Is Obama Jr. a Caucasian Kenyan?

~the enormously significant answer

Mariah Carey is Caucasian.  Vanessa Williams is Caucasian.  Haley Barry is Caucasian.  Barack Obama is Caucasian.  None of them are Negroes.
Who says so?  I say so.  And who has any standing to contest what I say?  No one, unless they have some facts that refute my claim.

What facts might they offer?  They might argue that just because they had a Caucasian parent or grandparent, -that does not make them Caucasian.  To which one must reply that neither does having a Negro parent or grandparent make them Negro.

So if they can’t legitimately be called either of those two possibilities, then what exactly are they and what should they be called?  To what natural group do they belong?

Can the Peach family claim Nectarines belong to it?  Or does the Plum family own that right?  Of course it’s neither.  Nectarines are a combination of both, being a hybrid that belongs to neither group.

Can Murray the Mule be called a natural horse because his father was a horse?  Or can he be called a natural donkey because his mother was a donkey?  Since he is neither of those two he can’t be called by those labels.  One can say that he is neither of the two or that he is both, sharing the nature of both, but one can’t say that he is a natural member of either group because natural horses do not have donkey mothers, nor do natural donkeys have horse fathers.  Instead he is something else.  Something different.

So, cutting to the chase, is Barack Obama a natural Negro or a natural Caucasian?  More importantly is he a natural Kenyan or a natural American?  Or is he neither because he is a hybrid combination of the two, resulting in something different and not natural at all?
Is there such a thing as a natural group of Kenyan-Americans?  Are any hybrid creatures or hybrid people natural members of any group?  How can they be natural members when there is no such natural group to which they could belong?
There is no such thing as a natural mule group because mules are sterile and unable to produce group members.  Similarly, there is no such thing as a natural Kenyan-American group which can reproduce members because their off-spring will be a members of legal groups, -not a natural group .  Kenya does not, or did not, allow dual-citizenship, -just as the United States for over a century (from its inception) did not allow dual-citizenship.
Kenyan hybrids born abroad, (like Obama Jr.) at the age of adulthood must swear sole and undivided allegiance to Kenya or their citizenship (provisional) expires.

Barack Obama allowed his provisional Kenyan citizenship to expire, while assuming that his supposed American citizenship would be preferable.  But there is no law by which he ever possessed American citizenship.  Nor is there any constitutionally legitimate Supreme Court opinion which allows U.S. citizenship for off-spring born on U.S. soil to foreign Visa-card visitors.   But he chose to have it both ways in a sense since he labeled himself for perhaps two decades as being Kenyan-born, and thus assumedly a naturalized Kenyan-American, when it fact he knew that he was neither.

In his Marxism-steeped mind the truth is what you choose it to be, it’s all relative to your needs, to your most beneficial narrative.  He practiced that approach to his utmost benefit when it came to not explaining the Fast & Furious operation (claiming “executive privilege” -as in privilege to hid the truth and cover your own political behind) as well as Benghazi-gate and the cover-up of what actually happened, why it happened, and why it was lied about.

But there is an opinion offered by the Attorney General in 1898 (John William Griggs) which opined that the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment in the Wong case of that year to mean that children of all foreigners born in the U.S. -except those with foreign ambassador or military attache credentials, are U.S. citizens at birth.  But that is not what the court asserted.  They instead asserted, contrary to the entire previous history of the republic, that children of immigrants, (like children of slaves), -being members of American society, are therefore subject to the full authority of Washington just as are children of citizens.  That meant that they fulfilled the requirements of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause.

What did that opinion imply?  They didn’t say explicitly, but anyone who knows something important about history knows the result.  It was that the subjection that was imputed to the children of immigrants was also covertly imputed to their fathers (through whom subjection descends).
What was the consequence of that covert arcane implication?  It was that foreign immigrants, like citizens, became subject to the most fundamental responsibility of members of American society, and that responsibility is to defend the nation if called.  They, after that, were no longer exempt from the draft.  They had to fight for the nation that was not their own because they were members of a society that was theirs and for which they shared the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend.

Obama Sr. was never subject to that responsibility and thus neither was his son through him.  Their responsibility was toward the father’s nation of Kenya.  Obama Sr. was obligated to help defend Kenya if it was invaded by a neighboring state, and that obligation was a latent responsibility of his son as well, which would come to fruition if he choose Kenya as his one and only nationality as an adult.

Did he also latently bear responsibility toward the United States through his mother?
Not exactly.  Mothers are not subject to that responsibility because they are not and have never been the warriors and defenders of any group or nation.  Rather, he bore responsibility because of two other things.  The first was that the INS assumed that he was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the U.S., and that assumption was based on the opinion of the A.G. Griggs who didn’t take into account the yet unforeseen possibility of wide-spread cases of children born to illegal immigrants, nor the possibility of children born to transient visiting foreigners.
Thus his simplistic opinion was given or understood to state that birth in the United States conferred citizenship to children of foreigners, -all foreigners, even if they were not legal immigrants, and even though the Supreme Court had never rendered such a simplistic opinion, having limited its ruling solely to children of immigrants domiciled in America.

So, was Barack Obama born as a natural Kenyan or a natural American?  The answer of course is “neither”.    Does it make any difference that he was not a natural American?  It only makes a difference in the rarest of circumstances, -so rare in fact that such a case is only one in 315 million.

There are hundreds, thousands, millions of positions in which children of immigrants can serve their country at the federal level, and many million more at the state and local levels.  But there are three positions in which neither children of immigrants, -nor children of visiting aliens, can serve their (or our) country.  One is any position related to the protection, control, servicing, and launch of nuclear bombs.  Another is in the Secret Service detail of guarding and protecting the President and Vice-President of the United States.  The third one is the office of the President himself, -along with the Vice-President.

Any citizen of the United States, including naturalized citizens, their children, and even native-born children of immigrants, can serve in Congress and as federal judges.  They can even serve as the President of the Senate, and the Chief of the Supreme Court, but none of them are allowed to serve as President of the nation and Chief of its federal and military and nuclear command.  Only natural Americans are allowed to occupy that position because it entails too much power to entrust to one whose loyalty to America can be questioned due to the possible influence of a foreign father who may have raised his child to love and be loyal to a foreign power (like the King of England and the nation of Great Britain).
That risk of a divided or disloyal heart was removed from contaminating the office of the President by the authors of the Constitution when they mandated that “NO PERSON, except a natural born American, shall be eligible to the office of the President” -but instead of using the word American they used the word citizen, which is its equal.  One can’t be one without being the other.

So, being as Obama Jr. is not and can never be a natural American since natural Americans, like horses and donkeys, only have parents with the same nature, whether biological or political, and nationality hybrids are no more natural than mules, he is therefore an unconstitutional charlatan illegitimately sworn in and occupying the office of the President in direct and open violation of the United States Constitution.

Clearly it is a travesty that a non-natural presumed American citizen is knowingly,  subversively, and autocratically in hypocritical and on-going violation of our Constitution, but it’s even worse than that because he is not a legitimate hybrid-citizen of the U.S. since by U.S. statutes he was not even an American at all via birth within U.S. borders (since his father was not an immigrant) but he also was not an American via his mother because the laws of the last century that grant U.S. citizenship to children of American mothers only pertains to children born outside of the United States, -not inside.
So if he wasn’t born with traditional natural citizenship via American parents, nor did he obtain hybrid non-derivative  14th Amendment citizenship through native-birth to an immigrant father, nor provisional citizenship via foreign birth to an American mother, nor naturalized citizenship as an adult, then exactly what is the nature of his supposed citizenship?  It is citizenship that  federal policy presumes to exist based solely on the force of the simplistic opinion rendered by the unelected Attorney General in 1898, carrying only the tenuous authority of the executive branch since it does not comport with anything ever passed by the United States Congress nor “settled” by the Supreme Court.

Being as “executive orders” are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, as well as the fact that the Attorney General is not the President, nothing that he dictates as official policy can be called “the official law of the land” (even though it carries the force of law) since he does not possess law-making authority over citizenship.  Only Congress can make citizenship law.

In other words, he is presumed to be an American solely because of one man’s opinion, -an opinion which failed to provide any guidelines as to what its limits were.  Barack Obama (and his Attorney General) possess the authority to declare himself to not be an American citizen due to lack of any controlling legal authority that constitutionally, legislatively, or judicially grants him that status.

Congress lacks the constitutional authority to legislate citizenship law over any but those born with an American parent and a foreign parent outside of the United States, as well as those who wish to undergo naturalization.  [It also lacks any authority to control immigration, which constitutionally remains a state matter since it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.]

The 14th Amendment of 1868 bestowed citizenship rights to all born in the U.S. who are born subject to full federal authority, meaning the children and descentants of imported slaves.  The Supreme Court in the 1898 Wong case then extended the meaning of the Amendment to include children of immigrants, but nothing in legislative nor judicial history has extended citizenship to children of foreign visitors even if born on U.S. soil.

If Obama Sr. was an American and his wife was a Kenyan woman, then Obama Jr. would be a legitimate statutory American citizen no matter where he was born.  Likewise if Kenyan Obama Sr. was a U.S. immigrant; -but neither of those two possibilities were the case with Jr.   Contrary-wise, if Jr. had been born in Panama, like John McCain, he not only would be recognized as not eligible to be President, but would not even be an American if it were not for INS statutes passed within the last 75 years to allow American mothers to pass their citizenship to children with foreign fathers.    No one whose citizenship depends on statutes passed by Congress is eligible to be the President.  The Presidential eligibility clause was written before Congress existed, nor any laws passed by it.

American mothers can only pass their citizenship to children of a foreign father if they are born abroad, assumedly in his country.  That is the only provision in U.S. law by which a mother’s citizenship is inherited by her children.  Congress never thought about the situation of a domestic birth because the assumption was held by all that mere birth in the U.S. conferred citizenship, but that is a completely erroneous and ignorant view based on the universal assumption that the interpretation of the Attorney General’s opinion in 1898 got it right.

Either the Justice Department’s interpretation of his interpretation of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment was wrong, or else his interpretation itself was wrong.  Having never read it, I can’t offer my interpretation of what it said.  But I read a cable from the U.S. embassy in Italy asking about the citizenship of one born in the U.S. to Italian parents visiting America, wondering if the child must be considered to be an American citizen.  The assumption sent in reply was that he must.  It was dated 1901.

So the new erroneous opinion was already being universally disseminated at the beginning of the last century.  If the correct opinion had been disseminated, then Barack Obama Jr. would never have been elected President, and millions of people born here to illegal foreigners would not be considered to possess U.S. citizenship either.

It’s like Fate rolled the dice and we came up losers when A.G. Griggs made his huge mistake.  Such is the history of many travesties inflicted upon our nation by  misinformed, uninformed, unwise, simplistic, disinterested, and self-serving dunces and corruptocrats who managed to get elected or appointed to federal office.  That is the nature of the entire federal bureaucracy and the lobbying groups that provide them enormous salaries and a revolving door.

Such situations almost never get resolved or corrected.  But sometimes they do, as via the horrors of the Civil War, followed by the 14th Amendment, and the Civil Rights laws a century apart, and the recent appeals court unanimous ruling that Obama’s “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional and therefore null and void.  But the pattern is usually like ten steps forward (toward statist, totalitarian federal authority) and one step back.

Can we hope that some court will be equally fearless when it comes to ruling on Obama’s presidential eligibility?  Not based on the pattern that his thugs have managed to perpetuate so far.  No judge, even the Chief Justice, have stood up to their threats and/or bribery, caving-in in astonishingly illogical, illegitimate, and transparently influenced manners.

We’ve gotten much unconstitutional legislation from congress (including obumercare), many unconstitutional rulings by five supreme court justices, and an unconstitutional president presiding over the whole corrupt unconstitutional mess.  Other than that we’re doing OK, (at least some states are) except for the fact that Washington D.C. is a hypocritical self-perpetuating moral septic tank and we have a national debt that will crush our future, with no credible change seen coming anywhere on the horizon.  Don’t hold your breath waiting for Washington to do the right thing.

Have a nice day!

~     ~     ~     ~     ~
The comments by Lord Coke fail to get to the heart of the matter because he apparently was not conscious of what the core or fundamental issue was.  The issue determining subjecthood was not ligeance or one’s loyalty, -they were merely symptoms of something more fundamental, and that was *blood* and the inheritance it passes-on to the next generation.

That inheritance is one of social and national responsibility to assist in the preservation of the society and nation.  One born to a member of a society is bound by blood inheritance with the same responsibility as his father to defend his homeland.  That obligation binds him to obedience to the powers that conduct the defense of the nation, that being the King and his subordinates.

One born to a foreigner is under no such obligation unless his father has taken up residence within the land and become a member of its society.  Then domicile is a preeminent issue.  Transient foreigners owe no loyalty to defend a nation not their own and a society of which they are not a part.

But via immigration, one joins that nation and is obligated to help defend it when it’s threatened.

Until one understands the primary issues underlying citizenship and subjecthood, one is not grounded in the fundamental natural law principles that define them.  It all goes back to natural groups and inherent responsibility to defend one’s group.  All group membership includes that responsibility as its primary obligation.
That was the reasonable and natural reason why women were not viewed as equal citizens as men.  They were not obligated to shed their blood to defend their homeland.  Without that primary citizenship responsibility, they also were not seen as responsible to determine the leadership of the society and nation via voting.  If they were not created to fulfill the first responsibility, then they could be viewed as rightly excluded from the second, at least until after the war to end all wars.

by a.r. nash  Jan 2013   obama–nation.com

About these ads

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

20 Responses to Is Obama Jr. a Caucasian Kenyan?

  1. arnash says:

    Quoting Lord Coke- Calvin’s case (the benchmark 17th century English common law cited by the Wong Kim Ark court)….

    “And it is to be observed, that it is neither the climate nor the soil, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born,…any PLACE within the king’s dominions without obedience can NEVER produce a natural subject….
    that issue (off-spring) is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soil, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject.
    ~ ~ ~

    The comments by Lord Coke fail to get to the heart of the matter because he apparently was not conscious of what the core or fundamental issue was. The issue determining subjecthood was not ligeance or one’s loyalty, -they were merely symptoms of something more fundamental, and that was *blood* and the inheritance it passes-on to the next generation.

    That inheritance is one of social and national responsibility to assist in the preservation of the society and nation. One born to a member of a society is bound by blood inheritance with the same responsibility as his father to defend his homeland. That obligation binds him to obedience to the powers that conduct the defense of the nation, that being the King and his subordinates.

    One born to a foreigner is under no such obligation unless his father has taken up residence within the land and become a member of its society. Then domicile is a preeminent issue. Transient foreigners owe no loyalty to defend a nation not their own and a society of which they are not a part.

    But via immigration, one joins that nation and is obligated to help defend it when it’s threatened.

    Until one understands the primary issues underlying citizenship and subjecthood, one is not grounded in the fundamental natural law principles that define them.
    It all goes back to natural groups and inherent responsibility to defend one’s group. All group membership includes that responsibility as its primary obligation.
    That was the reasonable and natural reason why women were not viewed as equal citizens as men. They were not obligated to shed their blood to defend their homeland. Without that primary citizenship responsibility, they also were not seen as responsible to determine the leadership of the society and nation via voting. If they were not created to fulfill the first responsibility, then they could be viewed as rightly excluded from the second, at least until after the war to end all wars.

  2. The Magic M 2 says:

    > nationality hybrids are no more natural than mules

    The difference being that no donkey can claim the son of two horses to be a mule, whereas North Korea can claim any US citizen to be its citizen, therefore making any child of said US citizen a dual citizen at birth and therefore, according to your view, ineligible.

    • arnash says:

      North Korea has laws in case you didn’t realize that fact. It cannot do anything under the sun that can be imagined because it is very big on following the rules, meaning its own laws.

      But if they did hypothetically grant citizenship to a non-North Korean, what does that have to do with who a person’s parents are and were when born, and what their inherited nationality was? Dual-citizenship is not a test of who is a natural American, it is a symptom of who is not. That should be clear to a fifth grader. A foreign parent will invariably result in a child having dual-citizenship. Two parents of the same nation will unavoidably result in a child being a natural citizen will only one nationality, -which is the only natural pattern.

  3. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “But there is no law by which he ever possessed American citizenship.”

    What do you mean there is no law by which he ever possessed American citizenship? He was born in Hawaii and every child born in the USA is a US citizen (and a Natural Born US citizen at that).

    • arnash says:

      You quote one sentence, as if that was the only one I wrote. What about everything else? Where are all of your questions disputing all the other points that were just as damning against Obama’s eligibility? You ask no other questions because you have no answer to all the other points, but you think that you know American tradition, and that it must surely be based on American law, but in fact American tradition is merely a false conception stuck in minds like yours and has nothing at all to do with reality.

      If you were half as smart as you think you are then you would have taken note of the use of the word “LAW”, as opposed to presumption. The exposition explains the answer to your question quite clearly, as do dozens of others of the expositions I’ve posted here.
      Obama is not a citizen via the 14th Amendment, nor a citizen via the supreme court opinion expanding its meaning, nor is he a citizen by any law of Congress because, as I explained crystal clearly, the statutes that allow American mother’s citizenship to be inherited by their children are written describing only birth situations outside of the United States. So if Obama was born in Kenya as he claims, oops, he no longer claims that, but claims a Hawaiian birth place, -then that would exclude him from inheriting his mother’s citizenship since the statutes don’t cover domestic births to foreign fathers.

      Since the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court opinion of 1898 only provide citizenship for children of immigrants, that means Obama is not a citizen through his father either, even if born in the Lincoln bedroom. Hence he is not and never has been a U.S. citizen by LAW. He is merely a presumed citizen by administrative policy based on an erroneous interpretation of the SCOTUS opinion by John Griggs, Attorney General 1898-1901. That opinion is not U.S. law even though it is treated as being official government policy.

      • notaxj says:

        If you were to read the dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark, it is clear Chief Justice Fuller did not agree with the majority opinion in that case as it would make any child born in the USA eligible to run as President provided that the person was not the offspring of diplomats or an invading army.

        [reply I don't accept the falsehood that the majority opinion claimed that all persons born in the U.S. are natural Americans and eligible to be President with the two noted exceptions. It's opinion was strictly limited to the case as hand, which was where or not Wong was a citizen of the United States or a foreigner. No reference to natural citizenship was made. Hence your claim is false.
        That doesn't mean that opinions or assumptions weren't stated in the endlessly long and rambling majority opinion which might state or imply such a thing, but those ramblings are not an element of the actual majority opinion.]

        The most recent Supreme Court Case regarding citizenship was Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 423-424 (1998).

        Both Scalia and Thomas concurred in writing: “The Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’” When one is born “in” the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States that person becomes a citizen “at birth,” that is, “becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 523 U.S. at 461, citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 702.

        [reply: No one born in the U.S. to a foreign father is a natural American even though granted citizenship from birth. No one who "becomes at once" a citizen is a natural citizen, nor eligible to be President. They are adopted citizens, granted automatic naturalization at birth because citizenship is something to which they have no right. Whereas natural citizens do not "become" citizens; they are citizens by nature, just as a lion cub is a lion by nature. It does not "become at once" a lion upon exist from the womb.
        Any citizen who became a citizen by law, amendment, or scotus opinion is ineligible to be President because such a citizen is a Legal citizen and not a natural citizen. They are a citizen by permission, not by parentage; by native-birth, and not by nature; -by national borders, and not by blood. Government cannot make natural citizens; only citizen parents can do that.]

        However, I would not expect someone who uses the term “Caucasian Kenyan” to believe any thing that is contrary to their belief and makes them a birther.

        [That juvenile utterance reveals the real you. Which is someone that did not read a single line of the exposition other than the title. You are a pathetic accessory to an unconstitutional criminal occupying the Presidency. Your mind is as closed as the vault door at Fort Knox.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Here are the actual words of the Wong Kim Ark case:

        “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural born-subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.[or the child of a non-residing alien]

        REPLY:
        [It’s vitally important to take note of the presence of a word that has a far broader meaning than Obama’s eligibility supporters are inclined to admit, the word being: “residing”. If a French couple sails for England in the morning, the wife prematurely delivers a baby in the evening, and they return to France the next day (or choose a neighboring state as the example), they would never be said to have been residing in England, because residing means living, as in being domiciled for a long term or permanently. If they left England’s shores a week later, or a month later, they still would not be said to have been residing there because that nation was not their residence. One only resides in their own residence, not in a place of temporary, transient visitation.
        That fact renders the subsequent statement false when he used the word “every” (child) -with the two usual exceptions (which always fail to mention the third exception thanks to intellectual laziness).

        Another very important point is that there was absolutely no point in adding the adjective “natural” to the term “born subject” since the issue was not the origin of one’s subjecthood, but whether or not one was or was not a subject. The point was that one became a subject by living in England under the rules and authorities of England, including foremost of all, -his Royal Majesty. The children born in the King’s domain to a father under the King’s authority was the King’s subject, but NOT his “natural” subject. They were alien born-subjects instead. Meaning they were literally alien subjects because they were alien born. Had they been foreign born then they would not be subjects at all. But if they had been foreign born and their father was a natural subject of the king then they would be his subjects also via patrilineal inheritance of the father’s nationality and subjection. This is all very elementary.
        ~ ~ ~ ~
        III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

        [REPLY:
        The second half of that claim is utterly false, -or worse, a lie. No feudal rule of citizenship existed in "the United States", nor in most, if not nearly all of the States with the exception of Virginia which allowed "son of the soil" citizenship for children of her immigrants. In the States of the new union, the citizenship of children of foreigners was determined solely by State Constitution, -no by an imperial practice fashioned to produce obedient subjects.
        There were no subjects in America. Men were members of a sovereign tribe of citizens with whom ultimate authority rested, and by the laws they passed and the Constitutions they wrote, membership was only obtained naturally or by naturalization.
        If a father naturalized, they by nature his children became what he had become because they were of and from him and could not be something different. As for the central government, it allowed jus soli citizenship not ever. Federal citizenship existed only for those born on federal land and not in any state, so to claim that jus soli citizenship "prevailed under the Constitution as originally established" is an utter falsehood.
        The jus soli citizens of states like Virginia (if there were others) would not be eligible under the national Constitution to serve as President because of birth to a foreigner, even though they would possess United States citizenship.] ~ ~ ~

        As you can see, that clearly says that every child born in England, or the US Colonies, or the early states, or UNDER THE CONSTITUTION was Natural Born, except for the children of foreign diplomats and invaders. The minority opinion was the losing opinion, and the minority opinion is always the losing opinion. In this case it lost badly, with only two votes to six in the majority (one justice not voting).

        [REPLY: It is juvenile emotional logic to imply that truth is determined by majority opinion. If that opinion was unanimous, it would still be false because it is built on a false premise, as is your statement that "that clearly says..." when it does not "clearly" state that jus soli children are natural born citizens. All it does is imply that if A = B, and B = C, then A = C. The problem is not with that formula but with a half-ass distortion of the terms used in it.
        The "A" under imperial common law is a subject (an alien born subject in fact, which does not equal a natural born subject). With "B" being the equating of the laws of the free and united States with the feudal common law policy of imperial Britain (a false comparison) thus it does not followed that "A" (a subject of Britain) can be equated with "C" -a natural born citizen in America.

        It is true that a natural born subject of Britain is analogous to a natural born citizen of the United States as concerning the source of their nationality (their father), but what is false is that bastardizing the language by labeling alien born subjects as natural born subjects in order to protect their rights, privileges, and standing in British society, did in fact actually make them natural subjects.] ~ ~ ~
        And that is what numerous courts have all agreed that the Wong Kim Ark case ruled.

        [REPLY: WOW! What a Grand Canyon leap you just made there. But in reality your logic doesn't make it to the other side since you falsely injected the word "ruled", even though you know full well that it is absolutely inappropriate. They included no such imaginary ruling, and that's why you didn't and couldn't quote it. They never wrote it so you can't quote it. Their majority opinion only covered the issue at hand. Was Wong a U.S. citizen or was he a foreigner? Nothing else.
        No meandering presumptuous, baseless, opinions found in the the background investigation for their final opinion is a part of United States law. It's all dicta.]

        The words are clear [what words? In the final majority Wong opinion? "The words" don't exist!] and ALL the courts agree, they say that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN.

        [REPLY: By what principle? There is no principle behind such a view. If there actually were a principle then it would naturally include children of foreign diplomats, they needing an exception to be made in their case. But since there is no principle, anything can be claimed, and our stupid executive branch does just that by claiming that even children of foreign consuls are American citizens -based on nothing in any law or amendment ever passed.
        It is based 100% on nothing but the policy put into place by Attorney General Griggs in 1898. That policy is treated as though it is official United States law, but it is nothing more than a policy that could be changed overnight without any consultation nor legislation nor adjudication.

        Nor is that view based on the 14th Amendment because it requires that they be born subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government which is only the case regarding children of members of American society, i.e. citizens and immigrants. Only they can be required to defend the nation, -not foreign diplomats nor foreign visitors. No one who is not subject to U.S. authority can father a child in wedlock who is subject. But residency can make such a child subject because it makes him a member of American society if here legally. He thus would have to register with Selective Service as age 18 even though not a U.S. citizen.

        For example:
        Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

        “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

        Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

        “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

        Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

        “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

        And the following rulings have related specifically to Obama:

        Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

        Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

        Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

        Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born int he United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

        Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

        Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

        Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”

        Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case.”

        And this one was about john McCain:

        Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency….”

        [REPLY: Clearly, they’ve all drunk from the same Kool-Aid of consensus opinion and conventional wisdom without knowing the facts, or knowing the principle central to the issue of natural citizenship. Nor were they knowledgeable about the Constitutions of the sovereign states that created the Union.

        The entire status quo view is based on false assumptions elevated to unimpeachable authority by men in the judiciary who were too busy to get to the bottom of the issue, and took the easy road instead by just accepting what others had said before them. But if God himself were to tell you that Native Americans are Indians, he would be wrong, (like you) in assuming therefore that they actually are Indians, (being as Indians only come from India).
        What you see in all of those court opinions is nothing more than evidence of how human fallibility can eventually become deeply entrenched institutionalized error.
        People, including judges, always go with conventional wisdom, as did the British Admiralty when someone discovered that citrus juice could cure scurvy. Conventional wisdom said otherwise, and so they refused to added limes to the menu aboard British ships for another two hundred years, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of British sailors due to vitamin C deficiency.
        Today I saw a survey that found that only 1% of young people felt it very likely that their generation would not be better off thant their parents’. That in the face of a national debt that will be over 20 Trillion dollars by the time Obama leaves office, with over 80 Trillion in unfunded entitlements. Clearly, 99% of the people, (like 99% of judges) can be wrong.
        Like the pronunciation of the word “culinary”, which I’ve never yet heard pronounced correctly by anyone except the one person that pointed out everyone’s error on the Letterman show -Kelsey Grammar. Everyone can be wrong all the time about some things, and in the case of the lock-step judiciary, it is the eligibility issue.
        Human authority means nothing. It’s completely fallible, and likely to be stubborn. Facts mean everything. Those who don’t have them are ignorant. Those who don’t want them are traitor’s to Truth, and the divine calling to seek the truth no matter what. Without discovery of the truth, justice cannot be done.

        Fiat justitia ruat caelum. “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

  4. smrstrauss says:

    RE: “Since the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court opinion of 1898 only provide citizenship for children of immigrants…”

    Answer: Who told you that? It is wrong. The 14th Amendment and the US Supreme Court ruling both apply to the children of all the people in the USA, both citizens and immigrants, and in fact the 14th Amendment was written to make slaves into citizens.

    • arnash says:

      You are both right and wrong simultaneously. You are correct regarding the citizenship of immigrants and the 14th Amendment, but incorrect regarding “children of all the people in the USA”. “All” means absolutely everyone, but that is false because certain children were and still are excluded. Indian children no longer are, but children of transient foreigners definitely are excluded by the actual meaning of the amendment and the Wong opinion. They are ex-cluded because they are not in-cluded by either, since they are not children of immigrants. Transients are not subject to the federal authority that covers citizens and immigrants, hence their children are not subject either.

      But it’s true that that is not the official policy of the executive branch since it, in its ignorance, declares that even children of foreign consuls are Americans just by their mother giving birth here, but if you bet your life that you can find such a policy in any congressional statute, then you would die.

      You are also correct in faulting the arrangement of my words since I put the word “only” in the wrong context. Ambiguity! I should have written that the amendment’s grant of citizenship to foreigners *only* applied to immigrants and not transients. By writing “only immigrants” I meant only foreigners who were actual immigrants and not merely transients or illegal immigrants.

      Your most regretable error though is far worse and of an enormously important fundamental nature. You wrote, but perhaps did not techically mean; “The 14th Amendment and the US Supreme Court ruling both apply to the children of all the people in the USA, both citizens and immigrants.”

      I hope you do not fail to grasp that you should not have included children of citizens as being affected by the amendment and scotus opinion. Nothing affects their citizenship because it is natural and beyond the scope of government. It remains unaltered in any way. The amendment describes American children because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, but the purpose and effect of the amendment has nothing to do with them because their citizenship is not dependent on it nor altered by it in any way.

      Children of (married) citizens (plural) not born in the United States are also subject to federal authority but where they are born is irrelevant and not something subject to the power of Congress except regarding making rules to insure the recognition of their unalienable right to inherited American citizenship.

      The citizenship of children of citizens is not granted by the amendment nor WKA because it is automatic, -made possible naturally. That’s how natural citizens are created. But children with foreign parents or one foreign parent are not natural Americans and they therefore required the assistance of law to provide them citizenship, including citizenship from birth. Whereas natural citizens do not obtain citizenship at birth as the automatically-naturalized children of one or two foreign immigrant parents do. Citizenship is not something natural Americans possess. They are Americans by nature. It’s something that they are, not something that they have.

      No person, except a natural American is eligible to be President. All persons possessing legal U.S. citizenship are not eligible because they are not natural Americans.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: “children of transient foreigners definitely are excluded..”

        Nuts they are. EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen regardless of the citizenship of one or even two parents, except for the children of foreign diplomats, and there is nothing in the Constitution or the Wong Kim Ark ruling that specifies that the parents must reside for any period of time.

        [REPLY: Your grasp of the issue is extremely deficient. Not only is every child born in the USA not a natural citizen, but many are not even 14th Amendment citizens because they were not born subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government. You must be an alien who lives abroad and has never had to register with Selective Service, nor ever served in the military due to being drafted or else you would comprehend the truth about the full authority of the government over those who live here. No woman who doesn't live here can give birth to a child that is subject to our American government at birth. Her child is an alien by actual US law even though it is considered to possess US citizenship by official US policy. Apparently you can't avoid confusing the two.

        Your point about the Constitution and WKA not mentioning any specific residency period is a very juvenile kind of logic since natural citizenship does not require birth nor residency in the United States, but WKA citizenship absolutely requires parental residency. Wong was deemed to be an American because his parents were immigrants, -not visitors.
        That opinion is limited solely to the circumstances of Wong's case, which was birth to immigrants. Any court opinion that has ascribed citizenship to off-spring of visitors is in violation of the Wong opinion because basing such a ruling on it is a travesty against it and the narrow limitations with which it dealt.

        Your extensive listing of bastardized court opinions does not advance your baseless claim because they are NOT based on the Wong opinion but on the interpretation of it by the lame-brain John Griggs who wrote the official government policy position to be adopted following the Wong opinion. If you don't like hearing that fact, then disprove it. Otherwise, wise-up. The facts are the facts, and you'd learn them if you read more.]

        “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

        ALL born are citizens of the USA. The term “reside” only refers to the citizenship of the states, and since you can move around among the states they have the right to set residence requirements before you can vote in state elections, meaning citizenship in the state. But there is NO mention of residence requirements for US-born children to become US Citizens, and there never has been any under any law. IF you are born in the USA and your parents were not foreign diplomats, even if the mother stayed here for an hour or less, you are a US citizen. And the meaning of Natural Born really does come from the common law, as both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and historical research shows, and it refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents. Hence every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US citizen.

        [REPLY: Are you drunk or mentally defective? You quote the word "reside" in relationship to the 14th Amendment when that is not what it was in reference to. It was in reference to a statement in the Wong dicta that you started off your prior comments by quoting:
        “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England...aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England,...".

        Residence of the parents was required in Britain and the American colonies before a child born to a foreigner would be considered to be a citizen or subject of a colony or state. That is what "residing" means. Read my previous response again. Residing does not mean existing. And to repeat so it will sink into your thick skull; perhaps no state but Virginia recognized children of foreigners as being citizens. The father had to first renounce all allegiance to his homeland's government before he could swear allegiance to his new homeland. Only after becoming an American would his children be recognized as Americans.

        Tucker is right, and you are wrong:
        "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, -or those born within the state, and aliens, -or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration." ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

        REPLY: What is it about the word "might" that you don't understand? You utterly fail to grasp that it includes the concept that the statement might also not be accepted as valid from a different stand-point, that being a technical one which differentiates between the 99% of whom the general statement is true, and the 1% of which it is not true.

        General statements might generally be viewed as accurate, but do you comprehend where the devil is? He's in the details. What details? The ones that include the white-rhino-rare case of a woman from abroad giving birth in America during a visit. Such a possibility was so rare as to be out-of-sight; out-of-mind, and thus never given any thought or ever included in general observations and assumptions.
        The general observation was that people born in America were born to Americans or immigrants. Who gives birth here and yet doesn't even live here? If this was 1790, the answer would be "no one". Hence the assumption that all people born here (meaning Virginia or any other state with it's same "son-of-the-soil" provision for children of immigrants) must be citizens from birth. But that ignorant general observation is completely oblivious to the principle by which citizenship is determined. It is like saying that babies are human because they were human-born, when that is false. Elephants could give birth to Wooly Mammoths via the human practice of artificial insemination, as can humans give birth to a child that is not of the mother, i.e. the surrogate mother, but of another mother and a sperm donor unknown to the surrogate.
        Similarly, land and borders, just because they are extant coincidentally to almost all births, do not produce natural citizens. They are not related to the principle that determines membership in the national group. It is the membership of the parents that the child inherits that makes him or her a member of the same family, the same tribe, the same state or nation. When or if you ever have a child it will come into this world with your nationality no matter where it is born if you and your spouse are both citizens. That's natural and always has been.

        Adoption (membership by law) is never natural, nor is citizenship-by-law natural. Everyone whose citizenship is grounded in national law is ineligible to be President because their citizenship is not natural. If you want to dispute something, I beg you to dispute that point. Since you can't, why not get some legal heavy weight on your side to attempt it for you? He too will fail because natural citizenship is outside of his expertise being as it is not derived from Law but from Nature and Nature's God. No government can make a natural citizen. Only citizen parents can. All others are merely legal citizens who possess citizenship as a grant, a gift, an adoption into the nation's family of natural citizens. You and those who cling to your view, determinedly espouse the false view that the words "natural born citizen" is in fact a term of art when that in fact is false. Constitutional interpretation's first rule is that all words are to be given their common meaning unless they have no common meaning, but natural certainly does, as does born. "Citizen" is beyond contestation, so you balance the entire edifice of Obama's legitimacy on the word "natural", and that is the one word that cannot be found in law because it is from nature and not law. "Native-born" is from the legal realm because it relates to sovereign boundaries, and that is why it is used by the CIS to describe and differentiate 14th Amendment citizens from natural born citizens. You can see both terms in print together on their own website if they haven't tried to hide it again like they did the first time that I made it known among the "birther" community.

        "...by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens;" Understand this, birthright is the right of inheritance and nothing else. It is not connected to anything but blood relationship, -and a legitimate one at that. Illegitimate children were not entitled to the birthright of inheritance because they were conceived and born outside of the legitimate institution of marriage, sanctified by the Church and the State. It didn't matter if they were born in the master's bed. Place of birth is irrelevant to birthright. Only parentage is related to birthright, and the 98% of state residents (citizens all) were the natural source of new citizens via birthright inheritance of their citizenship.

        Just ask yourself: Children born in Japan; are they Japanese because they are born in Japan or because they are born to Japanese parents? Probably 99.5% of births are to Japanese parents, so in essence there is no difference between the two distinctions. That is almost how it was in America and so the result was the conflating of the two different distinction. But that error, even if embraced by everyone, is based on a misconception and an ignorance as to the origin of natural citizenship.]

  5. arnash says:

    King Obama’s NLRB Betrayal of the U.S. Constitution

    by Adrien Nash

    Obama’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, like his purported American citizenship, were not legitimized by actual American Law. He made them unconstitutionally while the Senate was in session and not made (as required by the Constitution) between its two sessions when Senators would journey home. The weight of the entire legal structure of the United States federal government was put behind an asinine, transparently false, stupid, perverted and disingenuous explanation that it took to court to defend Obama’s lawless acts.

    His many corrupt legal minds, -from the best law colleges, prostituted what little integrity they may have still had by arguing (lying) that the Constitution’s requirement that recess appointments are allowed only when vacancies “happen” while the Senate is in recess, actually means that all vacancies that “happen to exist” when a recess occurs, (i.e., vacancies that have pre-existed for an indefinite period of time), allow the President to appoint whoever the hell he wants without the required consent of Congress just because the Senate is on a temporary, brief intra-session recess or break.

    The appellate judges found that argument to be absurd, -that the words mean what they mean as understood by common language and cannot be reinterpreted, distorted, twisted, perverted and modeled to fit the Presidents unconstitutional wishes.
    A vacancy that already exists can not be said to have “happened” during the intra-session recess and yet the entire legal power structure of Obama’s corrupt administration argued that the obvious is untrue, -that the naked emperor is actually wearing cloths, -that a dog’s tail is actually a fifth leg if someone claims it to be so. Although that is not treason to the nation it is certainly treason to Reason!
    It’s the same with the bastardized illegitimate arguments proffered to justify his unconstitutional usurpation of the presidency. They have no basis in law nor logic and are refuted by both, along with history, yet his flying monkeys continue to point to the golden calf of error, distortion, misunderstanding, ignorance, and lock-step judicial concession to ancient institutionalized error.
    When everyone holds the same opinion, but that opinion happens to be mistaken, their opinion will nevertheless seem to be correct, because how can everyone be wrong? Well, history is replete with examples of everyone being wrong, and by everyone I especially mean “experts” and “authorities”. In whatever field of knowledge that one might examine, at least one example can be found, usually more than one.

    Truth is like a slight gentle breeze blowing toward an approaching maelstrom, -it’s like Frodo going against Mordor and Sauran. It doesn’t stand much of a chance because so many people are bewitched by the Ring of Obama’s Power, and want to protect and experience it, along with benefit from it. Frodo can’t win against such an army unless the extraordinary happens, as it did in that appeals court decision.
    Obama, the cocky anti-constitutionalist, will ignore their ruling completely and simply continue on with his unlawful usurpation until the Supreme Court slaps him down by refusing to accept his appeal. Then the over 250 unconstitutional edits mandated by his unconstitutional board will be seen as the stinking garbage that they are, like a face transplant that fails, or the findings of those official, reputable, forensic examiners who turned out to have fraudulently stated conclusions regarding the guilt of accused persons who subsequently were convicted and imprisoned. It won’t be pretty.
    Then he will be seen to have his whole face covered in egg, but he won’t be seen in the main stream media as such because they will do what he does with the Constitution, -simply ignore it since they are his loving, boot-licking, enabling, spineless sycophants who would never say a word against their lord and savior. “All hail King Obama! Bow down to his alter and offer the sacrifice of all your integrity and objectivity! Lord Obama loves the sweet scent of your offerings and may smile upon you as a reward.”

    The infallibility of King Obama is similar to the infallibility of the best anti-hacking software measures. The best and brightest experts that manage the nation’s business and government websites seem to be our infallible resource against cyber-war penetrations and cyber-theft, -yet all of our nation’s most important departments and businesses have been hacked, and no one will say that all of our secrets have not been stolen unless they know personally that some have never been connected to any internet website.
    The unquestionable infallibility of Obama’s unconstitutional reign is equivalent to that of all of those experts who have failed to keep the enemy out. Authority and position, reputation and accomplishment do not make anyone infallible, nor beyond illegitimacy. Both Obama’s (mis)interpretation of the Constitution, as well as his presidential legitimacy are highly flawed, and he, like the Pope, will one day be seen as being in error, (and his presidency itself as being worse than an error).

    The Earth does revolve around the sun, and the Constitution does not mean whatever you want it to mean even if you’re the one wearing the Ring of Power and speaking with the voice of a great Wizard, the voice of authority. A certain leader of the National Socialist Party in Germany spoke with great authority, but that didn’t make him right about anything. And a certain great Wizard in the land of Oz spoke with impressive force, but that did not make him legitimate. He was a fraud, just like our naked Emperor.

    A.R. Nash http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com (obama–nation.com)

  6. paraleaglenm says:

    As you mentioned, in some nations an impurity denies race. In the black community (and Native American) a significant proportion of race genes includes you in the community.

    The ‘caucasians’ you mentioned would disagree with you. Yes, even in the black community, a lighter complexion has status, but to call them and Obama ‘caucasian’ is in error. He is black, more accurately a mulatto/mixed.

    The true distinction between Obama and American blacks, ancestors of freed slaves and protected by the Restoration Acts (undermined by Lyndon B. Johnson), is that his father was an African communist, descended from Muslim-Blacks who aided the Arabs (who aided Hitler) in capturing black peoples from the African interior for sale in the famed slave markets of Zanzibar and Mombasa, the latter being claimed by some to be Obama’s birthplace.

    How ironic, that 90%+ of blacks voted for their slaver.

  7. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Just ask yourself: Children born in Japan; are they Japanese because they are born in Japan or because they are born to Japanese parents?”

    We are not talking about race here, and we are not using Japanese law.
    [REPLY: You didn't address the question because you can't explain something that is unavoidably natural. Japanese parents produce Japanese children, whether describing race or nationality, because that is the immutable pattern of nature.]

    Our law is based on jus soli and it says that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.

    [REPLY: "Our law"? What law? Show me a law that bestows citizenship and I'll show you citizenship that is not natural. Legal citizenship via the Wong opinion is indeed based on jus soli, but jus soli does not produce natural citizenship. It produces citizenship by national adoption of those who are not natural members of the nation.]

    You may prefer jus sanguinus, the law of blood, which would say that citizenship is inherited from the parents—which is the way that the law works in France and Italy and Germany, etc.

    [REPLY: It's not a matter of preference, except on your part. Your understanding is like that of a sponge soaked in varnish. It can't absorb the water of truth because it is already full of something else. You are probably a legal citizen and therefore resent hearing that you are ineligible to serve as President since you are not a natural citizen. Or else you are simply a devoted pawn of the Obamunist-in-Chief.
    Jus sanguinis is not a principle of "law", rather it is an immutable principle of nature that sane nations adhere to even in the total absence of any law codifying it, as is the case in the United States, with the exception of children with a foreign parent. The U.S. citizenship of the American parent is imputed to the mix-nationality child via the natural principle of jus sanguinis, -no matter where the child is born, as long as the child was born in "Holy Matrimony". It is half-American but since one can't be a half-citizen, there are only citizens and aliens recognized by law.]

    But our law comes from the common law of England, and it says that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen.

    [REPLY: What law? Please point us to a law that say every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. There is no such law nor any such Supreme Court opinion, nor any such constitutional amendment or else you would be quoting it til the cows come home. IT DOES NOT EXIST IN LAW! (except in your over-active imagination).
    But if it did exist, it would be impossible for you to explain why a citizen is automatically a natural citizen, nor what even makes a natural citizen and why.]

    It has been claimed that the numerous appeals court cases and lower court cases, all of which point to the Wong Kim Ark decision and say that Natural Born refers to the PLACE of birth could all be wrong, and you are right. Well, it is even more likely that you are wrong and Meese and the appeals courts are all right. That is why not a single member of the US Electoral College changed their vote from a vote for Obama to one for Romney or refused to vote, because not a single one of them believed either that Obama was born in a foreign country or that two citizen parents are required.

    [REPLY: Or…they didn’t think at all, like you. You fail to grasp how juvenile your view is; “not a single member of the US Electoral College changed their vote”. Make that a single Socialist-Progressive member that didn’t change their vote. I’m SHOCKED! Why in the world would Obama’s sycophants not turn against their lord and savior? I know. Bias and ignorance, and infidelity to the Constitution. Who turns against members of their own family? You? I didn’t think so.
    “…it is even more likely that you are wrong..” Again? Really? I’ve already dispensed with that illogical and pedestrian reasoning. What is likely has nothing to do with determining what the actual truth is. Everyone can be wrong, and being so is not uncommon, as I’ve pointed out previously.

  8. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “REPLY: What law? Please point us to a law that say every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. There is no such law nor any such Supreme Court opinion, nor any such constitutional amendment or else you would be quoting it til the cows come home. IT DOES NOT EXIST IN LAW! (except in your over-active imagination).’

    Here are the actual words of the US Supreme Court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case:

    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    That quite clearly says that every (see the word “every” above???) Repeat: EVERY child, born in England of alien parents was natural born, and that the same rule applied in ALL the English colonies (the 13 original colonies) and in the United States and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

    You may prefer to ignore that statement and think that it was not made, but it was. And in fact nine state and federal courts (or maybe 10, I’ve lost count) have accepted that the Wong Kim Ark ruling said that EVERY child is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats). You say that there “is no such Supreme Court opinion”—but there is. And, unless and until it is reversed (which is not likely) or that the US passes a Constitutional Amendment to revise it (which is even less likely) it is the law. That situation has been accepted by nine or ten appeals courts and by the US Electoral College (not one member of whom changed their vote—and if you think that they are all liberals, you are really nutty) and by the US Congress who confirmed Obama’s election twice unanimously, and by Romney and McCain, and such conservative leaders as Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review.

    • arnash says:

      Now you’ve done it, -forced me to re-read the entire Wong opinion, which I’m finding is filled with baseless and erroneous assumptions, all of which I will take the time to expose in a new exposition that will take a good while to compose. It will be long and comprehensive. I started it last night but got side-tracked by another new composition which I spent the day penning. It’s titled: National Membership & Natural Responsibility. I’ll post it tonight.

      But for a spicy chili-pepper read, chew-on my published commentary at http://patriotpost.us/commentary/16579
      King Obama’s NLRB Betrayal of the U.S. Constitution

      • smrstrauss says:

        … in the USA the term “Natural Born Citizen” was used exactly the same way that “Natural Born Subject” was used in Britain.
        example: [deleted for being a repeat]…St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
        AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF

        ****~VIRGINIA~****. (1803)

        [see what I did there? Virginia was an anomaly since it allowed something that was not allowed by the other states nor the central government, namely citizenship from birth for children of immigrants (-non-Americans) known as "sons of the soil") allowing them jus soli citizenship by permission of the natural citizens of the state.]

        As you can see, that refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents. Natural Born Citizens were simply “those born within the state.
        [Yes, -the state of VIRGINIA! but show such a quote for several other states, better yet, show quotes for the majority of states, and then show quotes for the central government of the United States. You can't because they don't exist.]

        And here is how it was used in 1829:
        “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

        [REPLY: And what made Mr. Rawle correct when he pontificated so expertly, considering that he was no where near the authoring of the Constitution? Answer: Nothing. He was ignorant about the practices of the state governments and the federal government. He wrote with the weight of nothing but his own presumption.
        Who cared to dispute what he wrote? No one cared because no un-natural citizen would ever run for the presidency, and his incorrect over-description of U.S. citizens as all being natural born simply due to native birth would impact no one since only natural born citizens would ever run for office, until that is, Chester Arthur and Barry Obama came along.]

        And a search of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention, including Hamilton, Madison, Franklin and James Wilson does not show a single incidence in which they used the term “Natural Born” to refer to the citizenship of the parents. Not one. They used it to refer to the place of birth, jus soli, citizenship due to the place of birth—-and that is ALL.

        [REPLY: That's very easy to claim when you have no proof to back it up.]

        So, the Wong Kim Ark ruling is right, and you are wrong.
        [REPLY: What? Are you that ignorant? Oh, I forgot, you are.

        …[what] the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case is the law of the land in this country unless and until the Supreme Court reverses itself…

        So your claim that the Wong Kim Ark ruling (six justices to two, one not voting) is a bad opinion filled with unjustified assumptions is meaningless. That is in fact the ruling of the Supreme Court, and numerous lower courts have pointed to that ruling as the key ruling on this matter. That’s the law. Don’t like it? Well, too bad for you.

        [REPLY: You fail to grasp the real picture. It isn’t about what anyone likes. It is about only one thing; what the opinion was that the court issued at the end of its long historical review, and that opinion is the only thing that is binding on the government in how it views and handles cases involving the children of immigrants, NOT the children of natural Americans.
        Here is the actual opinion of the court (nothing that preceded this paragraph holds any judicial authority):

        The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

        Order affirmed.

        [-so they affirmed that Wong was by birth in the U.S. "a citizen". Period, nothing else, end of story. You lose. No mention at all regarding natural citizenship because Wong was not a natural citizen and so they had to construe the 14th Amendment to determine whether or not he was a citizen or an alien.]

    • smrstrauss says:

      Also, here are more quotations that indicate that the commentators at the time understood that the meaning of Natural Born was the same as native born.

      [REPLY: "understood"? One can't "understand" something that is an erroneous view and nothing more. It can't be understood to be true when in fact it was only an unquestioned assumption.]

      Here is Tucker again:
      “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” St. George Tucker 1803, “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings…”

      [REPLY: Amen George. -a presumptuously incorrect patriot! You think that he knew what he was talking about when he conflated native-born with natural born citizen, and that he authoritatively did so, but I've shown in a hundred different ways that he ignorantly did so, and my arguments are irrefutable while he had none to defend his error.

      But he was speaking in generalities, as humans usually do, so it was true that 98% of the native born were natural born citizens. Why split hairs? Why? Because of his point in the next section of his statement. "foreign influence" "is to be dreaded more than the plague.” Since that was the view, why then would they allow such a son (born and raised by parents steeped in foreign influence due to a lifetime of living in a foreign land) to be eligible to serve as the leader of the American Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and federal departments? Well, they wouldn't, and they didn't.]

      And:
      “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” James Iredell, Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      [REPLY: Amen again. Only natives can serve as President. What is a native? It is one born to natives. Only natives can produce natives; foreigners cannot. A native-born son of a foreigner is not a native but his son will be one because he would be born to a native-born member of American society. So the son of an immigrant is not a native, but the grandson is. That is the principle followed by United States law in regard to children of Americans born overseas. "Citizenship shall not pass to children of citizens who have never lived in the United States." That is because such children are new natives of their foreign homeland.
      And why 14 years of residency? Why not a lifetime of residency? Because American children born abroad to the likes of American's best and brightest serving in the foreign service or American military were also natural citizens and eligible to be President. They had no foreign alienage unlike American-born sons of foreigners. Is there any fool on earth who thinks that the soil of Panama had a bewitching effect on John McCain and instilled a devotion in him toward Panama? What baby knows or cares where he is born? It's ridiculous to think that birth location is connected to acquired allegiance and national loyalty. When McCain was wasting away for many years in a North Vietnamese prison, he wasn't pinning for the sight of the land of his native birth. It was insignificant. I've expounded on birth abroad at length in numerous expositions.]

      And:
      “The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law.

      [REPLY: "a native citizen" NOT a native-born citizen. The native citizen is a son of citizens who are natives or native-born, -not foreign born. There are foreign-born natives and native-born foreigners (the title of one of my expositions).
      "the qualification of birth" refers not to place of birth but to parentage, -the qualification being that one must be born to an American father, and NOT a foreign father. A foreign father is disqualifying because he can't be trusted to instill American values in his son. Now do you understand?]

  9. smrstrauss says:

    “For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
    Order affirmed.”

    Did you know that the US Supreme Court can do two things at the same time? Well, you should think about it. What they did in the quotation that you showed was rule that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen. That was an important thing to do because (1) it was the issue of the case, was he a citizen or not, and (2) if the court did not rule that he was a citizen, he could be deported.

    But, in addition to that, the court did another thing. It can do two things at once, and the other thing that it did was to define Natural Born Citizen, which it did with the following words: ~~~deleted

    [REPLY: You basically don't understand what you're writing about. Nothing that the court wrote is applicable as a part of its decision except what was contained in the final paragraph. Everything else is irrelevant. It is not U.S. law nor policy nor position. It is dicta and nothing more since they had no need to construe the Article II presidential eligibility clause and avoided doing so. To have done so would have placed their supposedly necessary definition of a natural born citizen in the affirmation of the question of whether or not Wong was a U.S. citizen. They stated, and this is their only "ruling", that in their opinion he was born a citizen. That is the entirety of their opinion. Nothing else is included. All else is excluded by not being included in that opinion. They issued no opinion on presidential eligibility nor the nature of natural citizenship.]

    Those words clearly say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law.
    [REPLY: That is impossible because there was no such thing as, (as Jefferson wrote), a national common law since all law was colony/state law since there was no nation before the Constitution. He, Madison, or some similar figure also stated that the national government of the new United States never adopted English common law because that would have included all of it, including all that defended the authority of the King and the Church of England.
    "Natural" (an adjective) Born (another adjective) Citizen (a noun) Do I have to explain to you the rules of English language in order for you to grasp that the words mean just what they always mean and nothing else? One of the most fundamental rules of interpretation of the Constitution states that its words must be understood to have their common meaning, unless they are an exception usage. There was no such usage of a term "natural born citizen" because the word citizen was not even commonly in use yet. "Subject" was still programmed into lawyers' and lawmakers' minds and they still used it in writing laws.]

    If the Supreme Court had thought that the meaning came from Vattel, they would have said it. And it says that it refers to the place of birth. If the Supreme Court had thought that it comes from the parents, they would have said it. And it says that that rule applied in Britain, and in the American colonies, and in the early states, and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And that is what both Rawle and Tucker thought at the time, and Meese and Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson think now, and as I said, NINE state and federal courts have pointed to the Wong Kim Ark decision as being a ruling on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen status—meaning that they thought that it could do two things too: rule that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen, and define the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the same case.

    [REPLY: And yet they all got it wrong, including you in stating that the Supreme Court would explain something that was none of their business because it had no connection whatsoever with the 14th Amendment. (If the 14th Amendment had meant to say that all native-born citizens are also natural born citizens, it would have told us. But it didn't. See my new exposition: Fundamental Constitutional Errors Obama Relies On) If the founders had believed that natural born citizens were all of the native-born instead of just the natural born natives, they would have told us, but they didn't. They didn't because it is not true, no matter what some unenlightened expert(s) wrote way back when.]

    Re: “the native citizen is a son of citizens who are natives or native-born, -not foreign born. There are foreign-born natives and native-born foreigners (the title of one of my expositions).”

    IF the writers of the US Constitution had thought that the US-born children of foreigners were lower-level citizens or higher security risks than the US-born children of US citizens, they surely would have told us.
    [REPLY: They did tell "us" by prohibiting them from wielding the power of the Commander-in-Chief. That is the only form of "explanation" contained in the Constitution; i.e., what it allows, prohibits, and mandates. Anyone with a brain can draw conclusions based on those differentiations.]

    Re the 14 year requirement. That actually does not help your case at all. It shows how moderate the writers of the US Constitution were. A person could be 35 years old and have lived outside of the USA for all but 14 of those years, meaning 21 years, which is about 60% of 35 years. If they were really worried about foreign influence, they would have made the requirement much higher. In fact, they could easily have said that the president had to have lived 60 or 70% of his or her life in the USA, but instead the 14 year requirement allows someone who had lived 60% or 70% or more of a life outside the USA—that does not sound like they were worrying about foreign influence very much.

    [REPLY: You are echoing what I've written in multiple expositions, but with one huge error on your part. Foreign influence does NOT come from foreign residence. It comes from foreign fathers and their priorities, loyalties, and agendas.]

    Re: “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…”

    Precisely. That shows that the writer of that passage believed that a Natural Born citizen was a native citizen, one who was born here.

    [REPLY: PLEASE, learn to recall what you've read, or learn to re-read what you've read so it will sink in. You failed to address my explanation that only natives are natural citizens; -not the native-born. That passage does not show what you say because a native is not one who was born here. A native is one who is the product of native parents. Only natives can produce native young. Outsiders cannot. George Armstrong Custer Jr., if born on Sioux land would not be a Sioux native!
    Nor, just because he was born on their land, would he ever be eligible to serve as Chief of the Sioux nation!
    Nor would he ever be considered to have any allegiance to the Sioux people. PLACE OF BIRTH IS IRRELEVANT! BELIEFS AND BLOOD CONNECTIONS ARE EVERYTHING.]

    Re: ““That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” St. George Tucker 1803, “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings…”

    Answer, once again Tucker is saying that a Natural Born Citizen is a synonym (excluding the children of foreign diplomats) for a Native Citizen and vice versa. You will recall that in the earlier quotation from Tucker I showed he used the term Natural Born to refer to the place of birth, that Natural Born Citizens were simply “those born within the state.” Well this quotation does not disagree with that.

    [REPLY: Ignorant conflation of similar terms is a flaw of the unfocused mind. No one can say that he did not misspeak, nor that he was not mistaken. There is no basis to assume that he knew what he was talking about. None. His words are irrelevant and carry no authoritative weight at all, especially since he had no clue as to the principles of citizenship, even though he assumed that he did. But that assumption was founded on nothing other that common mis-impressions derived from confused language. The bottom line is that nothing he said or could have said could possibly change reality. It can't be changed because of opinions, whether they be wrong or right.]

    Dream your dreams, but Rubio and Jindal, and, yes, Obama, are all Natural Born US Citizens.

    [ Making any future replies in the comments section of a newer exposition as this one is now overly long with text. And try not to bolster your chosen position by endless opinions of men. They are not determinants of what is real or true. They are only opinions and therefore determine nothing. Only facts determine what is true. Bring facts or go home. You will find the facts by widely reading the many expositions that you find here. They will open and enlighten any mind that is not suffering from the vise-grip of bias. The truth is out here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers

%d bloggers like this: