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.

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

~latest writings not included in Header Navigation:

OBAMA:  THE SOY PROTEIN PRESIDENT/ WHERE’S The BEEF?

THE FOUNDATION of NATIONS/ Natural Rights & Unnatural Citizenship
expanded & revised

THE IMMUTABLE LAW Of CITIZENSHIP -a Primer for an ignorant age

 THE NATURE OF VATTEL’S “DEFINITION” OF NATIVES

 YOU ARE NOT A “LEGAL” CITIZEN, YOU”RE SOMETHING ELSE

VIRGINS, NUNS,  & NATURAL CITIZENS

   THE THINGS OF NATURE & THE NATURE OF THINGS

~ WHO IS A NATURAL AMERICAN and WHO IS NOT?

NATIVE-BORN FOREIGNERS & FOREIGN-BORN NATIVES

NATURAL CITIZENSHIP vs CITIZENSHIP BY SUBSTITUTION

 ~HOW MARCO RUBIO COULD DESTROY THE APPLE CART

 WHEN DESCRIPTIONS ARE KINGS, DEFINITIONS ARE GODS

 ~DISSECTING THE “DEFINITION” OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

~AN ERRONEOUS “DEFINITION” OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

THE MISCONSTRUENCE OF MINOR V HAPPERSETT

OPEN LETTER TO LEO DONOFRIO, Esq. -APPENDED

COMMENTS TO MARIO APUZZO, Esq.

A TALE OF A DEAD PRESIDENT & HIS TWIN BROTHER’S CHARADE

  THE TYRANNY OF GOOD INTENTIONS / RAISE A STINK FOR THE CONSTITUTION

AMERICA vs The Constitution/ What’s RIGHT vs What’s BEST

~WHEN THE EXPERTS ARE IMBECILES

MY MAJOR RANDOM THOUGHTS

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

The darkness is total, -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 “proof” of a U.S. birth is “officially” eligible to be President.
Lie #4. Only naturalized citizens are ineligible to be President.
Lie#5.  Natural citizenship is the same as constitutional citizenship
Lie#6.  All “born citizens” are alike, whether born to foreigners or Americans.
Lie#7.  Foreigners can be President if they’re born in the United States.
Gullible?  Ignorant?  Stupid?  A combination of the three?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No person whose U.S. citizenship is derive 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.

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

NEW FACTS UNCOVERED!

DISCOVERY # 1.

NATURALIZED, NATIVE-BORN, and NATURAL BORN ARE DISTINCT in the official Immigration Service Interpretation of Naturalization Code

I shared what I discovered with attorney Leo Donofrio yesterday (12-24).  Read his response on his blog NaturalBornCitizen

Today 1-25  I uncovered what seems to be an even more explosive fact.  See my latest post.  The consequence of what seems to be an accurate conclusion is that my previous assumptions about Obama’s citizenship at birth are not correct.  In fact they are the opposite of what I assumed just a few weeks ago.  It now appears that instead of his father’s nationality having no consequence it is his mother’s that was irrelevant when he was born, making him solely a British subject at birth, and only acquiring his mother’s citizenship after she divorced his father.  Read and share with all you can.  A.R. Nash

Since Leo Donofrio no longer publishes comments to his site, I’ll publish my own comments in reply here.

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

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,…”

Only American parents give birth to natural America children.
Only children of natural Americans are eligible to be President.
Foreigners give birth to either foreigners or to constitutional citizens.
No one born to a foreign Diplomat, Ambassador, Consul, Soldier, visitor, tourist, worker, professor, or student is an American because their father is a foreigner who lives in a foreign nation and remains subject to its jurisdiction, -not that of the United States.

No one can father a child that’s a natural citizen of a foreign nation -even if born within that foreign nation.

No non-American foreigner subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government can father a constitutionally eligible candidate for President.

Obama’s father was just such a foreigner.  Also, he 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.

The citizenship of Barack Obama is of such an arcane nature that there may be only a dozen or so people in the country who know what its source is.  It has never been identified in anything I’ve yet read.  It may be via some obscure Supreme Court ruling or some obscure Attorney General Interpretation that is buried somewhere in the INS Code.

But it is not via the 14th Amendment as written because when it was written his mother would have been expatriated by marriage and therefore would have been a British subject.  His father could not father 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 (UKAC).
Obama appeared with a mysterious citizenship, with a mysterious past, with a mysterious fake non-physical birth certificate, with mysterious hidden collegiate records and accomplishments, with mysterious secret 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.  Anyone have any questions for him?  Now’s the time to ask them.

 

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 all but a “natural born citizen” from being President.
2.  The Constitution bars all alien naturalized citizens from being the President.
3.  The Constitution bars anyone born merely as a “born citizen” from being President.
4.  The Constitution bars anyone with foreign citizenship only from being the President.
5.  The Constitution bars anyone with a parent who is not American from being President.
6.  The Constitution bars anyone not born with American citizenship from being President.
7.  The Constitution bars the children of  a transient alien or diplomat from being President.

These facts demolish the legitimacy of Barack Obama as an eligible candidate for the presidency.
All but 2 & presumably 3 apply to Senator Obama who was not born with American citizenship because under the United States INS policy in full force when he was born in 1961, his mother was not an American citizen but a British subject due to the impact of the federal legal tradition known as “expatriation by marriage“.  By marrying a foreigner, she lost her American citizenship and took on his in its place.  The father was the only source of imputed nationality for their child.  This policy was in effect  on and off for several centuries or longer.

It’s origin was probably in British legal tradition, and even may have been the legal tradition in much of Europe and the ancient world.  Under the tradition of The Divine Right of Kings, male subjects would be considered to be committing an act akin to treason if they were to foreswear, abjure, reject or renounce their allegiance to their sovereign in order to expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation.  But wives?  They were the property of their husbands.  If he was a subject of the King and a foreign woman married a subject of the King, then she became a subject of the King also because she was under her husband’s jurisdiction, and he was under the King’s.

Expatriation by marriage was not questioned as the official policy of the United States government until the Supreme Court ruled that an American cannot lose his citizenship merely by voting in a foreign national election.  That ruling was extrapolated by the Attorney General in an opinion/Interpretation that reasoned that an American woman marrying a foreign national was not  demonstrating  a willful desire to abandon her American citizenship.     But he nevertheless stated that it was not the policy of the government to follow the implications of that Court ruling.  But regardless, that ruling was not given until 1967 (Afroyim v Rush)
When Obama Jr. was born in 1961, it was still the policy of the government that his mother’s American citizenship be converted into British citizenship, and therefore he was born solely as a British subject and not an American.

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.

Barack Obama only became an American as a result of his mother divorcing his father.  After that, U.S. Administrative Law allowed her to regain her American citizenship and have it apply to her child, -whose citizenship therefore was statutory and thus a form of naturalized citizenship, not natural citizenship.  This is the conclusion that I’ve found no contradiction to so far, but I welcome any proof that it is incorrect.

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).

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

With Truth as our Arrows and Logic our Bows

We’ll pierce through his lies with revealing blows

-ripping through falsehood as Truth finds its mark

so Light can then shine where now all is Dark.

With Truth as our Arrows and Logic our Bows

his sham will collapse when all come to know

he committed a fraud for which he must pay

when justice arrives on his reckoning day.

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

by a.r.nash 1-27-12

CURRENTLY LIST IS INCOMPLETE

Obama’s Citizenship Issues

            A Citizenship Primer for the Court
            The Obama Conundrum
            Obama’s Eligibility Facts

    Jus Soli and 500,00 Dead
            Jus Soli versus Jus Sanguinis
            Bastardization of Citizenship Tradition

    Obama’s Illegitimate Presidency
           Conclusive Evidence of Ineligibility
           The Vancouver Scenario

    Natural Born Citizen Defined by SCOTUS
           The Case & The Court

    Origins of Natural Citizenship
           The Nature of Natural Citizenship
           Citizenship By Birth-right
                 Birthright & Citizenship by Descent
           Evolution of Terms
           Natural Born Citizenship
                   Citizen By Natural Law
                   Citizen by Natural Law Page 2
                   Citizen by Natural Law Page 3
                   The Citizenship Conundrum
                   Who Are Citizens and Who Are Not?

    Certificate of Live Birth
Six Smoking Guns
The Significance of None
The Smiling Face
Birth Certificate Page 2
Birth Certificate Page 3
Mystery Birth

    The 1st Birth Certificate
           1st COLB Busted
           Dr. Ron Pollard Fake
           Bastardization of Certification
           Micro-Photography History

    Citizens by Law /the 14th Amendment
           14th Amendment / Jurisdiction Page 2
           Foreign Born Americans
           WorldNetDaily Posts

    Dark Suspicions/ Deep Secrets
           Dark Suspicions 2
           How Congress was prepped to dismiss ‘birthers’
           The Betrayal of America
           Evidence of Falsehoods
           How Congress was prepped to dismiss birthers

    The U.S. Constitution
           ROOTS OF US LAW
           Ilegal Aliens & Citizenship
          The Asinine Error of “All”
           Illegal Aliens & Citizenship

    The Spirit of a Free Society
           PATRIOT POST
           Remarkable Quotes
           Robin Hood Taxation
           American is Already a Theocracy

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

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 1

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

ONLY NATURAL BORN CITIZENS ARE ELIGIBLE

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

“Citizens and natives:  The natives, or natural-born citizens, 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 pro-creation 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, two parents of the same citizenship.

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 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 the His Royal Highness and a believer in his infallibility.

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 CUKC -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 did.  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 either solely a U.S. citizen or possibly also an Indonesian citizen by adoption unless Indonesian dual-citizenship is unacceptable, like with Kenya.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

If he was a British subject due to birth to a British subject, then he would not be a natural American, even if he was a native born citizen.   Obama would not have been born a natural citizen under US naturalization law based on the 14th amendment.   It did not touch on the citizenship of natural citizens, but rather, citizenship of all other types.  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 connection with his mother -if he were born in the US.
The 14th Amendment states that all persons born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens. ( It does not say they are natural born citizens because it was not written to proclaim, define nor declare the citizenship of those who are automatically citizens).  It was written for freed slaves and children of immigrants and foreign fathers.

Foreign citizens are under the protection of their own nation’s sovereignty over its citizens so they are not citizens of the United States nor in subjection to its jurisdiction. Thus, if one is born on US soil to foreign tourists, he/she is not a US citizen at birth. But if foreign parents are no longer under foreign jurisdiction due to legal residence , 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 immigration authorities.  They were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.

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.

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

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 been shown to the public or to experts.  Plus this author has yet to find any U.S. statute by which his mother’s citizenship was conveyed to him at birth.   It’s possible that one does not exist.   But if one exists, it just demonstrates that he would be considered a statutory citizen and not a natural citizen since there are no statutes covering natural citizenship and never will be.  Congress has no authority in that area.

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

If he was born in Vancouver (http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/the-vancouver-scenario/ ) 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.  And, possibly he’s not even a U.S. citizen.  But the ignoramuses who administer immigration law view him, and every Tom-Dick-&-Harry illegal immigrant born here, as being a citizen.  Then his bamboozled supporters 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.

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

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, 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 describeable 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 pocess 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 nearly two centuries of colonial rule, and not on the natural law of Natural Rights endowed to man by the Creator.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.  I’ll post the Presidential oath of office when I get inspired to find it.  But here’s
The United States Oath of Allegiance for Naturalization  (its 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

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Blog

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”

Old Glory

Obama & Mother; Expatriated by Marriage; British Subjects Only Until Divorce

The most important, though covert, issue of the 2008 presidential election was that of Barack Obama’s ancestry.  His American ancestors went back hundreds of years.  No, wait.  Make that his African ancestors who went back hundreds of years, -no make that thousands of years, no-wait, -make that tens of thousands of years.   If his father had married an indigenous American, (forever erroneous labeled “Indians” by Columbus) then there would have been a truly colossal clash of ancestries; -different continents, different cultures,  different religions, different races, and different countries.
Instead his significant ancestral clash was not in any of those realms but in that of his parents’ nationalities.  Which citizenship would he be born with?  British? or American? Or both?  The answer was very simply.  It followed the same straight-forward tradition as society and religious teaching & practice.  By Christian tradition and Church Law, the wife was subordinate to the husband who was the head of the household.*  Therefore she was fully a part of his world and belonged to him.
The outward manifestation of that relationship was that upon taking the wedding vow giving herself to her husband, she thereby passed from the jurisdiction of her father to that of her mate.  If he was a foreign man, then her maiden citizenship, inherited from her father via patrilineal descent, switched to that of her husband as she left behind her former family name and her former family citizenship and adopted his and his alone, becoming fully a part of his world and his family.

That tradition is known as “expatriation by marriage” and it was the practice for hundreds of years.  It was an integral part of the official policy of the American Immigration & Naturalization Service, as well as The State Dept., which is responsible for visas and passports.

One learns from reading the official Attorney General nationality Interpretations of Supreme Court rulings, that that national policy was only questioned, and possibly nullified after the U.S. Attorney General interpreted a Supreme Court ruling (Afroyim v Rusk) to mean that depriving American women of their citizenship could not be based merely on marriage to a foreigner.  That overturned the policy in theory but not necessarily in practice, -at least that’s the impression that the Attorney General’s interpretation gave.

He states what his extrapolation of the Supreme Court decision means for women marrying foreign men, but then states that nevertheless, it is not the policy of the government to follow it(!) since it was not a direct ruling.  That was written about 25 years ago but there seems to be nothing in the official Interpretations that supersedes it.  Very curious.  It leaves one not sure what the heck the policy is today.  But I digress.

What one needs to know that is of significance is that the court ruling didn’t happen until 1967, -six years after Barack Obama’s mother married his father and gave birth to him.  So it didn’t apply to him when he was born.

By the time it was handed down he was already a U.S. citizen (-living in Indonesia and adopted by his Indonesian father).  How then did he become a U.S. citizen, you wonder?  He became one by the same legal tradition.
After divorcing a foreign man, a former American woman can be repatriated, -regaining her citizenship, which would also apply to any children born to her while married.  That repatriation is accomplished via a short, easy form of naturalization which essentially is nothing more than signing a piece of paper pledging allegiance solely to the United States, and/or taking an oath.
Since her regained citizenship is a form of naturalization, the same is true of her children who receive what is known as “derivative citizenship” since it isn’t acquired directly but is derived from her citizenship.

Obama: Son of an Expatriated Mother (British) , -Devoid of U.S. Citizenship At Birth

The presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution reads either:
A. Any person, including a derivative citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”  or
B. No person except a a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”

Which answer is incorrect?  Answer: A.  And which form of citizenship did Barack Obama possess at birth, -A, or B.?  Answer:  Neither.  Not a natural born citizen, nor a derivative citizen.  He was purely a British subject by birth.

Who is a natural born citizen?  It is they who are born as citizens, -by the nature of their father.  Citizen parents produce citizen children.  Parents who are members produce children who are members.  It’s been that way since time immemorial in every clan, tribe, people, and nation on earth.  Foreign fathers produce foreign children.  No foreign national can father a natural domestic citizen.  Only native fathers can father true natives.  And only citizen fathers can father natural citizens.

Understand this. citizenship by any form of naturalization, including derivative citizenship, is NOT natural citizenship.  Natural citizens are not naturalized citizens, and naturalized citizens are not natural citizens.  The Constitution of the United States expressly requires that the President be no one except a natural born citizen, and naturalized citizens are not natural born.  They are man-made citizens even if they are made citizens at birth.

Natural citizens are “nature-made”, and require no law, statute, policy, judicial ruling, or treaty to produce their existence nor legitimize it in any way.  That’s why their citizenship is not found in any law ever passed by Congress.  Congress was given no authority to legislate regarding citizenship except in regard to those where are not natural citizens.  Those who are not natural citizens have direct connections to foreign nations, were as natural citizens do not.  Their only connections are indirect, -through grandparents, -NOT through parents.

When foreigners become officially recognized residents of America, then any children born to them will be statutory citizens, -citizens by law.  Children born to statutory citizens are natural born citizens, -citizens by nature because they were born to citizen parents.  Any foreign father who becomes a naturalized citizen will father natural born citizens, and any children born to him before naturalization will automatically become U.S. citizens, but not natural born citizens because he was not a citizen when the were born.

For better or worse, the man that the Democrat Party knowingly made their candidate even though he was not even close to being a natural born citizen, is heading for a reckoning some day.  Whatever the outcome will be, it will inescapably be tumultuous.  Perhaps it will be revolutionary in scope, including a full-blown constitutional crisis like the nation has never seen.  But it’s impossible to say which scenario would be worse; -that reality comes down like a hammer on a complicit government and the party that committed the biggest election fraud in history, or that the only response be like the sound of one hand clapping.  But silence, like action, is a choice when it is the choice of a free citizen with a free citizen’s responsibility to keep their wayward government close to, if not on, the straight and narrow path.

*  This is how a representative government works. The head of the household (the husband/father unless deceased) represents the house as a whole. The house as a whole elects representatives for local, state, US House & presidential electoral college members. The electoral college members represent the state as a whole in the presidential election and cast their vote for the candidate that best represents their state as a whole. Then last but not least we have the states who represent the body of the state as a whole and they were to elect the persons to represent the state in the US Senate. That is until it was usurped by liberals on both sides of the aisle.
by http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

by a.r.nash 1-27-12    http://obama–nation.com

The Audacity of Fraud; An Unnatural American President

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:  ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1 reads:

“ANY PERSON who is born a citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of the President;…” or…
“NO person except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible to the Office of the President;…”

The section of the Constitution that delineates who is allowed to be President requires only three simple things.   2).   No person is eligible who has not  lived for 35 years,   3). and lived in the United States for at least 14 of those years  (age 21 to age 35 = 14 years),  1). and last, but actually first in the list, is the requirement of one of the two sentences at the top.  Which is it?  Conventional wisdom says it’s the first one.  Liberals/ Progressives/ Socialists choose to believe that it’s the first sentence, but the real wording of the Constitution thwarts their desire that the presidency be so inclusive that almost anyone can be President.
Actually, almost anyone can be President, -but not everyone, because the real wording of Article II, Section I is found  in the second sentence, not the first.  It is an exclusionary statement, not inclusionary, and it bars a tiny fraction of  citizens from being President by requiring that the President be a natural American citizen.  The question pertinent to the present is, “Who isn’t a natural American citizen?”  To answer that an explanation must be given as to what a  natural American citizen is.

A natural citizen is essentially everyone that you and I know.   They/we are natural citizens because they were born to American parents.  They are citizens by birth.  Similarly, simians are simians by birth, elephants are elephants by birth, humans are humans by birth, foreigners are foreigners by birth, and Americans are Americans by birth.  No simian ever gave birth to an elephant.  No elephant ever gave birth to a human.  American parents don’t produce foreign citizens, and foreigners don’t produce natural American citizens.
Legal resident aliens can produce children who are automatically granted citizenship upon birth because aliens are  immigrants, (and covered by the 14th Amendment) whereas foreigners are not.  [Aliens are persons who are not Americans but are not viewed as foreigners.]  The foreigner’s residence is in a foreign nation and they are citizens/subjects of that nation and owe it their allegiance, just as that nation owes them its protection.
But not all foreigners deliver their babies in their own country.  Some births occur while traveling, visiting or working abroad.  Those foreigners, along with foreign diplomats, include entertainers, businessmen, professionals, scholars and students.   They cannot produce a child within U.S. borders with the result that it’s an American citizen because it inherits its citizenship only from its parents, and thus is a foreigner also, and will be transported to the land of the parents’ origin where it will be raised as a native member of its native country (which is the land of the parents to which it was born).

This is all crystal clear.  Where it gets less clear is when the child is fathered by a foreigner but has an American mother.  Can such a child be considered, constitutionally, to be a natural American citizen?  Can a mule be considered to be a natural horse since it had a horse for a father (and a donkey for a mother)?  Can a mule be considered a natural donkey?  The answer to both is: “No”.  Mules are not natural anything because they are sterile hybrids that have no multi-generation lineage nor identical parental genetic character.  Unlike breeds of dogs which  are considered pure-breds, mules do not come from a long line of identical ancestors.  They come from a one-time mating of two distinctly different breeds of equines.  They, like children born of parents with mixed nationalities, are  hybrids.  Hybrids are not natural members of any group.

We have elected a President who is also a hybrid.  The nationalities of his parents had nothing in common and were distinctly different, thus not producing an off-spring that was a natural member of either nation.  Through his father he was born as a subject of the British Empire, while  his U.S. citizenship could only result from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that resulted in an INS legal  opinion that American women can retain their U.S. citizenship when they marry a foreign man instead of losing it via the ancient historical INS legal tradition of “expatriation by marriage” which results in one single uniform foreign nationality with the husband and children.
By that opinion and the court ruling it was derived from  (Afroyim v. Rusk) the children born to American women married to foreign nationals inherit the citizenship of their mothers.  Through that inheritance, Barack Obama would have been born a citizen of the United States -but it wasn’t given until 1967, -six years after his birth!  No machine existed that could make that ruling retroactive through Time to 1961 and the contemporary legal status quo of that time. So when he was born he was considered to be solely a British subject and not an American citizen.  But even if he had been born later, having a foreigner for a father instead of an American, would result in a citizenship that is statutory rather than natural.  Only children produced by an American father and mother are natural Americans.  All others are naturalized citizens, even if that naturalization begins by law automatically at birth.

A perfect analogy is that of a family or a tribe.  No one is a natural member of a family or a tribe unless they are born  into it. All other means of becoming a member, such as adoption or marriage, are not natural.  Natural citizens are born into a society/nation by birth to members, whereas outsiders and their children become members by law / permission, and not by the natural inclusion of inheritance of membership, which accompanies natural inheritance of race, traits, ethnicity, besides the social inheritance of language and family name.   As in nature, where one is born has no significance.  But to whom they are born is of paramount importance.  It determines whether or not they are a natural member of their group.

Many erroneously assume that if Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii then he is automatically an American citizen.  That assumption is false.  If his mother had been the visiting Kenyan wife of Obama Sr. then no one would claim that he would be an American citizen simply by being born in America.  Such children, -who happen to be born in America, are, like their parents, not subject to the jurisdiction of the American government, but to the jurisdiction of their own government, thus they are excluded by the 14th Amendment from being born as citizens of the United States.  Barack Obama Jr., fathered by a foreign national, was such a child.

Obama Sr. was not an immigrant to the United States and thus was not subject to its jurisdiction.  Rather, he was a foreign transient, a temporary foreign student/guest under the jurisdiction of Britain and international treaties.  The United States could not conscript him into the U.S. military nor require him to obey its political commands, such as not visiting Cuba.  Hence, no child fathered by him would fall under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment, meaning that it doesn’t matter that his son was born inside the United States because his son, through him, would not be subject to the U.S. government.  His son was not a true “native-born” American because he was not begotten by a native American father.  No foreigner can father a native citizen of America.  Only native or naturalized American men can father natural native sons and daughters of America.

So, the answer to the earlier question: “Who is not a natural American citizen?” is “anyone who is a citizen of a foreign nation, -anyone who  has a parent who was born in a foreign nation and owes allegiance to that foreign nation, and anyone who is an adult with  permanent residency in the foreign nation where they were born and who has not rejected its citizenship and is therefore subject to its jurisdiction.  Such individuals are not natural Americans and our founding fathers, after they decided that the President should have command of the U.S. Army and  Navy, wanted no such individuals to be entrusted with the reins of ultimate military power which are held by the Commander-In-Chief.

If all this is true, then how could Mr. Obama have been allowed to run for and win election to the highest office in  the land?  Simple, no one was minding the store.  The heads of the Democrat Party discarded their established protocol to certify that their candidate was constitutionally eligible, and instead simply stated that they certified that he was duly chosen to be their candidate.  The buck was meant to stop at their desk but when they got it they stuffed it into a drawer and locked it away, -pretending that nothing was out of the ordinary even though they knew long before his victory that he was not constitutionally eligible to be the President.
But they also knew that the American populace was completely unaware of the issue and the American media was so liberal that they would never raise the subject.  Thus he was swept into the presidency after violating the oath of office simply by taking it and swearing to uphold the same Constitution by which he was manifestly ineligible be the  President.

What can be done about it?  Perhaps a better question is; what should be done about it?  If something is to be done, would it not have to include nullifying every law that he’s signed, every executive order he’s issued, and every  appointment that he’s made, including those to the federal bench and Supreme Court?  Not one person within the Washington establishment can conceive of such a course.  It is beyond their capability to think that far outside of the box.

We are no longer a nation that adheres to the limitations of the law or the Constitution.  Informing no one, our law  enforcement officials send thousands of assault weapons across our southern international border straight into the  arms of mass murderers.  Our Congress violates the 10th Amendment more often than not as it legislates to empower (-to ever greater degrees), the giant octopus of the federal bureaucracy which extends its tentacles ever deeper into the social and private lives of more and more American citizens.  How can such an organization, -one that freely violates our most fundamental law, be expected to handcuff itself and chop off its unconstitutional practices, programs, funding bills, and endless borrowing?  It would be the equivalent of a heroin addict voluntarily going cold turkey and handcuffing himself to a bed.  It isn’t going to happen.  The old guard must be replaced with young turks who are willing to wield an ax, call a spade a spade, and  hold every branch of government to the limitations of the Constitution and sane budget limits.

Such men and women will have much in common with our founding fathers who were revolutionaries, but have almost nothing in common with the “politics as usual” good-ol’-boys who have gone along to get along and have spent our nation into a mountain of debt so high that is can never be reduced, much less paid off and eliminated.
The election of 2012 is truly the most pivotal cross-roads that our nation has seen in decades because we are at a tipping point.  We will either begin to move away from the cliff that liberalism is driving us full-speed toward, or we will become Greece and Italy but with no one to bail us out.  Like the two groups of survivors in the movie Poseidon  (Adventure).  One believes that survival means heading upward, -the other believes that safety comes from going downward.  Only one is correct.   Which direction will we go?  Toward escape or toward inevitable doom?

by A. R. Nash Jan 2012  http://obama–nation.com

~Obama: A Citizen by Grace & President by Fraud

(-citizenship by Right vs citizenship by Law)

Webster’s New World Dictionary:
“Fraud: an intentional deception, or dishonesty; a person who deceives or is not what he pretends to be”
“Usurp/ Usurpation: to take or assume and hold (power, position, rights, etc.) by force or without right, “

The answer to the most important question in the 2012 Presidential election is one on which the eligibility of the candidate for the Democrat Party depends.  That question, which will never be asked, is this: “Was Barack Obama born as a natural citizen of America or a natural citizen of Kenya?”.  But a more illuminating question is this one; “Was John McCain born as a natural citizen of the United States or born as a natural citizen of Panama?  To answer that question the mind reaches for an understanding of how things should be and how things actually are.  And are things actually as they should be?  And exactly how should they be?  Simple, children should be born as members of the same group as their parents, regardless of where they are born.  That is the principle of Natural Law and natural membership, and it’s followed by possibly every people and nation on Earth.

As a result, John McCain was born as a natural U.S. citizen and not a Panamanian citizen because his parents were Americans and not Panamanians.  Neither were they immigrants to Panama nor owed it any allegiance.  They were outsiders.  But they were not outsiders in regard to America.  They were members, -they were citizens.  They had certain American rights, -as did their son.  One of them was the  unalienable right to possess the same nationality as his parents.  That was not a right bestowed upon him by any law or policy of government.  It was a right bestowed by He who made all things, including the natural order of things, -an order observable in Nature and translatable to human society and national organization.

All things that reproduce create off-spring that are the same as themselves except in the unnatural situation when unlike things pro-create off-spring that are unnatural hybrids.  The equivalent in the political realm is when a couple with different nationalities produce an off-spring that is not a natural member or native of either nation because he is not the issue of solely one, nor the other, but of both, resulting in the creation of a political hybrid which has neither nationality alone, but a combination of  the two.

If you combine two glasses of water in a third glass, the result is a glass of water, -one uniform singular substance.  The same goes for glasses of oil.  But if you combine a glass of water with a glass of oil, the result is an unnatural mixture, -an unnatural combination of substances, -substances that are entirely different and do not combine.  The same with citizenship and the competing authority of two separate governments.  One person with two nationalities creates a conumdrum of conflicting authority and national allegiance.  Such a conundrum is an unnatural national government competition.

National allegiance is incompatible with dual citizenship and dual allegiance.  Dual citizenship is never a politically natural thing but rather is an unusual exception to the normal rule of citizenship.  ~One  nation, ~one people, ~one government, one language, ~one allegiance, ~one citizenship.  Think of how entire nations celebrate their citizens and teams winning in the Olympic games.  They are all of one mind and one heart.  Cities react similarly when their team wins the Superbowl or World Series.  If one city has two competing teams and they both end up as finalists in their sport, there will be little enthusiasm for the competition because of the unnatural duality which causes the absence of a singular devotion.  Dual or split allegiance mutes and neutralizes the sense of enthusiasm that would normally and naturally be devoted to just one side.  The same with nations, nationalism, loyalty, and allegiance.

Only singularity (uniformity) is natural in the natural realm, -likewise in the political realm.  The union of parents with a singular citizenship results in one born with natural citizenship, not an unnatural dual (or hybrid) citizenship.

Natural citizenship, like natural membership, is not something resulting from any laws other than the laws of nature.  No laws were passed to bestow it.  It goes unmention in the body of law that governs the nation.  It’s fundamental.  It’s beyond any need of being legislated.  It can’t be given or bestowed by man because it is an inherent inheritance of every living being.  It is an unalienable right.

But not all citizenship is in that same class.  There is a class of citizenship that is not natural but results instead from national law that allows it.  That class of citizenship, describeable as statutory citizenship, or citizenship-by-law, is not an unalienable right.  It is not bestowed via the principle of natural inheritance but instead is bestowed by the choice and will of authorities, be they autocrats, monarchs, dictators, or representatives of free citizens.  Just ask any naturalized citizen about the  nature of their citizenship and they will be totally clear that it is entirely the result of the grace of the government.  But no natural citizen has any impression in the slightest that his citizenship is the result of someone in the government signing something that grants him citizenship.

Only natural citizenship is unalienable.  Only citizenship that is unalienable is natural.  They go together.  But all citizens lacking natural unalienable citizenship are ineligible to be the President of the United States because they were born with foreign parentage rather than purely American parentage.  They have no unalienable right to U.S. citizenship and they have no singular home country, and therefore no unquestionable singular allegiance.
Only those whose only home is America, -whose only allegiance and attachment is to America are natural citizens.  No one born of a foreigner inherits a natural right to be an American.  That priviledge is something granted them by law, -by the grace of a nation, -even if from birth, but it is not theirs by an unalienable right.

The man occupying the presidency of the United States is a citizen solely by the grace of the U.S. government via the laws passed by the Congress.   The Constitution of the United States allows all such citizens to serve their country in any elected office in the land, except one.  They are barred from serving as the President & Commander-In-Chief.
That prohibition begins with the exclusionary words: “NO PERSON..” (meaning no citizen) “except a natural born Citizen…shall be  eligible to the Office of the President,”.  The man elected President always knew about this prohibition but was willingly swept-up into running for the office anyway, putting the social good he imagined he could bring about ahead of any devotion or allegiance to the Constitution.

Thus, upon inauguration he swore an oath which he was immediately in violation of by the mere act of taking it since it was an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States from all enemies, which includes those who would willfully violate it.  He thus had sworn an oath to protect the  Constitution from the likes of himself, -one who had no unalienable right to be an American nor any right to run for the highest office in the land.  Barack Obama knowingly made that choice to violate the clear prohibition of the Constitution, and he means to do it again if given a second chance.

by A.R. Nash  Jan 2012  http://obama–nation.com  http://photobucket.com/obama_bc

The Constitutional Truth About An Unconstitutional President

The Constitutional Truth About An Unconstitutional President
(The Bamboozling of America At The Highest Level)

A Message to America:

You’re about to read what to many unaware and uninformed Americans will sound like fantastic claims, -like crazy conspiracy theorizing, but sometimes crazy conspiracy becomes factual conspiracy when the truth becomes known.  (-the office of President Nixon being involved with covering-up a crude break-in of the Democrat Party office in the Watergate Hotel?  And perhaps the President himself involved?  That’s just crazy talk!  But in the real world, often the truth is stranger than fiction.)

Let’s begin.  One of the greatest, if not the greatest, travesties ever committed against the American electorate occurred in the presidential election of 2008 in regard to the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.  It involved all five areas of the national election arena, beginning with the Press, -the media.  It’s job is to ferret out the truth about candidates for elective office and share it with the American public.  We all realize what a great job they did in regard to one John Edwards and his mistress.  No one would touch it with a ten-foot pole except the National Enquirer.

Similarly, they stayed ten miles away from the issue of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to the office of the President.  Instead of vetting him they praised and adored him.  Not a peep was heard from any corner of the land on that vital issue, and that included conservative and independent media types alike.  He got a free pass because he was very inspiring, charming and charismatic, as well as being the first mixed-race candidate in our history.  So his candidacy was attended by only silence on the issue of whether or not he was even qualified to run to the office.

There are guardians in all 50 states whose job it is to guard against ineligible candidates being placed on their state’s ballot.  They constitute the second area in which the travesty took place.  Every single one of the officers, Attorneys General, or commissions that approved the placement of Senator Obama’s name on their ballots was either bamboozled by the DNC or were complicit in the conspiracy because they all went along with it.

The third area is that of the Democrat Party leadership which conspired to alter the traditional constitutional wording of their presidential candidate certification document.  They secretly removed the language stating that their candidate was constitutionally qualified for the office of President, and instead substituted language stating only that he was legitimately certified as the official candidate of their party.  There was only one reason to do that, and that reason was because they knew that by making that omitted statement they would have been making themselves liable for charges of various sorts, including probably some form of perjury for making a false legal certification.

The fourth area that assisted in the conspiracy was the United States Senate.  It had several members running for the presidency and two of them had odd backgrounds.  It authorized a legal investigation, but the results it produced contained both the truth and a huge lie.  The truth was in regard to John McCain and the lie was in regard to one such as Barack Obama, both having quite different birth circumstances.  So the Senate knew the actual truth but remained silent.

The final area in which the conspiracy was allowed to transpire was that of the Supreme Court.  They all always knew the truth about Senator Obama’s constitutional ineligibility to run for the presidency but the buck stopped at no one’s desk so they all were silent en mass during the election period.  No one had the spine to speak out and warn all of the known violation of the Constitution that was a very possible outcome.  Then after it had happened, they continued to remain silent and even complicit by swearing into office a candidate that was not eligible for that office.  The five areas of American society meant to serve as watchdogs to defend the Constitution all failed to do their job, even though many of them had taken an oath to do so.

Like what happened at Chernobyl when the reactor managers illicitly allowed 5 or 6 processes/tests to take place which caused it to explode and its nuclear core to totally melt down, -when avoiding any one of them would have prevented the disaster, so the American political process saw five areas of society lead in unison to a melt-down (when any one alone could  have prevented it) and thus the process meant to elect a legitimate President, instead elected an illegitimate one.

The conspiracy involved three significant falsehoods.  Two are related but the third is completely apart from the other two.  The two related ones were connected to the proof of Senator Obama’s place of birth.  The third was related to the United States Constitution and its restrictions on who is allowed to be the President of the United States.  Efforts were made to falsify facts, manipulate fallacious ideas, promote untruths, and distort the significance of facts in evidence.  Let’s examine the constitutional issue first.

U.S. Constitution: Article Two, Section One, Clause Five reads:  “No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,..”  If we ignore the issue of where Senator Obama was actually born, then we can presumptuously agree that he could be described as “a born citizen”, but the question remains as to whether or not he is a natural citizen. The meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” is not provided anywhere in the Constitution.  That means one of two things, -possibly both, but not likely.

There is no definition for only one reason, -because the author’s, -the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution all knew perfectly well what it meant and assumed that everyone else did also.  If so then there are still two possibilities.  It either had a set, clear legal meaning, or it had a set, clear non-legal meaning.  Or possibly the two were the same.  But it can reasonably be assumed that there was never a need for a distinct legal definition to develop in America because there was as yet no such thing as the presidency to apply it to.  Under British and colonial law natural born subjects had no more rights than naturalized subjects, although appointments to certain critical offices which held authority, assets, or information which a traitor could exploit to great harm, were reserved to natural born subjects, but such an appointment was not “a right” anymore than being President is.

So if the meaning of “natural” isn’t found in American/Colonial legal history then it is found in common English, common sense, and “Natural Law”.  The Constitution was not written to be read only by legal scholars but by the common man who was charged with understanding it, and voting to accept or reject it.  Therefore it can’t be argued that the meaning of the word “natural” is found only in esoteric, complex legislative and judicial documents, but is found instead in common language.  No one needs to tell you what natural means, anymore than you need a lawyer or legal historian to tell you what “unnatural” means.  Remember, the Constitution was written almost entirely in plain English, not legalese.
So the constitutional legitimacy of Senator Obama’s candidacy was dependent on the meaning of that one word  “natural” -what it means as well as what it doesn’t mean.  A “natural citizen” is also a “born citizen” but not all born citizens are natural citizens because they were born to immigrants, -foreigners, and not to Americans.

America has always had a conflict regarding citizenship from before the founding of the nation.  Some colonies ascribed citizenship to all born within their borders, even if they were born to foreigners.  The logic was that those children were going to live in and grow-up in America as Americans and therefore should be citizens just like those who came before them.
Other colonies required foreigners to become naturalized citizens first and only then would their children be automatically granted citizenship in that sovereign colony.  Which method became the law of the land after the Constitution was ratified?  The later.

That changed forever in 1898 due to a Supreme Court ruling (Wong Kim Ark) in which the State Dept. had declared a native-born son of Chinese immigrants to not be an American citizen. The prevailing court opinion adhered to the citizenship statement of the 14th Amendment (1868) and reversed the government’s position.

But one must not confuse being a natural citizen with being merely a born citizen.  The distinction is best illustrated by two comparisons.  If George Washington was visiting Canada with his wife in 1787 and she brought forth a son while there, what would be the nature of his national status?  Would he be an alien? (-born outside the United States of America) Would he be a born subject of England?  Or would he be a natural born American?  There was no Constitution or 14th Amendment yet.  But that would have no baring on the status of their natural born child because he would not have been adopted as a foreign national at birth but as a natural American by birth.

Even if Senator Obama truly was a born citizen, was he also a natural citizen?  The answer is “no”, -not by any principle that any imagination can come up with.  But the liberal legal scholars (Olsen & Tribe) hired by the Senate to research the matter managed to invent one anyway.  They rightfully determined that John McCain, having been the progeny of American parents, was therefore an American by birth and as such his citizenship was natural citizenship because he was born with it as his natural right.

But the matter didn’t end there because another Senator was running for the Presidency and he was not born to American parents, -in particular to an American father, but to an alien student here on a visa.  Those two legal “experts”, seeking to mitigate the impact of the accuracy of their McCain finding, therefore concocted the theory that both kinds of citizenship can be viewed as natural since historically both had been citizens from birth.  But that was deliberately fraudulent logic because it’s the circumstances of their births that distinguishes the two from each other.  One with citizen parents is by nature a citizen also, but one with foreign parents is a citizen from birth only by the magnanimity of the Congress and the Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment handed down in 1898.

Barack Obama’s citizenship has the law on his side, but the problem is that no one who is a citizen by law is also a natural citizen since natural citizenship is not granted by any law every written.  Nor by the Constitution, because it was viewed as a natural unalienable right that neither the government nor the people that it represents have any authority to grant or rescind.  It is a natural right that all humans are born with, and which government did not create.  It is a natural inheritance from the parents, just as a baby tiger inherits its nature and species from its parents, so Americans inherit their parents’ membership, -citizenship in the American family.  Just as a natural-born Chinese couple cannot produce a natural-born African child, -just as a natural born Jewish couple cannot produce a natural born Arab, so a natural born American couple cannot produce a natural born foreign child, nor can a foreign couple produce a natural American child.
The word “natural” either has meaning solely in relation to ones parentage, or it has no meaning at all.  One who is a “born citizen” via birth in America to foreign parents is a statutory, 14th Amendment citizen, -not a natural citizen because their citizenship, though acquired automatically from birth, is not natural citizenship because it was not a natural inheritance from their parents.

The second significant falsehood is connected to the significance of birth within U.S. borders.  Much importance was place on the belief that Senator Obama was born in America but that importance was a sham.  It had no connection to presidential eligibility nor could it alone convey even statutory citizenship which requires one to be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government from birth.

All natural citizens are subject from birth because their parents are, but not all children born to foreigners are subject because some foreigners are not immigrants but instead are mere transients.  Transients are not legal permanent members of American society and thereby subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but instead are foreign diplomats, visitors, workers, professionals, and students. They are subject to their own government and protected by International Treaty, including Barack Obama Sr.

Therefore Senator Obama was not covered by the 14th Amendment through his father and thus his native-birth was not enough to convey 14th Amendment citizenship from birth.  Consequently he was not a natural citizen through his father, nor an automatically naturalized 14th Amendment statutory citizen through him either.  So the resulting importance of his Hawaiian birth was zero.  It didn’t relate to constitutional eligibility nor fulfill the requirements for 14th Amendment citizenship.

But his mother was American so he inherited his citizenship directly from her, right?  Only if he had been born sometime during or after 1967.  The thing about non-natural citizenship is that it’s dependent on many factors and events, including historical tradition, legislated law, judicial decisions, Attorney General interpretations, State Dept. policy, and international treaty.  There was an age-old tradition in the colonies and the American republic by which American women took on the citizenship (as well as the name) of their foreign husband (the head of the household by scriptural authority), and had their own cancelled, or suspended (expatriation by marriage).  That resulted in a family with one uniform citizenship, not two.
That tradition was in effect in American law up until it was nullified by a Supreme Court ruling which declared that an American who votes in a foreign election has not voluntarily abandoned his allegiance to the United States, and thereby forfeited his citizenship.*  The principle taken from that ruling extrapolated to American women who married foreign men, and the fact that that act can not be construed as a positive step intended to renounce their citizenship.
Therefore, INS policy had to change and now American women retain their citizenship when marrying foreign men and as a consequence their children have the right to inherit their mother’s citizenship as well as their father’s (derivative citizenship). That Attorney General Interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling has never been challenged.
* In Afroyim v. Rusk , 387 U.S. 253 (1967), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional section 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, which provided that a citizen of the United States shall lose his citizenship by voting in a foreign political election.

What’s the upshot of that court ruling in regard to Obama?  It would be to affirm his statutory non-natural citizenship, if, that is, he was born in 1967 or after.  But being as he was born in 1961, that ruling was still six years in the future and didn’t have any effect on the nature of his citizenship at birth.  By U.S. State Department and INS policy in effect when Obama Jr. was born, the only citizenship he inherited was that of his father, making him solely a British subject by birth.  When he was born he was not even an American!  I myself have just discovered this fact while typing this, when I finally noticed the date of the Afroyim v Rush court decision.

Let’s recap; -not a citizen via place of birth, -not a citizen via his father, -not a citizen via his mother.  Not a citizen until after his parents divorced and his mother’s citizenship was automatically restored to her and, by derivative citizenship principle, bestowed upon her child.  I believe their divorce was in 1964 (?) so that would be when he finally became an American citizen.

With what I’ve just realize, I won’t even bother illuminating the third great falsehood regarding Senator Obama.  It deals with the extensive evidence that both birth document digital images posted online contain manifold signs of illegitimate creation and the fact that no hard-copies have ever been produced and shown to the public nor document experts to verify that the images posted online were results of the scanning of real paper documents, and that even real paper documents cannot be verified as authentic and not counterfeits because of the bastardized nature of the digital reproduction and alteration process used by the Hawaiian Vital Statistics Office which results in an unathenticatible “ABSTRACT” instead of a “TRUE COPY”.   Consequently, providing evidence which I’ve revealed relating to his Certificate of Live Birth and its demonstrable artificiality won’t even be necessary at this point.

How shall one respond to this and what measures can be taken to insure that such a travesty is not allowed to transpire a second time?  Challenges to his legitimacy as a constitutionally qualified Democrat Party candidate in each state can be attempted if a legal channel is available for such a challenge.  His backers must get his name placed on the ballots of all 50 states one at a time, and that can be opposed one at a time across America.  Only one successful challenge is needed to get the snowball rolling.  After that things will escalate across the land.

One challenge is already in process (Georgia).  Senator Obama failed to appear as required and thereby may lose by default.  That would block him from appearing on the Georgia State ballot if the Secretary of State in Georgia concurs, unless some underhanded chicanery takes place out of sight. [update: it appears some underhanded chicanery took place because the judge in the Georgia case threw the verdict in favor of the plaintiff Obama even though he failed to appear, his lawyer failed to appear nor offer any rebuttal to the charges of his client's ineligibility]

by Adrien Nash  Jan 25, 2012 http://obama–nation.com