There are four ways such a child could be deemed to be an American, but only one existed before the 1920’s. One would be if he had been born within one of the State republics that gave the gift of citizenship to those born within its borders, -with illegitimacy not addressed, pro nor con.
Another would be possible if the District of Columbia had a similar allowance thanks to the choice of Congress. But it did not recognize such a child as an American having dual citizenship because dual citizenship was not recognized.

It would have been different if born of a European Princess and an American man. Then he would be a freak because he would be a cross between an non-royal American father and a royal heir to a European throne. In such a case, the father might acknowledge paternity and thus provide U.S. citizenship to his bastard son.
But understand that the American laws for a long time did not acknowledge the situation of children without married parents, nor the situation of dual nationality within marriage.
A bride, though foreign, became an American by marrying an American, thus one single nationality for them and their children.

Now let’s move forward in time to when a foreign woman who married an American was viewed as retaining her foreign nationality. The nationality of the child was still determined by the American father from the viewpoint of the American government, regardless of how the government of the mother viewed their child.

The child, through a blood connection to the man who fathered it, was seen as an American by blood, and the law recognized such children as Americans. But what if the American parent was the mother?
That changed the situation significantly since by accepted policy, it inherited the nationality of the foreign father, and thus was not an American, -but in time, -with women’s rights and women’s suffrage being recognized by law and constitutional amendment, the nationality of the American mother was deemed to be passed to her child if born abroad via a foreign father. Her child was a statutory citizen by congressional statute.

What did such citizenship have to do with any of the States of the union? Nothing. It was purely federal, by federal statute. The laws of her State did not make her child an American via making it a citizen of her State because by then the State’s were out of that business following the federal government totally taking over the administration of immigration and naturalization.

That later switched to American volunteers who were forced to take on the chore after the federal government and the federal INS were stopped in their tracks when the Supreme Court ruled their take-over unconstitutional.
Then there was no entity left with any organization to take on the task other than volunteer organizations. But with massive immigration, they were overwhelmed and finally convinced Congress to act and make the job a federal chore by law, -not merely executive policy.

So a child of an American mother and foreign father could not be deemed to be American by a State statute since State governments were out of the naturalization business. Then such a child would not be a citizen of any State, but purely and solely a citizen of the nation as a whole via the federal government’s law; -a national citizen only (at least until the mother returned to live in one of the States).

Such a citizen would have to be labeled as a citizen of “The United States”, or “The UNITED STATES of AMERICA”. It could not be labeled a citizen of “the united States”, -or a citizen of a State republic because its “citizenship” was strictly federal until it became domiciled as an adult within an individual State.

Another way to become such a citizen would be via birth within the boundaries of federal land in the eras following that in which dual citizenship was not acknowledged. If born in D.C. or on federal land within a State, -or within no State, one also would not be a State citizen but a federal citizen only.

Men who work on such lands for Washington are not officers of “the united States”, because they do not work for any State, but are instead officers of “The United States”, -the entity and name of the national government.
As officers of the United States Government, they do not represent the authority nor interests of the States. They only represent the authority and laws of the national government, and it is quite separate and apart from those of the States.

Keeping the difference straight in one’s mind requires recognizing the difference between the use of the word “united” as an adjective and its use as a part of a title. A national title calls for the capitalization of the major words included in the title, while a word used as merely an adjective should not be capitalized even though it makes a label seem more weighty and authoritative.

Let’s look as the name of the nation that has the same initials as our own; the Union of South Africa. One must not fail to capitalize the word “union” because it is a part of the title of the nation, just as one must not fail to capitalize the word “united” when referring to the American nation.

“Union” is not an adjective but is a noun, whereas “united” is an adjective, and when used in reference to the union of the individual States, it need not be, and should not be capitalized, even though everyone does it out of a habit dating back to when most significant nouns were capitalized in formal writing, -as seen throughout the Constitution.

“The united States” is an unambiguous reference to a union of States, whereas if “united” is capitalized, one cannot tell what the reference is made to except by analyzing the context in which it is ambiguously used. In most cases it does not refer to “the general government” of the nation but the union of States.

[addendum: After posting this exposition, I was trying to find out if the Confederacy required an oath of allegiance for citizenship and came across a website seeking the revival of the Confederacy, and it contained this paragraph which shows that I was not the first to understand the difference that capitalization makes:

Remember, or learn if you didn't already know, our founding fathers created the Confederacy in 1778 when they created the Articles of Confederation under which they, with General George Washington, fought and won a war against the British Empire. The Constitution of 1789 was but a more complete contract of government between the various State republics which they began to call the States of America or the "united" States of America.]

So one can see that in the real and unambiguous world, there is a distinct difference between a citizen of “The United States of America” and a citizen of “the united States”, but that difference is so invisible, undetectable, unacknowledged, unimportant, and insignificant that it is completely meaningless, -except… in one very rare and unusual circumstance. That of seeking and obtaining the office of President of the United States.

The Constitution requires that only “a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of the President;”.
So what sort of citizen is a natural born citizen? It is the sort that created each of the State republics and the union that they formed. It was the natural inhabitants or indigenous population of the American colonies and future sovereign States. It was the children of Americans, -people who had American-ness as their common background via their birth to Americans, -almost all of whom were also born in America.

They were all born as the natural citizens of their colonies and States. They were responsible for their common defense, administration of justice, and the operation of their government and civil societies.
They were citizens even while being subjects of the British Crown. They were born as citizens, and since their citizenship was not via a gift of the government that they created but via their blood connection to citizen parents, they were natural citizens. They were citizen-born natural Americans. Just what the Constitution required.

But those born of outsiders, -of foreign immigrants, were not the natural citizens of the colonies or States but were merely legal citizens, even though made legal from birth in some States.

That which is natural cannot, by definition, be made by government, and that which is made by government cannot, by definition, be natural.
It can only be man-made, including citizenship.

No man-made citizen of “The United States” is eligible to be President because they all acquired citizenship via American law which makes an allowance for those of foreign or mixed nationality & blood connection. Some U.S. government citizens are natural born citizens because they were born of citizens within federal territory.

But in the beginning, nearly all natural born citizens were only State citizens since they were born of State citizens and not born out in the western wilderness claimed by the Americans and ceded to the U.S. by the British after the Peace Treaty of Paris was signed.

In fact one could even assert that only federal “citizens” are truly “citizens” of “The United States” (-as apposed to being merely U.S. Nationals as State citizens could be considered) because all citizenship relationships are State relationships involving civic rights and duties, -with the lone exceptions of paying taxes and serving on federal juries. So in reality, State citizenship is/was the dog, and national “citizenship” is the tail. But guess which one wags which in everyone’s mind?

In another sense it would be accurate to state that we are all, in reality, simply Nationals of “The United States”, and not “citizens” since our rights and duties are still quintessentially State rights & duties, -with each individual being a citizen of one of the united States.

Even the duty of national defense can no longer be considered as a national “citizenship duty” because even non-citizens are obligated to serve when called, and sent to prison for refusing. That leaves only the century-old federal taxes on income, and federal jury service, and not many people ever even experience that. So in what sense are we truly “citizens” of the central government of the nation?  Because we are forced to pay federal taxes?

Historically, Americans never had to pay a “tax” on wages and salary because the meaning of the word “income” did not include compensation for time one surrendered in a mutual exchange of labor for money.  That was considered a barter and not an income.  Income was earnings that one’s money or property earned.  So as established, Americans never had any connection to the central government unless called to sit on a federal jury, -or working in interstate law, commerce, or the new central government.

Plenty has been illegitimately and unconstitutionally altered from the way our nation was founded, but the basic structure has not. We live our lives as local and State citizens, although convenient transportation makes changing one’s State very easy, yet the functions of government, for the most part, have not been ceded to the federal government, so we live and serve as citizens of our home towns, cities, counties, and States and do not serve as “citizens” of the national government, nor the aggregate nation as a whole. And, our governors have the authority to block our extradition to another state because we are not citizens of any State but one.

One can truly assert that we are still essentially nothing more than citizens of our State republic and merely nationals of our nation, yet our programmed thinking tells us just about the opposite.
To say that we are citizens of our nation is at least half as absurd as saying that we are nationals of our State since we have practically no national citizenship duty at all.

This truth is seen in the actual status of children, and, for over half of American history, women as well. No one considers babies and children (minors) to have any duties of citizenship. They are exactly what a National is, and definitely not what a citizen is. Citizens have CIVIC RIGHTS as well as duties. Children have neither, and neither did America women until they were given the right to vote, and the rights that accompanied it.

Foreign permanent-resident immigrants are treated as U.S. Nationals, -under the protection of the government, and bearing certain responsibilities toward the nation that they have joined. That is why they can be drafted into the U.S. military.  They must answer the call of duty or suffer the consequence even though their natural allegiance and subjection is still to their foreign homeland, and yet American women are not subject to the call of duty even though they are citizens.  They are not subject because they are not of the warrior class gender.  They are the main protected class that is defended.


The history of Congressional ignorance regarding American citizenship is appalling. Many of the major and long-standing edicts of Congress have been over-turned by the Supreme Court because they failed to adhere to fundamental American principles of equality.

They passed laws treating naturalized citizens differently than natural citizens, and American women differently than American men. [That was eventually brought to a silent stop, but not completely when it comes to foreign birth involving a foreign parent.]

The most egregious violation was the total implementation of male-dominated citizenship determination.
It was one thing to deem an American husband’s foreign bride to now be an American too, but it was quite another to deem an American bride who married a foreign groom to have forfeited her American citizenship by having done so, (in reciprocity with the foreign nation of the husband).

That was the law of the land, passed by Congress, and signed by the President as the Naturalization Act of 1907. Any child born to such a mother was denied American citizenship up until long past its repealed in 1922 by the Cable Act.

So you can see, citizenship has been quite paradoxical throughout periods in American history as the roles of men and women became ever more equal. But through it all, the meaning of what is a natural born citizen has never changed, -except perhaps at the margins where very odd circumstances might be involved.

The birth and nationality of Barack Obama was not such a circumstance. He was not even in the same ballpark as natural born citizens. He was born subject (solely) to the British Nationality Act of 1948, as his own 2008 election website explained, with that Act applying to both Obama Sr. and all of his children.

Obama openly acknowledged that he was born as a subject of the British Commonwealth and as a future citizen of Kenya once it became an independent nation a few years later, and he has never claimed to be a natural born American citizen, calling himself only a native-born citizen.  But he must have been ignorant of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

It preceded the writing of the 14th Amendment by a few months, and its wording declares that those born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are citizens of the United States [“United” should not be capitalized because it essentially refers to State citizenship for freed slaves. They were not foreigners, nor born of foreigners since the importation of slaves had been banned a half century earlier.]

So even if assumed to have been born in America, he would still be ineligible to be President because he was born subject to a foreign power, and was not a natural citizen of any State since he was born of an outsider.
So an alien father prevented him from being a natural born citizen, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 bars him from even being a citizen at all since his mother was too young for her citizenship to legally be transmitted to her son by a statute that didn’t exist for another 75 years or so.

Some falsely assume that the 14th Amendment,-by its presumed lower standard only requiring that one be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,  over-rode the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but in fact, the authors said just the opposite.

One, when asked, proclaimed emphatically that being subject to American jurisdiction meant being subject to no foreign power. So that meant that dual citizenship was not recognized, and one could not be subject to two separate nations, -just as freed slaves were not.
But to avoid that truth, they float the notion that children, (even babies!) are directly subject to national governments. In fact, people on both sides of the Obama eligibility issue assert that falsehood.

First, only adults are subject to governments. Second, in the Christian and patriarchal tradition, wives were always subject directly to their husbands, -not the government. And their children were directly subject to their mother and father, -not the government.

So their doctrine that any child born in America is automatically subject directly to the Federal government is insanely absurd. The family unit was a vertical hierarchy, -not a horizontal one having each element subject to Big Brother, -the hub. Only the head was subject. The relationship of the children to the government of the nation in which they lived was solely through their father. If he was subject, then one day they would also be. They inherited his subjection, (along with his citizenship) -and fully so if male.

If he was alien, then they were viewed as subject to the foreign power that he remained subject to since national borders do not terminate one’s national obligations.  If one’s nation is attacked, one must heed the call of duty even if living abroad.

So, we have a President who is not only not constitutionally qualified to serve since he is not a natural born citizen of Hawaii nor of the federal government, but is disqualified from even being an American citizen since his father was not an immigrant subject to Washington, but merely a temporary foreign guest still subject to the government of Kenya.  But might he be a naturalized American?

We have no way to know because all records related to him have either been “lost” removed & hidden, classified, closed to inspection, or destroyed. Nothing yet released by his or the Hawaiian government has been legitimate, but what has been released is an attempt to benefit from the ignorance of the American people who do not understand that it does not matter where he was born, -only to whom he was born; -an American father? Or an alien?

Regardless, he is an American National, but that does not make him an American CITIZEN.
He logically can be viewed as being an American, -just as can children brought illegally into the country at a young age, and then raised and schooled as Americans. But being the equivalent to an American National does not make one eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military.

So Barack Obama, being an alien-born child of a non-subject foreign student, is not a natural citizen of any State, -nor of any nation, and regardless of native-birth, all such persons are constitutionally barred from being the President of the United States.
So why is he President?

Because America has become a reflection of the O.J. Simpson jury.

Why most citizens of The United States can’t be President  1 & 2;  pdf -11 pages  revised

by Adrien Nash April 2014 obama–nation.com

Why most citizens of “The United States” can’t be President

Are you an American attorney? Maybe even an immigration attorney? If you are, -as well as if you are not, it is almost certain that you do not understand the origin, history, and nature of the thing you know as “citizenship”.
Why would you not understand something so basic? Because your teachers did not understand it, nor did theirs, nor the authors of their textbooks, -and on back for countless generations and centuries.

I’ve managed to illuminate the subject in large numbers of expositions, but a new and very surprising realization has come to my awareness, one that will be revealed following these few re-capping paragraphs:
Are you an American citizen? What actual proof do you have? Do you have a Citizenship Certificate? Probably not, but most likely you have a birth certificate that says you were born in such-&-such state, right? Well, by American law, that does not necessarily make you a citizen. Nor does it explain what a citizen actually is (nor explain what “The United States” actually is).
Federal law and Federal policy are two different things, as is seen in what Barack Obama has done with the Affordable Care Act. It has specific legal deadlines and commencement dates which he simply tossed out the window and replaced with his own self-chosen policy, one which his executive branch is ordered to follow in contradiction to the United States Constitution.
You probably recall learning in history class about the so-called “Gentleman’s Agreement” between the U.S. President and the Emperor of Japan which informally limited Japanese immigration.
Wikipedia has this to say about gentlemen’s agreements:
“This type of agreement may allow a nation to avoid the domestic legal requirements to enter into a formal treaty, or it may be useful when a government wants to enter into a secret agreement that is not binding upon the next administration. The essence of a gentlemen’s agreement is that it relies upon the honor of the parties for its fulfillment, rather than being in any way enforceable.
According to another author, all international agreements are gentlemen’s agreements because, short of war, they are all unenforceable. Osmańczyk pointed out that there is a difference between open gentlemen’s agreements and secret diplomatic agreements.”

The Secretary of State’s agreement with the Japanese foreign minister was known as a gentleman’s agreement because it was not actual law nor treaty. Congress never voted on it. It was simply an adopted policy by the chief executive, and followed by the branch of government that he ruled.  Similarly, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service do not follow the actual law.

They adhere to a policy put in place in 1898, which goes decidedly beyond the law and thus is without legal foundation.
By that policy you are considered to be a citizen, but that policy is not based on a delineated principle but on a sort of “Cliff notes”, “rule of thumb” or symptom-indicator when it comes to citizenship, and it is the location of one’s birth as shown on a birth certificate.

Since it is essentially true that those born in the United States are almost without exception American citizens, everyone born here is therefore assumed to be a citizen, -but exceptions nevertheless do exist and maybe you are one of them.
Were you born in the U.S. of a foreign ambassador serving here? How about American Natives who refuse U.S. citizenship? How about illegal aliens? How about aliens who have over-stayed their Visas? How about aliens who are merely tourists or guests of the U.S. government?

None of those types of foreigners are subject to the fully sovereign authority of the American government, and therefore no child born to them is either. That disqualifies such a child from the citizenship bestowed by the 14th Amendment which only extends to children of immigrants because only they can be presumed to be fully subject to American authority.

Everyone who has followed what I’ve written already knows that, but what is new is my realization of the fact that such citizens are different from the type of citizen that you are. How so, you ask? Because not only is the origin of their citizenship not natural, (unlike you who were born of Americans) but the entity of which they are citizens is different also.

The entire subject of citizenship cannot be understood without understanding the dichotomy between their form of citizenship and yours. You inherited your citizenship from your parents who possessed the unalienable right to own you and have you belong to the same family, society, State, and nation to which they belonged.
Those born of immigrants had no such parents and their parents had no such American right. Their children were allowed to be Americans by the grace of the U.S. Supreme Court which reinterpreted the 14th Amendment, with its inherently ambiguous nationality clause.

Just as African-Americans were allowed to be accepted as Americans, so the children of immigrants joined their ranks three decades later thanks to a Supreme Court opinion. They were allowed to be American citizens from the day of their birth, but what sort of citizen were they? What was the distinction that differentiated them from those born of Americans?

As previously stated, they had foreign parents, but there is something else that is different also, and that can only be explored by asking the question: “ What, exactly, are they a citizen of? Are they a citizen of 1.) The United States, 2.)  the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, or 3.)  a State that is a member of the union of the States of America, iow; the united States?
Those are three distinctly different entities, and that difference explains everything once it is understood. And what it explains is something that has hardly ever entered the mind of anyone born in the last century or more.

The bottom line of the difference is that if you are a citizen of “The United States” then you are likely to not be a natural born citizen and thus not eligible to be President. And that is even more likely to be true if you were born as a citizen of “The United States” because most so born were born of immigrant foreigners.

One cannot be born as a citizen of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA because that name represents the entirety of the nation, -all 50 States, Federal territories, government offices and personnel, plus the military. One cannot be born in (nor of) more than one sovereign entity unless born in more than one body.
But one can be born as a citizen of “The United States” in one of two possible ways: by being born of American parents on Federal Government land, or by being born of immigrants anywhere in The UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

All immigrants’ alien-born children are included as U.S. citizens via the 14th Amendment’s nationality clause, -which reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
Two government entities are referenced: The United States and the individual State. It is not worded with a small-case letter “U” in “United”, indicating it was referencing the nation and not “The united STATES of America. It was labeling such immigrant-born children as being Federal Government citizens first.  If “the united States” were assumed to be its intent, then the result would be an impossibility.  One cannot be a citizen of all of the States of the union unless sovereignty does not exist.

With the eventual Supreme Court ruling regarding what the words of the 14th Amendment meant for children of immigrants, it is clear that the amendment got the order of those two entities listed in the proper order, -with the nation or national government mentioned first, and the State of birth mentioned second.

For babies born of American parents, the opposite was true. They were first and foremost citizens of the State of their birth, and through its membership in the Union of the States, their State citizenship extrapolated by extension into national citizenship.
But those born of foreigners were first and foremost citizens of the American government, and secondarily were citizens of the State of their birth since they were citizens primarily by national law and not State law.

They may have also been citizens by original State law dating back to a State’s independence and first Constitution, -pre-dating the high court opinion by a century, but since there was a disharmony, a divergence between State law and national policy regarding limitations on citizenship, (the feds not recognizing dual-citizenship by native-birth) the high court’s opinion settled the matter in favor of federal constitutional (amendment) law, and native-birth citizenship was officially “in” at the Federal level, -no longer just limited to the State level.

That supposedly over-rode the authority of State law since it was based on an amendment to the Constitution. So if a State’s citizenship law said that its native-born children of foreigners were not recognized as citizens, the court opinion would have nevertheless recognized them as national citizens as well as State citizens.

Barack Obama is considered to be a citizen of “The United States”, but that status, -as connected to his birth circumstance, renders him unqualified to be President. Let’s explore the “why” behind that fact.

Before the Declaration of Independence, all of the colonies had one sovereign; King George III, but after the declaration they had no sovereign. They also had no American nation. They instead had a new alliance of the 13 independent, sovereign nation-states of America. Each of them was a unique separate country, having their own history, traditions, government Charter, municipal law, and within months or years, their own Constitutions and central governments.

Everyone in the greater aggregate country of “America” was acknowledged internally as a member of one thing and one thing only, and that was the country of their habitation, and probable birth. They were citizens of their colonial homeland turned newly independent nation-state, -joined in an alliance with the 12 others in order to fight for their liberty.

They were citizens of the self-labeled Commonwealths of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, as well as nation-states such as New York, Maryland, Rhode Island, etc. There was no such thing as a United States Government because there was no American nation yet. All citizens were citizens of the individual sovereign nation-states of America.
So, since there was no United States government and thus no nation; there was no such entity as “The United States of America” signifying a nation, its constituent parts, and its government, existing as an entity on the world’s stage.

What existed was simply The united States (nations) of America, -an alliance of the several States of America, -and with far less central control than the European Union has today. It has economic union and cooperation and central control in other matters, but not political union.

Because of that lack of political unity, no one can say: “I’m a citizen of the United States of Europe”. They can only say; “I’m a citizen of France”, -or Germany, etc. But if one were very cosmopolitan, one might say; “I’m a citizen of the European Union.” just as the representatives of the fledgling nations of America could have said; “I’m a citizen of the American Union of States.
So just as Europe remains politically separated, the situation was exactly the same in post-July 4th 1776 America. One could not say: “I’m a citizen of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA since the nation those words (and capitalization) represent, simply did not exist yet.
But when it came to writing a national Constitution 11 years later, candidates for elective national office had to be described in order to prescribe qualifications for office, the first of which was citizenship, followed by age and years of citizenship.

They wrote that a candidate for Congress had to be a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but with the “U” in “united” capitalized, the effect was an ambiguity. A constitutional nation did not yet exist since the Articles of Confederation were not a strong enough bond with a strong enough central government to constitute a unified sovereign entity. So the word “united” probably should have not been capitalized, -but doing so was the habit in that day, as seen throughout the entire Constitution. Nouns are capitalized everywhere. But undoubtedly, the meaning behind the words was that one had to be a citizen of the united STATES of America… (for X number of years).

Reading it as printed erroneously conveys the idea that one had to be a citizen of the nation for X number of years, but that thought did not exist in anyone’s mind. Everyone only recognized State citizenship as a primary reality, and nation membership as a secondary extrapolation or extension of citizenship connecting one to the individual State of his residence (and… probable birth).
An aspiring candidate, or an elected one, had a duty not first and foremost to serve an aggregate union of states but to serve the people of the nation-state that granted him its citizenship via it’s naturalization process. That meant the State that one emigrated into, and became a citizen of.
They would represent their State interests, -even if in opposition to the interests of other States. They were not one big happy family of States. [They were akin to a the early Greeks of the city-state era, drawn from large clans of competitive cities, but united for defense or sports competition.]
There was much they had in common, but also much that separated them, with the North vs the South, Free-states vs Slave-states being the biggest divide.

Another divide was that between the States and Federal territory. Federal territory was not an element of the Union of the States and their constitutional compact. It was property of the federal government alone, -just like the American colonies were the personal property of the King of England, and not the property of Great Britain.

What was the nationality status of a baby born on federal land, such as Louisiana, or Alaska? It was not a citizen of the father’s home State since he and his wife may have abandoned it for emigration westward. There was no State government in the westward lands, so by default, such a child had to be seen as a National of the United States Government, and by extension, the nation as a whole.
With States, it was sort of the opposite. State citizens were first and foremost just that, and only by extension, also citizens of the nation.
One could call such U.S. Territory-born children “natural born nationals” of the American Government by being born of Americans, -with the States having no factor in the relationship.
In a way, that situation is akin to the Calvin case in the early 1600’s Britain. The union of the united States would be equivalent to the nation of England, while federal lands would be equivalent to the kingdom of Scotland. What connected the two?
In Britain it was the fact that one King became the monarch of both Kingdoms and held both Crowns. In America, the federal government replaces the King by it being the connecting sovereign of the two separate and detached realms. Thus, by extension, each realm was connected and those born in “the West” were natural members of the joint realm known as “The United States of America ”.
Therefore, although they were not natural citizens of any State of the Union, they were natural members of the nation as an aggregate entity, born as Americans, -and as such could be viewed as eligible to be President of the aggregate entity.

Since the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement doesn’t say what entity one must be a natural citizen of, by default it is in reference to a man’s citizenship in his sovereign home State, not the future aggregate nation.

It states: “No Person, except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President.”

So, since “THE UNITED STATES” did not yet exist at the time the Constitution was adopted, all citizens were citizens of the united (but separate) STATES.  State citizens, -either natural ones or naturalized ones.  Both could serve.  And later, one who was something new, -a citizen-born non-State American national, could also claim quite reasonably that they were a natural born citizen of the American nation.

U.S. Territories progressed from wilderness to civilization to statehood. The non-State Federal District of Columbia developed at the most rapid pace, but not toward statehood. With the development of civilization, the inhabitants became the CITIZENS of a Territory, -having responsibility to obey and support the rule of law & order.
They were not citizens of a State, but were nevertheless citizens of an American entity, and subject to the American government and its agents.

To progress beyond this point, it is necessary to come to an understanding of the difference between citizenship and nationality. Citizenship is a status related to the internal rights and obligations of natural national members, but nationality is strictly a perspective of governments; mostly toward members of other nations, but also toward some members within a government’s sovereignty.

As seen in the Constitution of Cuba, one can be a resident and national of Cuba, and yet not be a citizen because one has no natural right of citizenship due to foreign parentage.
If a couple with children emigrates to Cuba, and eventually seeks and obtains naturalization, it will make the parents Cuban citizens (but of a limited nature with restricted rights) while their children will not be acknowledged as Cuban citizens before a certain age because they were born as foreign citizens. But they will be viewed, via their parental connection, as Cuban Nationals.
They belong to the nation of Cuba, just as their parents then do also. That means they are not viewed as foreigners or aliens, but they are not elevated to the status of Citizen. They are Cubans but not Cuban citizens.

America has a similar situation when it comes to the native inhabitants of American Samoa and the American Virgin Islands, -with Puerto Rico and Guam previously being in the same status. They are United States Nationals, but are not U.S. citizens. Nationals do not have the rights nor the obligations of citizens.

It would have been within the sovereign authority of the Cuban government’s Constitution writers to allow immigrants only the status of Nationals but not Citizens because they were not indigenous Cubans nor born of Cubans. They would be a product of the national government via its nationality law.
It was the same in America in regard to the still sovereign governments of the nation-states of America. They could make foreigners into whatever they wanted to, -whether new citizens or merely new State nationals.

Wanting all members of society to be Americans and equal, they chose the high road of making them (via naturalization) co-citizens endowed with all of the civic and property rights of fellow citizens.
That covered both those who immigrated & naturalized as well as their children, -whether born within the State or not. What they were allowed to be was the result of a decision of the natural citizens of each State when writing their nationality clauses.

Anyone that a State considered as one of its citizens was to be recognized by the other States as being just that. That was a reciprocal arrangement. “You make citizens as you see fit, and we will recognize them as such, and you will do the same in regard to our citizens.”
That would be the arrangement with or without a new central government. But once one was formed, it had to have a policy regarding nationality for dealing with Americans traveling, living, or being born beyond U.S. borders. It had to act as a nation acts in regard to those it deemed to be its own.
So then the question was, who would be its own? Are those who are citizens of only the American States deemed to be Americans? What if they are also a citizen of another nation as well?

end of Part 1.

by a.r. nash  april 2014

400 Years of Bastardized Citizenship Ideas pt. 3

~or how the Calvin case dooms our future~

We’ve seen where the invented, amalgamated phrase “natural born subject”  must have come from, -a necessity to include together all subjects whether they were subjects by nature (via birth to subject fathers) or subjects by being born within the sovereign’s realm although not of his nation. But was that phrase the origin of the American phrase “natural born citizen”?

Those who defend the idea that by the devolution of the English term (as Europeans were included under it) the alien-born of foreigners in America can therefore be labeled as that which they are not; namely natural citizens of the United States.
But since the Constitution’s writers included the word “born” instead of just “natural citizen” they feel that that gives them a justifiable basis to argue that the American term was just an adaptation of the British term. But to jump that logic gap requires employing three springboards;

1. the idea that Americans had no difference in their thinking than the British; 2. the word “citizen” is from the same universe as the word “subject”, and; 3. that the whole phrase is not a literal idea based on the individual words but is a “legal term of artifice” which means something other than what the words literally, individually mean.

In their own minds, they springboard over their logic gap, albeit they fall flat on their faces in the light of several statements in U.S. laws, histories, and high court opinions. But they simply turn a blind eye to them and pretend they do not exist. And they do that in order to defend and protect their champion, Barack Obama and the legitimacy of his presidential eligibility.
But any reasonable man can easily understand that if the third springboard is so highly false that it has no spring, then Obama cannot be considered to be a legitimate President. So, is “a natural born citizen” some sort of legal fiction of language, -a term of legal artifice? The answer is provided in part by the other assumptions which are road-blocks to that view.

No one who is of an American mind-set, and not a subservient, loyalist, government enthroning, natural rights ignoring mind-set, knows that the thinking of the Americans in the 1770s was radically altered as it became clear to them that they were either to be slaves of the English king and his aristocratic tyrannical Parliament (which had no place in any of their colonial Charters with the King), or they would be free men living on their feet and not on their knees.

Since they no longer thought the way the British thought, it can’t rationally be asserted that when they used English language words they necessarily meant exactly the same thing as they did when contained within an old British term of art (“natural-born subject”) used to describe a people that had no elected President & Commander of the national Army.

That can be shown in various ways, including by simply pointing out that the word “subject” and the word “citizen” are not from the same universe. What each implies is radically different from what the other entails.
CITIZENS were responsible for their own governance, their own national survival, their own defense, justice, and the protection of their own natural liberties. With subjects…? -not so much.

That being true, it can’t reflexively be contented that any words attached to “Citizen” had to carry the very same connotation as they did under the royal system of human ownership with its designated “term of art” label. There is no logical basis on which to make such an assumption, and no one can offer one.
That leaves the very high likelihood that they carried a different connotation in a very different context, -that of a people who had to entrust the command of their new nation’s military power to one single elected or appointed individual.

It might have been decided that such a position might be filled with an appointment for life, -like federal judges who would be under no man’s influence. The Commander in Chief could have been viewed as one who needed to be separated from national and international politics which might seek to corrupt his loyalties, and not be someone potentially switched in and out with every election cycle. Such a view can be imagined as being present through these words:

“At the start of Washington’s administration, John Adams became deeply involved in a month-long Senate controversy over the official title of the President. Adams favored grandiose titles such as “His Majesty the President” or “His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of Their Liberties.””

So whoever he might be, it was vitally important that he be 100% reliably loyal solely to the United States, -having no direct attachments to any foreign power or nation.
Adams (who followed Washington as President, -and received a third of the votes when he ran against him in the first and second presidential races) was such a man, -with ancestors who were all Americans all the way back to the Puritans.

His loyalty to his country was unquestionable since he had roots nowhere else. Such a citizen could be trusted to never betray his country in favor of benefiting a foreign nation or king.

The filling of the position of Command in Chief was therefore potentially critical to the success of the new nation and its perpetual survival. What fool would pretend that such an American situation, -such a new and previously non-existent context, was ever faced by the loyal subjects of His Royal Majesty in Britain?

And yet they pretend that that reality didn’t exist and everything was just equivalent across the board.  -That the word “subject” was equivalent to CITIZEN.  That America was equivalent to a monarchical dictatorship.  That the U.S. Government would be equivalent to the power and authority of a hereditary god among men whose authority was supposedly bestowed by God himself.  Yes, it’s hard to see any difference.

So let’s look to an analogous phrase in order to understand the nature and meaning of the words “natural born CITIZEN”. Let’s employ another word and see how it relates and illuminates. Let’s employ the word “White”.
In the founder’s era, as always, men felt biased in favor of their own kind, including their own ethnic and racial group, and as a result,they would not accept being ruled over by someone of an different nature. That fact was not made an element of the Constitution, which does not discriminate, but was made an element of the naturalization act passed by the first Congress.

It stated that the qualification for naturalization was that one be a free white man of good character.
The excluded, by law, those who also were excluded socially and politically from any chance of being a candidate for the new office of President, namely; free black men who were either immigrants from Africa or free educated Black natives.

So potentially, the eligibility to be President could have been tied to race just as was eligibility for citizenship. After all, can you imagine the people of America, aside from the slaves, being under the leadership of a freed slave or son of an African? That was not even thinkable, but that fact didn’t result in an open prohibition in the Constitution. But let’s postulate our own.

“No person except a white born citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.” Well, we know what citizen means, -and what a “born citizen” means (one born as a citizen by natural inheritance of the parents’ nationality, or one born having citizenship by the grace of law even though born of foreigners) but what does “white” specifically mean and connect to?
Does it connect to “born” or to “citizen”? Would “wise” as in “wise old man” connect to “man” or to “old”? “Wise man” or “wise old”?
Clearly, “white” does not connect to “born” although it would not be as illogical as it would be with “wise old”. It connects to “citizen” as in “white citizen”, -as apposed to “Negro citizen” (the only other race prevalent in America).
[Egalitarian individual States may have allowed naturalization for free black men, but after the first naturalization act in 1790, that allowance ended.]
But with “white” one might argue that mulattos could be labeled white since they are part white
and have that character in common with pure whites. That is directly comparable to saying that foreigner-born citizens have native-birth in common with natural citizens, so therefore in a sense they are also natural citizens.

That is a form of false sophistical linguistic distortion and conceptual perversion since that which makes one a natural citizen is citizen parents, -not birth location.
That perversion is possible and accepted because of the error of connecting the adjectives to each other instead of to the noun that they modify.

Just as “wise” and “old” do not modify each other as in “wise old” but modify the noun “man”, so also, but not as clearly, do the words “natural” and “white” modify the word “citizen”.
But in our minds we think we see a connection which, in fact, is not intended. We imagine that “natural born” and “white born” might be actual terms instead of just adjectives which describe “citizen”. But they are not actual terms because they would be stupidly redundant in nature.

No one would ever say that so-and-so is “a white born man” because it’s understood that race is something not determined by birth but by “blood”, -by genes. Likewise, all natural citizens are citizens via citizen parents and not the event of birth.

One could say “citizen born” and “a born citizen” and “natural citizen” without redundancy, but adding “natural” along with “born” does not give cause to assume that natural is modifying born instead of the noun they both share, as in “natural citizen” plus “born citizen”. A combination of two different focuses. One being citizenship by law (based on birth location), and the other being citizenship by nature (based on blood connection).

Some who are born as citizens are not citizens by nature but instead by the allowance of the laws of the natural citizens who deigned to allow outsiders to join their national family.

So we see then, in reality, those three springboards have no spring. 1. Americans did not think like the British. 2. The history of the distorted term attached to all subjects of his majesty did not apply in the liberated countries of America, -and 3; the words “natural born citizen” did not constitute a term of legal artifice as they did in Britain and the colonies before the revolution since the word “CITIZEN” was from an entirely different philosophical universe than the word “subject”.

Additionally, an individual word within a term of art cannot be singled out for emphasis since the term has a unitarian meaning which is taken as a whole and not as the sum of its parts.

But the first man in America to single out one word demonstrated for all time that the employment of the words “natural” and “born” in the American context did not constitute the fashioning of a new American term of art when combined with the newly appropriate word “citizen”.

That man underlined the word “born” when he wrote to General Washington (president of the constitutional convention) suggesting that the power of the Command in Chief should not be given to nor devolve on one who was not a “natural born citizen”.

He underlined that word, -and not “natural born” nor “natural” because of America’s legal fiction that all men who took the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation became immediately new natural citizens of the United States, -just like a Christian convert rises as in symbolic resurrection from the water of baptism (representing death & burial of the old sinful human nature) as a new creation in Christ.

A new citizen of America, of one’s State of residence and homestead, was not christened as “a new naturalized citizen” (there was no such citizen class) but as a new fellow natural citizen brother of the American people and their shared nation.
He was then co-responsible for its governance, and survival, and was no longer a foreigner beholden to and obedient to a foreign dictator. He was at last a free man in a free country. No monarchy over his head. No royal power shielding the political sun of freedom. He was a new natural American, -just like all of his fellow Americans in every single way, …almost.

There was just one tiny insignificant real-world difference between him and his new American brethren, -and that was that he could not be allowed to command all of the military might of the nation because America didn’t have any mind readers who could tell what was or was not hidden in the hearts of those born and raised foreign. And so total trust regarding total power could not be invested in him, -but could be invested in his American raised children.

About that fact no one disagrees. The disagreement is about a closely related fact, and that is regarding the children of the foreign man who chose to not become an American (or who had not given legal notice that he intended to become naturalized just as soon as the law permitted him to before fathering children in America).

Those foreigner-born children had foreign fathers who presumably retained allegiance to their foreign monarch. How in the world could they be presumed to be 100% American and possessed of undying devotion to America’s principles, -to her Constitution and laws, her people, her freedoms and her survival?

Well, they couldn’t, and that was why the word “born” was underlined by the man who wrote that letter; he being John Jay, compatriot of Thomas Jefferson, past president of the Continental Congress and future Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  His fellow patriot founder, Alexander Hamilton, wrote of the fear of corrupt foreign influence gaining ascendance in America via assuming the role of chief magestry of the nation, -which turned out to be the office of President & Commander in Chief.

He feared that a planted agent of a foreign power might rise to occupy such a position since there would be no greater prize for them on earth than that, at least one requiring no resort to war.

Alexander Hamilton’s writing in Federalist No. 68:
“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?”

Since that would be an impossibility for a foreigner to achieve under the loosest of allowances of eligibility, it was necessary to also block the avenue of achieving it through one’s son who happened to be born within the United States.
And that was why he underlined a word that had never been underline in its extremely rare appearance as part of a phrase including the words “natural” and “citizen”.

The power of the nation had to not be given to any so-called “natural citizen” but only one born as a natural citizen, -and not merely made “a new natural citizen” by the American fiction of citizenship transformation known as natural-ization.

The Constitutional Convention accepted his suggestion and adopted it. But ever since, no one has been able to explain why he underlined the word born if they do not understand what has just here been explained. Do you now understand?

If so, you are a tiny minority of an even smaller minority because Americans live in an ocean of citizenship ignorance, and I don’t see any real way for that to change without some sort of charismatic, dynamic popular patriot who is knowledgeable, willing, and wanting to teach them, and they being eager to learn.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for him to appear and clear up the near universal ignorance and misconception that has been the American norm and status quo almost from the beginning.

The government is never going to correct its century old institutionalized error which declares every baby born on U.S. soil to automatically be deemed a United States CITIZEN because of the Calvin case and its far-reaching impact.

Just as buildings are built one block on top of another on top of foundation stones, so concepts, ideologies, philosophies and religions also are built on foundational assumptions and beliefs.
If they are not factual, then the entire structure built on them is grounded on the sand of error or falsehood, but the structure becomes so immense, accepted, customary and traditional that even questioning it can get you killed in some cases.

So knowing the truth does not translate into being able to replace the embraced error because it is rooted in the minds of the population and government institutions. Just try changing an institution in America.

Not only can’t our corrupt government abolish departments and agencies that are obsolete, but it cannot even repeal laws written for the depression of the 1930s and no longer applicable in today’s world in any legitimate or constitutional manner.
I’m just glad to no longer be as young as I’d like to be because the up side of it is that I don’t have a whole lot of emotional involvement in a distant future that won’t be one that folks of my generation and earlier would find acceptable. Plus, it makes a significant difference to not have any progeny that will be victimized by that future.

by Adrien Nash April 2014

300 Years of Bastardized Citizenship Ideas  Parts 1-4, Pdf 14 pages, 2 column


 Thomas Paine on Kings & Presidents;  From The Rights of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791

400 Years of Bastardized Citizenship Ideas Pt.2

~or how the Calvin case dooms our future~

What everyone gets wrong because of distorted thinking due to the Calvin case (and the Wong Kim Art case in the U.S. in 1898) is the concept of what the basis or source of national membership is for those who were not born of outsiders.
Those two powerfully influential cases put the spotlight full power on the newly emphasized factor of native-birth being a determinate of membership, -apart from parentage and inheritance of membership.

What happened was that the idea formed that both groups, -the 97% born of citizens, (-nearly all of whom were born of natives) and the foreigner-fathered 3% or so (who owed their national membership to the same single factor of native-birth), were all U.S. citizens because of that factor alone.

Since almost all of the citizenry of the nation was born in the same place; (within the borders of American States) eventually it occurred to no one that the origin of the membership of children of the two different kinds of inhabitants (1. native-&-naturalized citizens, and 2. immigrants) was different.

All they were cognizant of was the fact the native citizens as well as the native-born children of immigrants were both native-born and had the same rights and duties making them essentially identical in nature (just like subjects in Britain regardless of why they were subjects).

But appearances only count to a certain degree and no more. One group was born of Americans while the other was born of outsiders who had joined themselves to the Americans and their country. And what difference did that difference make? None. In no colony did it make a difference since they all had the same British sovereign.

But everything changed when they overthrew his rule over them, -along with the source of their connection to him, -which was where they happened to have been born. Thereafter their membership was based not on that overthrown doctrine of national common connection but on solely the only factor left which was the natural factor of who they were born to; Americans? -or foreigners?; patriots or loyalist?; oath takers or oath refusers?

That was the new reality, -but the old reality still remained in effect in several of the newly independent States, and as a part of the system of common law which was the basis of colonial law.
From then on, that facet of the common law was abolished by the revolution but not fully abandoned because several States chose to continue with tradition, and provide incentive for immigration by bestowing their State membership on the immigrants’ children born within the State.

It’s known that at least four States continued with the dual system for the small fraction of children born of their immigrants, -probably the four self-labeled “commonwealth” States, but it is unknown if the others did also, or if they all did. But what is known is that the new central government did not recognize American nationality being based on one’s birth place. It was all about which government the father of a child was subject to; foreign or domestic? If foreign, then his children were foreign, -not natural born Americans.

You’ve heard the expression; “the tail wags the dog”. Well that is what has happened with the view of citizenship in America. The tiny fraction of children born to aliens, -children granted citizenship merely because of where they were born, is the tail (a fraction of the citizenry) that wags the dog, -replacing the proper view of citizenship regarding the other 97% who are native-born and citizens by inheritance instead.

It’s easy and natural to make that assumption, after all “everyone” born in America is an American, it must be because they were born in America instead of because they were born of AMERICANS.

That’s just like it was in Great Britain (with the Kingdoms united ) when it seemed that everyone was a member of the nation because they were born in the nation and that put them under the subjection to the king,  but that view was only cognizant of the royal policy involving native-born children of foreigners, and was oblivious to one’s own natural right derived from the natural principle of natural membership (which was the true natural origin on their national membership).

Once ignorance won out and the tail began to wag the dog as the view became over-simplified into native-birth alone being the sole factor in determining one’s nationality, that dual system became the dominant view in the colonies because it was imbedded as a concept in common law, -with natural law ignored.

The tail became a whale and buried the dog completely. It was endemic as the view taught by law schools and law books because there was no body of books of newly and legally-recognized American Natural Law Principles, for legal instruction since most law schools relied on books of law that were British legal system books of laws and legal exposition, -not American.

Thus American principles were invisible to those who failed to immerse themselves in the writings of those who illuminated the subject of The Natural Rights of Man, as did the founders who relied on them for their vision and inspiration; -both desperately needed for a treasonous rebellion and revolution against the entire British government, its attitude, its philosophy, its authority and its military.

Because of the long history and ingrained influence of the idea of nationality being tied to the borders within which one was born, the distortion of the Calvin case devolved into the delusion that grips America across the board today.
That delusion dictates that the blind and stupid policy of the executive branch must continue for another blind and stupid century just as it has done for the last, -ever since the limited Supreme Court opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case was taken, expanded, and bastardized by the Attorney General at the time.

On his own, he made it national policy that not only were the native-born & raised children of domiciled permanent-resident immigrants deemed to be Americas, but anybody and everybody born within U.S. borders is an American, -with only children of foreign ambassadors being an exception to that universal rule.

That policy is not based on the 14th Amendment’s nationality clause, nor on the court’s opinion as to what it means. It was based solely on the unstated presumption that all children who were born in America to foreigners were born of immigrants who would live in America and raise their children in America, -but that proved to not be true.

There were exceptions that were the opposite, yet there was no sane way to deal with their American citizenship when they were living and growing up abroad as a foreign member of a foreign nation. That was not covered by the common law, nor State law, nor constitutional law, nor congressional law, nor amendment law.

It was off the reservation and out in the twilight zone of nationality policy. But not a damn thing was done about it except to legitimize it. They just put lipstick on that pig since they assumed that it was actually a legitimate child of the federal government, but it was in fact illegitimate.
The consequence is that it is essentially unassailable legally, and even worse, politically and sociologically because of the multiple millions of Latin and Asian Americans who have flooded into America in the last several decades, -legally, but largely, illegally.

Their increasing presence in the voting booth tips the scale in favor not of responsible government but of the side that will best guarantee the continuation of free stuff. When or if they become the majority in the swing states that decide the presidency, then the future will be set and the Detroitification of America will be inevitable. All courtesy of the fall-out of the Calvin case.

After one becomes legal, one can petition for all of one’s immediate foreign family to migrate into the United States. The whole block of Latin American “U.S. persons” are people from countries that have un-American views of government and self-reliance.
Their governments and societies were not built on American principles of unalienable Natural Rights and sovereignty being invested in the People and not the leadership.

Hence their preference is for the security provided by the party of Big Government, big spending, big social service programs and hand-outs, and paternalistic government power over the citizenry. Their preference is to vote for Democrats because they have become the party of all of that and its free stuff.

They have no concerns whatsoever about constitutionally guaranteed natural rights and freedoms because they got along just fine without them in the land they chose to abandon. They are not concerned about the right of free speech since they never exercised such a right in a public role in their society, -nor a right to bear arms, -which their homelands do not allow.

Although they might balk at restrictions on religious liberty if they are seriously religious, -which is not generally the case about any group of people, they would not have a conscious thought about the other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights because their conscious thoughts do not wander to esoteric ruminations about natural rights since they are mostly poorly educated, -kind of like the kind of students that America’s government schools are turning out and passing on year after year to higher grades when they can’t even pass the requirements of the grade they were in the year before, or the year before that.

America has become the land where from elementary school to college an actual F (Fail) is now a D, and a D is now a C. “Grade creep”. Mediocrity and incompetence have become the nation’s union educators’ norm. People who can not even fill out a job application are allowed the high privilege and duty of voting for candidates to run our government.
They can’t even adequately govern their own lives but are given the chance to vote on who should govern all of our lives when their only stake in the outcome is a question of how much more or less from the government they will receive as a result.
No travesty of civil life could be more absurd. It’s like giving prison inmates the right to vote on how they want the prison run; or gluttons, how much food they should be allowed, -or drug addicts how much crack they… . Not a good idea.

So the impact of the Calvin case and its alteration to the concept of British nationality still haunts us to this day, and may doom our future as the demographics shift toward the influence of self-serving immigrant cultures which will in ever-increasing large majority numbers vote for those who have bankrupted our future and theirs, and continue to do so at an accelerated pace, like ship pilots who have no concern that they are scrapping their ship against a dangerous and deadly shoal.

But since in their infantile minds, the future never comes, -summer never ends, and the gravy train goes on forever, they plow on forward with their foot pressed hard against the accelerator pedal.
Anyone with a brain can deduce that the result will be catastrophic eventually as they annually add new mountains of debt to a mother mountain of debt that’s so vast and high and wide and deep that it cannot even be imagined by any mind that ever lived. But I digress.

From natural order and history we rediscover that the basis, the source and origin of national membership in America is via two very different means. There is no confusion about that in regard to those who become naturalized citizens as apposed to those born as citizens.

But confusion exists because it is also true regarding those who were born as citizens. They seem like one group of people but in fact they comprise two separate groups, and all they have in common at birth is the matter of the location where they entered the world.

One group (the 97%) are the citizen-born natives of the nation whose parents are Americans, while the other is the alien-born whose parents are foreigners. Each group has, in reality, a different source for their American citizenship.

The native group simply inherits their national membership. The foreigner-born group acquires theirs via the Supreme Court opinion that construed the meaning of the 14th Amendment nationality clause, while in Great Britain, after the Calvin case, it was via the common law established by the court decision in that case.
In both cases it was a matter of gaining membership via legal recognition of birth location, and not via natural blood relationship.

With the Scotsman who became subjects of the English Crown, their numbers also were minuscule (initially) because the court’s decision only applied to those born after the two thrones came to be held by the same person. But with time those numbers grew considerable since every child born in Scotland from then on was born subject not only to the King of Scotland but also the King of England, who just happened to be the same person. *

But they spoke the same King’s English, albeit with very different accents, and were of the same isle and combined Anglo-Saxon ethnic background.
That couldn’t be said of the others who benefited from that decision in the future; those from France and Prussia, and Holland and Poland and such who migrated to Britain with their foreign languages and cultures and lack of established charters and customs of civil rights.
They were wholly alien peoples, -although the Dutch and French people were pretty much on the same page as the English.

A similar dissonance resulted in America with the arrival of peoples without English language ability and very un-evolved ideas of what the role of government is in one’s life, and what one’s own natural rights are.

All of this is easily understandable and non-controversial, but a problem arises when one attempts to understand how it all relates to the issue of presidential eligibility. That issue is all wrapped up in the meaning of the words used in the Constitution to describe what sort of citizen the President must be, with it stating: “No person except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of the President;”.

~     ~     ~     ~

* What was background of the title: The United States?  It was not an original title entirely since the word “united” had been employed by the British in the beginning of the 1700′s.  “On 1 May 1707, the united kingdom of Great Britain came into being, the result of Acts of Union being passed by the parliaments of England and Scotland to ratify the 1706 Treaty of Union and so unite the two kingdoms.” Here’s the several possible ways of labeling the new joint kingdom: 1.) the united kingdoms of Great Britain, plural; 2.) the United Kingdoms of G.B. -also plural;  3.) The united Kingdom of G.B.; singular; and 4.)  THE UNITED KINGDOM of GREAT BRITAIN.

Well!, the Americans wanted no less of an impressive title for their proud new country, so they had to pick how to label it in print;  1. The united STATES of AMERICA  2.  The United States of America  3. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  4.  The united States  5.  The United States.  They chose the last one and always printed it that way because it gave an appropriately modest but nicely weighty sense of national sovereignty, -which our people felt somewhat inferior in compared to Great Britain and France and Spain.  As the new little upstart on the block, our national pride required a prestigious name that carried the combined weight of the entire nation even when actually referring to the individual states and not the entire nation.

Thus instead of writers and printers using a small-case “U” for “united” (as in The united STATES of AMERICA, or the united States), what was almost always written in reference to only “the several States”,  illogically and improperly employed a capitalized “U”, thereby forever confusing everyone into thinking that what was written was in reference to the aggregate nation instead of the individual States of the union.  The truth is often seen in the reference to “these” and “their” rights (plural) rather than “its” (singular) .

If you want to understand the Constitution and the laws of the first century, you need to bear that fact in mind.  The statists had not yet won and usurped most power to the federal government away from the mostly independent States.

The Actual Facts & Truth about U.S. Citizenship


I continue to say this is a Spiritual battle. The USofA rests on the foundation of Natural Law. That is, God has given us certain unalienable rights. The government, and the Constitution give us NOTHING. Our rights come from God, thus the crucial expression (now a misunderstood cliche) “God given rights.”

Rather than “give citizens rights”, the Constitution does the opposite. It recognizes we already have these rights (from God), and it PREVENTS THE GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING THEM AWAY FROM US.

Now if you reject Natural Law, as the Marxists/Communists/Socialist do, then man has NO RIGHTS except what the Government benevolently and conditionally extends to him. Without Natural Law as your foundation, your are A SLAVE TO THE STATE.

How many of you were taught these basic, but revolutionary concepts in our government-run schools? I was not, I learned it through my Church.

The founding fathers had and expression – “You are either governed by God, or ruled by tyrants.”

So, just remember that as the government moves more and more every day to remove all references of God from our institutions and Constitution, they are actually removing Natural Law as the basis of governing. In turn, they are removing your God-given rights (against the restrictions of the Constitution) and instead making you a slave of the State.

This is a Spiritual battle – will you (and your family, and our nation) be governed by God or ruled by a tyrants?

~   ~   ~

Both Obots & nativist Birthers face multiple conundrums of conflicting facts.

FACT 1. By the 1866 Civil Rights Act, those born subject to a foreign power are not citizens.

FACT 2. U.S. born children of foreign ambassadors and foreign guests are subject to their father’s foreign government, -just as he is.

FACT 3. Those subject to a foreign government are NOT subject to the U.S. government.

FACT 4. The U.S. military draft laws of the Civil War exempted those foreigners subject to a foreign power, whether they were immigrants or their unnaturalized native-born sons.

FACT 5. The U.S. Government did not recognize dual-citizenship nor dual allegiance. It was akin to bigamy. One could not be responsible for the defense of two different nations. That is unnatural and was unacceptable.

FACT 6. American families were unitarian units with a single nationality; that of the father.

FACT 7. Wherever an American father’s children were born, their nationality was inherited from him and was none other than the family nationality.

FACT 8. No U.S. Ambassador, with children born in multiple countries, had a family of divided nationalities because they all had his nationality.

FACT 9. No American, with children born in other countries, had a family of divided nationalities because they were all his nationality from the perspective of the U.S. Government. See Fact 5.

FACT 10. The nationality laws of foreign nations could not confer a second allegiance or recognized nationality to one born of an American father. An American by blood was first and last an American, -unless his father never lived in the United States and was not born there either.

FACT 11. Every other son of every American father was born with a birthright that held open every office in America to him.

FACT 12. The unalienable right by the American blood of every American son was the qualification to one day be eligible to serve as President.

Taken as a whole, these facts can’t be refuted nor disputed. They pop every imaginary eligibility balloon.

” Whether or not the law has or will continue to treat corporations as “persons” in particular legal contexts, there is clearly an established legal difference between the rights of “natural persons,” and those of “artificial persons.””

“A human being is a natural person, and thus possesses the full scope of inalienable rights as articulated in the Declaration of Independence and detailed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

“A corporation is an abstract and artificial construct, a mere “creature of the law.”
“[with only] artificial personhood”.

Natural persons, and artificial persons, are twin-like to Natural citizens and artificial citizens via law, -but with both being human.

But only one is natural. The other is a construct of the law. No citizen whose American nationality is the product of law is eligible to be President.
They may be citizens artificially but not naturally.
The law cannot naturally transmit anything. It cannot make anything. All it can do is acknowledge what is and recognize what has become.

A foreigner has become am American via the Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation. Nothing can reverse that except having lied.

The government does no make it so. The person makes it so by his oath. The power is in the pledging and binding of the oath, not the law. Bound by oath = bound by honor.

Just like marriage vows. If you speak them then you are married, with or without someone pronouncing it to be so.

The vows marry two souls, and the citizenship vow marries a foreigner to America.
There is no provision of government power to make it so other than administering the oath. That is the power behind naturalization.

It makes new “natural citizens”, just as does the 14th Amendment, but that natural citizenship is in fact artificial fiction-of-law citizenship, and not citizenship by birth.

Slarti burped: “There is nothing in the writings of the Founders that suggests that a native birth requirement would fail to meet the standard of security that the Founders sought.”

Question: What founders’ writings exist discussing a “standard of security”?
What security are they known to have sought?
If there’s no writings, what presumption can one make without error on the dangerous side?

As I point out in part 3 of “400 Years of Bastardized Citizenship Ideas” (pt. 1 now online) your presumption was very costly when made by Indira Gandhi. Her Prime Minister Protection Service native-born guard failed to provide the “security” you are so quick to offer to the US President.

He was not a natural born member of her ethnic group and so he chose to “settled” some ethnic scores with her using his machine gun. So much for her egalitarianism of inclusiveness. RIP

THAT is just what you are advocating for America. But the Secret Service isn’t buying it. Nor is the nuclear weapons command authority. Nor did the British entrust their crucial military command posts and secret intelligence positions to native-born subjects who were labeled as natural born subjects, but weren’t.
No one was given those posts who was not born of an Englishman.

And no one is allowed to guard the President or control nuclear weapons who is not a natural born citizen, i.e., born of and raised by American parents.
Those who write the rules for security clearances know the difference between the native-born and the natural citizens of America.
And they enforce the rules by rejecting those with alienage. They can’t let the President end up like Indira Gandhi, -as you would be willing to risk.

The Brain-Dead stance of the obamunists:
“Any person, -including every son born within US borders of any alien or any background, -or a natural born citizen… shall be eligible…

How’s that for security folks! Wouldn’t you just love and feel secure about a Sky Marshall with such a stringent background?

Classified / Security Clearance Guidelines:

Guideline B: Foreign Influence

The Concern:

Having close ties with individuals who are not citizens of the United States could create the potential for foreign influence that could result in the compromise of classified information.
Contacts with citizens of other countries or financial interests in other countries could also create vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or pressure.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

An immediate family member, or a person to whom the individual has close ties of affection or obligation, is a citizen of, resident of, or present in, a foreign country;

Sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of their citizenship status, if the potential for adverse foreign influence exists;

Relatives, cohabitants, or associates who are connected with any foreign government;
Failing to report, where required, associations with foreign nationals;

Obama’s background SCREAMS: SECURITY RISK!!!

The high court in the Wong case produced a very limited expansion of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment’s nationality clause.
They expanded it to count as subject to U.S. sovereignty children who had previously been excluded by the national government.
They ended the division between jus soli permitting States and the federal policy.

But they did so in a strictly limited manner applying only to children of domiciled members of American society; immigrants of Chinese descent.
They knew that the Attorney General’s job was to interpret their opinion for application by the executive branch, and that he would rightfully extrapolate it to include children of other races.

Why would they assume that? Because it was a basic American principle that all who were fully CITIZENS (adult men only) ARE EQUAL.

The 14th Amendment made discrimination unconstitutional, so the policy regarding male citizens was codified as law.

There was no allowance by those who abolished nobility and aristocracy for unequal classes of citizens to exist, like a White Citizens class, and a Black Citizens class.

There was also no Natural-ized Citizens class. There was only one class; and that was natural citizens.
Via the process and oath of natural-ization, foreigners joined the only class of equal citizens recognized by American principles; natural citizens.
Also added by the Wong opinion were those thenceforth deemed to be State and national citizens although alien-born; namely the native-born children of immigrants.

They did not become natural citizens until they were born on U.S. soil.
Before then they were alien. Then at birth they became citizens by law.
If someone was charged with manslaughter for killing an immigrant woman’s unborn child, he could not be viewed nor charged for killing an American child because U.S. citizenship did not attach until birth.

A child of immigrants was not conceived as an American but as an alien.

U.S. citizenship was not imputed until that alien child emerged into the American world on American soil.
Only then did citizenship attach by operation of federal court opinion and an Attorney General interpretation of their opinion.

Both followed ancient custom and not eternal principle.
By eternal principle, off-spring can be nothing other that what the parents are that produce them. That is the immutable law of nature; aka Natural Law.

Assigning nationality based on birth location was man’s law that emerged from the Calvin case, -not from Nature’s God. It was incapable of producing an actual natural citizen.

U.S. corporations have been deemed by the Supreme Court to be “legal persons” as well as U.S. citizens. Are they natural citizens or “artificial citizens” as so labeled?

Were they born as members of the natural citizen class or merely made as members of the artificial legal-fiction-citizens class?

Are not man-made artificially-produced citizens merely deemed to be fellow “natural citizens” by legal fiction?

Just as artificial persons known as corporations are “artificial citizens”, so are those described by the federal government as “foreign stock”, -regardless of being real persons,

Combined, they constitute the demographic class of un-natural, law-made “Americans”, none of whom had American parents.

No such citizen fits the description that comes from outside of the realm of law, -that comes from the real world of sociological distinction, namely; natural born citizen.

As such, no man-made, jus soli, 14th Amendment, Supreme Court, artificial, legal fiction citizen is eligible to be President of these United States because they are not “natural” born citizens (-even if born in the Lincoln bedroom).

A fellow patriot wrote:  “John Jay was conveying to Washington the highest form of allegiance that a person could have to his nation. This allegiance was natural allegiance.”

That is not correct.  The focus on allegiance blinds one to the real nature of human relationships. It is not based on what allegiance is, -which is loyalty & obedience. It is based on human bonds.

Parents and children have a bond of blood that binds them together. That bond extends to the larger groups of which they are a part, from clan to nation.

John Jay’s concern was that one born with foreign bonds of attachment and devotion could not be trusted with the American military power.
It was not a matter of whether or not one had a higher or lower allegiance to his nation, but had a singular bond to his American family, -both immediate and national.

Someone with no bonds to any people or sovereign or nation what was not American is naturally going to have zero allegiance toward such foreign things.

So don’t look to measuring allegiance. Look to measuring the purity of one’s bonds. Are they purely American or are they mixed, diluted, bifurcated, dual, hybrid?

As for “natural allegiance”; the North Koreans would not feel any such thing if it were not for a lifetime of fear and indoctrination. Otherwise they would have zero allegiance to their own government and would all be actual traitors in its eyes (to the extent they could manage without being shot).
But they do have a bond to their own people and country via their blood connection. That bond is not determined by where they were born but to whom they were born.

Borders alone are not relevant to the formation of natural bonds, but familial and group connections are, and they are primal.
A mother grizzly doesn’t care where her cub was born, and neither does the cub.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers