How Marco Rubio Could Destroy The Apple Cart

(~the collusion of silence that only a “bomb” can end)

When Joseph Farrar, founder of World Net Daily, appeared on the Sean Hannity program, the possibility of Marco Rubio being chosen for Vice-President was raised.  Farrar responded that he isn’t eligible to be President or Vice-President because he is not a natural born citizen.
His common-sense, plain-&-simple observation hit a brick wall.  That wall may be one erected by Hannity’s boss, Rupurt Murdock, who has a whole corral of people who will never discuss the issue of presidential eligibility.  Or it may have been a wall of ignorance.  (-it could possibly be both.)

Currently, the conventional wisdom is that anyone who is “native-born” is a citizen and therefore eligible to be President.  But can everyone born in America be President?  Only in the delusional dream of the erroneous “common knowledge” misconception that makes independent thought and inquiry unnecessary.  It’s replaced instead by “group-think” which has a notorious history of being wrong, as it is again regarding one illegitimate President named Barack Obama

In America today, the only national forum that’s serving to wake up the American people is the internet, not Congress nor the courts, -not the mains-stream media or the legal profession.  But they need to be awakened badly.
Marco Rubio could do it, and he may be the only person that could (-aside from a better informed Donald Trump)  because the medium seems to be either astonishingly and willingly ignorant or in a collusion of silence.

What could he do and how could he do it?  He could force the nation to take note of the fact that our current President is not constitutionally qualified to serve as President or Vice-President.  He could do that on being chosen as or offered the spot of Vice-President.

He could hold a press conference and announce to the nation that he would love to serve, be honored to serve, but cannot serve because he is constitutionally unqualified to serve.  Then he could explain that he was born to foreign parents and not American parents and therefore was not born as a natural American citizen as required by the Constitution. *
Those words would be like dynamite in the nation’s conversation.  Everyone would finally wake the heck up because it would be all over every form of talk medium, especially if he made the announcement at the Republican Convention.  That explosion of consciousness would blow-up the candidacy of Barack Obama because his aura of legitimacy would be thrown into question in everyone’s mind as they’d come to realize that someone born to foreigners, or a foreign father, cannot possibly be a natural, native, United States citizen.

Currently, most Americans, regardless of position or profession, -including the legal profession, are under the misconception that anyone who is “native-born” can be President, but that is erroneous for three significant reasons.

Reason #1. Being “native-born” does not make one a native if one is not born to native parents.  “Native-born” persons who are born to foreign fathers are not natural American natives since natural natives are only born to fathers who are already natives (even if they were nativized by being naturalized).
Immigrant parents cannot produce natural American natives.  Instead their children are naturalized native-born citizens, -they’re naturalized automatically at birth thanks to the 14th Amendment -which was ratified 81 years after the Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause was written.

“Native-born” 14th Amendment citizens must be born in America to be naturalized at birth and obtain U.S. citizenship because they are not the off-spring of natives of America, but of natives of another country.  It’s their birth and life in America that gives them a connection to America that’s stronger than the connection to their parents’ native country.
But natural natives can be born anywhere because they are born with the unalienable right to their native parents’ membership in their nation even if their birth happens to occur, by happenstance, outside the nation’s borders.**

Reason #2.  Being “native-born” does not convey citizenship on everyone born to foreigners in America because not all foreigners are legal immigrants and thus members of American society whose children are granted citizenship by the authority of the 14th Amendment.  Some are foreign diplomats, foreign military personnel, foreign tourists, and foreign students (Obama Sr.) who are designated by the INS as “non-immigrant aliens”. Their U.S.-born children are under the jurisdiction and protection of their parents’ foreign government.  And they’re protected politically by international treaty.

The INS has the legal authority to treat such children as U.S. citizens, but it does not have the constitutional authority to do so since its policy is in violation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment.  The result is the “anchor baby” phenomena and conundrum for which the amendment is not responsible.
“Open borders” liberals in the executive branch are responsible and no one has the political courage to contest their bastardized perversion of the constitutional amendment aimed solely at freed slaves and the children of America’s legal immigrants.

Reason #3.  Being a non-descript citizen of the United States is fine for any and every other office of the federal government right up to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,  but not for that of the President. “The position of the Command-in-Chief shall not devolve on any but a natural born citizen”.  Just as all “native-born” persons are not citizens, so also, all native-born citizens are not natural born citizens. ***

Those who are born to foreigners who are legal immigrants but are not naturalized citizens, do not qualify for the presidency because they are the off-spring of foreigners, and have an inherited background of a foreign heritage.
Their citizenship is “native-born” constitutional citizenship via the 14th Amendment, and not natural citizenship via Natural Law.  Before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (two years earlier) they had no federal legal right whatsoever to possess United States citizenship but individual States allowed it.

It was up to the individual States and local judicial decision whether or not they were granted State citizenship, -without which they would not possess U.S. citizenship.
But natural citizens possess their membership in the American nation in the total absence of any law or constitutional clause that “grants” them that which
they already possess naturally via birth to citizens.

Marco Rubio is a native-born constitutional American citizen.  No constitutional citizen is eligible to be President because their citizenship is dependent on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the 14th Amendment.  If his father had completed the naturalization process before he was born then his parents would have been American citizens when he was born, instead of Cuban citizens.
Only children of American citizens are eligible to be the President, -not the children of foreigners.  That’s what the Constitution mandates.

If Senator Rubio were to be cognizant of this fact, and proclaim it openly to the American people, then he could bring down the presidency of Barack Obama, or at the least prevent him from being allowed to be his Party’s candidate.  That would spell the end of his illegitimate presidency and the worst constitutional violation of the office of the President in American history.

by A.R. Nash  http://obama–

*Being raised as a native-born naturalized American is not the same as being born as a natural citizen because without American parents, one cannot be a natural United States citizen since one is born with foreign citizenship as well, also known as “alienage” -making one a hybrid citizen with dual competing nationalities.

**Presidential ineligibility that’s based not on inherited “foreign blood” but on the mere happenstance of one’s mother’s location at the moment of delivery is an idea that’s elementary to say the least, and totally devoid of any rational applicable principle related to a singular allegiance to the land of one’s people, -not “the land of one’s birth”.
The land be damned. (or the ice be damned in the case of the Arctic and Antarctica)  It matters not where one is born, but what does matter is to whom one is born.
Presidential ineligibility based on happenstance would be the irrational result if the sons of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln or Dwight Eisenhower happened to have insisted that they exit their mother’s womb before she could return across the border during a visit to Niagara Falls in Canada.  You know how rational that is.

If born within the borders of a neighboring country while one’s native-citizen parents were visiting there, would one’s life be significantly altered if that one day or hour of their whole life could be made to disappear from their life-history and experience?  Absolutely not.
Nothing would change.  So there’s no rational basis to think that such a birth location holds any meaning or significance whatsoever, especially when it comes to presidential eligibility and a citizen like John McCain.  To argue otherwise is to argue that our founding fathers were idiots and choose to deny access to the presidency to the children of America’s ambassadors and diplomats who through no fault of their own, were not born within U.S. borders.

***Similarly, all U.S. citizens are U.S. Nationals, but not all U.S. Nationals are U.S. citizens because some are born in U.S. Samoa or Swains Island.


An Unconstitutional Path to The Presidency

The most important, though covert, issue of the 2008 presidential election was that of Barack Obama’s ances- try.  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 native African 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 languages, 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?  Let’s consult the Constitution.

The presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution reads either:    A.  Every person born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction is eligible to be the President,”  or…
B.  No person, except a a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”

Which one is correct?  Answer A relates to one who is made a U.S. Citizen via the 14th Amendment which the American  people passed in 1868, two years after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.  That act granted citizenship to former slaves as well as children of immigrant fathers and mothers.  It required that children of foreigners not be under the jurisdiction of any foreign power.  Since the federal government regarded its lawfully permitted immigrants to be under its jurisdiction and not the foreign government that they had left, children born to them were thereby granted U.S. Citizenship via the amendment that permitted it.

The 14th Amendment required that those born in the U.S. be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, which children of immigrants would be because their father would be subject to federal jurisdiction, and his status applied to them as well.

The 1866 Civil Rights Act referred to foreign jurisdiction and left one to infer that persons born in the U.S. who weren’t born “subject to any foreign power “ were therefore subject to U.S. Authority.

The 14th Amendment referred to American jurisdiction and left one to infer that persons who were born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction were therefore not subject to that of any foreign power, but since it failed to explicitly state that, it left the door wide open for one born in the U.S. being subject to the will and laws of two different governments, -governments that might someday even be at war with each other.  That is the worst-case scenario that accompanies possessing dual citizenship, and the amendment failed to prevent it.

That would be the down side of owing allegiance to two different governments and nations, but in the United States, there is one more significant  downside, and it’s related to who is eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of the United States’ defensive and offensive military might, including at one time 30,000 nuclear bombs.   The problem arose because the wording of the 14th Amendment is so lacking in context and circumstantial detail that it came in time to be erroneously perceived as being a blanket, fundamental citizenship statement that included all native-born Americans in one single group though that was not its intent nor effect when it was written and ratified.

In the minds of indiscriminate thinkers, the distinction between those who are born to foreigners (and made into Americans via laws or an amendment), and those who are born to the native members of the American nation, namely its citizens, was lost.  That loss of recognition of the fundamental difference between the two groups was irrelevant until the presidential race of 2008 when someone from the wrong group ran for the only office in the whole country for which the distinction is crucial, and that was the office of the President.
The founding fathers put a roadblock on the road to the presidency at the juncture point where two paths meet.  The roads are very close together, -one might think they are one and the same road, -but they are not.  Those roads began at two distinctly different places of origin.  They appear the same because they’re parallel, and nearly everyone on those roads was born and raised in America as Americans, but what sets them apart is the point at which the roads begin.
One road begins at the point where one is born into the American family to parents who are members of the American family,  -becoming a natural member by birth.  Such membership requires no act of Congress, nor any constitutional amendment, nor any Supreme Court ruling.  They were members by birth and are so without any law whatsoever granting them that with which they were born.
But the other road began with birth to immigrant alien parents who were not free of their relationship to their homeland because they were not naturalized American citizens.  They remained subject to the authority of two governments, and through them their child was also.  The child was born with what is known as “alienage”.  Such a child was not 100% American, but only 50% American because he was simultaneously a natural citizen of his parent’s homeland because he inherited the right to that membership via his blood connection to parent members.
The difference between the two roads and those who’ve traveled them has never made any difference in their lives, unless they were one of the very few ever elected to serve as President.  Then it makes all the difference in the world.  At least it should, because the Constitution put a roadblock on the road that has its origin with a father who was born in a foreign nation, was a citizen of that nation, and was subject to its jurisdiction.  Those citizens born with that origin were barred from serving as the American Commander-in-Chief because of the issue of unquestionable loyalty to America and America only.

So which answer is incorrect?  Answer: A.  And which form of citizenship did Barack Obama possess at birth; A?, or B.?  Answer: Possibly neither; -he’s definitely not a natural born citizen because of his foreign “alienage” (due to his foreign father), nor a constitutional citizen through his father because he wasn’t an American immigrant.  He may have been, due to the U.S. Naturalization Code, purely a British subject by birth.  It all depends on whether or not there is unmistakable evidence (not parental affidavit testimony) that he was born in the United States.  If he wasn’t, then his mother was too young by several months for her citizenship to be conveyed to him.  A U.S. birth would provide him citizenship through his mother via the 14th Amendment.

Answer B is the correct answer, but who exactly is a natural born citizen?  It is they who inherit the nature of their citizen parents. 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 citizen can father a natural American citizen.  And only citizen fathers can father natural citizens.

Understand this, citizenship, by any form of naturalization, whether automatic or by process,  including constitutional citizenship, is NOT natural citizenship.  Even the Constitution can’t make one something that is a result of a natural blood connection, just as the Constitution can’t make one human or non-human.
The Constitution 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’re made citizens at birth. Natural citizens are “nature-made” and their citizenship is not granted nor regulated in any way by any law ever passed by Congress.

Congress was given no authority to pass citizenship laws except in regard to those where are not natural citizens.  Those who are not natural citizens have direct connections to foreign nations, whereas natural citizens do not.  Their only foreign connections are indirect, -through grandparents, -NOT through birth abroad, nor through parents.  When foreigners become officially recognized residents of America, then any children born to them will be constitutional naturalized-at-birth native-born citizens via the 14th Amendment.
Any foreign father who becomes a naturalized citizen will father natural born citizens, and any children born to him in the U.S. before naturalization will become a U.S. citizen, but not a natural born citizen because he was a foreigner when they 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.  Just as one is responsible for their own words, so all are responsible for their own silence, especially when they are supposedly leaders and sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution but don’t.
Instead they deliberately ignore and and trample it with authoritarian, oligarchical, Marxist-leaning, unconstitutional laws and judicial decrees that are treasonous to the Constitution and the unalienable rights of free individuals.  They may not pay the price for their cowardice, but We, The People, surely will, sooner or later.
The price will be the moral, spiritual, and financial disintegration of the nation and its citizenry.  No house of cards can extend into the sky indefinitely.  No illegitimate abandonment of the principles of a nation’s fundamental law will leave that nation with a foundation on which it can justify its own actions.  It will eventually come to a crisis point where those who make the ultimate decisions (the Supreme Court) will choose to enshrine the illegitimate violations of fundamental rights as permanent law, -or they will have to declare the whole house of cards to be illegitimate, even those sections built on its own decisions of the past.
If they ever get around to facing that conundrum, it will probably be too late, -the damage will be done and may be irreversible.  The creeping loss of liberty over the generations and the progressive growth of government power and bureaucratic authority results in a web of illegitimate power and personal benefit that is so pandemic and endemic that its overthrow becomes less and less feasible every day.

With the entire establishment against the resurrection of individual liberty and an open discussion of the truth about an illegitimate President and the corrupt and constitutionally treasonous legislative agendas of both political parties, the only things in favor of those who are true patriots are the current and former members of the armed forces, and officers of the policing forces of local and state governments, religious and fiscal conservatives, and the heroes depicted in popular movies, TV shows, and video games who fight evil, despotism, tyranny, enslavement, and injustice.  Those heroes didn’t exist a few generations ago, but with the current means of access to media, they can influence new generations without end.
But admiring heroes and voting responsibly and two very different things.  Voting can be swayed by desire for new or current benefits, as well as the personal appeal of candidates and their grandiose promises, but heroes are permanently stuck in people’s minds and will consciously, or subconsciously judge the behavior of those who make the decisions that will determine the future for all of us.

by a.r.nash 3-29-12    http://obama–

Every Tom, Dick, & Harry but not my son?

Every Tom, Dick, & Harry -but not my son?

~the underlying principles of American citizenship

Human beings process the input from their environment by filtering-out the insignificant elements so their minds can focus on the important things before them.  That was true of the authors of the United States Constitution when they set to work in 1787.  The important thing before them was the establishment of the skeletal constitution of a new form of government in America, -one that would effectively unite the sovereign 13 States.  That task included setting the criteria of eligibility to be the Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces.

They were fearful enough about the possibility of foreign loyalty being a hidden character of the Commander-in-Chief that they decided to bar all from future generations who were not 100% American at birth.  United States Constitution Article 2, Section 1 reads: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”

But they were magnanimous enough to allow “foreigners” (those not American by birth) and their off-spring to hold every other federal position that would be created as long as they were citizens of sufficient age who had lived in the country for the prescribed number of years.

That seemed to cover the situation to everyone’s satisfaction and so the matter was rested.  But they forgot about the invisible sector of American society, -the sector that no one sees or thinks about, -the sector that got filtered out of their thinking.  That sector was the Americans serving their government abroad by being representatives to foreign nations.
In 1787, the war had been over for a half a decade and America had representatives assigned to and living in many foreign nations.  Like all human beings, they were always very interested in news from back home.  The most important news that came their way was news of the forming of a new constitution of government.
No doubt they had news of the latest developments on the top of their interests list.

Eventually the Constitution was ratified by the 13 States and the new United States government was formed.  Then those foreign representatives, -those veterans of the hardships and dangers and impoverishment of the long revolutionary war, -those top-of-the-shelf educated thinkers, ministers, scholars, and statesmen came to realize something disturbing.  It was the fact that every suitable Larry, Moe, and Curly Joe was eligible to the office of the President but their sons, born abroad where they were serving, appeared to be left out of the equation, -not openly and obviously but by a total lack of inclusive language.

That wouldn’t sit well with anyone with a sense of justice and fairness and rationality, and so they would have put pen to paper and raised the problem of the oversight with the members of the new Congress elected from their home states, as well as the leadership.  They would have insisted that the shortcoming of the Constitution be fixed.
Fixing, -altering, -amending the Constitution was not an easy thing to do and so the first Congress did what it could.  The Constitution gave it no authority in the matter of the citizenship of natural Americans, -only over foreigners and their children & wives so it was powerless to simply declare that all children born abroad to Americans are equal in every way to those born at home.
But they did step on the line of the limitation of their authority but declaring that those children were to be “considered as natural born citizens”.  That sent a loud and clear message to the executive and judicial branches of the federal government which was intended to prevent them  from viewing such children as foreigners, -which was especially needed if they were of an ethnic or racial group that was unpopular.  Many groups in American society were unwelcome for being undesirably different from the general population of descendants from England, and there was no guarantee that the Immigration Service would not take it upon itself to bar them from being accepted into the country as American citizens, -instead, requiring them to be naturalized.

But the Naturalization Act’s wording regarding those foreign-born Americans was meant to prevent that and that was why it was added to that act.
But that was not all it was intended to do.  It was also intended to kill two birds with one stone and it was to accomplish that by adding two additional words to the general term of “citizen”, and those words were: “natural born”.

That was the most that Congress could do to smooth the ruffled feathers of those American patriots serving their nation abroad.  The hope and expectation was that the intent would be unmistakable, -understood by all, and would remain in the immigration/ naturalization act in perpetuity.
But the next Congress revised the act, and in doing so they were unaware of the purpose of the inclusion of “natural born”, and/or felt those words, -being related solely to presidential eligibility, had no place in a naturalization act and so they removed them.
After all, the nature of their citizenship was not at issue, -rather the fact of their citizenship was the issue that needed to be stated in order to protect them from ignoramuses in charge of the American ports who might consider them to be foreigners.
That was reasonable, but since the members of the 2nd Congress were not the ones freshly aware of the short-coming of the Constitution via letters of protest from Ambassadors and Consuls and diplomats abroad, -such as Thomas Jefferson (France) and John Adams (England) they felt no responsibility to fill-in the crack that children born to Americans abroad fell into by them removing the original language.  That seemed to place the nature of their citizenship into question, -as if Congress had the authority to rule on it when it did not.  Their citizenship status was not thereby changed, -merely the recognition of it in the political realm was changed by deleting the deliberate mention of it by the 1st Congress.

The issue has been off the radar of Congress ever since because 99% of natural Americans are not born abroad but in America.  The unreasonable proclaimers of the “natural born” status of children born to aliens, including those merely visiting our shores, take the pseudo-righteous position that to not consider them to be eligible to be President would be unacceptable discrimination, and yet not one of them raises their voice to defend the rights of children born of American parents who by circumstance came into this world outside of U.S. borders because their mother and/or father was living or serving their country overseas.
“No!”, -their logic argues, they must be viewed as foreigners who have to be naturalized by some statute written by Congress.  In what Bizarro world does that make sense to any sane person?  If you were an American mother or father whose child was born just over the border or over the ocean, you would not profess that view in a million years.  So how can anyone rationally expect and demand that others put stock in it?  The U.S. Government does not.  It considers them Americans by birth.
The absurdity of the view that American children born to American parents outside of American borders are not natural Americans because of where they were born is illuminated by a simple series of questions which are being asked from the time perspective of 1789 (-back when U.S. law still hadn’t been written and the oldest natural born citizen of the United States was only 13 years old) and applied to the birth facts of John McCain & Barack Obama.

1.  Is John McCain an American citizen?    If so, by what?  The Constitution?  Or by Natural Law?

2.  Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizen?  If so, by what?  The Constitution?  Or by Colonial Law?

3.  Is Barack Obama a native-born American?
4.  Is John McCain a native American?

5.  Is John McCain a natural American citizen?      If so, by what principle?

6.  Is Barack Obama a natural American citizen?  If not, why not?

7. If born in French Territory would Barack Obama be a natural American citizen?

8.  Can one who is not a natural State citizen be considered a natural Federal citizen due to native-birth alone?  If so, by what statute?
The correct answers to these questions reveal the falsity of the belief that Barack Obama is eligible to be President because they expose the false logic by which he is proclaimed to be so.  The answers will tie your mind in knots if you mistakenly try to derive conclusions based on man-made law instead of natural principles.

Not until after a Supreme Court ruling in 1898 (Wong Kim Ark) did one who is merely native-born (to immigrant parents) acquired federal citizenship via the allowance of federal law (the 14th Amendment).  But natural born citizens (off-spring of American parents) acquire their citizenship without the permission federal law.  Their membership in their state and nation preceded the existence of the new government and its laws.
Before the 1898 ruling, the Immigration Service, Justice Dept & State Dept. viewed native-born children of immigrants as foreigners who were citizens only of the nation of the father to whom they were born even though certain states granted them “son of the soil” state citizenship for being native-born.

Ask yourself this question from the time frame of the first decade of the new republic and it will illuminate your mind by the absence of any answer:  “By what law am I a citizen of the American nation?”
States would have their own laws by which state citizenship was granted, but that is different from federal citizenship, i.e., United States citizenship.
Only foreigners  and those born to them would have an answer.  Their American citizenship would be found in a naturalization statute in the law or constitution of the sovereign State to which they emigrated or were born, as well as in the Uniform Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1798.  [But if born later in the future District of Columbia, or on federal land then they would be federal citizens only and not a citizen of any state.]

Those born to Americans don’t have an answer because in the 1790’s there was no such thing as “Citizenship Law”.  Congress was given no authority to create such law.  They did anyway in 1866 following the emancipation of the slaves who needed a nationality and equal protection of the law.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared a principle by which their citizenship could be asserted.  But because of fears as to its constitutionality it was made a part of the Constitution two years later in the 14th Amendment.

Those who have an answer are not eligible to be President, while those without an answer are eligible because they are “les indigenes ou les naturels” [from The Law of Nations by E. Vattel] -meaning the natives, i.e., -the indigenous or natural population of the country by the principle of natural law.  They alone are natural born and free of any attachments of subjection and allegiance to any foreign power.
Percentage wise, they are almost everyone.  But the word “almost” is not almost significant.  Instead it is very significant.  It means that everyone born in the United States is not a natural citizen.  In fact, some of them are not citizens at all by actual United States law, -meaning the 14th Amendment.

So the answer to the question: “By what law am I an American citizen?” is: “None”,
-unless you’re one of the small minority born to one or two foreign parents, -mainly legal immigrants.  But if one (or both) of your parents was not an American citizen, -no matter where you were born, then you are not eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States.
But that’s not relevant in any real way because 99.99999999% of us will also never be able to be President, unless we’re the unconstitutional 2-in-315,000,000 named Barack Hussein Obama or Marco Rubio.

In their cases, avoiding the clear mandate of the Constitution is possible because of the wide-spread ignorance of and indifference to it.  Along with a whole lot of constitutional treason and conspiracy of silence.

by a.r. nash  march 2012


Citizenship Beyond All Laws

(unconditional & unwritten citizenship)

    Citizenship, like most elements governing the life of a free republic, follows certain laws.  In some cases the laws are written, but in others they aren’t.  In the case of citizenship it’s both.
There are the written laws which are commonly known by the segment of the population that has had to deal with them, and there are laws that are completely unknown to nearly all citizens since they’re administrative laws.  In addition there are laws that are unwritten,   Since they were never written, people assume facts not in evidence.

They were never educated about the fundamental unwritten law that undergirds the foundation of our republic.  That unwritten law is the law by which they are members of the American nation.  They’re dependent upon that law even though it’s totally unknown to them.
The law that their citizenship is dependent on is not a written law because it was not in the purview of the Congress nor the authors of the Constitution to write such a law.
That’s because it’s a natural human right and social tradition as old as civilization itself, and therefore didn’t need to be written, -just as no law was needed to grant Americans the right to live, or to own property, or to marry or to have and raise their own children.

Children have an unalienable right to belong to their parents and to the group in which they are members.
The problem has been, -and remains to this day, that there is a competing unwritten law and it also was a tradition for a very long time in many places in colonial America.  Its origin was in a distant place that was unique among the nations of the Western World, -that place was the British Isles.
They were unique because they had no land border with any continental nation.  Therefore an idea could develop that was uniquely suited to such a kingdom and that idea was “jus soli” membership (law of the soil).  A philosophy evolved that if the kingdom was the rightful dominion of the king, then those born within his island kingdom were also rightfully his subjects.
Over centuries the thinking of the royal class and the sycophants that supported the monarchy became fuzzy and hegemonic and thus the king’s “rightful ownership” of those born in his lands was extended to such a degree that it covered virtually everyone who happened to be born while in his domain unless they were of the royal or exempted diplomatic class of other nations.

Thus, the children born to foreigners merely visiting the King’s domain were viewed as belonging to the king and not solely the parents and their nation.  The royal government devolved into labeling those alien-born persons by the same description as those who were “natural born subjects” of the nation since they had all the rights and life-long responsibilities of its native natural members even though they might be raised by their parents in their own nation and belonged to it via the ancient law of “jus sanguinis” (the law of membership by blood).

Clearly, the result was a conflict of rights; -the right of the king to be lord & master of everyone born in his domain, versus the right of parents to own their own children and pass their own natural national membership to them at birth.
That is a birthright of all human beings and birthrights are always & only related to blood, not boundaries.

Who is “the Prince Royal”, aka the Prince of Wales?  He is the firstborn of the British monarch and is born with a birthright that only one person possesses, i.e., the right to be king.  Look-up the word “primogeniture”.  It is the birthright of the firstborn to inherit the entire estate of the father.  A birthright is not something that is connected to where one was born, but to whom one was born and in what order.  One of the earliest examples in found in the book of Genesis and speaks of how the firstborn son of Isaac was tricked out of his birthright inheritance by his younger brother Jacob.
There is no such thing as citizenship being a birthright based on borders and one’s delivery within them.  That is just a fantasy based on nothing other than the transplanted idea of jus soli that some colonial governments employed as in Britain.  But it is not a “birthright” nor an American principle even though it was an easily implemented practice in a land that also had no borders with European nations.

But the founding fathers created a nation built on new principles, -principles in total opposition to the monarch-oriented traditions that had reigned for a century and a half.  And those principles were based on the Rights of Man, and not the Divine Right of Kings.

The foremost right of man as a member of a civil society is that of being the rightful owner of his own children, -rather than the state being their owner.  With one’s children being members of their father’s household, their status is inherited from the father automatically.  They are what he is, for better or for worse.

The first membership status they acquire is a result of their order of birth since that determines how they are treated.  The second membership status is in relationship to the father’s status in society.  The third membership status is in relationship to the government of the father.
Membership in the American family is naturally derived from his membership, via inheritance of his citizenship status, -whether his status is natural or naturalized, but with some legal exceptions, like that which was created by the 14th Amendment.

It freed the citizenship status of children born in America to foreigners from being dependent solely on the foreign citizenship of the father to being dependent upon birth in America to a lawful immigrant.  That is American jus soli, -not British jus soli which didn’t care whether or not the parents were immigrants. [emigres were/are subject to most of the responsibilities of the citizen/subjects of the nation while visitors are not]
Citizenship via the 14th Amendment affected no one because those who could be affected had already been affected by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 two years earlier.
All the 14th Amendment citizenship clause did was to put that law above the ability of Congress to rescind.  But they were not identical because the Civil Rights Act was different in a very subtle way.
It required, in order to be deemed a citizen from birth in America, (with exceptions like Native Americans) that one not be subject (through their father) to any foreign power, while the 14th Amendment language required that they be subject to American federal jurisdiction.  Like two sides of a one coin.

The unstated premise of the 14th Amendment is that permanent American residents who are not subject to any foreign power are subject to the full jurisdiction of American federal authority.
Everyone is subject to some sovereign power so the effect of the 14th Amendment was to tell the U.S. government (in particular the INS and State Department, -as well as foreign governments) that native-born children of lawful immigrants are subject to American authority and not that of their father’s foreign homeland, even if their parents remain subject to the political and legal authority of their homeland.
Therefore they are deemed to be U.S. citizens and not foreigners regardless of being born to foreign citizens.

With American jurisdiction established over such children, American jus soli is effected on their behalf, while natural jus sanguinis is effected in their relation to the homeland of their parents.  Therefore they are naturalized-at-birth citizens of the United States and also natural citizens of their father’s homeland through their blood connection to him and his citizenship.
So if the father is not naturalized, then his children are born as dual citizens via two competing principles.  But some foreign governments might not even recognize American naturalization, -as was the case with England, (leading to the War of 1812) -as well as China before a treaty was finally signed.  Before then, Chinese that underwent American naturalization were viewed as traitors to the Emperor and would be beheaded if they returned to China. (they belonged to the Emperor)

Before American jus soli citizenship was put into writing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, American citizenship, meaning federal citizenship, was derived from State citizenship because the state (and colonial) laws, courts and magistrates had always been sovereign in the naturalization process.  With the passage of those acts it became a federal matter because of the two reasons behind the authority used to pass those acts.
The Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress with reliance on the constitutional authority of Congress to pass a nation-wide uniform rule of naturalization in order to assure uniformity throughout the union.

But the 14th Amendment was beyond Congress, and its authority was derived from the will of The People to decide what the fundamental laws of the nation are.  The People could have passed an amendment that declared that all persons born in America are deemed to be natural citizens, but they passed no such amendment because one was not offered nor passed by Congress.  (Such an idea was unthinkable.)
It was not written that way because there was absolutely no reason on earth to interject the issue of presidential eligibility into an amendment that was solely focused on the issue of whether one was a citizen..or an alien, and written primarily in regard to freed slaves, and secondarily to children of immigrants.
To have done so would have dragged the other 97% of the American population unnecessarily into the purview of the authority of its statement.
It would have meant that by United States constitutional law American jus soli would have become the controlling authority over who is a natural American citizen and thus who is eligible to be President.
But the necessary words were not added to the amendment and therefore are not a part of its authority.  Which words?  The words “natural born”.  Those who are made citizens via the 14th Amendment are not described by it as “natural born citizens”, nor natural citizens, nor natural Americans, but are simply called “citizens” and that was enough.
That was all that any foreigner and the children born to him could have hoped for.  It was what they were praying for and it became law three decades later (via a misinterpretation by the Supreme Court regarding its universal application) in the U.S. Government’s suit against native-born Wong Kim Ark (in 1898) who was held to be an alien (upon returning from a visit to China) until finally reversed by the high court.

But the citizenship of the other 97% of Americans was not affected by either of those acts, nor dependent upon them because it was not derived from American nor English nor Roman law.  The law by which they were citizens was one that was never written.
One can argue (incorrectly) that it was the unwritten law of jus soli citizenship, as opposed to jus sanguinis citizenship, but what one can’t argue is that it  is identifiable in the law because it was actually written (since it wasn’t).

It was never written because it was derived from a universal principle that was as self-evident as its parent principle, -namely, the law of natural membership, -the same law that’s seen in the relationships of all natural groups throughout the world, throughout the history of life that exists in social groups.  “As are the parents, -so are the children.”.  As it is in nature, so it is in society and in nations.
But if one chooses to assert that the unwritten law (by which they are a natural American) is based on where they were born, then that belief does not cancel the fact that any citizenship that is based on and derived from U.S. law or court ruling, or administrative policy is not natural citizenship but is man-made citizenship.
Artificial, man-made citizenship, including legal citizenship via the 14th Amendment (which can be called “constitutional citizenship”) is not natural citizenship in any sane person’s vocabulary.  That which is natural is not dependent on the machinations and contrivance of legislators and judges to make it so because it is so via natural blood connection.
Thus it can be stated that “natural citizenship” is not “legal citizenship” because it is not derived from law, -even if it were to be jus soli natural citizenship (an oxymoron).

Therefore, anyone who is merely a legal citizen and not a natural citizen is not eligible to be President because their citizenship is not based on the principle that pre-dates the laws and the charter of government that formed the nation.
Their citizenship is by the beneficence of the American people and they have no natural right to it, but obtained it as a gift, even if that gift began at birth.  But the citizenship of natural citizens is not a gift because it’s an unalienable right that they are born with.

The federal government realizes that fact and that is the reason that the citizenship of the American traitor Anwar al Awlaki (born to Green Card Yemeni parents, whose father was an oil company worker) was not revoked before he was killed in a Predator drone missile strike.  The government has no authority by law to take back that which it had no authority to give.
His father was not an immigrant so if the 14th Amendment didn’t exist,  then Congress would have the authority to over-ride the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and rescind his statutory citizenship, -which would exist by permission of the government.
But if his father was an un-naturalized immigrant then it would take an over-ride of the 14th Amendment to rescind his constitutional citizenship.
If his father was an American citizen, then only his own active renunciation of his citizenship would authorize the government to acknowledge his free choice and recognize him as no longer being an American.  But he didn’t renounce his citizenship and thus he died as an American traitor working to kill Americans.
Barack Obama’s case is similar, because not only was his father not subject to the political jurisdiction of the American government since he wasn’t an immigrant (-making the 14th Amendment moot in regard to citizenship through a father who remained under the jurisdiction of Britain & Kenya) but American citizenship solely through his mother was purely a thing of modern positive law and not a thing of unwritten natural law nor tradition.

In fact, when the 14th Amendment was written, Stanley Ann Dunham, aka Mrs. Barack Obama, would not have had a legal right for her citizenship to be passed to her child.  So one has to ask; “What is the basis of Barack Obama’s citizenship?”  Is its nature a natural nature or a man-made nature?  Is it by an unwritten natural law or a written man-made naturalized-citizenship law?
If he had been born in wedlock 1790 to a visiting Cuban gentleman, would he not have been deemed to be solely a subject of the Spanish colony of Cuba just like his father?  How could a son of a foreign father who was “subject to a foreign power” (as barred by the Civil Rights Act of 1866), possibly be viewed as a natural member of the American family if his father was only in the U.S. temporarily and never subject to the full jurisdiction of the American government?

These questions can benefit from some further illumination by pointing out the fact that the whole situation of Obama’s citizenship would possibly be moot if he had been born to an American male named Stanley Dunham and a Kenyan wife.   That would have changed everything from a historical perspective because throughout much of American history a foreign bride was automatically granted American citizenship as soon as a priest or minister or magistrate or rabbi signed the marriage certificate.
Thus, Jr. would have been born to an American father and American mother.  What that fact demonstrates is that if the background of one’s citizenship is so dependent on transient legal practices then it clearly cannot be proclaimed to be “natural” since that which is natural does not depend on the caprice of human custom, or laws.

[ Even in the post-women’s suffrage era, children were assigned the citizenship of their father until numerous nationality act revisions were made through the decades.]

The nature of Barack Obama’s citizenship is in sharp contrast to that of John McCain.  Clearly they are not citizens by the same principle.
McCain was born in Panama to American parents serving their country there, and was thus also an American citizen via birth to Americans, as was asserted by the legal team of Tribe & Olsen who were charged by the Senate with investigating the nature of his citizenship.
By the natural principle of natural membership (jus sanguinis) he was pronounced to be a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore eligible to be the President.   Barack Obama made no objection when the Senate passed resolution 511 declaring that as the view of the Senate.

But no such inquiry was made into his citizenship.  He has never been declared to be a natural born citizen by any entity of government within the United States because he is not one and the powers-that-be know it.
They’ve always known that naturalized citizens and children of non-immigrant foreigners can hold any office in the U.S. government with the one exception of the presidency.  But no one cared or had the courage to speak out because to do so would have invited a barrage of condemnation and accusations of racial bigotry.
Silence was the only option for staying out of trouble.  Fidelity to the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution wasn’t even on their list of priorities.  Congressmen and Senators can pass just about anything that they want as well as ignore anything that they’re too timid to address.  And ignore it they did.

Populations can make mistakes (such as Prohibition).  Governments can make lots of mistakes, -such as slavery, illegitimate and unnecessary wars, concentration camps for citizens, massive and worthless wasteful spending (32,000 Atomic Bombs! -pointless missions to the moon), astonishingly bad fiscal policy (Fanny Mae & Freddie Mack, Solyndra, etc), and colossal violations of basic civil liberty (Wichard v Filburn 1942)

One such colossal mistake was made in 2008 with the presidential election of an ineligible candidate, but that mistake cannot be recognized due to the principle of the nail that sticks up from the floorboard. (It gets hammered.)  And so the pervasive silence that attended that election continues to avoid rocking the boat, -just as does the atmosphere of conformity when one moves from one level of school in North Korea, or Saudi Arabia to the next level.  Open dissent and individualism are strongly punished and the more one stands-out from the crowd the more one is ostracized.
The silence and unwillingness to upset the apple cart of Obama’s presidency is not a light thing but backed by a very powerful force, and that force will not tolerate any challenge to his legitimacy regardless of its basis, -whether or not it is legitimate doesn’t matter.  It must be squelched.

And so it has been and will continue to be because of a near total lack of courage by those who know the truth but find it as unspeakable as the truth about respected priests who sexually traumatized young boys repeatedly with impunity in America and around the world.  It took decades before such victims could find the courage to break the silence because the truth was so unspeakable and unbelievable.
It was the same for the intern that served the desires of President Kennedy (Mimi Alford)  It was unthinkable and unspeakable to reveal the truth about his sexual liberties with the young virgin for the 18 months preceding his death, and so it took her half a century to finally reveal the truth in her explosive book “Once Upon  A Secret”.  Camelot was not what it appeared to be and the truth was so unspeakable that it was not spoken until she was 68 years old.
The truth about Barack Obama’s citizenship is also unspeakable and that which is unspeakable and unspoken appears to be unbelievable also, especially when it comes without the imprimatur of the ruling elites and the national media establishment, and is opposed by the prestige and authority of the virtuous, honorable, truthful and officially legitimate President of the United States.

[How dare any 16th-17th century theologian (Martin Luther) or astronomer (Galileo) proclaim that his Holiness the Pope is wrong about anything?  How dare anyone openly observe that the Emperor has no cloths?  It just doesn't happen because no one is willing to be the nail that gets hammered down.]
In conclusion, Barack Obama is not eligible to be the President of the United States because his citizenship is derived from U.S. law and that makes him a citizen by other than natural means.  But only natural citizens of the United States are eligible to be President because their citizenship is the only citizenship that is not derived from any law other than natural law.
Even the citizenship of the highest constitutional order, (-above the authority of Congress) -that bestowed by the 14th Amendment, is man-made citizenship and only provides citizenship to about 2-3% of the population -unless one concludes that their citizenship is derived instead by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which preceded it.
All the rest are natural citizens who are:
Americans by birth, -not by borders.

They are citizens by the principle of natural membership which governs all natural groups, (whether animal or human) and not citizens by permission.
They are born being citizens, -born into American citizenship through a blood connection.  They are “les indigenes”, i.e., “the natives” of the country.  They are “les naturels” -i.e., “the natural members” of American society.
Only natives produce natural natives.  Only citizens produce natural citizens.  Only Americans produce natural Americans.

All other parents (immigrants) produce man-made non-natural statutory citizens who have foreign parents or simply a foreign father.  They consequently have roots in a foreign nation (with its foreign history, foreign law, foreign culture, and foreign tradition) and an unsevered attachment through their parents, or father, to its government and the obligations that come with it.

The founders of our nation wanted and required that the power of the Commander-in-Chief never be entrusted to anyone with foreign attachments by direct blood connection.
Only those who are 100% American by birth and have only American attachments are eligible to command the armed forces of the nation and its thousands of nuclear bombs.

That’s the constitutional truth regardless of whether it’s recognized or not.  Are you able to recognize it?

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution states:
“No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President”.
Does that sound like it includes a son of a temporary foreign visitor who remained subject to his own foreign government while here under the restrictions of a revocable Visa Card?

Where is a natural principle to be found in such a person’s citizenship?  Such a citizen is the least natural of all.
by a.r. nash march 2012



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers