The Bamboozling of America At The Highest Level

~the biggest political scam of all time

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

Let’s begin.  One of the greatest, if not the greatest travesties ever committed against the American electorate occurred in the presidential election of 2008 in regard to the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.  It involved all five areas of the national election arena, beginning with the Press, -the main-stream-media.
It’s job is to ferret out the truth about candidates for elective office and share it with the American public.  We all realize what a great job they did in regard to one John Edwards and his mistress.  (No one would touch it with a ten-foot pole except the National Enquirer.)
Similarly, they stayed ten miles away from the issue of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office of the President.  Instead of vetting him they praised and adored him.  Not a peep was heard from any corner of the land on that vital issue, and that included conservative and independent media types alike.
He got a free pass because he was very inspiring, charming and charismatic, as well as being the first party candidate of color in our history.  So his candidacy was attended by only silence on the issue of whether or not he was even qualified to run for the office.
There are guardians in all 50 states whose job it is to guard against ineligible candidates being placed on their state’s ballot.  They constitute the second area in which the travesty took place.  Every single one of the officers, Attorneys General, or commissions that approved the placement of Senator Obama’s name on their ballots was either bamboozled by the DNC or were complicit in the conspiracy because they all went along with it.  And they’ll repeat that crime.

The third area is that of the Democratic Party leadership which conspired to alter the traditional wording of their presidential candidate certification document.  They secretly removed the language stating that their candidate was constitutionally qualified for the office of President, and instead substituted language stating only that he was legitimately certified as the official candidate of their party.

There was only one reason to do that, and that reason was because they knew that by making that omitted statement they would have been making themselves liable for charges of various sorts, including probably some form of perjury for making a false legal certification.  But they got away with it for four years, so the second time they’ve fearlessly reinserted that false qualifier.
The fourth area that assisted in the conspiracy was the United States Senate.  It had two members running for the presidency who had odd backgrounds.  It authorized a research investigation, but the results it produced contained both the solid truth but also a huge lie.  The truth was in regard to the citizenship of John McCain and the lie was in regard to one such as Barack Obama.  Both having quite different birth circumstances.  So the Senate knew the actual truth but embraced the lie also, and so remained silent.

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

Like what happened at Chernobyl when the reactor managers illicitly allowed five or six processes/tests to take place which caused it to explode and its nuclear core to totally melt down, -when avoiding any one of them would have prevented the disaster, so the American political process saw five areas of society lead in unison to a melt-down (when any one alone could  have prevented it) and thus the process meant to elect a legitimate President, instead elected an illegitimate one.
The conspiracy involved three significant falsehoods.  Two are related but the third is completely apart from the other two.  The two related ones were connected to the proof of Senator Obama’s place of birth.  The third was related to the United States Constitution and its restrictions on who is allowed to be the President of the United States.  Efforts were made to falsify facts, manipulate fallacious ideas, promote untruths, and distort the significance of facts in evidence.  Let’s examine the constitutional issue first.

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

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

So if the meaning of “natural” isn’t found in American/Colonial legal history then it is found in common English, common sense, and “Natural Law”.  The Constitution was not written to be read only by legal scholars but by the common man whose acceptance was important in order to pass it and maintain national unity.  Therefore it can’t be argued that the meaning of the word “natural” is found only in esoteric, complex legislative and judicial documents, but is found instead in common language.  No one needs to tell you what natural means, anymore than you need a lawyer or legal historian to tell you what “unnatural” means.  Remember, the Constitution was written almost entirely in plain English, not legalese.

So the constitutional legitimacy of Senator Obama’s candidacy was dependent on the meaning of that one word  “natural” -what it means as well as what it doesn’t mean.  A “natural citizen” is also a “born citizen” but not all born citizens are natural citizens because they were born to immigrants, -foreigners, and not to Americans.
All Americans are U.S. Nationals, but not all U.S. Nationals are Americans because they do not possess United States citizenship (being Samoan).  Similarly, all persons born as citizens are Americans, but not all were born as natural Americans.
America has always had a divergence regarding citizenship from before the founding of the nation.  Some colonies ascribed citizenship to all born within their borders, even if they were born to foreigners.  The logic was that those children were going to live in and grow-up in America as Americans and therefore should be citizens just like those who came before them.
Other colonies required foreigners to become naturalized citizens first and only then would their children be automatically granted citizenship in that sovereign colony.  Which method became the law of the land after the Constitution was ratified?  The later.  That was the law of the land for over a century.
That changed forever in 1898 due to a Supreme Court ruling (Wong Kim Ark) in which the State Dept. had declared a San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants to not be an American citizen. The government prevail all the way up to the Supreme Court but the final court opinion altered the meaning of the citizenship statement of the 14th Amendment (1868) and reversed the government’s position.

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

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

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

Barack Obama’s citizenship has the law on his side, but the problem is that no one who is a citizen by law is also a natural citizen since natural citizenship is not granted by any law every written.  Nor by the Constitution, because it was viewed as a natural unalienable right that neither the government nor the people that it represents have any authority to grant or rescind.  It is a natural right that all humans are born with, and which government did not create.

Just as a baby tiger inherits its nature and species from its parents, so Americans inherit their parents’ national membership in the American family.  Just as a natural-born Chinese couple cannot produce a natural-born African child, -just as a natural born Jewish couple cannot produce a natural born Arab, so a natural born American couple cannot produce a natural born foreign child, nor can a foreign couple produce a natural American child

Either “natural” has meaning solely in relation to ones parentage, or it has no meaning at all.
One who is a “born citizen” via birth in America to immigrant parents is a constitutional 14th Amendment citizen, -not a natural citizen because their citizenship, though acquired automatically from birth, is not natural citizenship because it was not a natural inheritance from their parents.
The second significant falsehood is connected to the significance of birth within U.S. borders.  Much importance was place on the belief that Senator Obama was born in America but that importance was a sham.  It had no connection to presidential eligibility nor could it alone convey constitutional citizenship which requires one to be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government at birth.
All natural citizens are subject at birth because their parents are, but not all children born to foreigners are subject because some foreigners are not immigrants but instead are mere transients.  Transients are not legal permanent members of American society and thereby subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but instead are foreign diplomats, visitors, workers, professionals, and students. They are subject to their own government and protected by International Treaty, including Barack Obama Sr.

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

The third great falsehood regarding Senator Obama deals with the extensive evidence that both birth-document digital images posted online contain manifold signs of illegitimate creation and the fact that no hard-copies have ever been produced and shown to the public or document experts to verify that the images posted online were results of the scanning of real paper documents.
But even real paper documents cannot be verified as authentic because of the bastardized nature of the digital reproduction and alteration process used by the Hawaiian Vital Statistics Office which results in an unathenticatible “ABSTRACT” instead of a “TRUE COPY”.

How shall one respond to this, and what measures can be taken to insure that such a travesty is not allowed to transpire a second time?  Challenges to his legitimacy as a constitutionally qualified Democrat Party candidate in each state can be attempted if a legal channel is available for such a challenge.  His backers must get his name placed on the ballots of all 50 states one at a time, and that can be opposed one at a time across America.  But that won’t happen because of ignorance and indifference.  The travesty of 2008 will be blindly, stupidly, and deliberately repeated.
One challenge was mounted in Georgia.  Senator Obama’s attorney failed to appear as required and thereby should have lost by default.  That would have blocked him from appearing on the Georgia State ballot if the Secretary of State in Georgia concurred, but some underhanded chicanery took place out of sight. It appears the judge in the Georgia case, without explanation,  threw the verdict in favor of the defendant Obama even though his legal council failed to appear to offer any rebuttal to the charges of his client’s ineligibility. Even worse, both the Secretary of State and the Appeals Court and Supreme Court of Georgia followed the same pattern; they gave the appearance of impartiality and the supremacy of the law, then threw the case to the defendant that failed to appear! -There’s nothing suspicious about that; move along folks, there’s nothing to see here, just move along.

by a.r. nash  2012 obama–

~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~

The Washington Examiner’s investigative reporting team conducted a four month investigation into Obama’s past, interviewing dozens of people across the country, and studying countless court transcripts, government reports and other official documents. Lead investigator Mark Tapscott summarizes the picture of Obama that emerges, “Beyond the spin and the polls, a starkly different picture emerges. It is a portrait of a man quite unlike his image, not a visionary reformer but rather a classic Chicago machine pol who thrives on rewarding himself and his friends with the spoils of public office, and who uses his position to punish his enemies.”

You can access the whole report from the links below:
Introduction: The Obama you don’t know
Chapter I: A childhood of privilege, not hardship
Chapter II: The myth of the ‘rock-star professor’
Chapter III: The 1997 speech that launched Obama
Chapter IV: Defense attorney for Chicago slumlord
Chapter V: Obama’s sells out to the Daley machine
Chapter VI: The poor people Obama left behind
Chapter VII: Myth of Obama as state reformer
Chapter VIII: Using state pensions to help friends
Chapter IX: Obama’s Arab-American network
Chapter X: Obama brings Chicago politics to Washington


U.S. Marines, U.S. Ambassadors and an Unconstitutional President

Clarifying the natural citizenship issue

By Adrien Nash · September 17, 2012

There are three widespread delusions regarding U.S. citizenship, but they are of a subtle, unrecognized nature. They are due to common, seemingly common-sense assumptions, but those assumptions are the opposite of the truth.

The first erroneous assumption is that any citizenship that is not the result of the naturalization process is a form of citizenship which allows one to be the President.

The second erroneous assumption is that anyone born within the sovereign borders of the U.S. is a U.S. citizen and therefore the first assumption applies to him or her.

The third erroneous assumption is that anyone not born within the U.S. is ineligible to be President because they are in the same category as naturalized citizens.

There is also a fourth false idea, -one that eligibility to be President is tied to a concept (one lacking a logical basis), that the Constitution’s reference to the President’s required natural citizenship includes birth on U.S. soil. That idea is false because the concept is a mish-mash contrivance that conglomerates two opposite citizenship principles, -one natural and one artificial, or man-made.

The contrived concept marries the principle of natural citizenship with the feudal concept of boundary-determined citizenship. It takes the Constitution’s eligibility requirement; “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of the President” and pontificates that such citizens must have American parents and be born on American controlled soil.

That sounds reasonable and wise on its face, but in fact its face is not enough. An extraneous factor which complicates the issue is the rare but ever-constant exception to the rule. That exception is the nature of the national membership of babies born to Americans living in foreign nations.

Such foreign domiciled American parents are not less loyal, patriotic, or “American” than they were before moving and living abroad. They are still who and what they’ve always been, and if what they are is more than just an average American, then they may be even more pro-American than their fellow countrymen living in America.

I speak of those who represent America to the governments of the world, -our foreign Ambassadors, consuls, and representatives (along with their support staff). They are now in the national consciousness due to the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, along with the former Navy Seals assigned to him.

The questions that no one ever asks is: “What is the nature of the citizenship of a child born abroad to such Americans? Is it the same as its parents? Or is it citizenship granted by the government, -without which it would not even be an American?”

Those questions go to the heart of whether or not a traitor to the constitution has been occupying the White House since January 2009. The salient question is: “What is the nature of natural citizenship, and does Barack Obama possess it?” The issue of the nature of natural citizenship is related to two subjects; those born with a foreign father and those born to American parents but in a foreign country.

Clearly, those two possibilities have little in common since one is related to blood and the other to borders. Are natural citizens those born to American citizens or simply those born on the land of American citizens? Or … are both necessary? The only way to deduce the correct answer is to recognize the principle involved in producing a natural citizen.

Those highly educated, intelligent attorneys who insist it is both are oblivious to the principle on which natural membership is based. But our founding fathers were not, and they had a more down-to-earth understanding of the basis of natural citizenship and how it impacted Americans in the real world. They weren’t thinking about the arcane subject of American children born abroad when they were laboring on writing the new constitution of government, but they never thought for a moment that American sons, such as one hypothetically born in Tripoli to Ambassador Stevens or the ex-Navy Seals accompanying him were ineligible to be considered as presidential material no matter how great the sacrifice of their father, or themselves in serving their country.

The founders saw no difference in American sons based on the soil on which they were born. Rather, the difference between American sons was a reflection of what kind of father they were born to. A foreign father or an American father? A father holding and defending American values and the United States Constitution, or a father suffused with foreign ideas of government and total subjection to it? -A father that embraced individual liberty or one that bowed deeply in subservience to the government and its right to be lord & master of all?

Did the citizenship of one’s father make any difference to the founders? None whatsoever when it came to serving in the U.S. Government and military as long as they had become American citizens, -unless one was the one in millions who might be elected to be the Commander-in-Chief of all of America’s federal and military forces, -along with being the President and head of all the government departments. Only then did it make a difference, -and that difference was clear and absolute.

When it came to the power of the head of all United States military forces, the founders recognized a difference between a citizen born of an American father, even if born in Tripoli, and a citizen born of a foreigner, an alien, with no organic natural connection to the United States by blood or birth.

One was an American by nature, while the other was an American via the human contrivance of positive law passed on the behalf of such alien-born children. One could be presumed to be a loyal American, while the other would have a cloud of doubt hanging over his head, even though born somewhere that was within U.S. sovereign borders.

The founding fathers were not ignorant fools who were unaware of the reality of the danger of such a scenario, but in their minds and era it was related to children of British privilege who were staunchly loyal to the King of England, instead of Islam.

If a British noble or aristocrat or loyal subject brought a child into the world in the United States, that child was not an American because the father was a subject of a foreign power and not subject to the political authority of the United States over its citizens and immigrants.

Such a child not only was not a natural born citizen, it was not a citizen at all. But it could have been a native-born citizen in one or more of the sovereign states (-where citizenship was determined, and perhaps granted, to “sons of the soil”).

But the federal government did not recognize such citizenship as natural citizenship so such a citizen would not be eligible to be the President.

The federal government recognized four types of citizenship, and they are analogous to the four types of American servicemen.

Let’s connect them thusly; the Marines are equivalent to natural born citizens.

The Army is equivalent to naturalized citizens.

The Navy is equivalent to “native-born” citizens, -those with foreign fathers.

And the Air Force is equivalent to derivative citizens, -those children or wives who obtained citizenship upon the father/husband becoming naturalized. Their citizenship was derived from his.

[As for the Coast Guard, it could be equivalent to provisional citizens, -minors, born abroad to foreign fathers and American mothers who later divorced. Their citizenship depended on them living in the United States to fulfill the required provision of a naturalization statute.]

The insight gained by this analogy is that just as all members of the American military services are American servicemen and women, they are not all U.S. Marines. There is a difference. They all have the same rights, but they do not all have the same privileges. They are essentially equal, but some are more equal than others, -just as natural citizens (the 97%) are eligible to be President, but the other citizens are not.

Similarly, the U.S. Marines have a special role, and honor, and that is to guard the Embassies of the United States, as well as to guard the President himself in the White House, and to provide him helicopter transportation.

When the bodies of Ambassador Stevens and his three bodyguards were received back home, it was the Marines only who had the honor of attending to their caskets, and supplying the brass band to commemorate the ceremony.

There was a reason for that, -it wasn’t some undefined happenstance capricious reason either. It was based on a principle (they are the force responsible for guarding Ambassadors), just as the mandate that the President be no one except a natural born citizen is based on a principle of nation security, unquestionable loyalty, and allegiance to American values and America’s Constitution.

But in our liberalized, lax, unfaithful culture, loyalty and fidelity to our Constitution is a thing of the quaint and stuffy past. And so we’ve seen an unconstitutional candidate be elected to the presidency, and not one national voice in the main stream media or government made a peep.

No senator fulfilled his duty to vet and reject an “unqualified candidate,” nor did even one Supreme Court Justice, including the Chief Judas, say a word when it came to swearing in someone who was forbidden by the Constitution to hold the office. If that is allowed to happen again, you can safely assume that constitutional law is nearly dead.

For a pdf version, click here.

We Hold These Truths

“We hold these truths to be self evident, -that all men are created equal, -that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life,…Liberty,…and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

This opening statement of the Declaration of Independence reveals the views held by our founding fathers.  Those words are not legalese. They do not require a lawyer to explain them.  They do not quote any human authority, -any judicial opinion, nor any philosopher.  They do not quote anyone.

They wrote and believed things that are from outside of the finite boundaries of everyday thought.  They thought on a scale that was above and beyond the authority of the government that had ruled them for many, many generations.  They thought about the source of the rights which they intended the new national union to secure for them and their posterity.  They believed fully that that source was not human.  Rather, it was divine.  It was eternal and unchanging.  Its work was permanent and never ending.  The rights bestowed upon the creation by “the Creator” are immutable until the end of the world.

The authors of the Declaration of Independence did not write about holding opinions to be self-evident, but holding “Truths” to be so.  That is an unequivocal absolute when it comes to the subject being expounded on.  Truth is not dependent on human opinion, action, or agreement.  It is what it is.  They believed certain Truths were known to all and confirmable by all and those Truths are the principles of Natural Rights.

The justification for the treasonous rebellion of the citizens of the colonies was based on self-evident natural rights, -which were being grievously violated by the henchmen of the King & his Parliament.  The colonists asserted that those rights not only exist but that they are the only legitimate basis for government.

Those rights cannot be legitimately rescinded by government because they are not bestowed by government. They are bestowed by “the Judge of the World” who made all men free, -but subject to moral laws and the responsibility to live an upright and conscientious life.

Without Divine Authority as the source of the unalienable rights and responsibilities with which humans are born, the basis of a free democratic republic would crumble into the amoral rule of ~Rules & Bureaucracy, with no principles whatsoever behind the rules, nor a moral population willing to adhere to them.

There are societies in today’s world where corruption is so ingrained into the psyche of the people that there is no outrage when it occurs because it is what everyone else would do.  Moral Law has no preeminence there and therefore neither do Natural Rights.

First came the principles, then came a people willing to risk all to obtain the chance to employ those principles in a new form of government that would protect and support those unalienable natural rights with which all men are created.

One of those rights is membership in the group into which one is born.  In contrast to unnatural groups whose membership is based on merit, -like Spartan warriors or Navy Seals, or sports teams, everyone possesses the natural right to membership in their parents’ natural, cultural, ethnic, or national group.  If one’s parents belong to a group in which they have a natural right to be a member, then their child is born with that membership and becomes a member by nature.
That membership is their natural right.  It can’t be granted to them by kings or governments because no one has any right to “grant” unalienable rights with which everyone is born.

No one has a right to grant you the natural right to live, to be free, to own property, to marry and have a family, to pursue happiness, nor to be a part of the group or nation into which you were born.   Rights that no man can bestow cannot be canceled by any legitimate government.  The founding fathers felt that since all men are created equal, men have no moral authority to grant natural rights to other men, therefore it follows that governments also have no moral authority to grant such rights.  And so they avoided doing that.

Consequently, there is no law by which you are an American citizen, -unless you were not born to American parents.  Nothing in the Constitution delineates who is and isn’t an American.  The delineations of U.S. citizenship in U.S. Law were written later for those born to foreign fathers or mothers, and those who married foreign men; -or for foreigners who sought to become Americans, -or were “Native Americans”, or natives of American territories.  All who were granted U.S. citizenship by U.S. law are “legal citizens”.  Some of them possess Certificates of U.S. Citizenship.  Do you have such a certificate?  Are you a “legal citizen” or something else?

All those for whom there is no law are natural citizens.  They’re the 97%.  Congress was not granted any authority regarding citizenship except over those who were not natural Americans.  The Constitution granted Congress authority to write a uniform naturalization law and nothing else regarding citizenship.  Natural American citizens are free of the authority of Congress in regard to their citizenship because they are the natives of the nation, -they are “the naturals” or “natural born citizens” and they created the Constitution and the government.  They are exempt as the lone exception to the Constitution’s prohibition against anyone else serving as the President and Commander-in-Chief.

Those who are “legal citizens” are not exempt from its prohibition because they are man-made citizens who gained their citizenship via human law.  Natural-ization is the human attempt to make a person into something they are not by nature, -into a natural member of a group to which they don’t naturally and fully belong.  But they are equal to the natural members in every way…-except one.   They’re forbidden to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief since that’s in violation of the United States Constitution.   (Article II, Section I)

by A.R. Nash   March 2012   http://obama–

Americans Born Abroad

 Are Eligible To Be President

There are three views regarding the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama and they have overlapping components.  His closet-socialist supporters declare that merely being born within the borders of U.S. territory makes him fully eligible for the highest office in the land via the principle that was imposed by the English Kings known as the Law of the Soil (Jus Soli).  By it, all souls born within his dominion belonged to him as his subjects and owed him their allegiance for life.

That was a national policy that was rejected by the federal government of the United States from its very beginning, -although it remained as the law within the early constitutions of one or more State governments.
Obama’s arch opponents argue that that assumption (-that mere place-of-birth determines Presidential eligibility) is not completely true.  They assert that one must also be born to American parents.  They recognize the U.S. government’s long history of following the
Natural Law principle of ascribing national membership based on patrilineal descent, -the citizenship of the father.

That principle is known as the Law of Blood (Jus Sanguinis).  By it, the off-spring inherit the status and rights of the parents, including membership in the group to which they belong.  But they go one step further and claim that to be President one must fulfill the requirements of both Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis.

The President therefore would have to be born in the U.S. to American parents.  That doesn’t sound unreasonable.  But which of the two principles is correct?
The only reasonable answer is not based on any law or opinion or interpretation of law, -it’s
based solely on the only thing on which the
whole issue rests, and that is an irrefutably
logical principle.

That principle is the natural law of Jus Sanguinis.  Add anything to it and the subject immediately becomes unfocused.  The sharpest focus possible is needed in this situation, and like a magnifying glass that can’t start a fire when its focus point is off, so also, logical arguments can become unfocused when an unrelated element is added which muddies the clear waters of natural logic.
Adding the principle of jus soli to jus sanguinis is just such an added element that muddies the water of the clarity of the natural principle of birthright citizenship, -citizenship that’s derived solely from the parents alone and no other principle.
The 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act has led some to the assumption that Congress was deliberately legislating that which they had no authority to legislate; namely a new principle of citizenship which is found nowhere in the Constitution -that of foreign-born American citizenship.
No authority was given to Congress to legislate requirements, limitations, or new definitions regarding natural American citizenship, and they did not do so, contrary to how some view that legislation.
They merely sought to preserve and protect the unalienable rights of Americans born anywhere in the world, -particularly abroad.  They not only had the right to do that but also the obligation.
That’s why they inserted language into the Act to prevent American children from being lumped in with children of foreigners by denying them their natural right to American citizenship.
The government of the United States, (meaning the executive and judicial branches) was put on notice by Congress that those children were to be afforded all the same rights of citizenship as their natural born parents and their domestic born siblings.  That’s why they didn’t merely write that they were to be “considered as” U.S. citizens, but as “natural born citizens”.
They knew exactly what they were writing, but since the nature of that citizenship was irrelevant to a Naturalization Act, it was omitted when it was rewritten five years later.  The fact that

Americans born abroad were to be eligible to be President was not germane to immigration policy, nor to immigration officials since it only had relevance to the election of the President.
Some have erroneously concluded that by omitting “natural born” in 1795 they were declassifying such children as natural born citizens when the only purpose was to classify them as “U.S. Citizens” and not foreigners who needed to be naturalized.  Congress possesses no right to grant nor rescind natural citizenship.

The first Congress realized that the rights of sons of Americans born abroad, -to Ambassadors & Consuls, Diplomats, etc, had no protection in the Constitution, and so they attempted to provide them with some by requiring the executive branch to recognize them as being American to the fullest extent.  Their status as natural born American citizens was not dependent on birth-place but on the citizenship of their American fathers.
Since most already believe that Obama was born in the U.S., adding a requirement of U.S. birth to natural citizenship serves no purpose.  Instead it only distracts from his lack of an American father.   In our politically correct era, it’s mandatory to use the language that natural citizenship requires that both parents be Americans, but that language demonstrates a failure to grasp the reality of the issue.

Under the tradition of The Divine Right of Kings, male subjects would be considered to be committing an act akin to treason if they were to foreswear, abjure, reject or renounce their allegiance to their sovereign in order to expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation.  But wives?  They were the property of their husbands.

If he was a subject of the King and a foreign woman married a subject of the King, then she became a subject of the King also because she was under her husband’s jurisdiction, just as he was under the King’s.  And the King of the land where she was born couldn’t have cared less.     Everything was all about the male, -kind of like it is in Saudi Arabia and patriarchal societies everywhere.  Wives are submissive to their husbands and under his protection and jurisdiction in his role as head of the household.

This was the situation in our young republic, one in which wives, like children, were not afforded the honor of being considered legally to be “persons” as mentioned in the Constitution.  At that time and for long after, if a foreign woman married an American man, she acquired derivative U.S. citizenship automatically.  Therefore it confuses the eligibility issue to state that constitutionally both parents had to be citizens, when the wife, -if not native or natural born, automatically was a U.S. citizen by the mere act of marriage.  It was thus impossible for an American husband to be married to a foreign wife.

So in the interest of fidelity to the historical truth, -which is readily grasped by all who aren’t shocked that American women once weren’t equal to men, the language should be shifted to one that reflects the unvarnished reality that natural born citizens were known and recognized as those citizens who had American fathers, period.  No need to mention the nationality of the mother because it was automatically American by marriage or birth.
It also reflects the reality that children born to American women who were married to foreigners would only be considered natural born Americans if their father had became naturalized before their birth.

Until the Supreme Court ventures an opinion, the definition of natural citizenship is not dependent on any opinion offered by any person in any era or any other court, but solely on the principle on which it is based.  Either there is a principle and it’s inviolable, or there is no principle and “natural” can mean anything that people care to read into it.  You know which one is preferable and most reasonable.

by  a.r. nash


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers