Primal Law & Fundamentals of Citizenship

Primal Bonds & Primal Obligation

cooked version:

Natural Instinct,  Natural Bond,  Natural Duty  & Natural Rights

raw version:

Primal Instinct,  Primal Bond,  Primal Duty  & Primal Rights

Primal instincts determine fundamental things in
life.  The most primal instinct of all is a craving for oxygen.  The experience of water-boarding is so distressing not because it inflicts pain or injury but because it induces panic by interfering with the freedom to satisfy a primal urge, the urge to breath.
Perhaps second is the primal reaction to being burned by fire or high heat, followed by aversion to the pain of stepping on piercing objects like thorns, nails, and needles while barefoot.  Avoiding pain, cold, thirst and hunger are primal responses.

But another primal instinct comes into existence after a mother has a baby. The development of a primal maternal bond to her baby results in a new instinct, one felt by every sentient being that feels that bond, -the most primal bond of all.  It’s the instinct to protect, provide for, and possess one’s own young.  A world without that bond and the instincts connected to it would be quite different;

~on the personal level;
Stranger: “I want your baby and I’m gonna take her.”
Mother:   “Ok,..I don’t have a feeling either way.”

~ on the national level;
Potentate: “I want your country and I’m gonna take it.”
Passive citizen: “Ok, I don’t have any feelings about that either way.”

~on the international level;
Alien:  We want your planet and we’re gonna take it.”
Earthling: “Ok, we don’t have any feelings about that either way.”

Primal bonds are very real even though they exist on a level that rarely reaches our conscious mind.  We aren’t conscious of how strong they are until they are violated by those who would sever them in the physical world.  Then we awaken, like Lambert, the Sheepish Lion, as his adoptive mother, a sheep, is carried off by a ravenous wolf.  Then the bond’s full primal power comes to the surface.
Nascent Dictator: “I want your freedom and I’m gonna take it.”
Passive male citizens: “Ok, we don’t really have any feeling about that either way.”

We, like free stallions, have a primal instinct against being enslaved and chained; -against our liberty being robbed from us.  That’s obvious, but there’s another less obvious primal instinct.
Primal bonds are a form of primal instinct, -an instinct that rebels strongly at separation from that to which one is bonded.  That instinct is the source of a primal right, -a right to own that which one’s own body has produced, -one’s own young.  From another angle, it is a  primal property right, -the right to own not just one’s self, but what one makes, or fairly and legitimately acquires.

Primal rights start on a primal level, with the right to live, to breath, to walk, to speak, to think, and to feel, and they are always accompanied by primal instincts, beginning with the instinct to defend one’s self from harm.  Followed by, or preceded by the instinct to defend those to whom one is bonded.
A mother is bonded to her children, and ideally to her husband.  A father is bonded to his wife & children, and it is his primal instinct to defend them against attack, -be it by an animal or a person or a mob or an army.  His right of self-defense extends to them as well since they are his and are of him.

They, being dependent on his primal instinct to defend them, have a right to count on him to defend them because they cannot defend themselves to the degree that he can.  He bears an obligation to be their defender.  It is his primal responsibility.

But if he is a freeman, then his responsibility does not end there.  He also bears a responsibility to participate in the defense of the community to which he belongs, including his clan, his tribe and his country.

If such a responsibility were not real and not felt, there never would have been such a thing as the Confederate Army, which was populated by common men who were not slave owners.  They either felt the responsibility to defend their own and volunteered, or they were conscripted by their government to perform the duty that issues from their primal obligation to defend those to whom they are bonded, along with those to whom they are connected in the struggle to remain alive and free.
Just as the individual has the right to defend his own, so also the tribe leader has a right to defend his tribe even if mounting that defense requires ordering his men-folk to perform their duty of defending their greater family, -their own people.

It is not fair to those who shoulder their responsibility voluntarily when some are unwilling to do so and thus place a greater share of sacrifice on those who are willing, and so it is the right of the leader, in doing his duty to defend his people, to order the recalcitrant and reluctant to perform their duty whether or not they feel the primal instinct, and embrace their primal duty.

His primary means of enforcing his fair orders is the use of force and punishment, both of which can be considerable.  The individual, who’s a member of a community, is not an island with no connection to others.  He is part of a matrix of similarity and common dependency when it comes to avoiding being annihilated or enslaved.  He bears a responsibility to man the position that is assigned to him in the circle of common defense.
In nations that do not practice ostracizing, the only penalty for disobedience is the use of force and /or  incarceration.  Discipline must be maintained or troop- cohesion will evaporate.  That is essentially what happened in South Vietnam, but not in North Vietnam.  The south was not gripped by the primal instinct of self-defense and resistance to enslavement, nor community duty, and so they were over-run by those in the grip of the ideology of totalitarian Marxist “liberation” in the form of Statist nationalistic dictatorship.

A big brother (the United States) cannot fight all of your battles for you.  At some point, you have to grow up and fight your own battles, but the South was far too immature, and so was not prepared for the invasion to come.
Mature nations know that vigilance is the price of freedom, and vigilance requires the participation of the able-bodied men of the nation.  In time of peace, that participation may be voluntary, but in a time of war, it may not be.  It was not voluntary during World War I & II because the man-power raised voluntarily to fight and win the wars in Europe, -threats to the free world, was insufficient, and so a draft was instituted.  And men were conscripted to fight for their country -whether it was their native country or their adopted country.  They were fulfilling their primal duty to fight for those who could not fight, -for the defenseless, the exempt and incapable or less capable.
Whether defense is on the personal level or on the national level, the principle is the same; -the primal duty to defend those who depend on you and to whom you are bonded.
Back when the 14th Amendment was being written, -with its added citizenship clause, Native Americans and Gypsies were deemed by many to be outside of its citizenship provision because they had no bond to American society and were not viewed as being under the jurisdiction of the local or county or state governments because they were a people unto themselves.
Gypsies were transients everywhere they went, -with no attachments to other Americans, having their own law and leadership.  Therefore they were not included in the meaning of the jurisdiction under which citizens lived because they did not live under it, and therefore citizenship was not intended to be imputed to them since they were completely outsiders.

They had no primal bond to other Americans, and therefore they were not under any duty to defend a people that they were not a part of.  As such, they were not under an obligation of obedience to the authority of the government of the American people since they were separate and apart from them.  They had a right to not be subjugated by a power that was not a part of their structure and identity.  That’s especially  true of Native Americans.

Immigrants come from a place and life where the same circumstance is true, but after adopting America as their new home and nation, their former bond and duty is overlaid by their new obligation to their new society and country.  They therefore become subject to the authority of their new nation’s government.

That is a truth that was not acknowledged by the United States government from its establishment until the Supreme Court in 1898 declared that the native-born children of immigrants are born subject to the authority of Washington and therefore are American citizens by the authority of the 14th Amendment.  That opinion was diametrically opposed to the position of the United States government until it was tried before a federal court, followed by the Supreme Court and upheld by the majority in the suit of the U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark.
What primal principle was the government following for over a century instead of the one the high court mandated be followed?  It was the principle of duty being tied to identity.  If your identity was not American, then you were not under the jurisdiction of the American government because you were under no obligation to fulfill a duty to a people and nation that are not your own.
To be a part of the American people and nation you had to be American-ized by rejecting your former nationality, your former sovereign, monarch, or potentate, and his government.  If you were not willing to do so, then you were not to be considered to be an American, and only American parents were capable of producing American children.

Every family had only one nationality, one loyalty,   and one government. Dual citizenship was not possible because nationality was not inherited from one’s mother unless the father had died before her child was born.  Also, from the founding of the nation, a foreign woman who married an American man became a derivative citizen of the United States through her husband.  And from 1907 until 1922 an American woman who married a foreign man lost her American citizenship outright (Nationality Act of 1907).   If Obama had been born in the year in which his grandfather was born, he wouldn’t even be an American citizen.
Clearly the citizenship of American women was viewed as being less than that of American men.  Why was that the case?  Because they were not under the primal duty to defend the nation.  American women, like immigrant men, could not be ordered to serve the nation in time of war nor forced to undergo combat training, much less actual combat.  But American men could, including American blacks, and because of that obligation blacks were in the strange and awkward situation of being second-class citizens and yet they could vote and serve on juries  (and be elected or appointed to public office) regardless of being dirt poor, while American women could not, regardless of how wealthy or educated or intelligent or powerful they were.  Discrimination was the American way in actual practice though not in philosophy.
The implication of these facts is that when the Supreme Court ruled that domestically born children of immigrants were subject to federal authority (even though it was only latent subjection until they reached adulthood) it did not simultaneously rule that domestically born children of non-immigrants were also born under that subjection.
It could not rule that they were because that would be a violation of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause since non-immigrant fathers bear no responsibility to defend a nation that is not theirs.
Their visit to America, along with their pregnant wife, did not obligate them to defend America because they would not have a primal bond to America, nor a primal duty to serve in its defense.

Being merely guests, America would have no right to force them to.  They remained subject to their duty to their own nation and people, and their son born in America would inherit that same duty as a latent obligation to one day defend that foreign homeland  if needed, -the homeland where they would grow up,  -unless their mother was not foreign but American.  Then, if the marriage was a fraud, they might grow up in America, but their nationality would have been inherited only from their father.
The result of these facts is that the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to children of non-immigrants because they, like their fathers, were exempt by primal law, and international law, (as were U.S.-born children of immigrants by the previous national policy and tradition).  But the Supreme Court imposed the principle of primal duty on native-born children of immigrants, while not imposing it on native-born children of non-immigrants.  That is the clear limit of their opinion, the boundary that it did not cross, but unfortunately for our nation during its last several decades, that was a boundary that the Attorney General in 1898 (John Griggs) did cross in interpreting their opinion.
And now the belief that any child born in America (except to foreign diplomats) is a citizen via the authority of the 14th Amendment is an institutionalized error that is assumed by all to be a fundamental element of American law when in fact it has no basis whatsoever in actual law.
He made that erroneous conclusion because he had no clue about what the subjection requirement of the amendment meant, and so he ignored it, and it’s been ignored ever since.  But without meeting its requirement, no child is born a citizen of the United States, even if the incorrect and ignorant policy of the government since then has assumed that the opinion and resulting policy of Attorney General Griggs is the law of the land.
But in actual truth, it is not “the Law of the land”, it is merely the policy of the land.  It was not a position passed by nor endorsed by any Congress other than by passive acquiescence, nor did it comport to the limited ruling of the Supreme Court.  By that policy Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States, but not by any law or court opinion ever issued.

Barack Obama, being a national policy citizen, and not a naturalized citizen, nor a statutory citizen, nor a derivative citizen, nor a constitutional citizen (via the 14th Amendment), is least of all a natural born citizen as the Constitution requires all Presidents and Vice-Presidents to be since the only political nature he inherited was through his father, and his father was an alien visitor, and not an immigrant.  Hence his presidency is unconstitutional.

By Primal Law, he had no duty to the United States since his latent primal duty was to Kenya, -the home land of his father.  So the United States had no obligation to embrace him as one of its children, and he in turn had no right to expect that it did.  He only had the right to expect that his paternal ancestors’ homeland owed him the right to be a member of its society and nation since he was one of its descendants.

And its laws, and those of Britain, acknowledged such a right, and he had two years after reaching adulthood at age 21 during which to embrace that right and to shun the non-primal right of American-policy  citizenship, and become a fully subject and singularly loyal Kenyan citizen by taking the Kenyan oath of Allegiance and Renunciation.

Presumably he didn’t do that since American citizenship was of far greater value even as he was probably maintaining the story that he was Kenyan born in order to receive financial assistance as a foreign student.  That can’t be proven because he has kept all of his records secret.  One can’t assume that he is doing that for no good reason.  Secrets are kept for a reason, and that reason usually begins with embarrassment or evidence of lying, and fraud.
But the American citizenship that he presumably possessed was a form that allowed him to become not just a state representative, and state Senator, but even President of the Senate, -but…not President of the United States.
It was a citizenship which allowed him to not only become a United States federal judge, but even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but…not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military.

Article II, Section I  U.S. Constitution:  “No person except a natural born citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,”.   As such, his reign as POTUS is an ongoing crime against the Constitution since he is an illegitimate President of the United States.
ps:
Nationality and citizenship are two separate concepts.  One is a National of his country, and a citizen of his nation.  No one is a citizen of a country because a country is not a political-legal entity but is instead a large natural association of people within a contiguous land area.  Indonesia is not a natural country because it is comprised of 18,000 island, with 6,000 of them inhabited.  The people are citizens of a nation but not nationals of a country except in regard to the main island and those close near.
Originally India was not a natural nation because of the Hindu–Muslim divide, so it split off the nation of Pakistan.  It also was an unnatural nation because it was comprised of two separate countries, one on each side of India, so it split-off the nation of Bangladesh.   Just as one can be a U.S. Citizen but not be a real American (Boston bomber) so one can also be an American but not be a citizen (as was the case with Native Americans and children of illegal immigrants who were raised in the United States.  They have no other identify or country, but aren’t true citizens.
Obama isn’t a “true American” due  to his upbringing immersed in  Islamic culture & schooling and Islamic religion, -along with his mentoring in Hawaii as a  teenager by the Communist Frank Marshall Davis.  Proof of just how un-American he is is seen in a video in which former governor Richardson and Sec. Of State Clinton and others are on a stage with their hands on their hearts while Obamas’ remained at his side all through the singing of the Star Spangled Banner.  His heart belongs to Allah and Alinsky,-not America.
by a.r. nash  april 2013  obama–nation.com

Barry Obama: Fraud to the Core

How does one go from being a pot-head, crack user to being invited to head the Democrat ticket for the presidency when one has never espoused any change of heart or change of values?
Any pretense of being reformed would be about as believable as his fake Christianity which he pretends is real though he attended a Marxist Black Liberation Theology America-hating Church for two decades where he learned the talk of the social gospel by which Salvation is not an individual relationship with the Savior, it is a collective thing.

As he once informed a political audience, neither he nor they could be saved individually (Individualism is the deadly enemy of communalism, i.e., communism) Salvation only comes when the whole community becomes collectivist, i.e., communist, thereby the good deeds done by and through government will yield collective salvation.  Yes, that’s what he believes.

What a heretic and a traitor to American and Christian fundamentals!  His supposed Christian conversion is a complete and utter sham perpetrated by a lying Islam loving fraud.  And that’s from someone who likes him.

He didn’t miss-speak when being interviewed by George Stephanopolis when he talked about, (until being “corrected”), his “Muslim faith”.  One thing every Christian that ever lived knows, is that such a “slip-of-the tongue is totally impossible.  It was a pure Freudian slip.  Would a devote Muslim ever mistakenly refer to his Christian faith or his Jewish faith?  Not in a billion years!

Would a survivor of Auschwitz ever refer to Hitler as their fuehrer, or bow to him as Obama bowed obsequiously to the King of Saudi Arabia?  Why would he bow to him?  Because he is the most powerful man on earth?  No, because that would be Obama.  But he bowed to him in respect of the religion which he represents as the leader of the land of the Prophet, -where Mecca and Medina are located.
That’s good news and bad news.  The good news is that part of Obama holds a deep secret reverence for the holy and spiritual.  That means he is the enemy of the devil, i.e., evil and violence (water-boarding).
The bad news is that he’s not representing the values of the people of America who are predominantly Christian, and would never bow to any man, much less one who represents what they see as a fraud of a religion, -a heresy if it were a Christian pretender, and possibly the work of Satan to deceive with false religion and false doctrine and false scripture and a false future messiah who is essentially indistinguishable from the description of actions attributed to the Anti-Christ, -the son of Perdition.
A rallying cry of the revolutionary patriots was; “No King but Jesus!”  Their knee would bow to no other.
So he is what he is, and he is not what he pretends to be.  The pretense is in order to not lose votes.  It is maintained because he can’t be seen as being the lying, two-faced hypocrite fraud that he is.

I just tried to make an omelet by cracking an egg from a carton my sister gave me.  The shell wouldn’t separate as it should have, so I pulled on it.  Guess what?  It was a fraud of sorts.  I thought it was one thing but it was another, and I couldn’t tell because it, like all eggs, was opaque.  It was hard-boiled.

Obama is a similar sort of egg.  He looks perfectly normal from the outside, but is totally different on the inside, -different from what one would expect and believe.  What you see is not what you get.  It is something different because he is different inside from what he seems on the outside, and that’s one of the reason he finds it unacceptable to call his fellow Muslims, though murders, terrorists.  It goes against his deep inner convictions to associate terror with “the peaceful religion of Islam”.
But he, like Islam, has two faces.  Both are socially schizophrenic.  One face of Islam is based on the early peaceful writings in the Koran, while the other is based on the later righteous avenger attitude to kill all opponents, all infidels or rejecters of Islamic supremacy.  Like “fools gold”, Obama appears to be more precious than he is.  But he is not really gold, though he pretends to be.  Underneath he’s something else, something like Pyrite.  The first “fools gold” Pyrite President.
by a.r. nash  may 2013  obama–ation.com

A Presidential Eligibility Primer

The Simple Facts About Presidents & Citizenship

~Guidelines for Presidential Candidates~

~Seven Truths About Eligibility

1.  The Constitution bars anyone with only foreign citizenship from being the President.

2.  The Constitution bars anyone not born with American citizenship from being President.

3.  The Constitution bars anyone with a father who is a foreigner from being President.

4.  The Constitution bars all immigrant naturalized citizens from being the President.

5.  The Constitution bars mere  “native-born citizens” from being President.

6.  The Constitution bars all but a “natural born citizen” from being President.

7. The Constitution requires age discrimination & residency discrimination.

~Ignorance is everywhere, -the deception universal.
The delusion infects all minds that are not seeking the truth.

SEVEN LIES THAT ELECTED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT

Lie 1. Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen from birth.

Lie 2  Anyone who’s a citizen from birth and can prove it is a natural born citizen.

Lie 3. Anyone with a State birth certificate is “officially” eligible to be President.

Lie 4. Only naturalized citizens are ineligible to be President.

Lie 5.  All “born citizens” are alike, whether born to foreigners or Americans.

Lie 6.  “Native-born” citizenship, and natural born citizenship are indistinguishable .

Lie 7.  Half-citizens, -dual-citizens can be President if they’re born in the United States.

The Ten Rules of Natural Law Membership & Citizenship

1.  Everyone possess a natural right to be accepted as an equal member of the group into which they are born.

2.  No one possesses a natural right to be accepted as an equal member of any group into which he or she is not born.

3.  No natural group has a right to decide that the children of its natural members are not members.

4.  All natural groups have the right to decide when, how and why non-members are allowed to join their group

5.  All natural groups have a right to decide that the children of non-members are not members, even if born within the group’s territory.

6.  The location of one’s birth conveys no natural right whatsoever.

7.  No non-member who inhabits the land of a group (other than his own)and does so without the permission of the group, possesses any natural right to the full protection of the group in regard to defense against enemies or the violation of rights possessed by the members.

8.  Only non-members who have the official permission of the group to live among them are ethically entitled to the protections of the group’s authority and rules.

9.  Children born to non-members are not natural native members of the group because they come from a mixed-blood or a foreign-blood origin.

10. Children who are not natural native members of the group, but are given permission to be members, possess no natural right to be equally eligible to be the Chief of the group.  Only natural members possess that right which they inherit from their member parents.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The TEN RULES of Natural & Naturalized Citizenship

1.  No American is a natural American unless born to American parents.

2.  Only children of American parents are eligible to be President.

3.  American parents produce natural American children regardless of where they’re born.

4.  No American can father a child that’s a natural citizen of a foreign nation -even if born within that foreign nation, nor can a foreigner beget a natural citizen of a nation foreign to him, (such as the United States) even though his child may be born within its borders.

5.  No one born to a foreign Diplomat, Ambassador, Consul, or military person, nor a visiting GSO worker, tourist, merchant, craftsman, entertainer, technician, professor, or student is constitutionally an American citizen because the child is what his father is, and his father is a foreigner who lives in a foreign nation and remains subject to its foreign jurisdiction, -not that of the United States.   As such, his child is not covered by the 14th Amendment.

6.  A foreigner, whether immigrant or non-immigrant, cannot father a natural American because his children will either be foreign citizens only or be both foreign and native-born naturalized-at-birth U.S. citizens. They won’t be native-born natural American citizens.

7.  Anyone “native born” but of permanent resident immigrant parents is a citizen by 14th Amendment automatic naturalization, having their foreign citizenship overlaid with naturalized American citizenship. They are dual citizens.

8.  Citizenship acquired by naturalization, (whether automatically or via process) is not natural citizenship because it was not naturally acquired, transmitted, conveyed, inherited.  Rather, it’s acquired, not by natural means, but via legal mean through the laws & policies of the nation.

9.  No foreigner who’s subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government, (nor one who is also subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government), can father a constitutionally eligible candidate for President because his children come into the world with foreign alienage attached to them.  The President must be born all American.

10. No one born with foreign alienage is eligible to be President because they are / were dual citizens, not natural citizens.

~Natural Progression & Citizenship Progression

The transformation of the toad:
1. Polliwog,  2. Tadpole,  3. Toad

The progression of citizenship:

1.  Foreign born alien
2.  Native-born, immigrant-fathered, naturalized-at-birth child
3. An American child of American parents.  A natural born American citizen.

The Truth about Vattel, Presidents, Citizens & Subjects

“As to this class there have been doubts,
but never as to the first…”

The ignorant and highly biased defenders of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional reign as America’s President, base their entire defense on the notion that only three kinds of persons inhabit a country; natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and foreigners.  That is one of the greatest absurdities of all time, and that is because there are ten identifiable types of citizens in the United States, and only two of them are natural.

In addition to them, there are 6 types of non-citizens, which are, -excluding any possible enemy combatants:
1. foreign diplomats (whose U.S. born children are not citizens)  2. foreign government employees of lower rank, including Consular Officers (their U.S. born children are considered to be citizens)  3. Legal immigrants (Green Card recipients) 4. Illegal immigrants  5.  Visa Card recipients, (Foreign visitors, tourists, temp. workers, etc.)  6. non-citizen American Nationals from American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Swains Island.

Those who are Americans are so in these 10 ways:

1.  Children born of citizens in the United States

2.  Children born of citizens outside the United State

3.  Immigrants naturalized by the naturalization process.

4.  Children born of legal immigrants (Green Card holders),
automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment

5.  Children born of illegal immigrants (citizens by policy, not law),
presumedly automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment

6.  Children naturalized by their parents’ naturalization though born abroad

7.  Children born in America to non-immigrant aliens, (-citizens by policy also)

8.  Foreigners made citizens by Congressional proclamation (Puerto Rico, Guam)

9.  Children born abroad to only one American parent.  American citizens via statute

10.Children born to American women who lost their citizenship by being married to and
living with a foreign husband in a foreign nation between 1907 and 1922 who along with
their mother (re)acquired American citizenship after the 1907 Naturalization Act was amended

The idea that all citizens who are not naturalized by process are “natural born citizen” is asinine.  But everyone thinks that all citizens except naturalized citizens can be President, yet the Constitution mandates something else.  They think it requires that the President be born in America, connecting only domestic birth with eligibility.  They could just as easily connect eligibility to only parentage since what one is when born is determined by parentage, -being as parents determine one’s inherited nature, -one’s social and national position and membership.

Why is it that both would seem equally plausible determinants of presidential eligibility?  It’s because of the words the Constitution used to describe the citizenship of the President.  For all other offices it used the descriptor of “a citizen of the United States”.  As one can see from the list, that is very inclusive.  But when it came to the position that wields the power of the Commander of the American military they used very exclusive language.  They put it like this:

“No person, except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”.

In order to bind that description to the borders within which one was born is quite a feat, but they accomplish it by resorting to elevating, and then twisting the meaning of an old English term that lost its true meaning over the centuries due to sliding down a slippery slope of language bastardization, namely the term: “natural born subject”.  That term originally meant a son born into subjection to the King by inheriting his father’s relationship to the crown.

If the father owed a debt he could not complete payment on, the debt fell on his heirs, his sons, and it continued in perpetuity as a family debt.  If that debt was a debt of obedience, subjection, allegiance & loyalty, then that debt as well was inherited by his sons upon their birth.  They, by their birth to one so bonded to the King, were his natural subjects.

But those born of foreigners who took to living within the King’s domain were not under an inherited bond, -an inherited relationship, because their fathers were subjects of a foreign monarch, and so they inherited that connection and nationality.  They were known in the realm as alien born subjects.

But having superior and inferior classes of subjects was not conducive to peace and harmony because it would result in discrimination in various forms, beginning with rights of inheritance and property, along with hiring by the government, and so, over time, the label came to apply to all children born in the King’s domain as they were all equivalent to his natural born subjects, even though some were not his natural subjects.

That change shifted the focus from the inherited bond with the monarch to the territorial authority of the King’s power within the realm he ruled, -in which he and his noble lords could make the rules and decide what-is-what, including how to view and label all children born within his borders.  That shifted the relationship from an individual bonded relationship to a land or territory based relationship.  Such a relationship could not possibly exist before the firm establishment of national borders.  Before they were so well defined, one’s connection to his sovereign was based solely on his bond of Fidelity, or faithfulness & obedience, in return for the King’s protection and justice.

Thus, by bastardizing the descriptor of his native-born subjects by progressing over the centuries from referring to his alien born subjects as being in the eyes of the law equal in every respect to his natural born subjects, as being equivalent, as essentially being natural born subjects in all legal respects, the actual truth was pushed aside in favor of the new “legal truth” that all of his subjects would be called natural born as an established fiction of law.

But when it came to reality, the fiction was ignored in situations of appointed positions of trust which held highly sensitive national secrets, or held power over critical military forces.  For those positions of trust, privilege, and power, only true natural born subjects were considered.  The fictional “natural born subjects” were never considered.

The defenders of Obama’s illegitimate presidency assert that an old English fiction of law was swallowed whole, and then bounded and limited the thinking of our broadly thinking, deeply thinking, rationally thinking, Natural Rights thinking, independent thinking, realistically thinking Founding Fathers and Constitution framers and then incorporated it into the most important provision in the Constitution, -that of who would be allowed to wield the ultimate power in America.
Were they really so stupid, ignorant, unthinking and unwise as to adapt the legacy and bastardized language of royal dictators into the heart of the American charter of Liberty, Unity, and mutual security?  Why would the Obama legitimizers assume that our founders did not know of nor understand the history of natural national bonds upon which nations were built, and rather than framing the eligibility requirement in real terms, frame it instead in artificial fictional terms?

If we can easily understand it, it’s for certain that they would have understood it far more because they were at that unique stage in the life of a country during which its whole future will be determined.  They knew full well what had bound the people of a nation to their king and it was not the borders within which they were birthed.  It was the authority and obedience into which they were born.  And that authority was over their fathers, and they, being under their fathers, were born under it as well, -not because of where they were born, but to whom they were born.

Those who were born to foreigners, including foreign ministers, and especially those born to wives of mere visitors,  were not born under that authority and obligation of obedience because they had no obligation to defend a nation and king that was not their own.  There was no legitimate basis to force them into an unnatural relationship to the crown.  But in time, immigrants, as new members of society, came to share the obligation of national defense if needed.
In the situation of settled residency, they became subjects of the King on a temporary basis (not life-long) because they were subject to him.  As such, it was reasonable to view their domestically born children as born subjects, but being as the parents remained aliens who had never renounced their allegiance to their own king and homeland, their children rightfully were labeled by their father’s status: alien born subjects, -or alien born natives.

They were not subject to the authority that subjects were under and so to call their children natural born subjects anyway was a perversion of language that the founders were not ignorant of.  Nor would they have blindly incorporated its perverted usage into the description of the holder of the most important office of the land.  Instead, they chose wisely to allow no one, no citizen, no American to be President unless they were one of the first two types of citizens.  Those born to American fathers.
[or mothers, if the child was the result of rape by an attacker of unknown nationality.  That would preclude conflicting dual allegiance inherited from a foreign father].

It is practically self-evident that those facts and deductions lead to those conclusions, but the complexity of the confusion does not end there since some hold that not only must the President be born of American parents, but must also be born on American land, -that he also would be ineligible to serve and lead his country (though born of Americans) if his mother birthed him just over the U.S. border.  That would stringently cut off the American sons born abroad from their birthright as natural born citizens.  The founders took measures in the first Congress to prevent that from happening.  But in time, the reason for their action was forgotten and so that protection was ended by the removal of the words “natural born” to describe the citizenship of children of Americans born abroad that was part of the naturalization acts.

The blood-&-borders view incorporates both nativity and patrilineal descent into a theory that looks mainly to the distorted words of the wise Swiss observer, philosopher and writer; Emmerich de Vattel who penned the influential  tome titled “The Law of Nations, or Principles of Natural Law”.  It was published in 1758 and was a mainstay of the founders when preparing to fashion a more perfect union.  It was not in English, but in French, which they could read, probably along with Greek and / or Latin.
He described many things and illuminated or verbalized the obvious, -things that common sense tells everyone.  But his words were twisted in a fashion that is so subtle that the twisting is hardly noticeable unless one focuses down like with a microscope.  The truth is only revealed by a strict and accurate parsing of his words, not by asserting self-supported “legal definitions” based on them.

So at this point, the contest is between those who claim anyone born within U.S. borders, (with the exception of children of foreign diplomats) is eligible to be President based on the notion that all native-born citizens are eligible, versus those who believe that he also must be the off-spring of Americans, i.e., be a natural citizen.  Without thinking about the unacceptable implications inherent is requiring domestic birth, it is presumed that that is a perfectly reasonable requirement.  But in fact reason is thrown over-board by it.

But that is explained thoroughly elsewhere, so the question here is whether or not it is demonstrably accurate.  Is domestic birth really required?  Obama’s defenders claim that it is because of (the perverting of) the meaning of what a natural born subject came to be in time, (anyone born within the King’s realm, to either subjects or aliens) while his faithful opposers claim that it is required because of (the perverting of) the words of Vattel and Supreme Court observations that quoted him, -neither of which bothered to dissect his observations and descriptions.  That badly needs to be done, and we are going to do it now, in a way even beyond the nearly thorough way that I’ve done it in earlier expositions.  Since a new realization stuck me today, it’s obligatory that I share it.

What I noticed was that Vattel made a very slight conceptual error, but it is one on which the whole matter hinges for the promoters of the dual blood-&-borders theory, which they present not as a theory but as an established fact.
They encompass all references to it by the U.S. Supreme Court, which they view as having adopted their miscontruence of Vattel’s remarks, thereby establishing what they label “national American common law” as being the basis of the Court’s “correct” imposition of the supposed Vattel “definition” which constituted the citizenship standard of “American common law”.  But let’s see what Vattel and the courts actually said, and then examine what it all meant:

In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

Vattel who…is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. …”

Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel’s text.  The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. [children of foreigners, immigrants] As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first… [children of married American citizens]

[It’s significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted.  As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.  Leo Donofrio, Esq.] [--meaning that the amendment does not make new "Citizens of the United States" into natural citizens.]

The conceptual error that Vattel (or his translator) made is in conflating country with nation, -citizen with native, so lets examine the difference between them.  Countries are comprised of peoples who have significant things in common, such as culture, language, history, and religion.  Think of ancient Greece.  It was a country of unassociated city-states with much in common.  Eventually, after together resisting invasion and subjugation by Xerxes and his massive army, they set aside their differences and united to form the  nation of Greece.  So the country of Greece became the nation of Greece.  The natives of the country became the citizens of the nation.  The reverse cannot be said: “the citizens of the country became the natives of the nation”.
The terms are not interchangeable because they relate to two very different entities.  One is a natural association of people (a country), the other is a legal association tied to a government formed by them to unite them under law (a nation).  If the government were to crumble or be overthrown by an invader, the country would still exist, but the nation would not.  So countries are not nations, and nations are not countries.

If you are traveling abroad and someone asks you: “What are you?”  You can answer one of two ways: “I am an American.”, or “I am a United States citizen.”  The first relates to the country of which you are a part (America) while the second relates to your relationship to the nation in which you live, -and its government (the United States).  Being a citizen does not imply that you are an American because you might have just recently, and insincerely been “naturalized” into U.S. citizenship.
You can be a United States citizen without truly being an America, as was proven by the younger of the Boston bomber brothers.  But it is proven even more dramatically by the horrible long civil war that raged in Yugoslavia between people that were not only not naturally associated, but were hostile to each other.  That nation disintegrated in a long and bloody war because it, like Iraq, was a man-made creation of the super-powers that once ruled the region.  Czech-o-slovakia also splintered into two separate nations; Slovakia, and the Czech Republic.  More recently is was Northern and Southern Sudan.

Being members of a nation is a political and legal association.  But being members of a country is a natural association.  But Vattel conflated the two by referring to citizens as something other than members of a nation.  He employed the legal or political term of citizen to describe the members of a civil society.  He was not referring to what we think of as “civilization”, but of any civil society that was not the equivalent of a “Road Warrior”, “Mad Max” state of barbaric existence.
That means a civil society would also describe indigenous peoples, native tribes governed by civil leaders and tribal rules.  You do not call their members “citizens”, because that term relates only to nations as we think of them.  But “nation” was also applied to indigenous tribes (the Sioux Nation) because it conveys the concept of “sovereignty”.  By calling a people who are not a nation by that term, you are respecting their independent sovereignty.

The correct terminology is: “natives of the tribe (or country) and “citizens of the nation”.  If you mix them then you are combining two separate systems of reality into a dual system, a combined system, a hybrid system that is conceptually unnatural because natural systems are singular in nature, not compound.

One system is the system of the nation.  It is political and formal and legal.  It is built upon a government.  It makes its own rules and laws and can embrace or reject various seemingly natural rules and order.  [bigamy? or no bigamy?]
It is a closed system, and defines its elements based on its own internal definitions.  But some of them must of necessity be from outside of the system, -from the open and natural system that governs human nature and human association, beginning with the parent-child, husband-wife relationships.
They are natural things, not legal things, but all moral government must organize itself to respect the positive natural above the legal; but respect the legal above the negative natural.  Laws, legal constructs, are written to guard against the negative natural that resides in the categories of  danger, harm, or “evil”.

Societies are natural entities and comprised of people who share a natural association.  That is the normal pattern, but it can be perverted by super-powers forcing dissimilar peoples into a national legal association, -enforcing its rule and defending its structure by the use of force.  Once that force and authority is remove, unnatural societies fracture and split apart after amicably separating, -or via bloody civil war and the eventual victory of one over the other.

So it isn’t proper to connect the word “citizen” to the word “society” since it only relates to “nation”.  There is no good word in English for referring to members of societies, and so they are best simply described as that; members of society.  But there is a word for referring to members of countries, and that is “native”.  The natives are the natural inhabitants of a country.  They are something whose abstract, non-legal nature is from outside of the closed system of law & government, so the use of “native” is only in association with “person” or “inhabitant”; as in “native person” or “native inhabitant”, or “native member”.
You would never say “native citizen” unless you intentionally wanted to bridge the gulf between the natural and the legal.  That sometimes is necessary because no other terminology will convey what results from that combination of words.  “Natural member”, and “native member” are in contrary origin to hybrid terms such as “Native citizen”, “citizen native” national native”, “citizen member” “indigenous citizen”.  Such terminology confuses the understanding that there are two separate spheres and they are being combined into one, and not naturally so.

That was the error of Vattels translated words.  In the French he wrote merely “les indigenes ou les naturels” to refer to those born in a country to parents who were its natives.  -ERROR ALERT!  He did not write that.  The translation reads: “parents who are its citizens.”  The error is that countries do not have citizens, only nations have citizens.

Countries have natives (les indigenes ou les naturels)  The natives or the naturals.  They are the natural members of a civil society, -not citizens.  Citizens are the legal or political members of a nation and that citizenship is base 100% on either the natural native indigenous status of a person, or on positive law to make outsiders into new members.   So to say that Vattel defined “natural born citizen” as being a native born member of a country is an error built upon an error.
His words “les indigenes ou les naturels” should have been translated as “the natives, or the indigenous members of society” -not “the natives or natural born citizens”.  That translation did not appear for a decade after the Constitution was written, and was probably influenced by its words.

Vattel was describing, -not defining, a country’s natives (those native born to citizen parents) while simultaneously describing the natural members of a society or country.  He was not defining “citizens”, but was describing the population that comprises both countries and nations.  The members of a country united to form their nation.  They then are its natural citizens.  They, almost without exception, were born and raised within the territory of the country (which eventually is established with defined borders, -providing the boundaries of the nation) but a small percentage  were birthed outside of its borders.
The short-lived, momentary event of their birth, -and its naturally insignificant location, have no impact, conceptually, nor philosophically on the nature of what and who the child belongs to.  It belongs to its parents, and they belong to their country, and it belongs to their nation.  To proclaim that the child belongs to the foreign nation across the border because of the location of that fleeting event is extremely illogical and nonsensical.  The philosophy that say that it does is known as jus soli, meaning Right of Soil, while that which follows natural ownership and membership is known as jus sanguinis (Right of Blood)

The child is a natural member of its parents’ country, -born into membership, as a member by birth, and not a member of the foreign society, or country, or nation across the border where it was delivered from the womb.
Vattel himself within the same exposition made it clear that country membership, national citizenship was inherited from one’s father (the head of the family), and not from the birth-location national borders, so the insistence to the contrary is doubly absurd and illogical.  And yet, ossified minds have it frozen into their unquestioning and unexamined thinking.  Like living, flexible wood that has become life-less and petrified, it is no longer flexible nor living.  So is their though process, -being locked firmly inside the closed thinking of their expertly described closed structure.

Concepts, principles, facts from outside of their closed system cannot penetrate it, like living inside of an opaque bubble, they remain unaware of what is outside it, of the connections to the heart of the bubble’s central structure, they assume that all of its structures are self-contained and therefore definable in terms of its flawed concepts.   But principles of natural law, natural relationships, natural loyalty and natural responsibility are not a part of the closed legal structure that seems to be self-supportive due to the strength of the insider experts & authorities whose pontifical power is embraced as defining reality within the system.
The problem is that their reality is built on the sand of a definition that includes the word “natural”, -a word from outside of the legal system which attempts to define it in legal terms even though it is from the open, larger system of Natural Law and can only be defined in natural terms.

Their fallacy is seen in the rewording of the Vattelian sentence: ” it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
It should be worded by either or both of these two alternatives: ” it was never doubted that all children born in a country of members who were its natives became themselves, upon their birth, natives also.”   Or…
” it was never doubted that all children born in a nation of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
Both make perfect sense and don’t hybridize the two concepts and terminology.  But what doesn’t make sense is this version which the blood-&-borders believers insist his words mean: (which cuts-off membership and citizenship from children who happened to have entered the world on foreign soil) “it was never doubted that only children born in a nation of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”  They blindly refuse to observe that he never said such a thing, while doggedly asserting that that is the official definition of what a natural born citizen is because the Supreme Court quoted Vattel.

Vattel never used the word “only” in his descriptions, and that alone proves that they were in fact not definitions.  A definition defines by what it excludes and what it includes.  It disambiguates.  His description only contains the inclusion half, while the exclusion is missing, demonstrating clearly that his words were not an attempt at a definition.  Claiming that they were is a perversion of language and logic.  Unfortunately, there has been and continues to be a whole lot of perversion going on by  men who are psychologically unable or unwilling to acknowledge reality.

So Obama’s flying monkeys and citizenship law “experts” argue that birth in the country makes one a natural born citizen, while the opposition claims one must also be born of American parents, while the truth is neither of those two, because the meaning of what a natural citizen is, is not found in either of those two closed systems.

They lock horns and do battle big-time, wrestling over control of an issue that can’t be and isn’t defined by their two limited closed systems of thought, history, and logic.  But like the Creationists and the Evolutionists, neither is capable of grasping that both systems may be incorrect.  Both may not reflect reality.  Reality may be outside of the closed systems.  But their ossified built-in biases are not interested in, nor capable of opening a big curtain to let in the light from outside.  They have built a perfectly arranged interior world and won’t allow anything, including the truth, to shine into it, because such sunshine will do to it what it does when focused through a magnifying glass onto ants and bugs.  Things would go up in smoke.

So now you know something that neither of them know.  You know something that the entire legal establishment is unaware of, as is its opponents.  You can see things from a perspective that both of them lack.  You can see the entire forest and not just the surrounding trees.  You can see the truth via the light of reality.  And in that light we see that America twice elected a constitutionally ineligible, unqualified candidate to the office of the President, and yet doesn’t even know it.
What’s worse is that most wouldn’t care much even if they did know, because the Constitution is out-of-sight, out-of-mind, and there is no public persona who is going to change that in the foreseeable future.  Ted Cruz could, but he has the same problem as Barack Obama.  He is not a natural born citizen either.  [born in Canada (no problem) but to a foreign father]
But that won’t stop me from voting to make him the next President, which he will be.  Sometimes you just need to fight fire with fire, and not water.  If he would undo the travesty of unconstitutional governance that has transpired under both parties, and cram the Constitution down the throats of those who have willfully ignored and perverted it, then he could be the savior of the Constitution, while others who are fully eligible may be only continuaters of the unconstitutional government we’ve been afflicted by for over a century.

All Hail President Cruz!, -Obama’s fellow non-natural born citizen, but Savior of the Constitution and undoer of the leviathan monster government with its inconceivably massive non-budget and off-budget spending.
If he is not the next President, then we should all reserve a bottle of champagne which we will sooner or later uncork to toast our demise as we sink beneath the waves on the good ship-of-state; USS Titanic.

The folly of the Left that asserts that the Founders of the nation and Framers of the Constitution were so stupid as to trust future generations of alien born citizens, children of immigrants, to be the Commander of all American military might, is seen in the situation in Afghanistan where political correctness has reaped a rotten harvest of dead Americans slain at the hands of their beneficiaries; -the Afghan soldiers who they had trained to help save their own country from religious totalitarianism.
The total of Americans murdered by government soldiers is approching 70.  We fell victim to people we trusted.  To people we thought we could trust, and rightfully should be able to trust, but whom we could not know for sure that we could trust, because we could not truly know them and how they thought.

The Founding Father experienced the same sort of situation when it came to making the final decision of who they could truly trust with all of the power of the American Army and Navy and Marines.  They did not want to reap the whirlwind that we have reaped after our incountry leaders decided that in order to foster trust toward us, he would disarm our soldiers in environments where they lived and trained together with Afghans, yet leave the Afghans fully armed, locked & loaded.
We made ourselves sitting ducks, and thus became sitting ducks.  The founders did not want that to happen to the people of America at the hand of a traitor in the White House who could order the execution of any and all who disobeyed his commands as Commander-in-Chief.  So they considered the matter in light of the treason of one of their own, the heroic and totally trusted General Benedict Arnold who was not given the command position he wanted.

If your own can betray you, how much more likely is it that one who half belongs to others might betray you, -one with divided parentage, divided nationality, divided background, history, and philosophy?  Was allowing the son of a foreigner to be Commander-in-Chief a risk they were willing to take?  For what possible motive would they even conceive that they had to take any risk?  There was no reason whatsoever to take any risk, -to stick the nation’s neck out and hope it wouldn’t get chopped off.

There was no reason to makes citizens of the risky kinds of people who have made Jihadi attacks against America after being accepted by us, embraced and promoted by us, salaried by us, and protected by our rights.  No radicalized Muslim has killed or sought to kill us who was born of us.  They were all born of others, of outsiders.  Being born on our soil or allowed to live among us did not make them one of us in their own mind.

If they’ll bomb each other, how much more likely are they to bomb us?  Timothy McVeigh was of us, but did not attack “us”; he attacked what he felt was a wicked, murderous government, a tyrannical government that he felt needed punishing.  Like Jihadis, he put real people in the cross-hairs, not a system run by evil men.  The people died, the system was uninjured.  Such is the result of infantile attacks.

Is there a great reason why we should asume that they are trustworthy?   The founding fathers asked that very same question among themselves when it came to deciding who to allow to be President.  Naturalized Americans?  Immigrant-born Americans?  alien foreign-born naturalized children?  Or only natural Americans, -the natives of our nation, -the issue of our own selves, -of our own flesh & blood?

They decided on a sort of middle path based on what they believed was reasonable, -on who they believed they could trust.  It included all of the citizens of the Republic who had labored through the long war, thereby not excluding those who had come to American seeking liberty and prosperity and happiness and had become Americans willingly and eagerly, renouncing all ties to their former homeland.

They had born the burden and shed their blood for our and their freedom.  If foreigners, well-to-do British immigrants, had signed the Declaration of Independence along with Americans, they would have been just as guilty of treason as our fore-fathers.  They were all in it together.  In for a penny,..in for a pound.  In for rebellion,..in for hanging.
The new Americans married our sisters and daughters, including one of my own ancestors.  I don’t know who she was, -the woman who married the young Marquis de la Porte, companion of the Marquis de la Fayette, but I know who her daughter was because she was one of my great grandmothers several times removed.  [something I just recently learned]

And so they made an exception to their prohibition against all who were not born of American fathers, and allowed their fellow citizen compatriots the priviledge and honor of serving as the leader of the nation.  Their trust was very well placed, but the chance of it back-firing was zero because there was zero chance of a foreign-born former foreigner being chosen by the American electorate and electoral college.  No doubt that was an unspoken reality.
But the framers of the Constitution put a time limit on that segment of the population in regard to when they became citizens of their home state, and thereby citizens of the nation.  That window of opportunity closed when the final state needed to ratify the Constitution, (the ninth) did so in May of 1788.  After that month, no one subsequently born of other than American parents would be eligible to serve.

United States Constitution:  Article II, Section I, Clause IV:  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,..(age & residency requirements).

How is all of this not perfectly reasonable and rational and wise?  Let’s reword it using both the language of the natural realm combined with that of the legal realm: “No American, except a natural born Americans, or a citizen of the United States at the time…shall be eligible to the office of the President.
That language reveals the stark difference between the two realms.  One natural, one legal.  Natural citizens, like natural children, are not legal (adopted) citizens, just like adopted children are not natural children.  One is the result of the natural world, the other of the legal world.

The children of adopted citizens (naturalized) are of us because they are born of parents who are of us, in the legal sense at a minimum, but the children of foreigners, outsiders who are not of us but of their foreign homeland, they are not our full-blood children in the natural sense since their parents are not of us.

They are deemed by a fiction of law to be 100% of us because our law grants them that right.  But law is not reality, and reality is outside of the closed system of the law, and so they may have been raised by they foreign fathers to actually hate us and want to one day kill us.  We cannot read their minds anymore than the soldiers in Afghanistan could read the minds of their murders.  Trust should be earned as it was during the Revolution, not given away lightly,  because the consequences can be deadly, as was the case in Fort Hood and Boston.

As a matter of fact, we don’t give our trust away when it comes to national security.  We require major FBI or DOD background checks before allowing an American to serve in critical positions.  If you are a Marine being considered for duty guarding the President, you must first pass a Yankee White single scope background check.  If it finds that you were born of foreigners, or connected to foreign nations, you are automatically disqualified.  Similar checks are required for those with top secret security clearances, especially those “above top secret” (?).

To be accepted for such clearances one must be a natural born citizen of the United States, -not an alien fathered citizen naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment.  This is especially true for positions involving the guarding, maintaining, and firing of nuclear bomb.

Our Founding Fathers were more aware of the factors of reality than any of the leaders of generations that never saw and tasted war.  President Kennedy saw and tasted war, and he was the last President who experienced reality and was shaped by it.  Ever since we have been governed by men with no experience of the realities that the men they command must live in, under, and through.  As a consequence, they are unable to grasp the thinking of the founders when they chose to protect the nation from a traitor in the White House, -from one who was from among us, but not of us in a fully natural way -in a way that produced one who was more than a citizen, more than a born citizen, but one who was a natural citizen by birth; -a natural born citizen.

by Adrien Nash  May 2013,  http://obama–nation.com

The Royal Law of Ascension & American Presidents

What you are about to read is a connecting of dots, a drawing of conclusions, and logical assumptions based on facts, deductions, and extrapolations.  Nearly all deductions are tied to facts, but one is tied to an assumption.  That assumption is in regard to who was the source of a serious constitutional error.  My extrapolation is that he was the person holding power when it was presumed by me to have gone into effect.  If that assumption is inaccurate then my assumption and assertion about when and by whom the error originated would be wrong, but not about the fact that it did appear at some (earlier) point in time.

The Marie Antoinette Electorate

& Their Cake President

When Marie Antoinette was asked what the starving peasant should eat since they had no bread (their dietary mainstay), she replied with a perfectly logical answer, -from her insulated perspective, “Let them eat cake.”
If you are out of one kind of food, like fresh fruit, you substitute another.  A non-brainer.  She was the Queen so she was an authority over others, -her words were authoritative because of her position, -but that was no preventer of her concepts from being dead wrong.  Being dead wrong isn’t something limited solely to insulated and isolated monarchs.  Entire indifferent, or biased and un-knowledgeable populations can be dead wrong in some of their concepts, -such as the Germans when it came to citizens of Jewish ancestry.  Americans are similarly ignorant of the errors in their own legal concepts, and mostly indifferent as well.  But that does not prevent them, and the authorities that support those misconceptions, from being dead wrong.

Marie Antoinette assumed that cake was a legitimate suggestion for what the populous should eat, but it was not in fact a legitimate suggestion.  But her ignorance didn’t allow her to recognize that fact.  The American people’s ignorance about whether or not a citizen such as Barack Obama is eligible to be President does not change the fact that his citizenship doesn’t allow him to be a legitimate President.  It doesn’t matter what the people or the authorities are aware of, the truth of the matter is determined by facts, not impressions or misconceptions.
Barack Obama’s presidency is as legitimate in the real world as was Marie’s suggestion.  He is the conceptual equivalent of cake as an acceptable solution.

Paper wrote: “Earlier you said all three words were necessary (natural born citizen).  Now you break them out into to different groupings (born citizen & natural citizen) to claim there is a historical source in the English language.”

When I started that sentence I was thinking of mentioning the three words individually, but since I’ve already done that repeatedly in previous expositions, and since they are self-explanatory, I changed my focus by namely the two phrases that they created when directly attached to “citizen”.
I think you’ll agree that the term “born citizen” expresses something real and not imaginary like unicorns.  But it is ambiguous since some are born as citizens by law, and some are not because they are born of Americans, not simply born in America (to immigrant foreigners) and are therefore citizens by nature, not by law.
Confusing?  That’s because there is no law by which children of Americans are Americans.

So it’s clear that citizens are real, born citizens are real, but what about natural-born?  What does that mean, if anything?  The answer is it means nothing other than a euphemism for out-of-wedlock children.  Well that is a use that is unrelated to the presidency as a requirement, so we can exclude it altogether.  That then only leaves for consideration “natural citizen”.  So are natural citizens something real or something purely imaginary?  Does their absence within American law mean that they are non-existent outside of American law?

The word natural defines what a natural citizen must be.  One who is a citizen naturally, -without the assistance or authority of law.  Law is not natural, and that which is natural includes no element of any man-made rules or laws.  It is only that which is related to life, living processes, blood connections and natural relationships.

That is almost self-explanatory since none of us would be here without those.  So we exist because of the natural, and not the legal.  The legal is purely a human construct, and not a natural force or principle.
We are what we are because of the life that created us.  That life made us the same form of life as our similar parents.  Whether by race, or ethnicity, or physical characteristics, or body type, or nervous system wiring, we inherit most of what we are via our genealogy.

Our relatedness to our parents is a natural relatedness, not a legal relatedness.  Nature governs.  But we are not alone in this life, nor alone in our family.  We have siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews, along with grandparents.  We all are a member of our family group, a natural group.  We are all group members and our membership is not a legal membership, or a commercial membership, nor a religious membership.  Rather, it is a family membership, and all natural clans & tribes, like families, are populated with the children of the natural members of the family groups.

Those who were adopted as youths or youngsters are not natural members even if treated as if they are.  They may even have equal civil and family rights, -like rights of inheritance.  But no matter how identical they are made within the family, -to the family members, they will never be natural family members because of having different parents.
Even if they are one of those individuals who looks almost exactly like someone else to whom they are not related, and they are adopted into a family with a child that looks exactly like them, they still would not be a natural child of the parents.

If the parents adopt a child before they become able to have their own, its younger siblings would have no idea when they later came along that the “firstborn” was born of other parents.
He could be indistinguishable from the natural children, -even have the same status in every way, but regardless of not knowing nor feeling that he was adopted, the parents know the truth, but never speak it.  They strictly maintain a pretense, a fiction that he is their natural child.

It all works out perfectly and everyone is happy, unless the family is one particular type of family, namely, the Royal family.  The Royal Heir must be a blood descendent.  And so, even in the face of having to hurt feelings by revealing the true relationship, the parents would have to discriminate against the “firstborn” who in fact was not a full blood member of the family.

And so the Royal ancient Law of Ascension must be read for all to understand what must be done, and it states clearly: “No child, except a natural born child of the crown, shall be eligible to ascend to the throne.”

To the dismay of many, the beloved “firstborn” is ineligible because of his non-royal parentage.  The position of King falls only to the true firstborn son, -a full-blood family member.

Some dislike the rule so much that they twist the mean of its words by claiming that under the law, all children are natural children by label, by a fiction of law, and therefore the adoptee is also eligible.  But they ignore and block out of their minds the fact that he must be more than a “natural child” by a fiction of law; he must be born a natural child, -not just labeled a natural child by a fiction of law.  So as the ancient Law of Ascension actually requires, he must be a natural born child of the King.

Who is an American?  And what does it mean?

Without the existence of law, native-born children of foreigners could not be recognized as being Americans.  I use the term “Americans” in the plural because if I use it in the singular then the answer is different.  After the Supreme Court ruled that the son of immigrant Chinese laborers (Wong Kim Ark, 1898) was a U.S. citizen regardless of his totally Chinese nature, (-appearance, dress, language, culture, and ancestry) and regardless of the Chinese Exclusion Act which barred “imported” Chinese laborers from U.S. Citizenship, he and those similar to him would be thenceforth known as Americans.
So if asked: “Are you an American?”  The answer would be “yes”.  But if asked: “Are you American?”  The answer wouldn’t be so clear, because his nature was not American, it was Chinese.
What is even more emphatically true is the answer to the same questions but asked of a naturalized Chinese who obtained citizenship before the ban.  He might be 35 years old, having lived in the U.S. for five years or more, and then naturalized.  He is then *an* American but he is not American.

Imagine you live among a large Mormon or Catholic family under one roof of a very expansive home.  The children in the home number so many it’s hard to keep count.  They could, if someone cared to, be categorized into three distinct groups.  Those who are full-blood children, those who are half-blood children from previous marriages, those who are no-blood children but were adopted from outside, those who are no-blood children but were born in the home and are being raised among the family by long-term guests of the family.  Then there is one more type of child and it is a half-blood child of a previous wife who gave birth in the home and left her child to be raised among its half-blood siblings.

So there are five distinctly different types of children.  Only one is a full-blood child of the father and mother.  If they all grow up and remain in their home as adults, and the parents have to travel to a foreign country for an extended period of time to care for a dying parent, they will have to decide who to leave in charge of the home legally.  Who would they pick?  A half-blood child?  A no-blood child? or the a full-blood child?
If they were to hypothetically be all of a similar age would it be impossible to choose?  Or would they simply and naturally choose their most capable natural child to be in charge?  What other choice would be better or even equal?

Parentage would make a difference, just as it does in nations.  Just because we in the United States maintain a fiction of law that all inhabitants are divided into only three groups;  citizens, immigrants, and non-immigrant aliens, that doesn’t make our fiction reality.

Where is the fiction in those designations?  It is in the simply title of citizen.  All citizens are equal citizens regardless of how they became citizens; (naturally or by natural-ization of some form, including naturalization at birth) but more than that, we regard them all as though they are natural citizens once they have been natural-ized.  And once they have been made natural, that is how our government then views them, -by seeing them as all equal through our fiction of law.

But when it comes to ascension to our throne, our throne of power, our ancient Law of Ascension distinguishes between American “natural citizens” by requiring that they be natural by birth, and not merely natural by a fiction of law.  Hence, they must be natural citizens by birth, -or born natural citizens, or natural born citizens (either way).  But it must be all three.

He who sits on the Throne can’t be simply a citizen, nor simply one born a citizen because some born of foreigners are natural-ized at birth by the 14th Amendment, making them “born citizens” also, albeit not naturally but by law.
So he must be a citizen, a born citizen, a natural citizen, i.e., -a natural born citizen.  The nature of his nature and origin must be describable by all three terms.

U.S. Constitution; Article II, Section I, Clause V:
No person except a citizen shall be eligible…
REJECTED.
No person except a born citizen shall be eligible…
REJECTED.
No person except a natural citizen shall be eligible…
REJECTED.
No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible…
ACCEPTED.

What brought all of this controversy into the open?  It was the election of a non-natural born citizen in violation of the United States Constitution.
And on what does it all hinge?  On the Supreme Court opinion handed down in the case of Wong Kim Ark in 1898.  Those who do not want to accept the obvious truth distort it by claiming that anyone birthed within our national borders is eligible to be President, and therefore the Constitution’s words must mean something other than what they mean; -they must mean what the royal British dictators decreed them to mean when it labeled for convenience and a fiction of law, all souls born within the king’s lands to be not just his subjects, not just his born subjects even if born of foreigners, but also his natural born subjects and equal in all respects regardless of whether or not their father was an English subject or an alien subject owing allegiance to a foreign king.
They claim that all our Founders and Framers were too stupid to discern the difference between reality and fiction and so incorporated forever an erroneous and ambiguous use of language following the pattern of the royal dictator whom they had utterly rejected.
By their reasoning, if the Framers of the Constitution really wanted to discriminate in favor of only sons of Americans, then they would have said that the President had to be a natural “natural born citizen”.  Does absurdity have no limit?

The true purpose and motive behind barring any children of foreigners from holding the reins of power held by the Commander of the American Army is illustrated by the very case on which they base their entire claim.

The founders wanted no foreign influence and ulterior motive secretly living in the heart of a U.S. birthed, alien-born & foreign raised royalist who won the office of President.

The defenders of the constitutional fraud known as Barack Obama maintain the fiction that where one is born is alone the determinant of one’s national loyal and attachment, and ignore the truth about the enormous influence that a British loyalist would have on his American-birthed son.  But ignoring reality does not change it.  Traitors do not become betrayers of their country because of where they were or were not born.  And loyalty is not instilled merely by that fact either, but by how one is raised and indoctrinated with pride in their family heritage and nationality.

The bond to one’s family homeland and relatives and society is well illustrated by the actions of Wong Kim Ark.  He was raised to know all about his parents’ parents and his parents’ homeland, and so as a youth he choose to make the long and possibly dangerous journey to China to connect with them for the first time ever.  A natural desire and human longing.  He not only then felt connected to them and their country but actually was connected by that direct exposure.

The bond between them was so strong that within about 5 years he felt compelled to make a second long and slow journey across half a world of ocean and return to China for a second visit, which lasted about a year.  It was upon his return to America that his trouble appeared when the port authorities in his home of San Francisco refused to allow him to enter the United States on the basis that he was an alien and not a citizen.

So his story is one to which we need to connect the dots regarding the meaning and intent of the framers when deciding that it would not be acceptable to allow any citizen who was not born a natural citizen from being President.

An American by birth and nature would have no similar attachments to a British family, history, ancestry, nobility, authority, and national pride in Britain.  His family would be American.  His tradition would be American.  His history would be American.  His national pride would be solely in America  His allegiance would not in the tiniest amount be divided between America and Britain.
His entire loyalty would be toward the Constitution and not the Crown.  His thoughts about government would be alien to the minds of Europeans that were loyal to their monarchs.  His philosophy would be rooted and grounded in the principles of Natural Liberty and Natural Rights, -including Self-governance and not dictatorship.

No acceptance of obsequious genuflecting before nobility.  No American man would ever again sheepishly bow to any king (including a Saudi king) unless he held secret feelings of loyalty and reverence which he kept hidden from all.  No American President would have secret longings to travel to Britain and connect and bond with his noble British brethern.  The thought of such a duplicitous allegiance was anathema and vomit to the very heart of the founders’ nature.

Wong Kim Ark was the poster child, if you will, of just what the founders and framers rejected.  The American leader must swear a solumn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, including those who are Americans.  And every American would-be citizen must swear an even stronger oath, -one by which they reject in the most absolute terms possible, all bonds, all devotion, all loyalty, and all allegiance to the beloved (or despised) monarch of their homeland.  All such ties must be utterly severed if they wished to become an American and solely an American.
The nationalism of the founders was absolute when it came to foreigners becoming Americans.  Why so strict?  Because there would be no second class American citizens.  The foreigners would be equal in all respects to their native natural American brethren and be free to serve in every single position of authority and representation in the land, including the national government, but with just one exception; -that being the position of Commander-in-Chief.  He must be American through-and-through, or almost.  He could actually be born of naturalized immigrants, but that is because they were, by a fiction of national law, natural citizens also.
~~~~~

~The blind lead the blind without even knowing that they are blind.
You are blind if you blindly think you understand that sentence.  It is inherently ambiguous.  It has multiple possible meanings, none of which is the clear meaning.  Your mind will stagger attempting to make sense of it.
Such is the nature of language, including that used in legal settings.  How does that impact America?  By allowing an ineligible candidate to run for the office of President, be placed on the ballots of all fifty states, (twice!), and then not be disqualified after being elected.

We are under the reign of an ambiguous, secretive closet socialist, -closet Muslim, black-hole background Griggs-citizen President whose citizenship is not the result of either natural transmission nor law but merely a policy established due to an error of understanding back in 1898.

If that erroneous, baseless policy had not been adopted by the U.S. Attorney General John Griggs, (who incorrectly interpreted a Supreme Court opinion to mean that all U.S. birthed children of all foreigners, including mere tourists, were American citizens, -except children of foreign diplomats) then Barack Obama would not only not be President, he would not even be a United States citizen.
Thanks to a seemingly insignificant mistake made over a century ago, our fate my be sealed due to a do-nothing President who happened to be one of those who obtained the appearance of citizenship by that error, and who is driving us straight toward a fiscal cliff at full speed.
~~~~

America’s Progressive Gangrene

Obama’s Fraud; the 2nd Anniversary

April 27 is the 2nd anniversary of the posting on the White House website of a counterfeit digitally fabricated image of Obama’s birth certificate, uncorroborated by an actual physical certified paper document.

Everyone knows that it is counterfeit but no one can attach blame to Obama because he never even mentioned the questionable thing one time during the press conference in which he appeared for the sole purpose of convincing everyone that it’s their moral duty to ignore it completely since he and the nation have more important things to do.  And since the entire process of producing the thing is cloaked in attorney-client privilege, his White House lawyer, who resigned the next day to become his personal lawyer, can’t be questioned about how he shepherded the whole process of producing it for his client Obama.  How convenient.

Like the short-form fake before it, the new fake facilitated the bamboozling of everyone into not questioning Obama’s qualification to be the President based on the words of the Constitution: “  “No person, except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”   So not only was the crime of document fraud overlooked, and the Constitution overlooked, but even the 20th Amendment was ignored like it didn’t even exist.

The 20th Amendment: its betrayal and burial

The 20th Amendment requires that the winner of the presidential race qualify to serve by proving himself to be constitutionally eligible.  That means he must show himself to be 35 years of age, 14 years resident in the United States, and foremostly he must be a natural born American.
By failing to prove that he is qualified by all three accounts, he is to be disqualified and the Vice-President is to take his place as President until a new qualified President can be elected.  If both fail to qualify, then the Congress is authorized to select a President or chose how one is to be selected.

Be it known to the American people that Congress, the American courts, and the American media, closed their lazy and dishonest collective eyes, turned the other way, and, in unmistakable violation of the Constitution, allowed an illegitimate person, -a citizen-by-policy and not by law nor nature, to usurp the highest and most powerful office on earth.

But being as the ignorant and somnambulent population has no clue as to what a natural born American is, and thus doesn’t realize that Obama isn’t one, we should be thankful that Obama’s counterfeiter failed to save his creation as a flattened jpg image instead of a 9 layer pdf.  We should count our blessings and appreciate that fact that it is never going away.
We were robbed of the rightful repercussions on his re-election that should have followed the release of the counterfeit, but like the unmistakable evidence of unexplainable unidentified flying objects being ingrained in the awareness of the population regardless of the feds efforts to ignore and downplay the facts,  Obama’s fraud is now a permanent part of the political landscape, and it does not require a paranoid conspiracy-minded fanaticism to understand what your own eyes are seeing on your own computer.

So thank you, Barack Obama, for providing the best ammunition for taking down the pretense of your legitimacy.  We should be grateful to you.  Yes, we should, just like we should also thank you for pursuing your socialist dreams all the way into the White House while falsely swearing a lying oath to protect and defend the Constitution from usurpers such as yourself.

And Thank You, Democratic Party leadership, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and all main-stream media for allowing the United States Constitution to be as front-and-center as the back side of the moon, as obeyed as the speed limit, and as revered as toilet paper. *
Thank you for your unbroken complicit silence.  Thank you for your cowardice.  Thank you for your wanton and weasely abdication of your sworn constitutional duty.  Thank you for being party to the greatest travesty against the office of the President in American history.

Thank you for putting us on unlawful ground and in growing danger.  As much as we rightfully despise you, our children and yours will one day despise you far more, because they will reap the whirlwind that you have sown.
And last but definitely not least; Thank you for wrecking the future of America via your silence and absence while allowing an incompetent, inexperienced, Marxist-oriented, highly partisan and ideologically radical affirmative-action candidate to sweep into office with a fraudulent and highly secretive background, who then does nothing to fix the damage due to the fateful fiscal and social-engineering course he has put us on and is keeping us on.
No illegitimate house of cards can stand and expand forever.  No bubble can inflate forever.  Unjust, irresponsible, and overly-powerful government cannot be tolerated forever, -not by a Free People.

Will you tolerate it forever?  Or will you strive to right that which is wrong, -to correct that which is in error, to reclaim that which has been abandoned, to hold those to account who participated or failed to resist while nefarious forces and their idealistic, naive “useful idiots” altered our nation, (and not ours alone) for the worse rather than for the better?
How long will Americans tolerate ever-greater proportions of their Freedom being taken from them and given to government bureaucrats?   If one were to guessimate based on the past, then the answer is “a whole lot longer”.  The only thing that can stem the tide toward state totalitarian authority is resistance from individuals in conservative states because those who are allied against Constitutional Freedom and Rule of Just Law are very united and motivated by the greatest gravy train in world history and the allure of the siren song of socialist security.

They will resist strongly the elimination of their power and perks and posts.  But the evidence of their legacy, the results of their policies and corruption are visible all across the country, as many of America’s formerly great cities have degenerated into swamps of bankruptcy, poverty and crime thanks to their spoiled selfish inflated sense of entitlement.

Those in control in those now decaying cities will not change course nor be ejected by their dependent voters, -the takers.  And so in time they’ll slide toward the fate of Detroit.  A basket case.  A nightmare of collapse and abandonment, reaping the results of the self-serving, greedy policies of the overlords of the lazy, incompetent, infantile and  amoral many who aren’t of the same stock as the forgers of a new free nation, the explorers of new frontiers, the defenders of Liberty, and fighters of totalitarian oppression.
Life is complicated.  Living is hard.  Effort is painful, dull, and often unrewarding.  But if the American people become a people who do not wish to live in a meritocracy that values liberty more than security, -reward more than hand-outs, then the mortar that built and holds this country together will crumble.
The results may not come tomorrow, nor a ways down the road, but they definitely will come as they have already come in places like Cyprus, Greece, and Detroit.  Resist that happening in your city and your state.  Do not assimilate, -do not comply, but if that war is already lost, think seriously about taking advantage of your liberty by moving to a state that is a free meritocracy and not a dependent mediocracy.

There you can take a stand and even thrive, while back in the over-taxed, and over-regulated socialist states of America, -as in totalitarian-leaning Germany where it is a punishable federal crime to educate your own children at home (while resisting the absolute authority of the government to kidnap them from you as punishment while slapping you with a huge fine) state and county governments, while spreading their tentacles into ever more areas, degenerate into statist, bankrupt oligarchies run by  ever-increasingly radical environmentally dictatorial bureaucracies led by a single irresponsible, short-sighted, self-serving, Freedom trampling, anti-Constitution party, -like in California where the over-spending corruptness and foolishness of the “wise” and “well-intentioned” erode what was once a sound, prosperous & free economy and society.

Like in the former film capital of the world; HOLLYWOOD!, where most film production has been chased out of the city, and even the state by the high cost of pride & selfishness that predominates in the leadership of its unions, -the free, the talented, the proud, and the unemployed and bankrupt.  [And that's in addition to high state taxes.] As if they are superior and more deserving than people anywhere else who are ready and eager to grab their jobs and do them, (and more) for a hell of a lot less.

“The pride of life” scripture calls it, and in some places, they’re infected with it in spades.  There is no way to humble such arrogant minds and egos, and so the slide they precipitate by their demands and expectations is inexorable.
That party’s opposition party isn’t the diametric opposite by a long shot, but when you are being led into slavery and crushing debt, it’s preferable to be shackled with lighter chains rather than heavier chains and leg irons.  But regardless of which of the two current parties is in power, our progress down the path to serfdom is only varied by the speed with which each one moves us.
One thing is certain, at this pace, in 50 years America will be unrecognizable, -just as it is today from the perspective of 100 years ago.  Will it be paradise or purgatory?  Will people be glad to live then and not now, or just the opposite?  Definitely future instruction in the History of the United States will be a very tricky subject because there will be no clear demarcation point at which we changed from being a Free nation to a starkly different nation of passive government drones.  We will have become the frog that was too relaxed to jump out of the slowly boiling pot of water.

by a.r. nash  april 2013

*   [The United State Constitution and Toilet Paper;  we value them both, but we're not going to put them on the mantle.  We're not going to wave them around or discuss them in public.  We will ignore them until we happen to need them, and then they will serve us, but we won't serve them.  After all, We are the Master, the Mob Majority. We can ignore anything we want.]

Naturalized Bombers & Natural Born Presidents

~Obama, Natural Citizenship, & National Adoption

I’ve been on a very long and wide-ranging journey for three full years, one that has led to writing a couple hundred thousand words of exposition, and reading ten times that many.  In all of that time I’ve been looking for the keys to understanding the nature of the citizenship of Barack Obama and the words describing what an American President must be in order to be valid and not an unqualified imposter, -those words being “natural born citizen.”
Along that journey I’ve rediscovered several overlooked truths, and forgotten facts, which together create a picture that was previously unknown to Americans of today.  But there was still something missing, one last piece to the puzzle, a missing key to unlock the final mystery and make everything make perfect sense.
Yesterday I had a new realization, -one which was uneventful in its impact, but which carries enormous significance.  It was a simple Eureka moment which put in the final bolt to finish the roller-coaster ride that my journey has been on, and thereby allow it to come to completion.  One over-looked truth came to mind, and I realized that when applied to the mystery, it solved it by explaining it.   And now it needs to be shared with all those who care about their country and the rule of law.

The bombing of the Boston Marathon by naturalized citizens, brothers who became citizens on September 11, 2012 after living in America for many years, serves as a teachable moment to point out the thinking of those who wrote the presidential eligibility clause, as well as those who approved it.
Our Founding Fathers trusted naturalized citizens to not be anti-American bombers, traitors, or King George loyalists.  They knew that if they were any of those things, then their true nature would not be kept secret unless they were spies, of which there were some.  But few or none of those had lived in and among the Americans for 14 years, and were a mature 35 years of age, -two qualities any naturalized citizen was required to possess in order to be trusted to serve as the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army and militia.  But, even though the Founders gave them that opportunity by allowing their own generation of foreign-born Americans to become President, they knew that they had virtually no chance of actually being elected, so the risk of a monarch-loving traitor being elected President was essentially zero.

Reality hasn’t changed significantly in the two and a quarter centuries since then, and the nature of naturalized citizens is forever one that, in general, can’t be viewed as being naturally loyal to their country since their natural country was not America.
Thought should be given to the danger they potentially pose, and whether they should be allowed all of the rights of natural Americans (like buying all sorts of weapons and ammo).  The problem with adopting such an attitude is that they are, in the eyes of the government, indistinguishable from natural Americans.  And here is the reason why…

Life can be divided into two kinds of divisions; – that which is Reality, and that which is Fiction.  Fiction is an important part of all of our lives, and we would be very much impoverished without it (no movies, no TV dramas or comedies, no novels, no imaginative art, etc.), and so it is embraced as important, and valuable to the pursuit of happiness.
Fiction does not exist solely in the public realm, it exists also as an important element of the legal realm, being known as “a fiction of law”.  A good example is that of the desire of the “morally upright”, (or uptight, depending on your perspective) to criminalize sexual behavior by minors.

That is done by first laying the foundation of it as always viewing the female as an unwilling victim, and then making the male, (likely her 18-19 year old boyfriend, out to be an evil aggressive predator toward an innocent young girl, (like his 16 year old girlfriend).  Then lastly, you slap a criminal term on their…err his behavior and call it something heinous like say…Rape!  But…since it is not at all rape, you have to tweak it to distinguish it from real rape, and so you call it “Statutory Rape”.  Viola!  The doer of the dastardly deed can thereby be labeled as a criminal for following the overwhelming desire of nature.  And it’s all made possible thanks to the convenience of a created fiction of law.

That’s a great example, but let’s focus on the subject at hand, -the fiction of adoption as a metaphor for naturalization.  The most desirable adoption is an early adoption.  Adopting a baby at the beginning of its life helps to create the strongest bond between the parents and the child, -a child which they already highly value.
In order to protect that bond, the government allows a fiction of law to transpire when it comes to the creation of its birth certificate.  Instead of letting the facts be the facts, by law the Registrar of Vital Statistics is allowed to let the fiction be the facts, and thereby hide the truth about the real parents from the child, forever.  The original birth certificate is placed under seal by court order and it is never again accessed by anyone related to the child, including the child as an adult either, and in its place a new “original” birth certificate is issued.

There are millions of Americans who do not know who their biological parents are, and can never know because those parents are being “protected” by a fiction of law, whether they want to be or not.  But they aren’t the only ones; the adoptive parents do not want their growing child to be shaken by the unsettling, world-changing information of being an actual stranger to one’s parents and not their real child. [disregard the fact that some parents are so bad that the children would be happy to know that they are not of the same stock]
So with the fiction firmly established by law, life can proceed as it would normally for a natural child, -a blood member of its family and true child of its mother, -and father.
That is how it works for adoption at the personal level, for individuals.  But there is another kind of adoption, and it is adoption on the national level.  It can also be an individual thing, or it can be a mass thing, as it was a few decades past when over 100,000 desperate and stateless boat people from Vietnam sought to escape from persecution for their crime of having worked to avoid enslavement by the socialist North.
They were slowly allowed to come to the United States and with their numbers being so great, it was decided that America, being their new and permanent home, needed to provide them membership in the nation, and so Congress did just that.  It adopted them en mass into the American family by granting them U.S. citizenship, -naturalizing them.  Congress exercised that same authority when it turned all of the citizens of Puerto Rico and Guam into Americans.

Naturalization is also a fiction of law.  By it, the government can pretend that natural-ized persons are natural citizens just like those born being citizens.  After natural-ization, they are considered to be natural members of the American family and not adoptees.  That is a good thing.  Everyone knows that it’s like a dart to the heart when some bully or older sibling yells; “You’re adopted!”  That implies that you are unnatural and therefore second class and an outsider by birth, rather than a natural insider.

So how does this relate to one Barack H. Obama II?  It’s not related to his naturalization since he was never naturalized (that we know of, but we know hardly anything since all records are sealed, destroyed, missing, or counterfeit).  Rather, it is related to the office to which he was elected, and whether or not he was actually ever eligible to hold it.
That question springs from the the requirement set forth in plain English in the United States Constitution: “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,”.  [brackets added]
Since Obama was not alive when the Constitution was adopted, he is required to be what all Presidents before him were (with one lying exception) -a natural born citizen.  So does Obama meet the primary requirement of the Constitution?  Or does he fail to meet it and therefore fall under the authority of the 20th Amendment by which Congress is to reject any President or Vice President that fails to qualify by the Constitution’s criteria?

That is a question that most intelligent people in the U.S. government know the answer to but are afraid to acknowledge.  And that is because he manifestly does not quality since he is not a natural born citizen, and yet he is the President anyway because not one single person in all of public American life had the courage to state the obvious; the emperor has no constitutional clothing.  The fix was in, and in big-time.
If he is not a natural born citizen, then what kind of citizen is he?

Americans can be divided into four different varieties, only three of which are acknowledged by the government, (though not publicly).  They are: natural born citizens, native-born citizens, and naturalized citizens.  The forth unacknowledged type is presumptive citizens, i.e., citizens by policy.  The elite ignorati in the fields of constitutional and naturalization law think rigidly that long established policy going back five generations simply must be settled law, but even five centuries cannot make policy into settled law.  It’s still nothing more than policy, and their worshipping at the alter of precedence cannot change that fact.  Long established policy has been over-turned many times before, and it’s time for a new over-turn in the arena of citizenship-by-policy in order to re-establish the true legal policy laid down by the Supreme Court.

Natural citizens are those born to American parents, -citizens by nature, -by blood connection, by political inheritance, by birthright, by patrilineal descent.

“Native-born” citizens are those born in a state or colony that granted its citizenship to the native-born children of its immigrants.  There was a least one such state (Virginia, with its “sons of the soil” provision).  On a national scale, that form of “naturalized-at-birth citizenship was made part of the Constitution, being enshrined as the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.  “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.”

It provided American citizenship to sons of native-born & imported slaves and sons of immigrants, provided that their fathers were domiciled in the United States and therefore subject to the authority of the national government (as opposed to merely being short term or longer term visitors not possessing permanent residency permission).  Obama’s father, being the latter, was subject solely to the political authority of the government of Britain, -as was his son through his inherited political status, and the British Nationality Act of 1948.

Naturalized citizens can be divided into various sub-groups such as the mass naturalized, the automatically naturalized children (derivative citizens) of individuals & parents who complete the naturalization process, and children born abroad to mixed-nationality parents (statutory citizens).  After completion they are then considered members of the naturalized citizen group (by fact) as well as the natural citizen group (by fiction, -a fiction of law).

In the legal philosophy by which naturalization exists, one who is natural-ized is regarded as having become natural.  It is a fundamental fiction of citizenship law and can’t be altered by Congress.  Those who have become new “natural” citizens are indistinguishable in the eyes of the government from those who were born being Americans by blood connection.  As such, their citizenship, though bestowed, cannot be rescinded because it has become natural citizenship.
Even if they are terrorists, jihadists, or marathon bombers, if they are Americans, the government cannot nullify their citizenship except by proving that the oath of allegiance and renunciation was a false lying oath when it was taken, which would render their citizenship void, -not rescinded.

Natural citizens are not granted their inborn nature by law or government.  They are born as Americans, inheriting the American  (political) nature, their American status & membership.  Government can not rescind natural citizenship anymore than it can rescind one’s race or  gender.  The founders knew this since they were men quite aware of the principle of naturalization, knowing that not all “natural citizens” were made by nature because some were made by human action, -as a fiction  of law, -similar to calling the son of an alien subject “a natural born subject” when he in fact was an alien born subject.

[An alien subject is an oxymoron that results from the confluence of natural law and human law (government authority).  An alien is a foreigner, but when  he takes-up residency under another government, he falls under its jurisdiction, which includes a civic responsibility to defend the land and people that are his adopted land and people.  He is not a subject in a strict sense since he was not born a subject, nor naturalized, but since he is fully subject to the national authority, he can be called a subject because he is subject, -as a member of the society and nation in which he lives and works.]

The founders faced several choices; the President could be nothing other than a natural American, -born of American parents, making him a natural citizen of his liberated home colony, or…he could be either that or be a foreigner who had become an American [and also reached 35 years of age, having lived 14 of them in America].

They chose both.  When the Constitution was being written, Alexander Hamilton advocated that the presidency be reserved solely for those born as citizens, excluding, by implication, naturalized citizens.  In response to that suggestion made in an early draft,  John Jay, future Chief Justice, strongly suggested in a letter to General Washington the additional factor of being a natural born citizen.    He even underlined the word “born”, -which made no sense to me and made me wonder if he inadvertently underlined the wrong word since “born” appeared to be redundant, -being as all natural citizens are citizens by birth.

But I was missing the last piece of  the puzzle, -the final key to the riddle that had eluded me for three years, -that being the fact that not all natural citizens are born citizens because some were once foreigners who were made into natural citizens via a fiction of law.  So to prevent foreigners from being eligible to serve as President by becoming natural-ized, it was necessary to  distinguish natural citizens by law and natural citizens by birth.

John Jay avoided that ambiguity by adding the additional requirement that the natural citizen candidate also be a citizen by birth, -born a citizen by nature, -not made a citizen by law.
Hence his emphasis on not just being a born citizen (“sons of the soil” were also born as citizens -though by law and not by nature);  nor being solely a natural citizen (since some were “natural” by law and not nature), but he must be one born being a natural citizen, -not merely one “born a citizen”, nor one who became a “natural” citizen by a fiction of law, but one born being a true natural American, having American parents and not foreign parents.  And so the solution was that the President be “a natural born citizen”.

If he had reversed the order of the words [a born natural citizen] they would have meant the same thing.  Those not born as actual natural citizens were in fact alien-born “natural citizens”, and they were not to be trusted as the Commander-in-Chief after the Revolutionary War generation had passed.   So, not trusting future naturalized citizens who had not passed through the crucible of war and become patriotic, freedom-loving Americans, they excluded all naturalized citizens who became Americans after the Constitution was adopted.   So after that pre-Constitution era of naturalized citizens had passed, only true natural citizens would be allowed.

So Obama not only was not born as a true natural citizen, (nor even a born-citizen by the 14th Amendment), but neither he nor his father were “natural citizens” via the naturalization process.  Nor did he inherit his mother’s nationality since that is possible by law only in situations of foreign birth, and by legal tradition nationality flows from the head of the household to the children, and being married, Obama’s mother was not the head of the household, -his father was.

So he is not an American through his mother, through his father, through 14th Amendment native-birth, nor through naturalization.  That only leaves the forth unacknowledged means of citizenship, and that is presumptive citizenship.  He is presumed to be a citizen based on a policy put in place in 1898 by Attorney General John Griggs whose job it was to interpret the implications of the Supreme Court ruling of that year regarding the case of one American-born son of Chinese immigrants, -Wong Kim Ark.
Unfortunately for America, he interpreted it very wrongly, and that mistake may spell our doom.  He incorrectly surmised that not only legal immigrants’ children were born with American citizenship due to the words of the 14th Amendment, but that any and all children born in America were thereby American citizens with the one lone exception of children of foreign ambassadors.

His misconception was a consequence of not understanding the meaning and history of what is involved in being subject to the full jurisdiction of a central government, -who and what that involves.  The result is that the United States is the sole nation on earth that thinks that by merely being domestically born, one is granted citizenship automatically by fundamental law.  But that is not the truth of the matter since neither the Amendment itself, not the Supreme Court opinion declaring native-born children of immigrants to be Americans, contains any such meaning nor mandate.  So Obama is not legally a citizen by birth in Hawaii, but is merely a presumed citizen by erroneous executive branch policy, and not American law.

Now let’s concisely state the known facts;
Obama is not:
1.  A Natural Citizen having an American father & mother
2.  A Born Citizen via birth to a legal immigrant mother and /or father covered by the 14th Amendment
3.  A Naturalized Citizen via the naturalization process
4.  A Derivative Citizen through naturalized parents
5.  A Statutory Citizen via positive law covering children born abroad to married mixed-nationality parents.
6. A Provisional Citizen dependent on living certain years in the U.S. due to birth abroad to an unwed mother and foreign father, or an American father who will not acknowledge paternity.

Obama’s citizenship is strictly presumptive in nature and could be nullified by an order of the Attorney General or the President and not violate the Supreme Court opinion of 1898, nor the 14th Amendment.  Obama could, by his own constitutional authority, politically decapitate himself by declaring that his own presumptive citizenship will no longer be recognized.
No other President in American history could have done that because they were all (with one secret exception) natural born citizens, -citizens by nature, -not by law, and especially not by presumption.

What will be done about the travesty of an ineligible person assuming the Presidency, -twice?  Nothing, and for two reasons: fear of being either harmed or ostracized, and ignorance.  The latter can be corrected, but the former never will be unless sufficient numbers of citizens have their ignorance erased and replaced by the truth.  The subtle treason of silence will continue until notable public voices push past fear and volunteer to awaken the sleeping masses to the travesty that took place under their noses, and even with their participation.  So far, no such public figure has had the courage to come forward.  Perhaps with the knowledge of the truth that is now available, they will find the inspiration and strength to do so.  If they don’t, we surely and deservedly will go the way of morally and spiritually corrupted ancient Israel, or Imperial Rome as “the rule of Law and not men” is forsaken.

by a.r. nash  april 2013