Nixon’s Pardon, A National Delusion, & Obama’s Election

~a history of illegitimacy

Recently I heard an insightful political commentator noting how the illegitimate pardon of Richard Nixon set a tone in Washington that has remained until this day, and has become a kind of underlying mind-set through which certain controversial issues are now viewed.  In a time when the country was outraged and enshrouded in the negativity of  the fetid stench of a President acting like a petty dictator, the nation’s strongly aroused sense of a sacred trust being betrayed and egregiously violated was met not by a catharsis of justice but by the deflating announcement that President Ford, appointed by Nixon as his Vice-President, had “pardoned” ex-President Nixon for any actions related to the Watergate cover-up.

The Power of Expediency

   The effect of that action had a chilling effect on the natural desire to see justice meted out, and replaced it with an unsatisfying philosophy that justice must take a backseat to what’s best for the country.  We all resented that kind of “Father Knows Best” attitude coming from Washington but had to grit our teeth and accept it as a bitter medicine that maybe would be best after all.  That was only acceptable begrudgingly because the nation was tired and kind of “shell shocked” by the whole ugly affair.  That pardon was to be the first time since the incarceration of 100,000 Japanese-Americans that Washington so openly “did what was best for the country” instead of doing what was right and lawful.

At that time I saw and felt that a grave mistake had been made from the perspective of respect for the law and the Constitution.  The mistake was not in pardoning a guilty ex-President, but in pardoning an innocent ex-President.  That was a horrible travesty against the whole system of innocent until proven guilty, -which is the foundation of our criminal justice system.

  Nixon had not even been charged with anything much less convicted and sentenced.  How can an innocent man be pardoned for anything?  He’s not legally guilty of anything therefore there is no basis to pardon him for anything.  That was putting the cart before the horse.   Thus the so-called pardon was a form of obstruction of justice because it illegitimately derailed the requisite criminal investigation which had not even started.  And no one said a single word about the illegitimacy of that pardon.
That set a precedent that was a terrible demonstration that political expediency trumped the Rule of Law because it would be better for the country.

That precedent took hold in Washington and came to bedevil us again when the  political elites decided that they would collaborate to ensure that the Republican Party would have John McCain as a legitimate candidate.  To ensure that, it was necessary to allay the doubt that he might not be constitutionally eligible because he was not born on U.S. soil but in the American controlled Panama Canal Zone.
A “unanimous consent” approval was recorded on behalf of all Senators for the resolution declaring McCain to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President.

The Phantom President

Did the Republicans knowingly or ignorantly strike some sort of bargain agreeing not make an issue of the obviously ineligible Democrat candidate Barack Obama, who clearly was not a natural born American citizen as required by the Constitution?  Accepting the first black party nominee, regardless of his candidacy being unconstitutional, was “what was best for the country”, so making waves and rocking the boat would not happen regardless of the crime against the Constitution.  The “fix was in” and the silence was total.

The media was enamored with him so they failed in their duty to even slightly vet him.  No questions were asked, -no thinking occurred about things that a reporter would naturally wonder about if focused on any Republican candidate.

Hence we have the most unvetted high-ranking public servant in American history.  We have as President, (in charge of all of the investigative and prosecutorial departments of government), someone who would never be able to pass a simple FBI investigation for a top-security clearance since his entire academic and professional history is a tightly kept secret, and his past associations were with radicals and Marxists.

How could someone whose life is a questionable and obscure mystery be viewed as a transparent, fully acceptable presidential candidate?  Because of two things, namely;
The big lie, and the big voice.  The golden voiced oratory of a demi-god inspired the masses on both sides of the Atlantic to cozy up to the warmth of his rich baritone which radiated inspiration and hope with soaring rhetoric.  Thus all the doors were opened to him as if fate had chosen him as its anointed one.

And the door to presidential eligibility was wide open because of the almost universal American ignorance about the principles of what determines citizenship.  Essentially no one was aware of the fact that within the life-span of our grandparents or great-grandparents, Barack Obama would have been understood to have been born as not an American citizen but as a British or Kenya citizen.  That’s due to the fact that a century ago American women who married foreigners lost their American citizenship and assumed that of their husband.  Thus the family and its children would all have one uniform citizenship, not messy complicated dual-citizenship with competing allegiance and competing national responsibilities.

Birth Parents versus Birth Place

His birth in Hawaii would have been irrelevant for two reasons.  The first is that the framers of the Constitution and its presidential eligibility requirements didn’t place any importance on birth in the States because they required only 14 years residency, which is only two fifths of the age of 35 -the minimum age required to be President. They left the door open to children born abroad to American Ambassadors (like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams), -to children who had grown up outside of the United States but who had been raised by parents who were trusted, politically-astute true-blue Americans, -totally solid in their love for and devotion to their country.   John McCain could have constitutionally been born in and lived in Panama for 56 of his years, then moved to the United States and lived 14 years here, thereby becoming eligible to be President at the age of 72 (the age at which he ran).

The second reason is that by the 14th Amendment, even with birth within U.S. borders, citizenship is only conveyed if the child (through the father) is subject to U.S. jurisdiction.  But foreign guests are immune from Washington’s jurisdiction since they’re under the umbrella of international treaties and are not subject to the federal laws and orders that citizens and legal permanent immigrants are subject to and responsible to obey. Such as registering with the Selective Service if male and 18 to 25 years old.  Thus, since his father was not subject to citizenship-related U.S. Federal authority, neither was he, and therefore was not covered by the 14th Amendment.  Birth within the U.S. is meaningless in his rare case.
Unfortunately, the public, the press, and the government are basically ignorant of that simple but significant truth.  Why?  Because the government operates by a policy that misconstrued a Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and also, it was never of any significance until the candidacy of Barack Obama for the Presidency.  That truth has been lost in a group-think delusion about the principles that determine citizenship.  That delusion is the belief that mere location of birth within U.S. borders conveys citizenship because that is what the 14th Amendment is misunderstood to say.
Three- to four percent of domestic births are to foreign parents, but in perhaps 97% of U.S. births, citizenship is conveyed naturally from American parents to their children, or historically, from father to child.   That is the principle that was never written because it was so fundamental and universally accepted that it never needed to be codified.

All natural citizens are citizens by that unwritten law.  But since 1898 all children of  immigrants are citizens by the 14th Amendment. They are constitutional citizens, while those born abroad of a foreign parent are declared citizens by CIS statutes.  They’re statutory citizens.  Neither are natural citizens.

Their citizenship does not exist without U.S. Law granting it, but natural citizens are Americans even in the absence of any law whatsoever.
By being the off-spring of a non-immigrant alien father, Barack Obama is a statutory citizen since his citizenship is solely due to Naturalization law applicable to his mother, though the government fails to recognize that fact.  Neither statutory citizens nor constitutional citizens are eligible to be the U.S. President because they are not natural citizens by birth to citizen parents, in particular, a citizen father.

But the political machine that backed Obama knew that his eligibility could be defended if they played on the common misconception that a U.S. birth equals citizenship, and that citizenship equals presidential eligibility.  So they focused on his supposed place of birth to show that he was a “native born” citizen, although that didn’t make him a true native citizen since only those born to natives are true natives, and Obama’s father was not a native of the United States.
But their tactics succeeded in pulling the wool over nearly everyone’s eyes, both inside and outside of government.  No one thought to ask any questions.  Truthfully, no one thought, period.  Combine ignorance with certainly about one’s assumptions, and you have a fully deluded population.

The left-wing Obamanites are counting on that not changing in the next election year, and they will probably find that it doesn’t.

   Prepare for The Travesty to Come

The unaware American electorate is poised for an election season of  propagandizing based on the perceived issues and desired outcomes without any awareness that the Democrats are not offering a candidate that is constitutionally eligible

That fact will go unrecognized and unacknowledged as state-by-state the people responsible for vetting candidates will simply shirk their responsibility and repeat the travesty against the Constitution that took place in 2008 when the National Democrat Party officials acted unconstitutionally  as the tail that wagged the dog by prevailing on everyone to accept Obama as an eligible candidate even though there was no proof that he was one, nor that he was even born in the United States.   Forged birth certificate images are not proof of anything except that you can fool all of the people some of the time.
As the coming bastardization of the certification of eligibility repeats the same travesty as in 2008, the impact on those who are fully awake and aware of what is happening will be felt strongly as it dawns on them that the nation has lost the appreciation of  authenticity, veracity, and honesty in our elections, in our media, and in our government.

Prepare to see the inconceivable happen again as an ineligible candidate is once more offered for the Office of the President.

No one with a national spotlight has the nerve, or the knowledge to challenge his eligibility.

Those who know he isn’t eligible aren’t talking because they view the issue either through the biased eyes of acolytes, or as knowledge that’s like strong medicine that’s worse than the disease.

Thus his candidacy will be shepherded back into the election to run against his opponent as if there is nothing out of the ordinary about him and his eligibility.

Prepare for the disappointment to come by resolving to work as an active citizen and voter to see that he and his illegitimate cadre of neo-progressive socialists are shown the exits.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for the dismantling of his illegitimate Presidential orders, appointments, and signed bills because no one in Washington is willing to even think about such a thing, much less doing something that would be embarrassing to the political elites that knowingly, or ignorantly, allowed his election to happen last time.   After all, that “would not be what is best for the country”.

And besides, who could possibly serve to question the 99 Senators who backed the McCain resolution that gave cover and distraction from the ineligibility of his opponent?  Who is there to ask:

“Senator, what did you know and when did you know it?”

   by a.r. nash  march 2012  (re-edited  august 31)


You Are Not A Legal American!

If you ask American citizens what it is that makes them an American, they may not know how to answer. They may incorrectly answer that it’s because they were born in America, but that would be wrong, -unless they were born to U.S. immigrants. In that case they would be correct because the 14th Amendment declares them to be American citizens.
But if your parents were not immigrants, then what is the source of your American citizenship? By what law, or constitutional amendment, or clause in the Constitution, or Attorney General Interpretation, or State Department policy are you an American?

No one will be able to answer you even if they are a lawyer, or a judge, or a professor of law. The reason they will have no answer is because there is no answer. They may not even realize that fact consciously.
But they will be aware that they’ve never heard of any such law.  So if you are not an immigrant, nor born to a foreign father or mother, but are simply an average American, born to American parents, then there is no law that you can point to that makes you an American citizen.

There’s a pronouncement in the 14th Amendment which declares that any person who fits the criteria of being native-born and subject to U.S. jurisdiction is a U.S. citizen, but its declaration only applies to one group so described but not the other.   One group is those born in America to foreigners, while the other is those born in America to Americans.  The former obtain citizenship via the permission of the amendment but the latter do not.  Rather, they are born with it, -with or without the amendment.  They are not dependent on it nor any other grant or permission, and in fact none even exists.
The reason there’s no such law is because no authority was given by the founding fathers to pass any law impacting, regulating, or bestowing the citizenship of natural natives of the United States.
They gave authority to Congress to pass a “uniform law of naturalization” dealing with foreigners and their children, but not to pass laws regarding natural citizens of the United States.
Just as the First Amendment specifically forbids Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion or anything that infringes on religion and the press, so Congress was similarly unauthorized to legislate or regulate the citizenship of the American people who are the nation’s natural members. Since that authority was not given in the Constitution, nor in the 14th Amendment, it does not exist.

That leaves the matter of natural citizenship as something that only exists in the realm of natural law, -outside of government, beyond the right of men to legislate, beneath the foundation on which the government is built. It exists as an immutable principle derived from natural law and the unalienable rights bestowed by Nature’s God to his creation.

So while foreigners who are naturalized, and children born to immigrants can point to specific statements in U.S. law, whether it be the naturalizing power of the 14th  Amendment, or Supreme Court rulings, or federal statutes, natural citizens can point to nothing in any law ever passed.
While government and its laws exist as the result of the agreement of a people to establish a civil order and structure to enforce the rules that will provide them a framework in which tranquility and prosperity will be possible thanks to the protection of the natural rights of every individual, that government does not exist as a natural construct but instead, as a man-made one.

Since natural membership is a natural right and is not granted by a man-made construct of human authority, it exists with or without that construct, and thus those who created the construct for Americans were conscious of that fact when they created it, -realizing that they could not codify that which is beyond human authority because that would create the false impression that it’s something within the purview of human authority, when in fact, it, -like natural family membership, is beyond human authority to regulate or alter.

Instead, it is those who with natural membership in a group who possess the authority to regulate and alter their government. Any form of government that violates the natural order of things is a dictatorship and sits as a little Satan ruling over other human beings as if they are its property.

The American citizens who can trace their citizenship to something that is the product of government exercising its authority can be described as “legal” citizens. Anyone who is a natural citizen is not among them because their citizenship is not derived from government, and so they could be described as not being “legal” citizens but natural citizens   It was their civic forefathers that created the system that determines what is legal and what is not, -who is legal and who is not, -who obtains permission to be a U.S. citizen and who does not.

No one can be a determiner of the legality of natural national members because such members were the creators of the system that does the determining. The creation cannot determine the legitimacy or illegitimacy of its creator within the creator’s own system.
So most Americans, perhaps 96 %+ of us, can say that in that sense, we are not “legal” citizens since no legal authority exists that makes us what we already are and were born as, namely, what the Constitution calls “natural born citizens”.

By simply being what we are, we are qualified to run for the office of President (if we’re 35 years of age and have lived in the United States for 14 years), but the +/- 3-4 % of us who aren’t natural Americans are not eligible to be President.  That’s due to the immutable requirement of the U.S. Constitution, but no one pays any attention to it anymore.  In fact it was ignored completely when the American electorate voted for an ineligible citizen by the name of Barack (Bair’-ak) Obama and then in rapture watched him be unconstitutionally sworn into office.   Oh well,  the Constitution is only a piece of paper.  And it’s no longer the law of the land anyway.  That is now whatever Congress decides, or whatever the autocrat in the oval office decides.  That’s the new normal.  I hope you can adjust to it, along with the straitjacket that’s being prepared for you.

by a.r. nash  feb. 2012    http://obama–
The white House counterfeit  birth certificate

The Source of Obama’s Presidential Ineligibility

America is one of the most magnanimous nations on earth.  It was so from the beginning, and that fact was inscribed in the Constitution itself.  It provided that if a man met the age and residency requirements, he would be eligible for election or appointment to every office in the land, regardless of where he was born or to whom he was born, -as long as he was a citizen of the state in which he lived.
Everyone who previously had been a subject of one of the 13 colonies became a citizen of the union of the States of America via their new state citizenship which began in July of 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was ratified.  So everyone except non-citizens could serve in every office and position in the land, and it didn’t matter how they acquired their citizenship, -whether naturally or by naturalization.  As long as they were a citizen when the Constitution was ratified, they could be a representative, a Senator, a Chief Justice, a cabinet officer, a military officer, and even the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military forces (who happened to also be the President).

That was how it was because that was how the Constitution made it to be.  But the Constitution had a built-in timer that started ticking from the time it was ratified.  It didn’t pertain to anyone except that lone rare individual who might one day find himself faced with the option of running for the office of the President.
That timer involved an expiration situation for all of the citizens of America who were alive when the Constitution was ratified.  They, and their children would all be eligible to serve as President, but an iron gate was closing on some of those born after the Constitution was ratified.  Some of them were not U.S. citizens at birth because their foreign immigrant father was not a citizen.  They drew their nationality from his and so they were not Americans.
That iron gate was a restriction relating to the qualification to be President.  It disqualifies anyone who was not a citizen when the Constitution was ratified, -or was born to such a one (one who was not an American when they were born.  The timer that started ticking in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified was a biological timer.  It set a limit on who could become President after the lives of all living American citizens in 1788 had ended.
When they were all gone, the iron gate closed and no one could become President unless they were born as a natural American citizen.  The era in which any male citizen could serve was then over.  From that point and forward, only a natural born citizen could be the President & Commander-in-Chief.
So the sons of non-citizen immigrants could not be President, just as the U.S. born sons of foreign representatives, foreign visitors, native Americans, Gypsies, Asians and American women  could not be President either.
To Congress, the courts, and the executive branch of the government, it didn’t matter where one was born, but to whom one was born.  If one was born to a foreigner then one was not an American.  One was a citizen of their father’s nation, a member of his society and tradition, and if that society and tradition was not American then a child born to such a person was not an American any more than his father was an American.
And it didn’t matter that one or more states granted such a “son of the soil” citizenship.  The federal government did not recognize such citizenship for federal purposes.  Such state citizens were protected by state laws and constitutional protections, and subject to them, as well a federal laws, but the office of the President was neither civil nor a constitutional right, and only those persons recognized as being natural citizens were eligible once the gate of time had closed on the generation that lived when the Constitution was ratified.

Following a Supreme Court opinion a hundred and ten years later (Wong Kim Ark) the federal government was forced to ascribe U.S. citizenship to children of un-naturalized immigrants.  That didn’t change what the Constitution required of candidates for the presidency, but it changed the public’s and the government’s perception of what was required to merely be a citizen.
The misconception arose that merely being born within U.S. borders conferred U.S. citizenship, and worse still, that the U.S. citizenship of all persons born in the U.S. was the same, qualitatively, legally, and constitutionally.  The first two assumptions are correct, but the last one is patently false.  One form of citizenship is newer, (-assumed to be constitutional since 1899) while the other is the oldest form of citizenship in human history, i.e., natural membership via a father who was a member.
So presidential eligibility all boils down to one factor, -a factor over which no one has any control, and that is who one’s father was.  George Romney was born to a father who was born in Mexico to parents who were members of a community of American citizens who had emigrated there to escape persecution of Mormons.
He had no control over where his father was born or what nationality he possessed, nor to where he himself was born (the U.S.), just as Paul Ryan and Joe Biden had no control over what citizenship their fathers possessed.  Similarly, Barack Obama Jr. had no control over where his father was born or to which nation he belonged, but he, like his opponent, was nevertheless subject to the supreme authority of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, he and his corrupt party chose to completely ignore the Constitution and illegitimately run for, win, and usurp the office of the President in violation of the clear prohibition of the Constitution.  It directs that “NO PERSON” shall be eligible except a natural born citizen, which excludes all children of foreigners because they are not natural Americans.

A similar travesty would be the example of allowing the U.S. born son of Osama bin Laden or Ahmedinejad to have command over a squadron of nuclear bombers, or a MIRV equipped nuclear ICBM, or  submarine.  No crew person who is not a natural born American is allowed anywhere near  American nuclear bombs because the absolute loyalty and obedience of children of foreigners cannot be assured.
No sane nuclear nation on earth has any other policy.  There is no room for disloyalty, disobedience, or treason when it comes to such enormously destructive weapons.  The same goes for guarding the President.  Secret Service personnel (who carry loaded weapons) entrusted with that responsibility must also be natural born Americans, -having no direct foreign connection through foreign parents.
That is what the Constitution requires of the President first and foremost, and that is what Barack Obama violates every day that he occupies the presidency.  He is far less qualified to be President than every single one of the important people that work under his command in the field of nuclear weapons control and use.  He is not qualified to give presidential commands to them, nor to even guard himself.
He is an on-going fraud and an American travesty.  A living, breathing violation of the United States Constitution.  But the dependent lemming sheeple of the socialist left will do everything in their power to insure that he serves another unconstitutional four years.

If they succeed, we’re doomed to a future far more bankrupt than we already are facing.  We’re doomed to a future of deficit spending rocketing to the moon.  We’re doomed to ever greater violations of the Constitution, -as bad as or possibly worse than the treasonous ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the unconstitutional health care monstrosity and its totalitarian “individual mandate”.
It’s bad enough that he is unconstitutionally serving as President.  He could do that and serve the country admirably, -as might the equally unconstitutional Marco Rubio, but instead his actions and inactions are more likely than not to be bad for constitutional fidelity, rule of law, government transparency, individual initiative, individual freedom, national fiscal responsibility, national energy policy and the Tenth Amendment limitation on federal power.
Let’s work to ensure that sane and constitutional policies find preeminence again in Washington.  That’s something we’ve never seen in our lifetimes.  What should be normal would truly be revolutionary, and millions of loyalists who support the statist nanny Big Brother government wouldn’t like it one bit.  They not only prefer the status quo, they want even more of it, -big government without end until we find that the track ahead of us is gone, -the credit-card trestle spanning the gorge where financial solid ground should be is missing.  All of that ground (the wealth of the future as yet non-existent) was removed in order to shore-up the track we are running on today.
Then we’ll fall into the abyss as the whole house of cards crumbles and everything collapses.

by a.r. nash august 2012    obama–

U.S. Law vs. Obama’s Unnatural Citizenship

 U.S. Constitution; Article 1, Section  2, Clause 5:  “No person except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”
By the clear and irrefutable wording of Senate Res. 511 in 2008 John McCain is a natural born citizen and is such due to a certain fact which met the requirement of a certain principle.  That fact is that he was born to citizens of America.  That principle (the law of natural membership) is the only principle that produces natural born citizens.  By it, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen nor a natural native of America but is instead merely a statutory citizen thanks to his connection to an American mother.
But with a foreign father his citizenship is not normal nor natural.   That which is unnatural is not normal.  It is not normal or natural for a dog to produced off-spring with a cat, nor is normal and natural citizenship produced by the union of two different nationalities.

The dual-nationality of new citizens is not normal nor politically natural.  It is instead a hybrid political phenomenon that’s akin to the racial  duality of crossing an Eskimo with an African.  A natural member of either group cannot possibly result.  In the realm of dog breeds, one could use the example of crossing a great Dane with a Chihuahua.  Whatever the result might be, it wouldn’t be a natural representative of either breed.

Under the principle by which McCain was unanimously recognized as being born a natural citizen of the United States, Obama should and can be recognized as not being a natural citizen because he lacked an American father, -his mother was supposedly married to a visa card foreigner.  His American citizenship is totally dependent on a U.S. statute that is the descendant of the Cable Act of 1922, -by which he was allowed to assume the citizenship of his American mother after she divorced his foreign father, -provided that he lived in the U.S. a prescribed number of years during his teens.  Thus, he qualified for provisional citizenship when his mother and father obtained a divorce from a marriage for which there remains no evidence of any sort.

[There was a time (most of U.S. history) when a child born to an unwed American mother and a foreign father might be a stateless person, having no recognized nationality.]
Without that naturalization statute Obama would not be an American citizen under United States law, even though he would be considered as such by the erroneous policy adhered to by the ignorant U.S. State Department and INS, -a policy adopted by the U.S. Attorney General in 1899 after he misconstrued the Supreme Court ruling regarding the meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment (U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark).

The Supreme Court grossly re-interpreted the meaning of the amendment written three decades earlier, and then the A.G. re-interpreted their re-interpretation, -producing the erroneous interpretation that in effect declared that only half of the amendment’s words had any serious meaning, -the half that required a foreign-fathered child be born within U.S. sovereign territory.
The half that neither he nor the court understood was that which required that the father be fully subject to the authority of Washington.  Without understanding what that really means, their interpretation could not be anything other than seriously flawed.

What it means is about whether or not a foreign immigrant (non-citizen male) is subject to being forced to fight for his new nation or is exempt from that responsibility of citizenship.

The amendment states:
“All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”
Since no one fully understood the meaning of the jurisdiction requirement they were unable to interpret it correctly.
Once the court ruled that an immigrant’s U.S. born children were citizens, then the executive
branch backward engineered that ruling to mean that the child was subject to federal authority.

Since children aren’t directly subject to the federal government, it followed that they were subject indirectly though their father being subject.  Previously, since the founding of the republic, the government position had been that immigrants were not subject to the full authority of Washington D.C., but if their children were being, in effect, declared to be subject, then it followed that they were subject through a father that is subject.

If an immigrant father is subject then he can be drafted and forced to fight in America’s wars. That then became the law of the land, and immigrants (like their American-born children) ever since faced being forced against their will to serve in the U.S. military or being incarceration in a federal penitentiary as lawful punishment for refusing, -just as if they were U.S. Citizens.

But the question at the heart of the eligibility question isn’t about the principle by which Obama is a U.S. citizen (since there is no such principle); the question is “By what principle is John McCain a natural born U.S. citizen?”  Answer that question [natural conveyance from citizen parents] and the problem of Obama’s ineligibility will be clearly revealed.
Other pertinent questions are; “What is Obama’s native country?” -and “What is John McCain’s native country?”  The answer is that one’s native country is that of their father, (or parents).
Since at the time the Constitution was written women were viewed as the property of their father (unless they were a spinster) -living under his roof, bearing his name and nationality, if they married a foreigner then they became his “property” and took his name and lived under his roof, taking also his nationality since they were “one” -meaning “one and the same” as a unit (one could only have one country, and that is the country of the nationality of one’s father or husband) .
Wives and children derived their nationality
from the head of the household, -the father.  Thus, in the traditional sense, Kenya is Obama’s “native- country”, as would undeniably be the case if he’d been raised in Kenya by Obama Sr.

It should be noted that in today’s world, though some born with a foreign parent, or born abroad, come into this world with dual-citizenship, not all dual-citizenship is identical. Foreign citizenship conferred upon a natural citizen of the United States by a foreign nation due to birth on their soil is irrelevant to the dual-citizenship that comes from having a foreigner for a father.  That form of dual-citizenship is impossible when both parents are Americans.
No natural citizen has ever had a foreigner for a father though millions of non-natural “legal citizens” have.  Their citizenship is by the contrivance and acquiescence of the federal government via constitutional, statutory and judicial law, while the citizenship of natural citizens exists in the absence of any law whatsoever.  It requires no law because it is a natural unalienable right.
From Wikipedia:
The Cable Act of 1922 (ch.411, 42 Stat. 1021), is a United States federal law that reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage. Previously, (since 1907) a woman lost her U.S. citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband—a law that did not apply to men who married foreign women.  Former immigration laws prior to 1922 did not make reference to the alien husband’s race.
[1] However, The Cable Act of 1922 guaranteed independent female citizenship only to women who were married to “alien[s] eligible to naturalization”.
[2] At the time of the law’s passage, Asian aliens were not considered to be racially eligible for U.S. Citizenship.

[3][4] As such, the Cable Act only partially reversed previous policies, granting independent fe- male citizenship only to women who married non-Asians. The Cable Act effectively revoked the U.S. citizenship of any woman who married an Asian alien.

[Question: Was the Cable Act unconstitutional since it wasn't an amendment?]

“The Cable Act had additional limitations: A woman could keep her US citizenship if she stayed within the United States, however, if she married a foreigner and lived on foreign soil, for as much as two years, she could still lose her right to U.S. nationality.”
“The general doctrine [Doctrine is not law] is that no persons can by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance, and become aliens.”
[That’s irrelevant to loss of citizenship via statute.]
~     ~     ~     ~     ~
Later court opinions on the matter are also irrelevant to the practice and policy of the government when the Constitution was written and ratified.  At that time an American woman (like Ann Dunham) could not convey U.S. citizenship to her off-spring while married to a foreigner who was not a citizen, -especially one who was not even an immigrant.
There was an INS naturalization statute by which it was possible in 1961 (as well as now) that U.S. Citizenship is passed to the children of American women and a foreign father though it applied only to births outside of the U.S.  Since Obama was ostensibly born in Hawaii, that statute didn’t apply to him.  He therefore did not have U.S. citizenship conveyed to him at birth through his mother or his father.

Since the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to the circumstances of Obama’s supposed Hawaiian birth, -with its requirement of subjection to U.S. jurisdiction (applicable only through immigrant fathers) he was therefore born solely as a provisional subject of Kenya and the British Commonwealth.   Barack Obama was not a United States citizen by birth.  He was a British subject only.

But no one will confirm that fact, nor attempt to prove it wrong because the entire government is complicit in a conspiracy of silence about Obama’s citizenship because if he was not born as an American, nor born as a natural American citizen, then he sure as hell was not born being constitutionally eligible to be the President.  [Anyone whose citizenship is dependent on written law, as are all children with a foreigner father, is ineligible to be President.]
But everyone just rolled over and accepted the assumed social good of having America led by the first person of color, -regardless of whether or not he was constitutionally eligible, or experienced, or competent and not a product of affirmative action promotion by wealthy and powerful statist-internationalist-atheist-socialists pulling strings and opening doors from behind the curtain.

by a.r. nash 2012


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers