Citizenship by Birth & Citizenship by Death

~CITIZENSHIP BY LIFE  VERSUS  CITIZENSHIP BY LAW

If someone asks you where you were born, you will tell them what others told you, meaning essentially, your mother because there’s no way she doesn’t know the correct answer.  You also have what the government calls proof in the form of a certified birth certificate, assuming you were not adopted.  Most people can assume that they weren’t adopted but many can’t know for sure because they are an only child, or just one of two or three, and the oldest of them at that.  They have to take it on faith because birth certificates will not tell the truth if one is adopted.  In fact they will present flat-out lies as being the truth in order to protect the identity of the real mother.  So it’s evident that the assumed truth is not the same as the actual truth.  The same situation applies to the issue of citizenship.
Do you know what your nationality was at birth?  You assume that you do because you assume that you were not adopted from a mother who was a foreigner and that you were not born in a foreign nation.  But how do you know for sure that you weren’t?  You have no memory of the event and circumstances of your parentage and birth so you have to just take the facts you were told on faith.
That faith is almost always based on reality, but when it isn’t, the person doing the assuming is unaware that it isn’t because the story of your origins are one thing but the facts may be something quite different, whether they be related to your parentage or to your nationality.

Everyone knows the probable truth about their natural connection to their actual parents, but few know that that same connection applies to their nationality as well, even though it does, and always has.  You are the product of those who gave you life.  Your nature and your nationality are what theirs was when you were born.  It can’t be different by nature, but can be different by law (as an added bonus [from a foreign government] to that which you inherited from them), otherwise it is naturally the same because you are an apple from the same tree, genetically speaking and politically speaking.

What you are is what you inherit.  You are the output of the ingredients that went into your make-up, including your political make-up, i.e., your nationality.  You are a member of their country by your life connection to them.  You are a citizen of their nation by the national membership you inherited from them.  You are a citizen of your nation via your origin, your blood connect to parents who were members of that country and citizens of that nation.  So you can be called a citizen by life, or a citizen by nature, or a natural citizen, or, as the Constitution phrases it, “a natural born citizen”.

The only other class of citizen is that of the “legal citizen”.  They are made citizens by the laws of the nation or the policy of the administration that governs it.  Legal citizenship is essentially the same as natural citizenship except when it comes to its origin and its permanence.  Since it is man-made, it can be altered, -meaning it can be granted and rescinded by law, amendment, judicial opinion, and administrative policy, but citizenship by nature cannot be rescinded except by conduct akin to treason or renunciation, -both of which are by one’s own choice, -requiring recognition by the government.

Most people erroneously assume that their nationality is the result of where they were born, -not the result of their inherited political nature, nor the result of law or policy.  They assume that it is a tradition that one is a citizen of the nation in which they exit the womb, (unless it’s not the parents’ nation).  But birth location, like the truthfulness of birth certificates, isn’t infallible evidence of nor the determinant of one’s actual nationality just as a birth certificate is not the determinant of who your parents’ actually were.

Appearances may reflect reality, or they may be deceiving.  But birth location is only coincidental to the nature of one’s national membership, it’s not the determinant (unless one’s parents were immigrants).  The determinant is the membership inherited from one’s father and the household into which one was born.  All of a father’s children inherit his name, and his nationality, along with his status in society.  Even his wife takes after him (in the historical and traditional sense) since if she was a foreigner, she no longer was a foreigner as soon as he married her.  Then she took on his nationality, and would be, along with their children, all of one nation; a family united under one roof, with one head, -not two.  With one nationality, not two.  With one history and political system, not two.  With one set of national values, -not two.  With allegiance and obligation toward only one nation, society,  and government, -not two.

That was the natural political order of things throughout most of human history, until that is, American women obtained the right to vote via the 19th Amendment.  Then a whole lot of things had to change, and thus slowly or quickly began to change.  Clear and simple historical traditions were set aside and replaced by complexity and some confusion, but gender fairness & equality had become a higher national priority.

Is the place of one’s birth the determinant of one’s nationality?   In the United States, with its colonial history, the answer is yes, and no, and assumedly so.  It is yes if one is the child of foreign immigrants.  The Supreme Court gave an opinion over a century ago which asserted that the 14th Amendment made it so.  But immigrants, and their children, are only a tiny percentage of the population.  All of the others are natural citizens and where they are born is immaterial to their nationality because they are Americans by nature, -not by a government gift of citizenship.  So the answer for them is “no”.  Place of birth is irrelevant.

Then there are those rare individuals for whom the answer is “assumedly so” because they are not citizens by the actual meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor by statutory law, nor by nature, but are merely assumed to be citizens by a bastardized administrative policy which was the result of an Attorney General’s misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s 14th Amendment opinion.
That policy dates back to the turn of the previous century, so it is universally, though illegitimately, assumed to also be United States law, but in fact it is nothing more than policy.  A new and correct interpretation could overturn a century of error over night.  No court opinion or Congressional law would be needed.
Those who are merely assumed to be citizens are the ones with unusual parentage.  Their parents are neither both Americans nor both immigrants, but something else.  It might be that they are an American and a non-immigrant alien, -or might be a multiplicity of parental nationalities (born to parents with dual-citizenship) or their parents might be foreigners who were not immigrants nor citizens but merely foreign visitors, students, or foreign government employees.  Or, it could also be a variety of combinations.

The policy of the U.S. government (not the law) is that essentially everyone born within the United States is a citizen, but neither the government nor the 14th Amendment have any stated reason why they are citizens.  It’s merely presumed to be so based on ignorance of history.  So the idea that place of birth determines everyone’s citizenship is now firmly entrenched in the American psyche, along with the presumption that U.S. citizenship from birth makes one eligible to be President, but an imaginative hypothetical scenario will serve to illustrate why that is not an accurate legal viewpoint.

Imagine a fictional time in U.S. history before the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, when the economy was booming in both manufacturing and agriculture.  The States were in competition for workers because there were not enough, and so they sought to increase the in- migration of foreign workers, (immigrants) in order to fill the unfilled jobs.  To get the better of other states, they began offering incentives to prospective immigrants, beginning with the offer of citizenship for their children.  The first state to offer incentives passed a law that decreed that when the foreign-born children of immigrant workers turned 18 years of age, they would be automatically granted United States citizenship without having to complete the state’s naturalization process.  To compete with that, another state passes a law that lowers the age to 13 years old.  To compete with that, another states lowers it even further to 5 years old.  In addition, all of them grant automatic citizenship to the children of their foreign workers who are born in-state.  They can become citizens at birth.

What do all of those offers have in common?  Two things; human law and the calendar, -not place of birth.  Without the law there would be no citizenship.  Without the calendar, there would be no law because the laws were all based on the calendar.  At one extreme, a child received the gift of United States citizenship at 18 years of age, while at the other extreme a child received citizenship at zero years of age, obtaining it on the calendar date synonymous with the first day of life.
Those gifts of citizenship are connected to the calendar, -including the citizenship of the domestically born children whose citizenship was not connected solely and wholly to their place of birth.  Place-of-birth as a factor was a consequence of human choice and not a natural factor, just as the Time Factor was a human choice, with the day of one’s birth anniversary or delivery selected as the date on which citizenship would begin.  That choice is tied to the calendar, -a human contrivance
.
Natural members of all groups, whether animal, or human, -racial or ethnic, don’t become something that’s based on either the calendar or the location where birth takes place.  They are what they are due to Life and natural inheritance, not irrelevant factors of time and space, or national borders.
Whatever a human is, if it’s not the result of natural inheritance, then it’s something that’s artificially acquired, not natural acquired.  Just as man-made fingernails, eyelashes, -man-made teeth, and man-made hair are not natural even though they seem perfectly natural, so also man-made citizenship is not natural either, even though it is practically indistinguishable from natural citizenship.  But it can be differentiated by the nature of its origin.  One is natural while the other is not, being instead man-made citizenship by legal statute.

The President of the United States is constitutionally required to be one who is born with natural citizenship and not artificial man-made citizenship, including constitutional amendment citizenship.  The President’s citizenship must be acquired via life, not law, via parents not permission, -via natural inheritance, not human contrivance, via birth, -not borders, and his place of birth is not a factor with any connection to life or nature.

Another scenario that illustrates the fallacy of connecting place-of-birth citizenship with presidential eligibility involves not citizenship-by-life, but citizenship-by-death.
Suppose that one of the competing states had a dangerous occupation with fairly high fatalities, and they wanted to encourage  immigrants to settle in the state and work in that occupation, but prospective immigrants were concerned about dying and leaving their family bereft, -without the benefits and assistance reserved for citizens.

To allay their fears, the state might pass a law that would make the immigrant a U.S. citizen upon death, which would automatically naturalize all his foreign-born children, thereby providing them derivative citizenship through him.  They then would be cared for properly.

Of course the father’s death had to occur within state borders or citizenship would not be conveyed to his children.  Death was the factor that triggered the gift of citizenship to them.  Time was the factor that determined when they acquired it.  So time & place were critical, but neither of those two factors have anything to do with what’s natural since calendars and man-made borders are man-made factors, -legal factors, and not natural factors.

Citizenship by death within state borders is just as unnatural as citizenship by birth within national borders.  Both are legal citizenship and do not in any way fall within the category of natural citizenship.  And to describe both accurately one has to phrase them as “citizenship at death, and citizenship at birth”, -not by birth.  Only natural citizens are citizens by birth because it is only conveyed by those to whom one is born.

The President must be born as a natural citizen, not a legal citizen, -not a constitutional citizen, -a statutory citizen, nor a provisional citizen.  Barack Obama was not born as any of those and therefore is not constitutionally qualified to be the President of the United States.

by a.r. nash nov. 2012  obama–nation.com

When Everyone is Wrong, They All Seem to be Right

~why the founding fathers were all natural born citizens

Yesterday was different.  I finally felt done with editing & revising all the hundred plus expositions on citizenship and birth certificates I’ve written, and was in a somewhat different place with a different mental perspective.  That perspective happened to be that of 1787, and with all the dust of controversy having dissipated, I could finally clearly see the presidential eligibility clause through the eyes of its authors.
That was something that I was unable to do previously.  Instead I relied on logic shaped by a plausible and reasonable assumption that I had absorbed from others who had preceded me in examining the controversy of what the presidential eligibility clause really means.

What I saw yesterday, while thinking without any preconceptions, was that a huge factor had always been missing from the logical explanation of what the founders’ thinking was.  What I saw was surprising, and a reversal of what I had read, assumed, and written a dozen times over, and that was the central importance of the present epoch in which they lived, along with  those who populated it.
The huge factor that was missing was the natural importance of the Founding Fathers themselves, -alive and electable, in contrast to imagined future Americans who might seek the office of the President.  I saw the fact that the first qualification for who could be President applied not just to future generations but also to the Founders’ generation as well.
To refresh your memory, the Constitution states;
“No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President;”

It became clear that the language of that first exception did not exclude them because the first thing they would have written would not have been a restriction that excluded themselves, but one that included themselves as the exception.  That restriction of the universal prohibition of “No person”, meant no person was eligible to be President, with the exception of…., and then they inserted the description of what type of citizen would be allowed under the exception, and that description included all of them, which I’ll explain after pointing out that the exception that followed it was an exception to their exception.  In other words; they allowed another exception to the natural born citizen exception, permitting a second class of persons (citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted) to also be an exception to the “No person,” prohibition.

The Founders, all being natural born citizens, left the door open to another class besides the one that they were a part of, and that exception was for those who were naturalized citizens and thus not describable as natural citizens.
That allowance mirrored that for all other elected offices, permitting the candidacy of loyal, tested Americans who were born in a foreign land that they no longer considered to be their home, -America filling that role.  They gave them the respect and dignity that they had earned through a long war and its aftermath, and thus acknowledged them as equals, not inferiors.

I also realized something that surprised me, something that I had never read anyone point out, something completely overlooked, and that was the fact that the limitations on the presidency did not come with one of those for Representatives and Senators, which was a necessary minimum length of time of possessing United States citizenship.  Representatives had to be citizens for at least seven years, Senators for nine years, but Presidents?…zero years!?

The logical explanation for their lack of inserting a minimum number of years was that the presidency was safe principally by the natural born citizenship requirement, and secondarily by the 14 year residency requirement.  Any immigrant who had chosen America as his permanent home, and who had lived through the previous 14 years was very likely (if English speaking, -and more so if an immigrant from England) to be a naturalized citizen already, but even if not naturalized, was just as likely, or more, to be as loyal to America as native citizens, -large numbers of which had been devoted loyalists obedient and subservient to the King of England.

And on top of those two safe-guards was the fact that no one who was a naturalized immigrant or the U.S. born son of an unnaturalized immigrant, had any chance of being a candidate that anyone would vote for to be President.  Only natural native citizens, born and raised in America, stood any chance of election.  Immigrants were viewed and described as foreigners even after naturalization, because their origin and upbringing was foreign (along with their accents no doubt).
The presidential eligibility clause is the oddest clause in the entire Constitution because of the nature of its construction, -what it contains and what it doesn’t contain.  I read that it was kind of shelved until near the end of the long summer in which the Constitution was written, shelved because of the importance of the office of Commander-in-Chief of the national military power, power that could be used as Napoleon later used it, -to make himself Emperor.  They were fully aware of such a potential and that was why they put the power under the auspices of an elected officer, -the President, who could appoint and fire generals and admirals.

Along with allowing immigrant citizens who could never get elected, they added a residency requirement which applied not only to immigrants but also in perpetuity to natural citizens as well, which meant that Americans born abroad were required to have lived in the United States for fourteen years before being eligible to be President.  The question that raises is; “did  they connect in their minds the residency requirement to natural citizens also or only to naturalized citizens?”   The answer is unknown and unknowable.

What I saw from the founders’ perspective was the truth about what they had actually written, and not what I had evolved to presume they had meant.  I had come to presume incorrectly that one had to be “a natural born citizen of the United States”.  I don’t recall when that thought took seed but I know that it came to mind because of the conventional wisdom that explained natural born citizenship as referring to Americans born as citizens of the United States after the ratification of the Declaration of Independence, -as opposed to those born earlier as subjects of the Crown of England.

By that perspective, none of the founding fathers viewed themselves as natural born citizens of the United States (which didn’t exist when they were born) and they therefore had to add a “grandfather clause” to allow for their own eligibility.
But I realized that that perspective would not have been how they saw themselves, -and that that language was incorrect.  They did not require of a President a quality that they themselves did not naturally possess and that is evident in the fact that they didn’t require the President to be a natural born citizen of the United States.  They only required that he be a natural born citizen period, -without adding “of the United States”.

They all were natural born citizens of their home colony, being American natives by birth, born and raised in America and they certainly would have described themselves as such because the alternative would be describing themselves as immigrants and foreigners or naturalized citizens.  So the use of the term “natural born citizen” was in connection to their home land, the commonwealth or colony (state) in which they were born and grew up, and, -in the broader context, the American country comprised of similar English-speaking members of the American world created by descendants and immigrants from Great Britain, but not in reference to the evolving United States which was something that they were still attempting to create.

They had to have realized that if they allowed only the one exception (natural born citizens) -while it would have been adequate and identical in effect to the election result of adding the second exception, (allowing naturalized citizens) it also would have insulted the feelings of all immigrant men who fulfilled the other two requirements of maturity and residency, and no doubt the vast majority of them were men who had rejected life in England under the King and his minions, and embraced life in America with its principles of unalienable human rights, and protected freedoms as Americans.

Since there was no chance of any of them actually being elected President, there was no point in offending them in the name of a non-existent risk of such an American being a secret loyalist supporting the Crown although elected President.  So there was no good reason to not add an exception to the main exception, one to accompany the exception made for themselves and all natural Americans.  That way everyone was happy and everyone was equal and would be judged solely on the merits of what the voters saw in them.  No insult and no risk to nation security.  All citizens (males) were eligible.

A couple other points should be noted also.  They certainly would have put the primary exempted class first in the order of exceptions.  Which they did, and they also would have included themselves in the primary class because filling the office of the President would definitely be all about them in the present, and near future, and secondarily about the extended future.
The second point is that they realized full well that the second class of exceptions, unlike the first, was a finite group whose membership ceased being increased or replaced once the Constitution was ratified.  After June 1788, no more “citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” were coming into this world.  So the class of naturalized citizens eligible to be President at that time was a class that would disappear when the last of them was deceased in about 50 years.

Lastly, it should be recognized that the addition of the second exception for those who were  United States citizens only but not natural born was not written by the Founders to allow themselves to be President, but to allow naturalized Americans to not be and feel excluded from a high prize which would only be won by about .00001 percent of the population (more or less) meaning one in three million, [-today that ratio being 100 times greater].
The Founders were both types of citizens.  They were natural members of the American land of their birth by being fathered by subjects of their home commonwealth.  That membership was converted from belonging to Britain through their membership in their colony, to belonging solely to their state and through it to the union of the American States, making them therefore also citizens of the United States.

While the eligibility of those who were only “citizens of the United States” would self-terminate when all who were naturalized citizens when the Constitution was adopted had died, the eligibility of natural born citizens would continue on in perpetuity, at least until this modern era in which everyone is ignorant of what natural citizenship is, resulting in the election of one who not only was not born as a natural citizen, but also was not born as a 14th Amendment citizen, nor as a statutory citizen.

He was in fact, by the true and original meaning of the 14th Amendment, not born as a citizen of the United States by actual law but merely by an Attorney General’s erroneous administrative opinion based on a deliberately distorted Supreme Court opinion that rejected consideration of the true and original meaning of the words that they were ruling on (the words of the 14th Amendment).

The historical circumstances required in order for Obama to be considered eligible to be President is like a bank vault combination lock with half a dozen numbers that must be set in the proper order.  Or like the 6 steps that the managers of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant had to take in violation of proper procedure which caused the nuclear core to melt down.  Any one of them would have prevented it from happening.  But like a vault combination lock, they all occurred one after another leading to the worst nuclear disaster possible.  A similar American Chernobyl occurred in relation to the Presidency and via a similar error-based process.  Once ignorance replaced insight then the tumblers slowly began lining up leading up to a meltdown of the constitutional rules for selecting a legitimate President.

by a.r. nash nov. 2012  obama–nation.com

The Iron Gate that once protected the Presidency

    ~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 -as long as he was a citizen of one of the states of the union for the prescribed number of years
Everyone who previously had been a subject of one of the colonies became a citizen of their independent sovereign state along with being 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 every citizen who met the requirements could serve in every office and position in the land, -they could be a representative, a Senator, -even President of the Senate, the Chief Justice, or a cabinet or military officer, and it didn’t matter how they acquired their citizenship, -whether naturally or by naturalization, -whether foreign-born or native born.

But without regard to length of citizenship, one could become Commander-in-Chief of the United States military forces and the American President as long as they were a citizen when the Constitution was ratified.
That was how it was because that was how the Constitution made it to be.  But the Constitution had two built-in timers that started ticking from the time it was ratified.  They didn’t pertain to anyone except those few rare individuals who might one day find themselves with the option of seeking the unique office of the President.
One of those timers involved an expiration situation for all of the male, Caucasian, Protestant, English-speaking citizens of America who were alive when the Constitution was ratified.  They, and their children would all be eligible to serve as President.
The timer that started ticking in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified was a biological timer counting down to death.  The gate that closed when it stopped ticking set a barrier on who could become President after the lives of all living eligible American citizens in 1788 had ended.
When they were all deceased, the iron gate closed and no one could become President unless they were born as a natural American citizen.  An era then ended, the era in which acceptable and eligible male citizens could serve as long as they were alive when the Constitution was adopted.  From that point and forward, “no person except a natural born citizen” could be the President & Commander-in-Chief.
So thereafter, the sons of non-citizen immigrants could not be President (because they were not citizens either), just as the US-born sons of foreign royalty, or foreign representatives or foreign visitors could not be President, -along with Native Americans, Gypsies, Asians and American women.

After the Declaration of Independence was ratified  another timer began ticking and the other iron gate began slowly closing on some of those who weren’t U.S. citizens at birth because their foreign immigrant father was not a citizen.  They drew their nationality from him and so, like him, they were not Americans.
That iron gate was a restriction relating to the nationality of the President.  It barred anyone living who wasn’t a citizen when the Constitution was ratified, -or was born to such a one, (a foreigner).

The timer that began ticking in 1776  involved the naturalization of the children of immigrants, -and whether or not they were naturalized before the Constitution was ratified or after.  It stopped ticking in 1788 upon the ratification of the Constitution by the 9th state, -New Hampshire.  Then the first iron gate closed on the presidential eligibility of  men naturalized after the Constitution’s adoption.

So if a foreigner had emigrated to America in 1771 with a one-year old son, and that son, upon turning 18 in winter or spring of 1788, had done what his father had not done, and had become a naturalized American, then he would have been a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was ratified in June 1788.  By the Constitution’s 2nd allowance to its restriction on the presidency,  -the allowance requiring simply United States citizenship, and not natural citizenship, he, like all native colonists born as subjects of the Crown, would one day become eligible to be the President.

But if his younger brother, (born in America in 1771) who turned 18 in 1789, then also became a naturalized United States citizen (via becoming a citizen of his home state) -he would not be eligible to be President ever because he was not a citizen at the time that the Constitution was adopted, nor was he a natural born citizen.   The iron gate had closed for him, barring any possibility to be President.  His older brother would one day be eligible but he never would even though born in the United States.

That would have been due to his father refusing to become an American, -which required swearing to totally reject all previous nationality bonds to his homeland and its government, along with the pledge to bear arms for the United States and bear true faith and allegiance to the United States and its Constitution.
By refusing to become an American, he and his household remained beyond the jurisdiction of the obligations, duties, and privileges possessed only by citizens.  All of those would be open to him, (and eventually his younger minor son) by becoming an American citizen, which would have automatically naturalized his son via his son’s blood connection to a new-citizen father.

But if the father had emigrated to a State like Virginia, his son, -by being born in the Commonwealth of Virginia, -even though born to a foreigner, would have been by law accepted as a Virginian citizen, -a “son of the soil” (and therefore a U.S. citizen) even though not born to a citizen father).
Even though a “son of the soil” would be a citizen, and be qualified to serve in Congress or on the federal bench, he wouldn’t be eligible to be President if born after 1788 because the iron gate had then closed on all who were not born as natural citizens.
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 no more an American than his father.
And it didn’t matter that one or more states granted such a “son of the soil” citizenship.  The Congress did not recognize such citizenship for federal purposes until a case of such a citizen being elected to Congress was settled by Congress in his favor, (but the presidency was always off-limits).
By the federal & state constitutions, the rights of such state citizens were protected, and they continued be eligible for all federal offices with the exception of the office of the President which remained off-limits by its unique restriction.  Being President was neither a civil nor a constitutional right, and only those persons recognized as being natural citizens were eligible after the gate of time had closed on the generations of citizens alive when the Constitution was ratified.

Following a Supreme Court opinion a hundred and ten years later (Wong Kim Ark 1898) 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 national membership (-assumed to be constitutional since the Wong Kim Ark opinion) is newer than the other, while the other is the oldest form of membership in human history, i.e., natural national membership via a father who was a member.
So presidential eligibility boils down to one primary factor, -a factor over which no one has any control, and that is who one’s father was.  Where one was born is not relevant.    Barack Obama Jr. having no control over where his father was born or to which nation he belonged, was himself controlled by the supreme authority of the Constitution.  At least he should have been.
Unfortunately, he and his corrupt party chose to completely ignore the Constitution, so he illegitimately ran for, won, and usurped the office of the President in violation of the clear prohibition of the Constitution which directs that  “NO PERSON” shall be eligible to the office of the President “except a natural born citizen”, which excludes children of foreigners.
A similar type of travesty would be allowing a U.S. born son of Osama bin Laden or Fidel Castro to have command over a nuclear bomber, or a MIRV equipped nuclear submarine or ICBM.  No crew person who is not a natural born American is allowed anywhere near U.S. 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 mistake.  There is no room for subterfuge, 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 and Marines entrusted with that responsibility must also be natural  American citizens, -having no direct foreign connection through foreign parents,-which 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 eligible 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.  For Obama to have authority over the  nuclear forces of the United States is equivalent to giving control of the Pentagon over to a buck private who’s half Russian.  Experience & qualification; both totally lacking.

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 have done everything in their power to insure that he serves another unconstitutional four years.  Future generations and the fiscal solvency of our country be damned.
Unweaned, dependency populism led by a cool popular, confident, laid-back pot-loving dude is preferable.
Having succeeded, we’re doomed to a future even more bankrupt than what we already are facing.    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, but instead his actions and inactions are more likely than not to be bad for constitutional fidelity, rule of law, government transparency, individual initiative, personal & corporate freedom, national fiscal solvency, national energy policy, international relations, 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 clamping on chains of socialist security while robbing the future, -until we find that the track ahead of us is gone and the credit-trestle spanning the gorge where financial solid ground should be is missing. All of that earth (the presumed wealth of the future) was removed in order to shore-up the track we are running on today.
Then, as the whole fiscal house of cards collapses and the pyramid scheme crumbles, as our credit-based-economy balloon deflates, we’ll fall right  into that abyss whose bottom is unknown.

Today’s “leaders” (with enormous assistance from the Federal Reserve) have stuck an IV line into the vein of the future tax-paying public.  Like vampires, they are draining the life-blood out of the body of the American nation of the future.  When that future finally arrives, we no doubt will find that the patient is not only horribly anemic, but may even be comatose.  Better prepare because actual national fiscal responsibility is about the last thing you can reasonably expect from what we call “our government”, -the one that does things it should not do and does not do the necessary things that it should.

by a.r. nash august 2012    obama–nation.com

 

Nations, Citizens, Responsibility, & Natural Law

Mario Apuzzo wrote: “So if it was not the English common law which controlled the definition of national citizenship, which law was it? The historical record shows that the law of nations became American national law which the U.S. Supreme Court considered as “common law.”

The Supreme Court, being the final arbiter of legal matters, should and does (usually) consult prior authority in forming its opinion.  To do that there must first be some prior authority, and there almost always is.  But sometimes there isn’t, and so what they must consult is merely opinion, and some issues are strictly philosophical so all that legal determination can do is consult opinions by lawyers regarding philosophical issues that are outside the legal realm.

The legal mind sees everything connected to the law through legal eyes.  It is incapable of seeing things as they really are, -they can’t see the forest for the trees because they are completely surrounded by trees.  To see the forest they must move far away, -to a vantage point outside of the legal realm.  But they are not wired to do that because their minds are filled with legal trees.

The very question itself, quoted above, reveals a lack of natural perspective into the reality of the issue.  Understand this: the words “controlled” and “definition” and “which law” should be thrown out completely unless arguing before a judge because they come from a realm that is outside of the real world, the natural world, the world from which the word “natural” is derived.  “Natural” does not come from the Legal realm nor is it defined in that realm.  It comes only from the natural realm.

In the natural realm there is no such thing as control of definitions because definitions do not exist, nor do human laws.  There is only natural relationships and natural laws & principles.  The term CITIZENSHIP is a concept from the Legal realm.  Membership is a reality in the natural realm, describing the connection of families, herds, prides, tribes, and clans, which on a larger scale includes countries and nations.  To be a Citizen is to be something that the legal realm can define, but to be natural is not something that the legal realm defines, -natural things are only described by natural law principles.  So to describe a type of national member which is a native, indigenous member requires spanning the gulf between the legal realm and the natural realm by creating a hybrid concept involving both.

The natural realm is not a part of the legal realm and the legal realm is not a part of the natural realm, but a hybrid combination of the two is needed to describe native members of nations, and that combination involves the use of the term
~natural CITIZEN, or natural born citizen, implying that such a person was born being a citizen via natural inheritance of their parents’ political nature.

There is no controlling authority to define that which requires no defining.  Does anyone need a legal definition of what a child is? (meaning a natural child)  Everyone knows what a child is because a child is a natural thing.  A definition is only needed when the law becomes involved, as in “an adopted child”.  So it is with natural national membership.
If one is a member by birth then that is self-explanatory.  What needs explaining is how non-natural members are made members at birth (via automatic naturalization by law).  Natural membership needs no explanation, nor any law, nor any constitutional clause, nor any SCOTUS opinion, nor any Attorney General Interpretation.  It exists apart and beneath all legal acts & definitions because it exists even in the absence of their existence.

Anyone born as a member of a group is born with a responsibility to help defend it when its survival is threatened.  That responsibility exists apart and beneath all legalisms, such as Allegiance, Obedience, Protection, Subjection, Jurisdiction, none of which speak to the primacy of natural obligation, -the same kind of obligation that a father has in regard to protecting his family.  All of those concepts can be tossed out because they obfuscate the otherwise obvious.  Their origin is not found in natural relationships because the relationship they spring from is not a natural one but one conceived with the sole intent of legitimizing the autocratic rule of Kings.

The Divine Right of Kings makes all subservient to his Royal Highness, his Imperial Majesty and justifies his absolute authority by asserting that total obedience is the just compensation for his protection.  But in a democratic republic, that relationship is turned completely upside down.

It is not the People who owe the rulers obedience, its the rulers that own the people obedience, as in obedience to their foundational charter and the laws based on it, and the rights that they secure.  The government does not bear the responsibility of protection of its “subjects”, instead, “The People” bear the responsibility of protecting the nation and its government via their obligation to serve in its defense, -an obligation with which they are born -if….they are male.

Females are not under that obligation because the males of a society will not require it, nor tolerate it being required.
Hence the true and full meaning of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is revealed.
Subjection involves four areas; 1. Civil Law,  2.  Criminal Law,  3. Political Law,  &  4. Military Law.

Subjection to Military Law is the foundation of nations, -without it they would cease to exist because they would be conquered and destroyed.  While females are under the authority of the other three areas of law, those alone do not make them a part of the primary foundation of nations because they are exempt from military obligation.

They are like a three legged table.  It can stand on its own, but you cannot stand on top of it.  But nations cannot stand without all four legs because without the fourth leg they will topple when push comes to shove.  No nation in history that was populated solely by children, women, and civilians would have survived for very long because without a military sector it would lack the shield and sword vital for national defense.
So it should be understood that the subjection required in the 14th Amendment cannot be imparted by one’s mother, but only by one’s father because one’s mother is not subject.  If one has a foreign mother and an American father then the obligation of national defense is passed to his children and they are born subject (latently) to federal authority.  Their subjection to the authority of the federal government and the military obligation it enforces on behalf of the defense of the nation becomes active at the age of 18.

But if one is born in the U.S. to a non-immigrant alien father (like a tourist or student) then there’s no inheritance of an obligation to defend a nation that is not one’s own.  But if one is an immigrant, then one bears a responsibility to defend and protect the society that is his home, and that responsibility extends to the real-world obligation to serve in the nation’s military service.  That’s why even immigrants must register with the Selective Service if between the ages of 18 and 25.

The 14th Amendment opinion in Wong Kim Ark imposed a new definition of who is subject to the federal authority.  By declaring the children of immigrants to be subject, they were also issuing a de facto ruling that their fathers were also subject because subjection only flows from father to son, -not from mother to son, nor from father to daughter, nor from nothing to something.
That declaration of the subjection of the children of immigrants altered the executive branch’s policy of not viewing immigrants as responsible for national defense by reason of them being foreigners.  It made them, in effect, co-equal to citizens in respect to the responsibility to protect the nation, all while not possessing citizenship rights.

Women were the exact opposite.  They, after passage of the women’s voting rights amendment, then enjoyed the privilege of voting but not the responsibility of national defense.  But immigrant males were, by the 14th Amendment, subject to the full jurisdiction of the federal government (civil, criminal, political, and military) while not possessing the full civil rights of citizens.

This truth is critical to understanding the actual meaning of jurisdiction and how it applies to Barack Obama.  Since his father was not an immigrant, he was not subject to federal jurisdiction, and therefore had no obligation toward American national “defense”, including service in the Army in Vietnam.  So subjection to American authority could not possibly be passed on to his son.

Additionally, full subjection could not be passed from his mother since she was married to a non-immigrant alien and she was not subject either, although that could be viewed differently if they had not been married.  Then the obligation of national defense would fall on his shoulders at age 18 as it does to all permanent residents but not as a 14th Amendment citizen under its original meaning.
Throughout the half of American history preceding the 14th Amendment, her bastard child would have been viewed as either a foreigner or as a stateless person, -never a natural citizen.  He would have needed to be naturalized as an adult in order to become an American because he would have been viewed as the hybrid bastard son of an alien, born outside of Holy Matrimony, legitimized by nothing.
As an “illegitimate” person, he would have been viewed as a less than acceptable member of the nation, having an odious and unnatural status in the environs in which he lived.  No doubt, no such case ever came before a court to determine such a citizenship status because such persons would have sought naturalization as an adult or legitimation via a step-father as a minor.  Or, he may have not cared about his citizenship status if he was illiterate or semi-literate and not politically inclined nor active.  Voting was an irrelevant right to the disinterested, and travel abroad only a pipe dream.

Note:  The executive branch enforces an extra-legal policy of ascribing subjection to its jurisdiction based on its arbitrary authority alone, and not on any law or natural principle or natural responsibility.  It does so in regard to children of parents who are not subject to federal authority, including babies born to foreign visitors, and even consulate officers.  By that bastardized policy it is free to ascribe U.S. citizenship even to children of foreign terrorists and illegals if they happened to be born within U.S. borders.  Any Attorney General or President could end that policy overnight with a mere signature.  It’s not based on law.

Similarly, citizenship acquired at birth by the 14th Amendment could be completely eliminated by simply repealing it.  That fact demonstrates the tenuous nature of such citizenship.  Though it is above the authority of Congress, it is not above the authority of the people.  But what is above all authority is that for which no authority is needed, and that is natural citizenship.  It is not dependent on any law or constitutional clause.  It exists as a primary principle of nature and an intrinsic element of the foundation of all nations.  All fundamental national laws are based on fundamental moral laws and natural or philosophical principles, and by those principles, Barry Obama is not a natural citizen of the United States and is therefore an unconstitutional President.

Visit Mario Apuzzo’s latest treatise on the history of British & American citizenship at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html

It’s enormously informative, historically thorough,
and entirely convincing.  It’s a college course on one page.  It’s only drawback is the conviction that natural law must be combined with human law and royal policy, -requiring that birth location be viewed as a major factor in natural citizenship.  But Natural Law and reason dictate that it is totally irrelevant, as I’ve explained exhaustively in numerous expositions.

by a.r. nash  nov. 2012   obama–nation.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers