Fundamental Constitutional Errors Obama Depends On

Revised 3-9-13

The Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause and the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause both mean what they say, but don’t say what they mean.  The result has been people assuming things that are false, -with not just a few people believing the false interpretations, but nearly all believing them.  They wrongly assume that they say and mean things that they do not.  It’s simple to demonstrate that fact by stating the interpretation that those clauses are assumed to say or to mean, which is:
“All native-born citizens, or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, are eligible to the office of the President, provided they are 35 years of age and have resided in the United States for 14 years.”

One immediately runs into a problem with this imagined version, -the one relied upon by defenders of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President.  What it says is that all citizens who met the age and residency requirements could be President, at least for about three generations.  That included literally all citizens, whether they were born as citizens or were born as foreigners but became citizens by choice, or were children born to new citizens.
Then eventually when there were no more “citizens at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”, only native-born citizens could then be President, thereby limiting the presidency to only those born in the United States, and thenceforth prohibiting all citizens who were foreign-born-&-naturalized, as well as citizens born as Americans but beyond American borders, -such as John McCain.
The imagined assumption would be that naturalized citizens of the Revolution era (who met the age and residency requirements) were immigrant people who knew the awfulness of royal dictatorship, and had suffered the hardships and dangers of the war along with the native citizens and could therefore be trusted to be loyal Americans, as could their sons born to them before the Constitution was adopted in 1788.  But later generations of naturalized immigrants could not be assumed to be aware
of the price of freedom and the plight of living in its absence, nor assumed to not be loyal at heart to
a foreign monarch.  So their access to the presidency ended with that Revolutionary War generation.

But this imaginary version of the eligibility clause (“All native-born citizens”…) is worded in reverse of the actual wording.  Instead, the Constitution actually states: “NO PERSON, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”

So it contains two huge contradictions with the imaginary version.  One is a strong and exclusionary prohibition, (“No person except…”; and secondly, a discriminating prohibition against any person who is not a natural born citizen.
The imaginary version is open and all-inclusive of all native-born and presently living naturalized citizens.  The actual version excludes in perpetuity all citizens except natural citizens, while allowing legal citizens (naturalized and derivative) of only that first generation.
A naturalized immigrant who had moved to America by 1773 when the rebellion against the crown was born, would have been living in the United States for 14 years when the Constitution was ratified; and if he arrived at the age of 21 or older to help fight for freedom, he would have been 35 years of age or older in 1789 when the first federal election took place.  Clearly, accommodation was made to include that generation of patriotic foreign-born citizens who after 14 years were completely Americanized.
The problem for Obama supporters is that the nature of the eligibility clause is not inclusionary but exclusionary.  It was not intended to included all native-born citizens or else it would have said that in an inclusionary way, but if it had, as in the imaginary version, (along with naturalized citizens), it could have simply stated; “All citizens shall be eligible …except the foreign-born citizens not alive when this Constitution was adopted.”  That would have moved the “except” from referring to natural born citizens only, to referring to foreign-born citizens only.
But since the actual wording of the eligibility clause limits the presidency to only natural born citizens and then-living naturalized citizens and their foreign & native-born alien children (born before their father’s naturalization, -which must have occurred before the adoption of the Constitution), it can’t be true that the distinction it was drawing by the differentiating words “no person except” was strictly between natural born and naturalized citizens (“citizens of the United States”) since it was allowing both.
Instead it had to have been between the natural born and all other types of citizens that would exist after the Constitution was adopted, including those naturalized-at-birth by state law.
Understanding the meaning of the eligibility clause results from drawing conclusions from the sum of the implications that one finds in it.  One implication is that “a citizen of the United States” includes all naturalized citizens.

Another implication is derived from the word “person”, -what it means and what it does not mean,  including not referring to the class of beings known as humans. Rather it refers to a particular class of humans, which can be discerned easily by process of elimination, -by eliminating a class it could not possibly include, and that is foreigners.  “No person” does not mean “No foreigner”.  Foreigners would not have been and were not even possibly included in its meaning. They were universally, automatically excluded as understood by all.  It was a given.
So with foreigners not even being in the picture, the only thing left is CITIZENS.  Therefore the meaning of “No person” is in fact “No citizen except a natural born citizen”.

If natural born citizens were considered indistinguishable from native-born citizens of foreign paternity, then the eligibility clause would have been worded in a much plainer manner; i.e.;
“No citizen naturalized after the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”  Bingo.
That is much plainer and simpler than the wording chosen, but it was not employed because it was not what they meant.
The inclusion of the provisional second exception allowing all citizens alive before the Constitution was adopted speaks independently that after that point, any citizen who became a citizen by law via naturalization was not eligible to be President.
So, since that is already implied in that segment of the sentence, it cannot possibly be redundantly focused on as the alternative type of citizen that was being prohibited by the “No person except a natural born citizen” language of the first segment.  The Constitution avoids redundancy, and interpreting it requires avoiding an assumption of redundancy.  Otherwise it would be saying in effect: “No naturalized citizen, nor naturalized citizen of the United States shall be eligible…”

So if it wasn’t strictly naturalized citizens that the first segment was intended to exclude, -since they were included by the “or” segment, then it had to have been a different type of citizen.  What other types were there?  There were three:
Native-born sons (of foreigners) who were naturalized at birth by some states, or foreign-born sons who obtained derivative citizenship as children upon their foreign father’s naturalization, or native-born sons of foreigners who were born to a non-citizen in a colony or state that did not grant naturalization at birth, -sons who immediately “inherited” by patrilineal descent (jus sanguinis -by right of blood) the new American nature (citizenship) of their father.  Whatever he was, they were also since they were a reflection of him, -as was his foreign wife who was naturalized through him.

Those sons were the citizens who were not natural born citizens, and were implicitly excluded, -deliberately, even though their number was minuscule as a percentage of American sons.  If elected President, they could pose a serious potential security risk that was avoidable by their exclusion, a risk that existed because there was no telling where they would end up living or who they might be raised to admire and serve.  And so they were excluded, -although allowed to serve in every other office in the government.
But they were accepted during the founders’ generation as a potential President because no wolf in sheep’s clothing would have gotten past the scrutiny of the founders’ generation, and its press.  And Congress was expected to vet their constitutional eligibility to serve before the electoral college voted, -or even after.  Congress was expected to nullify the election of any candidate it found unqualified to serve, i.e., -too young, not enough years of residency, or not a natural American.

With that distinction being the boundary line between two kinds of citizens, the clause could not then be worded; “All native-born citizens shall be eligible” because some native-born citizens were being prohibited, namely those who were not natural born Americans since they were not born to  American fathers but instead to foreign fathers.
A more clearly worded version would read something like this: “Only natural citizens, along with legal citizens of the United States living when this Constitution was adopted, shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”

Exclusion and discrimination was central to allowing only acceptably loyal and worthy Americans from wielding the power of the President & Commander-in-Chief.  Other unstated exclusions encompassed by “No person except…”  included persons who weren’t educated, English-speaking, faithful in marriage, honest in business, Caucasian, Protestant and male.

Those prohibitions weren’t made in writing, but they were written in the consciousness of the founders’ generation, -along with the category excluded by deliberate omission; namely native-born sons of foreigners.  Such sons could be born in New York or Atlanta, or any major port city, be brought to England, and be raised as a loyal royal- sycophant monarchist in the King’s palace or a nobleman’s estate.  Then in adulthood, return to a land not remembered nor understood, and after 14 years of residence, seek the office of the President.  That is precisely what the founders feared could subvert, divide, or subjugate the nation to a foreign power.
Any foreign-born naturalized American can serve in the House of Representatives after living in the United States for seven years, -or in the Senate after nine years, or on the Supreme Court with no residency requirement, but for the office of President, the required residency is not seven nor nine years but is fourteen.  Fourteen years residency only for a naturalized American?  No.  Fourteen years residency for natural born Americans also.

Native-born citizens with foreign fathers are excluded, as are foreign-born natural citizens (having American fathers) if they don’t live in America for 14 years.  They can fulfill that requirement in time, but native-born Americans with foreign fathers can never fulfill the requirement that they be natural citizens, i.e., -born of an American father.  That excludes folks such as Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Barack Obama, but allows folks such as John McCain who lived most of his life in the United States, even though he could have lived most of it in Panama or anywhere else.  By being a foreign-born, natural born American, one is nevertheless eligible by fulfilling the residency requirement.
Barack Obama met the age and residency requirements, but could not fulfill the first and primary requirement of having been the progeny of an American father, and thereby a natural American.

“No persons except…” versus  “All persons are…”  The presidential eligibility clause and the 14th Amendment use opposite language in their wording because the former is exclusionary in nature for the sake of national security, while the latter is inclusionary for the benefit of the vast numbers of children born to a vast number of foreign immigrants who were only slowly assimilated via the naturalization process.
They needed American citizenship and the government needed to included them as being under its jurisdiction, -the jurisdiction that stretched to all of its authority over citizens.  And so, after the full weight of the executive branch of the government lost a case in every court up to but excluding the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment was finally construed to apply to not just naturalized citizens and freed slaves, but also to native-born children of foreign immigrants  via jus soli (by right of soil).
By the court’s opinion in 1898 regarding the citizenship of Chinese immigrant-born Wong Kim Ark, those children were all accepted as being American citizens via birth in America.  Or so it seemed to everyone, including Attorney General John Griggs who made that the new policy of the United State government.  But was that really what the court said and what the amendment meant?  The simple answer is “no”.
The actual truth is obscure and hidden, overlooked and unrecognized.  It’s like an invisible ghost that only has a faint outline.  What was hidden, and overlooked?  It’s hidden in plain sight in the words of the 14th Amendment which read: “All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

That poor wording is inherently redundant but no one recognizes that fact because they all focus on the first requirement; “born in the United States”.  That limits its description to no one born outside of the United States except the naturalized, and that focus led to the false assumption that such a domestic birth location results automatically in American citizenship, when that is totally false.  The truth is found instead in the second requirement; “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

What everyone has failed to grasp is the fact that everyone born subject to the jurisdiction of the American government is automatically an American citizen either by law or by nature; as legal citizens or natural citizens; by inheriting citizenship or by being granted citizenship; -regardless of where they are born, (with the exceptions of the American territories of Samoa and Swain’s Island).  Those born outside the United States to foreign parents are naturally not subject to American jurisdiction and that is a fact so plain that there is no need to say that, nor to say its opposite, which is that most people within the United States are subject to American authority and therefore their children are born as citizens.  That also goes without saying, almost, -because “most people” is not all people.
What didn’t go without saying, or deciding by the Supreme Court, was whether or not foreigners and their children were fully subject to the American government to the same degree as citizens.

The policy of the United States government from its creation up until it lost all of its court rulings when sued by Mr. Wong who felt that he was an American citizen, (having been born in America to immigrants) -although the government argued that he was not since it was the unchanged policy of the federal government from the beginning that to be subject from birth to the full authority of the federal government required one to be born to an American father.  Foreigners, including immigrants and their children born in America, were viewed as being subject to the immigrant’s home government since he was its subject and not an American.  Prior to that ruling a foreigner’s sons had to personally be naturalized as adults if their father failed to become an American.
But the Supreme Court’s decision, without stating so, reversed the government policy 180 degrees.  It then had to adjust to the new implication that children born in America to immigrants are fully subject to Washington’s authority. If that be so, then it can only be so if they are born to fathers who are subject also because babies and children are not directly subject to government as individuals.  Only adults are subject.  Minors are not because they are subject solely to their parents.

Native-born children of foreigners are, following that court opinion, also American citizens, which has to therefore mean that they fulfill its second requirement by being born subject to the full authority of Washington, which has to therefore mean that they are subject through their fathers, which has to mean therefore that their fathers are subject to the obligation of citizens even though they aren’t citizens.  Which means they are, as members of American society, also obligated to help protect the nation via service in the military in times of war if inducted.  And so they have been ever since.
And when their children reach adulthood they must register with the Selective Service (even if foreign-born and not Americans) because they, like their fathers, are considered to be fully subject to the authority of the American government when it comes to their social obligation to defend the country that they have made their home.
Voila!  All the disharmony is smoothed and order restored by all children of foreigners becoming Americans and all of their fathers becoming members of the pool of Americans who are obligated to protect their nation’s security.

But the 14th Amendment still has a problem, or two; redundancy and ambiguity.  The redundancy isn’t readily noticeable, but comes to light by realizing that it could have completely left out the mention of birth in the United States and simply required being born subject to the authority of the American government.  No U.S. citizen is exempt from subjection to the American government so that could have defined the determinant of who was a citizen from birth, -without any mention of where one was born.  But…when it was written, foreigners, and their children, were not viewed as being subject to the full authority of the U.S. government.
The ambiguity is in the fact that the term jurisdiction is not expressly defined as meaning authority as opposed to meaning a government administered territory, -as in not being subject to the jurisdiction (authority) because one is outside of the jurisdiction (subject territory).
But more unclear and subtle is the distinction between Civil & Criminal jurisdiction and Political jurisdiction.  All people everywhere are subject to civil laws including foreign diplomats, but not all people within the government’s jurisdiction are subject to the political jurisdiction or authority by which citizens can be prohibited from doing some things, even outside of the country, such as visiting Cuba, or trading with North Korea or Iran, or helping Hamas.  They, unlike an exempted person, are subject to the political jurisdiction which authorizes the government to draft men into the American military.

Only citizens and immigrants are subject to that authority but many fail to perceive the distinction.    But that distinction is the point on which Obama’s citizenship hangs because the fact that his father was subject to civil authority as a foreign student does not mean that he, and his son through him, were subject to the political authority of the U.S. government. Without that subjection, the 14th Amendment citizenship clause does not apply to him even if born in the United States.
Consequently, he is not a true 14th Amendment citizen, even if the federal government follows a policy that accepts him as being one, which in essence means that the top executive of the government doesn’t accept the fact that Obama is not a legitimate citizen of the United States, -with that top executive being Obama himself.  The fox guarding the hen house asserts that he is not a fox but a guard dog, and none of the chickens dare argue with him.
Being called an “Indian” does not make a Native American a citizen of India because error doesn’t alter reality.   And being called a native born citizen does not make one a natural born citizen which one must be in order to be a constitutionally legitimate President.  That’s something that Barack Obama was born not being able to ever be.

Bear in mind that every citizen with a foreign father is not something other than “a legal citizen” because their citizenship was obtain solely by the authority of law, and not by natural transmission.
No natural citizen obtained legal citizenship at or after their birth because no law exists regarding native-born natural citizenship.  Instead, they are born being an American, -by nature.

But the native-born sons of foreigners could only obtain state and national citizenship via law.  If a state had no such law, which was most, then the children of a foreigner were not citizens of that state nor of the union.  They were viewed as foreigners also, (like their father) until he naturalized.
Barack Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen, nor even an immigrant, so he was not a source of citizenship for his son, but if he had been a naturalized citizen before his son’s birth, then his son would have thereby been born as a natural American citizen, and be eligible to be President.  Without such naturalization, no one with a foreign father is eligible to serve as President.

by A.R.. Nash March 2013


Native-Born Tadpole Citizenship

The Reality of Native-Born Tadpole Citizenship

As I detail on my home page at obama–, and in several expositions, I discovered something important that was evidence of what I had been asserting endlessly but without any proof, -my basis being logic alone.  It was the smoking gun that no one knew for sure existed.  It was “buried” in an obscure internet page of the CIS (Citizenship and Immigration Service; formerly known as NIS).  When I discovered it, it was like finding the Holy Grail.

After I made its discovery known on the internet, word of it spread and that was noticed by Obama’s flying monkeys who then sent word to one of his minions with significant authority.  That traitor then surreptitiously changed the URL-web address of the page so that thereafter all of the links to it were broken, resulting in “Page Not Found”.  But I managed to eventually relocate it.

What was the smoking gun that I uncovered?  It was the delineation of citizenship terms into “naturalized, native and natural born”.  “Native” can only mean one thing, which is native-born, (-as opposed to natural born).  It can’t mean Native American -as in “Indian”, and it can’t mean pure native because that would be identical to a natural citizen as only natural citizens are real natives.

There is no such legal term as “Native Citizen” because “native”, like “natural” is not a legal descriptor but a natural descriptor of the legal concept and term “CITIZEN”.  The legal version is “native born”, so “native and natural born” refers to native-born & natural born, -but foregoes the unnecessary repetition of the word “born”.

What’s my point?  It’s that it is, and always has been, the rational and realistic policy of the federal government to distinguish between three very different groups of citizens. The United States government does not confuse the three variations.  The naturalized are not the native-born, and the native-born are not the natural born.  That is reality.
A foreigner is someone born in a foreign nation.  By coming to American he does not become an American, nor do any children he brings with him.  But if he and his wife are immigrants, and she produces a child in America, then the child is a native-born American due to the Supreme Court’s opinion in 1898, (based on the 14th Amendment),  regarding the citizenship of the native-born son of Chinese immigrants named Wong, .
When he, as an adult, produced an American child, it was not only a native-born American, it was also a natural born American, unlike its father.  How so?  Because it was born to an American father and not a Chinese father.
What that evolution describes is a progression from one thing to another.  From initial pure foreign-ness to eventual pure American-ness.  Like the evolution of frogs & toads.  The first stage is entirely different from the final stage.  The first stage, equivalent to a foreigner, is that of the polliwog.  It has no limbs and is like a fat-headed fish.
The human version can become a citizen via an artificial process known as naturalization, -which is intended to make-over, or convert, a foreigner into a facsimile of a natural American.  Naturally, nature can’t do such a thing, and so the polliwog gradually changes by growing arms and legs.
No one would argue that a tadpole is a toad anymore than one would argue that a polliwog is a toad, because its body is distinctly different.
Once it has evolved fully, it no longer has the characteristics of a polliwog.  Those characteristics, -like those of a foreigner, are completely gone.
In national life, just as in nature, it takes three stages to convert outsiders and their off-spring into natural born natives of America.  The immigrant is equivalent to a polliwog.  The children of immigrants are equivalent to tadpoles.  The children of the children are equivalent to toads.  The change is then complete.  The original nature has been completely remade.

Polliwog — Tadpole — Toad ;  Foreigner — Native born American — Natural born American.        Three generations.  The grandchild has no connection to the foreign-ness of the grandparents, but its father does because he was raised by them.
But the grandchild was raised by an American.  So it was with my own natural born mother, her native-born mother, and her foreign born grandparents.  If my grand uncles were born to my great-grand parents before they became Americans, then they would not have been eligible to serve as President even though they were native-born.

When a son of traditional conservative Saudi immigrants looks up at mommy and daddy, he sees people who are very different from Americans.  He sees their foreignness and is exposed to it all throughout his childhood and youth.  If he attends an American school, he becomes Americanized.
But if he attends a Wahabi Islamic school for 12 years, -isolated from exposure to American culture, -for better and for worse, then he will not become what would be described as Americanized.  He would instead be bound to and assimilated into the foreign culture of his parents.  Two very starkly different cultural and national orientations.
He clearly would not be purely American.  He would be like the young tadpole, -barely different from the polliwog.  With only tiny new limbs.  Or, with complete brain-washing, (acculturation) into Saudi cultural and religious values, he might be purely a polliwog like the parents, -but not in a nationality sense since he would be an American citizen.
But if he was schooled in American schools, then he would become Americanized and would one day produce a child that would look up at him and not see a Saudi but see an American, -one who would be steeped in American values if he attended school before the 1970′s (or if he attended a parochial school where he might learn values still).

So it is clear that just as immigrants are not natural Americans, neither are their native-born children.  But the children of the native-born will be natural born Americans.  Their citizenship nature is natural, unlike that of their parents who are the in-between generation,..the tadpole generation,..the native-born generation,..the bridge between total foreignness and total American-ness.

Mere birth within invisible, conceptual American borders does not a natural citizen make, but it does make a native-born citizen.  If a Brown bear gave birth in the Arctic, its cub would not be a Polar bear.  It would have to mate with a Polar bear, and produce a hybrid off-spring, (which was something that seems to have happened in the strange case of a giant slain white bear that could not be identified as any known species) and that off-spring would have to mate with a Polar bear to produce a cub with a close resemblance to a Polar bear.

The change from one thing to another completely different thing cannot be accomplished in one stage of change.  It requires two; -two generations of change in order to go from pure outsider to pure insider.  The middle stage is “tainted” by foreignness, and that is why the founding fathers barred it from the position of Commander-in-Chief.  Only a pure American can serve as President.  Not a naturalized American, and not a half-natural American whose citizenship is totally dependent on the permission of law.  If one’s citizenship is dependent on American law then one is not a natural American but is a legal American only.

So does that mean that Barack Obama is only a native-born American and not a natural born American?  Actually, he is neither due to Congressional misunderstanding of the boundaries of the Supreme Court’s Wong opinion which resulted from a misinterpretation of it by Attorney General Griggs in 1898.

Without an American father, no one is a natural American even if they are a legal, constitutional native-born American.  So Obama is not that, but is he a legal constitutional 14th Amendment native-born citizen instead?  Actually, his situation falls between the legal cracks because, by implication, the 14th Amendment as construed by the Wong opinion, requires parents who are immigrant, and Obama Sr. was not an immigrant.
American mothers are not addressed by the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment since women were not subject to the responsibility of citizenship, although they were the beneficiaries of its civil benefits.  They weren’t obligated to take lives in combat  nor risk their life to protect the nation, * nor allowed to vote nor serve in any high office.  Clearly, they weren’t, as the amendment requires, subject to the (full) federal jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and so, like foreign visitors, were incapable of producing a child that was subject through them.  Single immigrant women were not even allowed to become naturalized citizens except in rare cases.

Thus, the 14th Amendment did not apply to Obama Jr. through his father or his mother, -regardless of a native-birth.  He was an exception to the general rule that applied to all children of all immigrant fathers.
So is he then an American citizen through his American mother?  U.S. citizenship was never transmitted from mother to child by law until years after the ratification of the 19th Amendment around 1920 which gave women the right to vote.  Before Congress passed statutes allowing that, citizenship passed exclusively from father to child, being as he was the head of the household.  Even a foreign wife automatically became an American, like him, by marrying an American.

Citizenship passing from mother to child has never been natural citizenship and the past cannot be erased nor be altered by changes in society in the present.  In 1788 when the Constitution was adopted, no child in any state could inherit its nationality through its mother.  All natural Americans had American fathers without exception.

But for Obama, it’s even worse than that, because the mid-20th century laws that allow citizenship through the mother only pertain to births outside of the United States.  They do not mention the situation of birth to a foreign father within the United States.  So his nationality was not conveyed to him through his American mother nor his non-American father, nor through the 14th Amendment.

So what is the source of his citizenship?  There is none in American law, but that doesn’t rule out administrative policy.  Since Attorney General Griggs’ mistake in 1898, which erroneously assumed that all children born in America are born subject to the jurisdiction of the United State and are therefore 14th Amendment citizens, the policy that he established affirming that error has remained in place and become petrified in essentially all venues of jurisprudence; -from law schools, to the field of immigration law, to the immigration service, the State Dept. and the judicial system.  It is all a massive accretion of precedential error.  It has become as harden as bone.
There is no authority and no court that would dare attempt to challenge it nor correct it.  In fact, they consider it heresy, although without knowing exactly why, other than that’s just the way it is and has been since before they and their parents and grandparents were born.

Yet if the 14th Amendment meant what it has mistakenly been construed to mean, (every native-born person is an American) then its wording is completely superfluous in the sense of the false presumption that every person born in America is subject to the American government; “All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”
-so if everyone was automatically subject, then why the need to require in its wording that which was already always a fact?  Answer: Because of Native Americans and foreign ministers, (and foreign visitors).
Neither they nor their native-born children were subject to the American government as are American citizens.  Although they were born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States, they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Why were foreign minister not subject?  Because they were not Americans, -nor were children born to them in America, because they were not in the role of citizens nor immigrants but were in the role of guests.  Guests are exempt from the duties of residents, and it doesn’t matter if they work for a foreign government or are visiting from a foreign nation for a day, a week, month, or a year.  As long as they are guests, they are not subject to the responsibilities of residents, i.e., citizens and immigrants (who are required to defend the nation, -as every foreigner must swear to do in order to become a naturalized citizen) and thus are not among those whose native-born children are covered by the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment.

So, like the pivot mechanism of a rudder, A.G. Griggs changed the course of American nationality law without the authority of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the President, and it will never be changed back unless and until sanity (i.e., knowledge and wisdom and integrity) returns to the governance of the nation.

That will never happen because it would require the passage of a constitutional amendment similar to the 9th Amendment, which reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

That is similar in nature to the 10th Commandment, -the one unrelated to behavior; “Thou shalt not covet”.  It is an order as to how people are to think, -or not think.  “shall not be construed”, meaning shall not be misconstrued by ones warped, ignorant, misinformed, misguided or dishonest thinking into calling a pig a pony.
A new amendment would have to order the government to change its thinking, to cease and desist from enforcing Griggs’ misconstruence of the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the 14th Amendment and the citizenship of children of non-immigrant and illegal-resident foreigners, and throw out a century old policy not authorized by that limited court opinion.

But it technically would not require an amendment since the Attorney General and the President have the authority to correct administrative errors if they so choose, -which they would never do because the result would be that Obama becomes recognized as not possessing legal American citizenship.  That would be political suicide.  But it would be just that simple to do, -even a judge could do it (though none in American have the nerve) just as a federal court ruled that Obama’s policy of appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board while Congress was still in session was an unconstitutional policy.  Just because the executive branch operates as if their policy is legitimate, does not make it legitimate.  The Law is the law!  And by the Law, -not policy, Obama is not an American citizen.

But…even if his father was an immigrant and thus subject to the full weight of American authority over citizens and immigrants, or even if his mother gave birth overseas and thereby passed her citizenship to him, he still would not be what the Constitution requires of the President, which is that he be “No person except a natural born citizen”.

Having an immigrant father would have made him a real, native-born Legal citizen (1866 Civil Rights Act), and a Constitutional citizen (1868 14th Amendment).  Or if he was born in his probable birth location of Vancouver, Canada, that would have made him a provisional citizen, but nothing at all could have made him a natural citizen because just as a tadpole is not a toad, -so also the 2nd generation is not the third generation.  A half-&-half citizen is not an exclusively-100%-American citizen since only native-born members of American society can produce native natural members such as Obama’s children.  They are real natural born Americans and eventually eligible to serve as President, but their father is not because at best he can only be considered to be a tadpole native-born citizen.

by a.r. nash  february 2013  obama–

PS  The inability to discern between native-born and natural born is like the inability to discern between fonts with serifs and those without.  They all are the same or similar languages and identical letters, meaning the same thing, but one lacks what the other possesses, just as “natural born” Americans have something that “native-born” Americans don’t, namely American fathers.


Believing that everyone born in America is eligible to be President (except children of foreign ambassadors) is as erroneous as believing that first names come first and last names come last.  It seems to be a fact but that view is limited to a narrow ignorant outlook which fails to take all the facts into account, namely the fact that over one billion Chinese, -and perhaps Japanese and Koreans as well, position the surname first and the given name last.  Thus the most famous name in the citizenship debate, Wong Kim Ark, is in the opposite order from Western names, with the surname being Wong, -not Ark.

Thinking that something is true does not make it so, and assuming that one’s assumptions are correct does not make them all correct.  Facts and discernment are essential to finding the truth, and even a child can discern that a tadpole is not a toad, just like a native born citizen is not a natural born citizen.

My final analogy is the comparison between the natural and the artificial.  Image two planes, like two levels of a bunk bed.  The lower plane is the fundamental, organic, natural plain.  On it is found natural foods, drinks, stones, marble, wood, leather, gems, and metals.  On the upper plain one sees artificial restaurant-window foods, plastic imitations of all sorts of things, particle board and plastic-based lumber, Formica, cultured marble, cement bricks and stones, metallic plastics, artificial sweeteners and flavors and drinks; soda, tang, fruit punch, fake hair, teeth, limbs, imitation leather, gems, pearls, etc.
Similarly, artificial citizenship is as unnatural as the imitation items on that plain.  It’s purely man-made via laws and opinions of judges regarding those laws.  But natural citizenship is of a natural origin.  There is no input nor interference of man.  Law and government are not needed for it to exist because it exists anyway.

It would not bear the label citizenship if not connected to a nation, but it would still exist in the form of natural membership because individuals do not exist as individuals but in groups, clans, and tribes.  When the tribes are all consolidated into one union by the choice of the individual tribes/colonies/states, then the members become known as citizens because they all then bear a civic responsibility for the survival of their union and their people.  And more than that, for the creation and perpetuation of their chosen form of government and their selection of representatives to administer that government.
Artificial citizens have no natural right to participate in that government, but by the magnanimity of the natural members, they are granted equal rights to them, -with the one exception that they are not allowed to be their chief or supreme commander.

* The primary responsibility of citizens, as with fathers, is protection of the defenseless, meaning one’s own family members, or one’s own defenseless fellow citizens.  That responsibility is an obligation to be part of the protection and defense of the nation when threatened.  You think that no one in the country has the authority to require you to shoot someone, and yet the government does possess that authority if you happen to be born male.  The two things that are most fundamental to the men of every society and nation are the orders one must obey, unless exempted, to take the life of enemy combatants; -to kill, and to place your life at risk in extremely dangerous situations.  Without that authority, a nation’s preservation cannot be assured.
Foreign guests of the government are not subject to that authority and therefore their sons do not inherit it, -even if they enter the world within the boundaries of the American nation.  They can never be ordered to serve a country that is not their own because they are not subject to its jurisdiction, -unless their status changes by living in America through to the age of 18.  Then they must register with the Selective Service.

National Membership & Natural Responsibility

In the beginning was the principle, and the principle was supreme and unchanging, and so it has remained, -everlasting and immutable.  It exists and persists as an inextricable primary element of the fabric of all life.  As it was in the beginning, so it is to this day.

It cannot be altered, suspended, nor abolished.  No one and no thing can give it legitimacy because no one would even exist without it, nor would they be what they are.  All living creatures are its children and it is the mother of them all.

Life itself is the father, but without the mother, all life would reproduce in a state of chaos because uniformity would not exist.  Without the principle of uniformity being present in the nature of off-spring, no higher form of life would, nor could exist because gender attraction would not exist, and mating would take place chaotically; dogs with cats, lions with bears, birds with reptiles, reptiles with fish, carnivors with herbivores, etc, but in fact, no species would nor could even exist.

The uniformity essential to all non-unisex life-forms results in off-spring identical to  parents who have an identical (uniform) nature.  Every life form reproduces only its own kind.  Since species do not mix, chaos does not result.

Of course a fundamental law of Life is that species cannot mix, and uniformity is not optional, it’s fundamental.  The result is that social (as opposed to solitary) species grow into societies larger than a single family, and it is from that larger uniform society that they eventually find a mate, and in which they find companionship and common protection.

[An analogous relationship is that of natural members of a tribe or nation. They are all related in a way because all of their fathers were members of the tribe or nation. They all possess a natural, uniform parental background,  and are all the tribe's natural members.]

It is the natural testosterone-driven role of the males to guard and protect the females, who in turn, guard and protect the young.  After ensuring survival (via nourishment &  shelter), the number one imperative of life, including the life of social groups, is self-defense — self-preservation, and in that regard both sexes have an innate sense of protectiveness toward those dependent upon them.  Don’t threaten a male’s mate, and don’t threaten a mother’s young.  Innate, visceral reaction and response are built-in to the constitution of all creatures.

A good example was given in the Disney cartoon “Lambert, the Sheepish Lion”.  Nothing could upset or arouse the lion nature of sheepish Lambert who was raised by a ewe in a flock of companion sheep, until, that is, a ravenous wolf came and abducted her with the intent of making her his next meal.
Upon hearing her pleas for help, something snapped inside Lamberts consciousness and a primal response roared out of his subconscious, changing him from a passive sheep into an aggressive male lion hell-bent on defending his mother.  From then on he knew that he not only was capable of protecting  his mother and the flock, but that it was his role in life to do so.

That realization was not unique to Lambert alone, since it’s the most fundamental, primal role of all males of all societies, -meaning the defense of those who are defenseless.
That role, if not performed as a result of natural impulse, -out of loving devotion, must be performed as a responsibility that is obligatory, -as a duty.
It is one’s duty to perform one’s responsibility, and that duty is made obligatory by the tribal group or national group to which one belongs, in order to ensure that it does not fall disproportionately on the shoulders of those males who are not slackers.
That is the basis of a nation’s right to require that its young able male members share in the duty to defend their society & nation since it is their home, and its people are their fellow brothers and sisters in the national family.

That is simple and clear, but there is one complication, and that is the case of those who do not belong to a society but are merely visitors.  Are they expected, and required  to defend the home or dwelling in which they are staying, -or the country in which it is located?  The answer is simple: ~Guests are not under any obligation to perform the duties of citizens & permanent residents because that which might need defending is not connected to them in any way.  They are here today, gone tomorrow, -back to their own home, and homeland to which all of their responsibility belongs.

That is the sole reason for exempting foreign ambassadors and their children from responsibility to defend a nation that is not theirs, and to which they owe no obligation.  There is no other reason, although some sage statesman or judge once opined that they are exempt because “they carry their own nationality with them.”

That is about the most nonsensical statement one could make, although the view it expresses has long been widely used to justify the unjustifiable, which is that while ambassadors “carry their own nationality with them”, their fellow foreigners who are visiting a foreign land but who are not representatives of their own king or government, are in effect nationality-less when visiting abroad, and not carrying their nationality with them, even if their visit is as brief as possible, -while an ambassador may reside for many years.  Well, that is absurd and unexplainable.
Employment does not alter a fundamental principle of belonging.  Either one belongs to one’s own home society or one doesn’t, -or one is in a gray area betwixt the two opposites, meaning they belong to a country that is not their own.
The only thing that distinguishes ambassadors from their fellow foreign citizens is diplomatic immunity.  They are exempt from prosecution for violations of the civil laws of their host nation, but they are exempt from any expectation that they be subject to a nation’s political laws.  No government has or claims the authority to tell a foreign  ambassador that he is forbidden from visiting nation X, or that his sons must submit to military service in their host nation’s army.
Actually, one other thing also distinguishes ambassadors from their fellow foreign citizens, that being that ambassadors may reside in a host nation for many, many years and cannot be told that “their Visa has expired” and they must leave, whereas their fellow citizens can be ordered to leave since they don’t represent their nation.

But what about those male foreigners who go beyond just a temporary stay (whether it be weeks, months, or years, -such as college students)?  What about those who acquire legal permission to become permanent United States residents with a work permit? Are they guests, and thus free from the obligation to defend the nation also?

The answer is that they are not guests, but have an obligation to defend whatever land is their home, aside from their unsevered obligations toward their native country.

Their obligation to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, extends to their children born in America even if they were not natural members of the American family, (being as they were born of, by and to foreigners and not Americans).
That obligation exists because they are members of American society and therefore share the responsibility to help preserve their own social and national world.  It is their duty to do so if needed and called.

Consequently, they, U.S.-resident alien-fathered males, whether native-born or foreign-born, are all obligated and required by U.S. law to register with the Selective Service once they reach the age of 18, unless their father represents a foreign nation.  For sons of ambassadors, a strong legal and cultural barrier keeps them separate from the land in which they reside, and instead keeps them connected primarily to the nation of their father, or parents.

But those males who are not thusly isolated, bear and share the social responsibility of all males who are citizens of the nation.  They are fully subject to the full authority of their host nation’s government in return for permission to live within it, be a part of its society, benefit from its advantages, and be protected by its laws.

They are legal immigrants, like pre-adoptees; i.e., pre-naturalized citizens.  No one can become a U.S. citizen as an adult without living in the U.S. first, -adapting to it and eventually completing the full naturalization process.  But even before completing it, they are still obligated to defend the nation that they’ve choosen as their new, and probably permanent, home.
That means that male children born to them here are fully subject to U.S. federal authority in the sense that they are born with an inherited latent obligation to one day be a member of the pool of male citizens and immigrants who can be called on to serve in the national defense.  But sons born to visiting or “non-resident” foreigners are under no such latent obligation and aren’t expected, required, nor allowed to register at 18 for a possible draft because they have no connection to the United States, and are invariably living in and growing up in their parents’ own foreign homeland.
Just because their mother prematurely gave birth while visiting the American side of Niagara Falls does not embue such a son with the obligation nor privilege of American citizenship.

Does anyone dare argue to the contrary?  If so, on the basis of what moral or natural principle?  There is none.  There never has been one.  There never will be one, and no one has ever articulate one.  The entire defense for believing the opposite is derived from the argument that at some time in British history the monarch choose to extend his greedy authority over not only his own citizens (for life), along with foreign domiciled immigrants, but even over any child born to a woman who happened to just be in the king’s domain for a day visit.  No sane person can justify such a hegemonic policy of a self-serving dictator.

From the perspective of a by-gone era, one would say that such a mother and her husband “carry their nationality with them” and their child belongs to them, not the dictator of Great Britain.  It is what they are that determines what their child is, and they are not British subjects in any sense, -unlike some of their countrymen who have choosen to live in and be members of the king’s realm.
Those who have done so have choosen to be the king’s subjects.  But of course they are not his natural subjects because they were born and raised as subjects of a foreign king.  The king’s ministers and statesmen could have choosen to call them the king’s natural born subjects, but that would have been laughably stupid and unacceptable.  But eventually they did manage to successfully label the children of immigrants by the same description as the children of natural subjects, that being “natural born subjects”.

In the king’s selfish mind he felt that they naturally were his subjects also, which was true, since they were born within his dominion, but that did not replace the fact that they were alien-born subjects, and not natural born subjects since they were born of aliens and not natural subjects.  But somewhere in time the decision was made to demolish the distinction regarding  domestic and foreign paternity and just call everyone born in the realm a natural born subject even though some weren’t.
That bastardization of the language was good for protecting alien-born subjects from discrimination, which comes naturally to humans, but it wasn’t recognized when it came to protecting the kingdom.

No son of a foreigner, even though incorrectly labeled a natural born citizen, could serve in positions holding great power or critical national secrets.  That exception to the new status quo was behind the scenes and invisible in society.  But those responsible for the survival of the nation knew that positions of critical national importance could not be entrusted to just anyone born in the land because some were born and raised with foreign connections and possibly loyalty, such as to the kings of France and Spain.

In America, a similar consideration and requirement was related to who would be allowed to wield the power of the Chief Commander of the American Army and Navy.  Would any and every person born in the American states be allowed into the Presidency or would  it be placed off-limits to the American equivalent of an alien-born subject?

The authors of the Constitution choose to follow the wise limitation of the British and bar the presidency from all citizens except “natural born citizens”.  (Article II, Section I.) That wasn’t a narrow limitation since 98% of the men of the nation were born to American fathers, but it was a limitation carrying significant importance, and it was never knowingly violated until 2008 when an alien-born citizen was unconstitutionally pushed forward by a corrupt Democratic Party leadership to run for an office that they all knew he was not eligible to hold, -the United States presidency, which, unlike all other offices of the United States government, is off-limits to sons of aliens, especially those who are not even immigrants with legal permanent residency.

by a.r. nash  feb. 2013  http://obama–

Here’s my grandfather’s draft notification from 1918.  Look it over and ask yourself whether or not you think any government has the legitimate authority to require such a thing of its temporary guests, or of their children who unavoidably happen to be born here before returning home.bibes-nash-cuendet58

Presidential Legitimacy:

 ~the Constitution versus the 14th Amendment

The United States Constitution prescribes who shall serve as President, and, by exclusion, bars all others from that unique office, the one that holds the power of the Commander in Chief of all American federal, military, and nuclear forces.  But staunch supporters of American Marxism, lovers of all things Obama, dispute that the Constitution means what it actually says.  Instead they hold to the belief that what it says actually means:
“Any person born in the United State is eligible to be President if 35 years of age and 14 years a resident.”
But the Constitution says something quite different.  “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”

No mention is made of where one must be born, nor that one must be native-born.  Instead one must be either a citizen of the United States, -meaning an officially recognized legal citizen, -meaning a citizen by the laws of the individual states, meaning a citizen via naturalization before a state magistrate, or else one must simply be what everyone else was, which means a natural citizen, -without any connection to or permission through the administration of citizenship law, all of which was passed to deal with foreigners and their children.

What is not stated is that one must be a natural born citizen of the United States.  That would be impossible because “the United States”, meaning, in this context, the federal government, did not have any citizens of its own.  That would require the later creation of the federal district and the acquisition of federal lands.  A child born on federal land to residents of that land would be born without a state homeland.  It would, in effect, be internally “stateless”, -without a home state to call its own.

The Constitution only requires that one be “a natural born citizen”, which nearly all Americans were because they were born to American parents and not immigrants.  They were natural citizens of their home state, not because of being born there, but because they were born to parents who were born there.
Children of the native-born are not just native-born also, but are actual natives of the United States and their home state.  But their parents are not natives even though they were native-born because they were the progeny of natives of a foreign land, and thus were born with that inherited natural connection.  They are the transitional generation between the generation of pure foreigner and the generation of pure American.
They were native-born but not natural born because their parents were not natives.  Their natural inheritance at birth was foreign because they, by inherited nature, were born being what their father was.  But the children of the native-born are natives and natural born because they have no direct connection to the nation of their grandfather.
Their roots through their native-born father are purely American.  They, therefore, are constitutionally eligible to serve as President.  But their father is ineligible since he was not born as a natural citizen but was granted citizenship solely because of the Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
It reads something like: “No person, except those born in the United States, -or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States nor the state wherein they reside.”   I misquoted it by mirroring the language of the presidential eligibility clause.  It actually reads: “All persons born in the…”

Why use inclusionary language (i.e., “All persons”) instead of exclusionary language (No person except…)?  Because the amendment was not about excluding certain people from citizenship, unlike the Constitution’s exclusion of certain people from the presidency, it was instead about including certain people; namely the freed slaves who had no other country or government.  It gave them, along with naturalized citizens, national membership that was above the law since it was granted by the People as an amendment to the Constitution.

Freed slaves, unlike children of foreign residents, were not subject to any foreign power since their parents were all native-born (unless they were newly “imported” from Africa), whereas foreigners and any children born to them, whether here or abroad, were subject to their homeland’s government unless and until they renounced and rejected that subjection and swore allegiance to the United States alone, thereby becoming Americans as naturalized citizens along with their minor children who automatically inherited their father’s new citizenship via the principle of jus sanguinis (the principle recognized as the means by which national membership passes from father to children).

What would the presidential eligibility clause read like if it had been written to be inclusionary instead of exclusionary?  Something like: “All persons, (except those under 35, women, homosexuals, non-Caucasians, non-Protestants, non-English speaking, non-literate, alien-born, Gypsy-born, or Indian-born) shall be eligible…”  That would have included maybe 10-15 percent of the population, barring the rest.  But instead they made it simple by excluding everybody unless they were a natural citizen, over 35, and 14 years a U.S. resident.
If they had intended that all qualified native-born persons be eligible, then they would have stated so, and yet they did not state that, but instead avoided it because even though without exception, all candidates would always be native-born,(until John McCain) that was not the criteria that held any importance.  If it had then why allow naturalized citizens to serve as President during the founder’s generation?
The answer is that many naturalized citizens served the new nation valiantly and at great sacrifice, proving their loyalty to the United States during the long war.  Those who did not had no chance in hell of getting any votes.  So the nation would be safe from a President with divided loyalty because one could not be elected during their generation.
It was the future that concerned them, and so they limited the eligibility of those who were “Citizens of the United State” to only those who were such when the Constitution was adopted, and to none born after it was adopted.  That meant that naturalized foreigners (i.e., immigrants and their children) could be President if they were a citizen when the Constitution was adopted in 1788.  After that date, becoming a new citizen provided no one eligibility to be President, -even if native-born.  After that date, only those born as natural Americans would be eligible.  Those with only citizenship by law were henceforth barred because that meant that they had a foreign father, and thus could not be fully trusted with the power of the Commander-in-Chief’s position.

The 14th Amendment made no difference because it did not nullify the requirement that one be a natural born American.  To understand that clearly, an alternative analogous substitute scenario is helpful.
“All persons born into a family, or adopted, having their parents’ names entered on their Certificate of Live Birth, are members of their parents’ family and siblings to their other children.”

That sounds like bullet-proof logic and clear as a bell, right?  But the logic is flawed.  It fails to take into account the extraordinary situation of a child being born via a surrogate, and without any genetic material from the couple adopting the child from day one.  Neither the name of the real genetic parents, nor the surrogate mother will appear on the birth certificate.  But the birth certificate must reflect the truth, mustn’t it?  Absolutely not.  It is unlawful to list them in adoptions, -at least in the version given to the parents.
So the person “born into a family” was not born of the family, and is not a natural member, which is something that the amendment analogy does not claim that they are.  It only states that they are a member, -not a natural member.  Similarly, the 14th Amendment does not create natural citizens thanks to it declaring only that those said to be citizens are “citizens of the United States…”

That made them official, constitutional citizens by national law, and above the authority of Congress to infringe.  They can serve in every capacity in the governments of the nation, but all such citizens are un-natural citizens because their citizenship is not the result of natural (inherited) transmission.  They therefore cannot constitutionally serve in one and only one position, -namely, the presidency which is off-limits to them.

Of course all of the hypothetical surrogate children would have all the same rights and benefits as the other children, but that doesn’t mean they have the same DNA.  As in the case of twins, -all twins are not created equal.  Some are identical and others are fraternal.  To claim that all twins are similarly identical would be a total falsehood, because some are in fact different, -being fraternal and not identical.

So it is with all native-born citizens.  Some are natural born natives but others are just native-born.  They aren’t identical nor indistinguishable.  The natural born have American fathers, buthave foreign fathers, and they therefore are barred from the office of the President.
That is a hair that is easily split, -a distinction that is easily drawn, a difference that makes a difference, having a very serious purpose behind it, -as serious as the purpose behind not allowing any native-born American citizen, who’s also foreigner-born, access to nuclear bombs, nor access to the President with a loaded weapon.  They all must be natural Americans, and pass the Yankee White background investigation, and be, -like the President, children of Americans, -or else the President could end up like Indira Gandhi, leader of India, who was machine-gunned by her own Secret Service guard who was not a natural member of her faction of Indian society, but was from a hostile faction that should not have been trusted.  But political correctness required political inclusiveness, and that inclusiveness resulted in her assassination.

An identical crusade for inclusiveness is what allowed the first non-Caucasian, Marxism-embracing son of a foreigner to be accepted and celebrated by over half the nation as being the legitimate President of the United States, when in fact he is totally illegitimate and knows full well that he is.  But in his relative-morality perspective, his rise is wholly for the greater good, which means social justice via income redistribution.   Children paying for the “sins of the fathers”.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers