The Bastard Presidency of Barack Obama

~Natural Citizenship vs Legal Citizenship~
(the black man/ hermaphrodite analogy)

    Are you an American from birth?  If the answer is “yes”, what significant information can we deduce from that?  Answer: “Nothing”.  That’s due to the fact that the answer conveys two possible meanings, and therefore is ambiguous.
The two possible answers would not have any significance in your life whatsoever, -unless you were one day able to run for the highest office in the nation, -the presidency.  Then it would make all the difference in the world.  How so?  Because the citizenship with which you were born is either a barrier to the presidency or it’s an open invitation.

It you were legally born with United States citizenship, with citizenship granted & declared by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, -citizenship which no one can alter or rescind, then you are not eligible to be the President.
But if your citizenship is not granted by anything, -no law, nor article of, or Amendment to the Constitution, nor any Supreme Court ruling,  then you are eligible to be the President because you were not legally-born with U.S. citizenship but were naturally born as a citizen.

The Constitution requires that no one except “a natural born citizen” be eligible to the office of the President.  Do you “legally” qualify to be President?   Not in a technical sense if you’re a natural citizen since your citizenship is not a result of any U.S. Law.  Your qualification for the presidency is not a matter of law but of the Constitution, and by it only natural citizens are qualified.

   The Law and the Constitution do not grant your citizenship because they do not need to.  Why not?  Because you’re a citizen by natural determination, and not merely by legal determination.  The Principles of Nature are as high above the Principles of Law as the Penthouse suite is above the ground floor.  Natural  membership (of which citizenship is a form), can’t be altered or canceled.  It exists as a fact of Nature affecting all social creatures on earth.  One who is born as a natural citizen is not said to “have” citizenship.  Rather “a Citizen” is what they are organically.  It’s inescapable.  It’s one’s (political) nature.  It results from being born to parents who were citizens.

You were the product of what they were.  Their nationality was the nationality with which you were born, -a born member of their nation.  A member by nature.

But one born “with” citizenship possesses it as a gift of the natural citizens who ratified the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to children of legal American immigrants.  That gift does not make them natural citizens.  It makes them legal citizens instead because they are citizens by law and not by nature.  Their citizenship is not a natural right but a man-made right.

An illustration of the principle is that of a white person who wants to be a member of  the black-persons group.  They are all natural members of their group because they were born black.  But whitey was not.  So in order to be a member of that group he needs to have what they have, which is black skin and appearance.

   There’s no way to acquire them naturally because that’s only the result of birth, not human action.  But he can acquire it artificially by having injections or skin dye, or excessive tanning, making him thereby a man-made black person.  He can then be accepted as a member of the group, even though he is not a natural black person.
He can serve the group in every capacity except one, -he can’t be the leader of the group.  That’s reserved for only natural members.  But if he never has the opportunity to be the leader, then it doesn’t affect him in the least.  It’s like that glass ceiling doesn’t even exist.
He would be one very rare individual if life presented him an open door to ride the elevator to the top-floor Penthouse suite of the leadership position.  Only then would he encounter the glass ceiling, unless that is, the guardians of the suite had completely forgotten the fundamental rule that no man-made member is allowed to be the leader.
But what if his father was white and his mother was a black member of the black group?  Would he then be a natural member?  Well, would he be considered a natural member of the white group?  Of course not, -so also he would not be a natural member of the black group because he didn’t have a black father.
Maybe if his black mother was impregnated while still a virgin via the power of a divine miracle, then possibly he could be purely black in the physical sense.  But with that possibility aside, he would not be a natural black member because that requires purely black parentage, -black & white does not produce purely black natural off-spring.
Barack Obama is just such a racial being and also such a citizen being.  His citizenship nature is no more purely and naturally American than his racial nature is purely and naturally white.   He is instead a hybrid blend of two distinctly different backgrounds.
No mixture can result in a natural replication of just one of the two ingredients that comprise the mixture.  An oil-&-water mixture does not produce a result that is pure oil or pure water, and hence it cannot be natural because oil and water are never naturally associated.

So it is with American citizenship and foreign citizenship.  They don’t mix and produce natural American citizens.  They produce hybrid mixture dual-citizens.  Dual citizens are no more natural than is a hermaphrodite.
Unnatural combinations of competing natures can hardly be called natural.  Possessing the genitalia of both males and females is akin to possessing dual and competing national allegiance.  It violates the natural order of things, and therefore is decidedly unnatural.  That was the view of our founding fathers who detested dual-citizenship and wouldn’t allow it.

It is no more natural than the European Union.  It’s based on economic union but without political union.  How can separate sovereign states with different history, culture, and language ever be a uniform union with central control?  It’s impossible.  Just as it’s impossible for a dual or quadruple citizen to be a natural member of his parents competing nationalities, -especially if they are both dual citizens from four separate nations.
The word “natural” has no connection to such a man-made mish-mash concoction of a political nature.  It’s as natural as saccharin and margarine.  Calling saccharin “sugar” or margarine “butter” does not make them so.  And similarly, calling a legal man-made native-born citizen a “natural born citizen” does not make one so either.
Bottom line is that Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Obama is no more a natural born American citizen than an artificial flower is a real flower, or Kool-Aid is real fruit juice, or counterfeit bills are real currency, or a female impersonator, or a transsexual is a natural female.
What’s real and produced naturally is what is natural.  Man-made things, and man-made citizenship are not the real-deal, even though they may appear just as genuine as does a counterfeit Gucci bag, Rolex watch, Armani suit, driver’s license, or birth certificate.
Suppose that a counterfeiter got a hold of real Treasury-printed $100 bills but only one side was printed.  If he counterfeit-printed the other side, what would the bill be?  Completely real or completely fake?  Neither, of course, because it would be a combination of the two, a hybrid.

So it is with dual citizenship, one is not a genuine 100% member of either nationality because one is 50-50, half & half.  Only real natural citizenship can pass the test of presidential eligibility.   That’s a test that Obama’s citizenship fails, and his presidency is therefore illegitimate.

One could say that it’s a bastard presidency because it’s not sanctioned & sanctified by the officiating authority of the United States Constitution.  Even the unjustified and unconstitutional benediction of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who incompetently administered the oath of office can make a bastard presidency legitimate.

http://obama–nation.com

by A.R. Nash  May 2012.

Missing the Point & Ignoring the Facts

“But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.” –James Madison

Finally, after Joe Biden forced the President’s hand, he stated publicly that in his personal opinion people of the same sex should be allowed to marry.  So that’s his official opinion and he can look forward to now nailing down the vote of the homosexual community since Romney has expressed the opposite opinion.
The problem with this situation is that both of their opinions are irrelevant.  All that matters is what the law is.  Secondarily is the issue of whether or not the law should be changed.  And lastly, but of foremost importance, is how must the law be changed if it is to be changed?

The consistent talking-heads dialogue that one hears on radio and TV reminds me of an argument that Anderson Cooper had recently with a doctor who had dared to suggest that something might be fishy about Obama’s birth certificate.  To my disgust, Cooper attempted to dishonestly question the presumption of the validity of a Hawaiian birth certificate of an employee of the doctor which he had used as a control for investigating the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.  When it became clear that the repetitive back-and-forth over that lame and unreasonable issue was going nowhere, and both of them were discussing Obama’s birth certificate from the same perspective, I had to turn off the TV.

What perspective was that?  It was the perspective that it actually exists.  The well meaning doctor was clueless as to the fact that Obama has no birth certificate, has not said that he has one, has not presented one, was not allowed in the press room while a copy of one was present, and when he finally entered the room after it was removed by his lawyer, he failed to even mention the existence of the so-called birth certificate that was the very reason for him to be there.
Instead he deliberately only referred to the first (and previously-claimed “only” birth record, (-the short-form Certification of Live Birth), stating that he had already released his birth certificate in ‘08 and so everyone should just move on and forget about the “silliness” of where he was actually and provably born.
He avoided any mention of the silliness that he had chosen to engage in by posting on the White House website an inexplicable 9 layer PDF digital image of a Hawaiian birth certificate that came from God-only knows where.
We know that it didn’t come from Hawaii because they don’t release PDF images, but even if they did, it would only be one layer, and not the nine that scream of forgery.
And he still has not shown a hard-copy birth certificate to anyone other than a specially selected sympathetic female reporter who was clueless as to what she was looking at since she knew absolutely nothing about authenticating birth certificates.
The only conclusion that can be drawn, -the one totally missed by Cooper and the doctor, is that the item being discussed does not even exist as a real object.  It exists only in the cyber realm as a computer-created digital image only examinable on a computer monitor, -a Photoshopped concoction without any physical reality to it.
They, as well as many others, have completely failed to grasp reality, -which is that just as the internet holds thousands of images  of things that do not exist (digital art), so also the real world contains perhaps tens of thousands of counterfeit birth certificates which are used to obtain things like passports, citizenship, tax returns of other people, driver’s licenses, etc.
So one can, if the stakes are high, have a fake digital image of a birth certificate created, and if everyone is on your side (including those in charge of Hawaiian departments) and gullible, you don’t even need to produce a real hard-copy version of the cyber-realm fake, nor show a real one to anyone.  Everyone just seems oblivious that that reality (-an actual hard-copy)  as if it isn’t even an issue, -just as they are doing with the issue of same-sex marriage.

The rule of law in the United States has become so corrupted that everyone from a lowly representative or reporter all the way up to the Vice-President and President are stupidly discussing the issue as if it were something other than what it is.  And what is it?  It’s a fundamental issue.  It’s also a State issue and the federal government has no say in the matter.

So why would anyone care what a national politician thinks?  Because the nation is far down a slippery slope on which they habitually look to Washington to solve all their problems, and fix whatever they think might be wrong.  But even if Washington were to decide to take on the issue, how would it go about doing so?
Regrettably, they’d commit the same constitutional treason that they did in passing the the illegitimate health care monstrosity which was written by unknown people, and read by no one who voted of it.  That would mean a simple majority 51% vote of the Congress.

What’s wrong with that?  Well, if you happen to remember anything from U.S. History and Civics classes then you should remember that when fundamental changes are proposed, they must be agreed to by the People, not just by Congress.
Do our current Congressional leaders even remember or acknowledge that fact?  Or do they think that they can pass anything that they want and force it to be law?  Do they, and their constituents, think that Congress alone has the authority to impose fundamental change?  If they do, and it seems it’s true of many, then we are so far away from our constitutional foundations that we can hardly see them.

To put things in focus, just image this; Congress, by a 51-49% vote ends the legality of alcohol, and tobacco, or driving gasoline-powered cars and eating meat, -or marriage itself.  Why can’t Congress do that?  Why can’t Congress require that anyone over a certain age be married or face a fine?  Why can’t Congress make prostitution and gambling legal nation-wide?  Why can’t Congress make it legal for siblings to marry, for parents and children to marry, for multiple partners to marry, for children over 12 to vote and to drive, and to drink alcohol, and to marry?   Why are the civil rights of such groups not defended by Congress via supportive legislation?
For two reasons, the first one being that such matters are outside of the jurisdiction of Congress to legislate since they’re strictly state matters (not that Congress cares about minding only its own constitutional business).

The second is that even if Congress unconstitutionally claimed jurisdiction over such State matters, it still could not legitimately pass legislation regarding such issues because they are all fundamental issues.  That means that Congress would have to abide by Article 5 of the Constitution.  That’s the one that prescribes the means by which the Constitution is to be amended.
Amending the Constitution is not simply altering the Constitution.  Most amendments  do not change the Constitution but instead add to it.  But several important ones grant a right that some sector of the populace once did not possess even though that was not due to any prohibition in the Constitution.
Just as slavery was legal by state law and tradition, so also, women possessed no right to vote by an overwhelmingly firm tradition.  To gain the right to vote did not require repealing a ban on women voting because there was no such ban.  It required that the tradition be overthrown by a clear statement being added to the Constitution.  That overthrow of tradition was a fundamental change, and fundamental legal change, as well as fundamental social change, requires the direct agreement of the people.
They give their approval, or not, by passing an amendment to the Constitution.  Congress could not simply pass a bill granting women the right to vote.  Women had to struggle and suffer rejection and scorn for 50 years before Congress was willing to offer the issue to the American people as a proposed and approved amendment to the Constitution.
The men in Congress who voted for that amendment knew that they had no authority to legislate such a fundamental change as a mere Congressional bill.  It was the same with the proposal to make alcohol illegal.  The American people had to approve such a fundamental change before a natural, legal and social right could be abridged.
But what do we hear from both sides?  Do we hear that the federal government is banned by the Constitution from meddling in the matter of marriage?  Do we hear that only States have the authority to decide the issue?  Or most important of all, do we hear that States have no authority to legislate the issue either?
Where are the supporters of the rule of law who are declaring that everyone should shut-up who dares talk about making fundamental changes without changing the Constitution of each and every State that wants to legalize same-sex marriage?  Has anyone heard such calls to defend the American way of bringing about fundamental change?  Listen to the conversation with that question is mind.

There’s another issue concerning same-sex marriage that has seemingly-intelligent people speaking nonsense, missing the mark and being oblivious to reality.  Once you think about it, it will strike you as the height of stupidity.  It’s when reporters and pundits speak of State laws and propositions “banning” same-sex marriage.  Apparently they don’t have a clue as to what a ban is.  No thing can be called “banned” without ever mentioning it.  A ban is a rule or law that specifically outlaws something.
Legally defining something whose definition has been set in stone for thousands of years is in no way a ban on behavior that has never been permitted in the history of the Western, (and probably the Eastern) World.   A State law that simply defines marriage as what marriage is and always has been, (and is described as in every dictionary ever printed)  is not a law that’s in the banning business.
It merely serves to affirm that which already is and cannot legitimately be changed without the consent of the governed, though even with their consent, the meaning of English words cannot be legitimately altered to suit the current direction of the socio-political wind.  If a word like marriage can be redefined then what words can’t be?  Can the word Christmas be redefined to include Halloween?  Can there be two forms of Christmas?

That questions raises another issue.  If marriage can be redefined by a mere majority vote, (or even a constitutional amendment) to include the union of two people of the same sex, then why can’t it also be redefined to include the union of three or more people of either sex, or the union of adults and children, or of immediate family?
What exactly are the rules for redefining words to suit a new agenda that has never been sanctioned in any nation of our Judeo-Christian past?  There are no rules for redefining words, so any attempt to do so is inherently illegitimate and a bastardization of the true meaning of a word.
Will these points be recognized by all the partisan voices that are for or against same-sex marriage as it continues to be an issue across the land?  Will the Supreme Court ever have to ask and answer the questions raised, -questions that are going unrecognized and apparently ignored by all?
With the awareness of the real questions being almost nonexistent, one can’t but fear that it’s more likely than not that in most States their Constitution and its amendment process will be ignored or forgotten and few, if any, will even raise the issues.
But when the People follow proper procedure and support the age-old definition of marriage, as California did with Proposition 8, then the will and choice of the People can be overthrown and cast aside by traitors to the rule of law reigning in the Supreme Court of the State as gods.  They can do whatever they want, including finding rights where none exist and have never existed.
No person in America has a right to alter deeply entrenched tradition by their own personal choice in opposition to the constitutional choice of the people unless that tradition violates an actual civil right, -one that really exists, -not one that simply “should” exist.
Fundamental rights must always be balanced by fundamental prohibitions.  Some things are inherently wrong.  That can be due to a clear condemnation by holy scripture, by the tradition that resulted from that condemnation, or due to a natural revulsion that rejects certain unnatural behaviors.  When all three are aligned against any particular civil action, “right” or behavior, then legislators and judges alike lack legal and moral authority to overturn the natural social order, -an order that denies no one a right that humans have widely or universally recognized.  Only the People have the right to alter such a social order.  They are the source of the legitimacy of the government, including the Constitution and the courts that interpret it.  But judges can usurp that rightful authority of the People and put themselves in their place, as their gods and masters.  Does any thinking person think that that’s right or constitutional?

By A.R. Nash  May 2012

Constitutional Treason & An Avatar President

The worst civic crime that a citizen can be guilty of is treason, but treason comes in more than one form.  Most treason is bad, but some treason is good and even patriotic.  I speak of treason against the Constitution.  How could that possibly be a good thing?  It can be but only if the magnitude of the violation is small in comparison to the benefit.  I speak of examples such as the Louisiana Purchase.

It was not a constitutional action for the President to buy an amount of land that virtually doubled the size of the territory owned by the United States government, but then the Constitution’s author’s weren’t in the business of allowing for every conceivable and inconceivable future possibility.  So such authority was not given to the President.  Instead, President Jefferson had to make the strategic decision to be faithful to the limits imposed by an absence of granted authority, or to go where no President had gone before, (all two of them) and do what was clearly in the interest of the nation.
Every since that action, Presidents and Congresses and Supreme Courts have followed that course and chosen to commit treason against the Constitution because, in their view, it was what was best for the nation.  But the difference between them and Jefferson is that his action was uncontestably a correct decision with all upside and no downside other than that the territory wasn’t free of cost, while the decisions made by all the generations of those who followed him are not so uncontestably beneficial in a way the harms no one and benefits all.   Instead they’ve all involved trade-offs.  Sacrifice of something of value to something else of imagined greater value.  The greater good that they believe they’ve achieved justifies in their minds their treason against the Constitution.

In Service To The General Welfare

It makes sense in their view to make an end-run around the Constitution because they are living, thinking human beings who can better understand and deal with the present reality than can an old, rather vague bare-bones charter.  And so they substitute their wisdom for that of the Constitution and the limits it imposes on them.  It’s not a crime to do that and so they do it with impunity all the time.  It’s for the greater good, the public welfare, or it may instead be for their own good and their own welfare.  They don’t have to differentiate because they don’t have to answer to anyone, -except the President’s veto, and rarely a Supreme Court ruling.
Once a public “servant” crosses the line from endorsing only that which is constitutional to that which isn’t, they are in uncharted waters, and in time, with repeated violations, they are practically on a one-way street on which there is no going back.  They become inured to violating it, and it even becomes business as usual.  They don’t have to explain themselves to other public servants of their ilk because they all do the same things.  So they are, in effect, a grand club of fellow violators, -fellow traitors, and therefore no one can point his Constitution-defending finger at anyone else because no one has a Constitution-defending finger to point.

Constitutional conservatives are all aware of numerous examples of State & individual rights being trampled by Washington, and citizen rights being trampled by State governments as well, but who knows about the clear violations of statutes actually written in the Constitution, (-not simply some usurpation of authority based on an implied right of government)?  They exist and should be noted by all patriots who support and defend the Constitution.  Here are a few violations related to the election of the President, beginning with the election of his replacement,…

The Vice-President.

As written, the Constitution contained no eligibility requirements for the office of the Vice-President, and that was because there was no such thing as an elected Vice-President.  The office of the Vice-President was originally filled by whichever candidate for the presidency received the second highest number of electoral votes, -as long as one of the candidates received a majority and therefore the position of President didn’t have to be decided by the House of Representatives.
Article Two, Section 1: “In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice-President.”

That was altered by the Twelfth Amendment thusly: “, they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots, the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists…”.  So the truth about the office of the Vice-President is that he, or she, is not constitutionally an appendage of the candidate for the presidency.  Rather, he’s an independent candidate running for an independent office.
That translates into meaning that the President can be from one political party and the Vice-President from the opposing party.  The office of Vice-President is not one filled by the choice of the President.  It’s all up to the electoral college, not up him or the parties.  The college could have chosen Obama as President and McCain as Vice-President, or vice versa, or Gore as President and Bush as Vice-President.  So why didn’t they?  Because our system has devolved into a winner-takes-all competition.  The electoral college doesn’t really decide as a rule; -they just vote according to their candidate commitment and which ever party wins the presidency will always win the vice-presidency because he’s elected just like the president, along party lines.  That’s the way it works but that isn’t the way it must be.

How much more interesting would the contest for the presidency be if someone like Sarah Palin, or any other interesting governor or public figure ran as an independent candidate for the vice-presidency.  What would be the public discourse if someone like Ron Paul or Donald Trump ran for the office of Vice-President, -and won!?  But the political structure involved in getting on the election ballots of the states is not geared at all to facilitate such an independent VP candidate.  To ever accomplish it would require a large personal fortune.  There are many of Americans who have such fortunes, but not the goal or desire to spend it just to be the Vice-President.  But if one did, it would give him a decent size bully pulpit from which to sound warnings and demand government reform.

Disqualification for the presidency included the three given in the Constitution; 1. No non-natural citizen  2. No one under 35 years of age, and 3.  No one who hadn’t lived in the United States for 14 years.  In addition, there were five social disqualifiers, which were: 1. not educated  2.  not English speaking  3.  not Protestant  4.  not Caucasian  5. not male.  Anyone who was described by any of the preceding was outside of the mainstream and viewed as unacceptable as the leader of a people composed of persons having those characteristics.  All of those characteristics are self-evident or easily provable except one, and that was the first and foremost constitutional requirement, namely that the President be American born.
What does that mean?  It’s ambiguous since it has two possible meanings and only one of them is correct.  One possibility is that it means born in America, while the other means born to Americans.  Which one did the authors of the Constitution have in mind?  They had in mind the one based on natural law instead of the one based on the Divine Right of Kings to be lord of everyone born within their dominion.

That requirement was that the President be the progeny of American citizens and not foreign citizens.  It was about the parents to whom one was born, and not about the national boundaries of the land on which they exited the womb.  It was, in the final analysis, about that which is natural versus that which is not.  The entire future of our nation could be tied to the meaning of one word, and whether or not the citizens of the nation are willing or able to be made aware of the significance of that word.  That word is “natural”.

When Natural Means Natural

From where the nation is today, it can be said that that that word is the most important word in the English language because it alone determines the legitimacy of the election and presidency of Barack Obama, and everything that he has signed as President.

There is no precedent, guidebook, or established course of action for the situation in which the country finds itself, -which is having an unconstitutional President but with no constitutional course of action prescribed to be taken in such a case.  Congress, the courts, and state governments view the situation as a case of “it’s best to just let the rabid sleeping-dog lie” or to not kick a potential hornets’ nest.  And so nothing has been nor will be done because the falsehood that the man is constitutionally eligible to be President is adhered to by all voices in all quarters who should be sounding an alarm.
They can escape the responsibility to read and accept the word on which it all rides, or to read it and ignore it.  They’ve all chosen to ignore it, or been forced to do so by malevolent nameless, faceless voices of godless thugs who are experienced in making very scary insinuations about the safely of one’s children or spouse.
What makes me think that I’m immune to their threats?  Well, I may not be but at least I don’t have any children or spouse to worry about.  That makes a whole world of difference.

Understanding Two Sources; -One Devolved

To understand the significance of the word “natural” we must look at the two possible sources from which it could have been derived.  One is the common meaning of words, and the application of that meaning to the concepts involved in nationhood.  The other is rooted in the Anglo-Saxon monarchs’ quasi-religion-based philosophy justifying their reign.  It began with the assumption that everyone subject to the King’s authority would give birth to children who were his subjects also.  Then it evolved to the conclusion that everyone born within his dominion was subject to his authority and so they were his natural subjects by birth, in contrast to being subjects by state permission granted to immigrants and the children born to them, inside or outside of his dominion.  It later evolved further to the point of bastardizing the use of the phrase: “natural born subject” to include everyone born within his domain even if they were born to mere visitors whose nationality was naturally inherited by their children as citizens of their own nation.

The reason to start calling everyone born within the realm “a natural born subject” was that there was no difference between the rights, obligations and protections that both types of subjects possessed.  The exceptions to that rule were so rare as to not merit consideration.  They included the privilege (not the right) of holding a position involving super-sensitive national secrets, and or holding an office critical to national security.  Other than those unique and rare exceptions, everyone was equal.  So whether you were born to an Englishman or to a foreigner, you belonged to the King’s stable of subjects, so why not just simplify things and call everyone “a natural born subject”, (even though some of them weren’t)?  That was the question to which there was no good counter and so it became the practice.  Thus the meaning of “natural subject” became bastardized in the common vernacular as well as the government vernacular.

Straight & True; Plain & Simple

The context in which the word “natural” did not become bastardized was in the context in which the underlying principles of nationhood were recognized .   Those principles were derived from  natural law, -meaning the pattern and order of nature.  That which is natural in the animal realm is applicable in the human realm because humans are part of the animal realm and thus also a part of nature.
The same pattern of belonging is seen in both realms.  Off-spring are the same as their parents and they belong to the parents.  They are natural members of their parent’s group, having been born into it.  So also, children of citizens are citizens also, having been born as citizens thanks to their natural blood-connection to citizen parents.
So in that context, natural means natural.  It’s English language meaning is all there is to explaining its constitutional meaning.  It doesn’t have some arcane legal definition dating back centuries to a morally illegitimate feudal human-ownership system of ancient England that was transplanted into the American colonies, -in particular the slave-owning states which were dependent on it in order to claim ownership of the children of slaves.  They otherwise would be free persons since they would not be the property of people who did not purchase them but of those who gave them life.
That system and tradition was even an element of one or more of the constitutions of slave-owning states.  But it was never an element of the federal Constitution nor federal law because national citizenship was derived from state citizenship.
If you were a citizen of a State then you were, by association, also a citizen of the United States.  The Constitution and Congress were not concerned with how individual states ascribed citizenship except when it came to those who were foreigners and wished to become citizens.
Congress was not given authority to write any law regarding natural citizenship and there therefore is no such law, but was empowered by the Constitution to write “an uniform rule of naturalization” but it wasn’t given the authority to make citizens out of foreigners or their children.  That authority was held by the States.
The rule that the first Congress passed in 1790 limited naturalization to immigrants who were “free white persons” of “good moral character”.  By that rule, no Indian, or Negro, or slave or indentured servant could become a U.S. citizen.  Neither could a single white free European woman become a citizen because she was a citizen of her father’s nation, and under his authority unless she was a spinster or a widowed mother of American-born children.
When cases arose in which one’s national citizenship was questioned, the position of the federal government was always that citizenship was inherited from one’s father, (and therefore not dependent on where one was born).  That was natural citizenship, and by that principle, children of un-naturalized foreigners were foreigners also.  That was the policy of the Immigration Service even following the passage of the 14th Amendment, until the Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that Wong Kim Ark, born to Chinese immigrants in the United States, was not a foreigner but an American based on the 14th Amendment.  That decision ushered in the era of ascribing citizenship to those born in the U.S. whether or not they met the full requirement of the amendment.
Made Natural By Political DNA

But some can’t accept the obvious because it de-legitimizes their idol Barack Obama from being a constitutionally qualified President.  They therefore have to pervert the meaning of the word “natural” as it was used in the Constitution: Article II, Section I, “No person except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of President,”.
Can natural simply mean whatever one wants it to mean (namely “native-born”) and someone (like the Supreme Court) has the right and the authority to alter the meaning of English words (such as “marriage”) to suit their preference?  That’s a rhetorical question because the answer is clearly “no”, -no one has that right.

The word “natural” has a meaning that’s in contrast to its opposite, which is “not natural”, meaning not by nature, and hence a thing made by something other than nature, and that something is man.  Man-made via positive law is not nature-made via natural law.  A natural human being is one who is conceived and born human, -as opposed to one who is directly created from the dust of the ground, i.e., a God-made human being.  Similarly, one who is a citizen by natural means (inheriting the political DNA of the parents) is also one who is born as a citizen-being just as they are born as a human being.

Such beings are born citizens, but they are not the only born citizens because there are other born citizens who were man-made/ law-made, citizen-beings.   Without the citizen-creating-power of man-made law, they would not be citizens.  But with it they are deemed citizens from birth by the agreement of the voting natural citizens who created and ratified the law.
By that constitutional amendment they’ve said in effect “we’ll let you be one of us from from the first day of your life even though you have no natural right to be one of us because you were born to those who are not of us but of them, -the others, -the outsiders, -the foreigners.”
So they are legally born citizens also but not naturally so.  They are not natural born citizens, but are instead naturalized born citizens, -made equivalent to “natural” by law.

Original Principles

Humans don’t like to be dictated to by nature.  They prefer to do the dictating.  Humans who become “professionals” and  those who some anoint as “experts” or “authorities” like to think of themselves as self-made, and their lives as being strictly self-directed, and their professional world (the Law) as being self-contained and self-created, all the while being unaware of the foundations of the realm in which they practice their professional skills.  But that viewpoint is one held by those who see enough to be certain that they know the forest from front to back but who fail to grasp that they can’t see the forest as a whole because they live inside of it and never view it from the outside.
What they can’t see is that the trees that they are so familiar with are rooted in a vaster geological eco-system that is unseen and unknown to them because they only see the trees.  But can’t see the forest as a whole nor the roots by which the trees are grounded.

So it is with the never-changing realm of natural law.  The roots of the legal trees which make up the forest of “the Law” include principles of natural rights.  They can’t be seen, but when they become  rotted by neglect or deliberately cut, then a tree of civil liberty is no longer strongly grounded and a powerful wind can topple that tree.  That is how a forest is lost, -how freedom is lost, -one tree, -one civil right at a time.

I live a very short distance from one of the most awesome forests on the face of the earth.  The last time I pulled off the highway running through it and took a stroll into its newly configured pathway I was dumbstruck by what I encountered.  It was the greatest destruction I’ve ever seen in my life.  It may be the greatest type of destruction anyone’s ever seen due to one single living thing.  It was the aftermath of the toppling of a massive giant redwood, -a tree so huge that on its side it was much taller than myself.  The result was like a gigantic crime scene, or the result of the crash of a 747 or an enormous train derailment.  The forest was strewn with the exploded innards of that and the other huge trees that its massive bulk took down with it.  Like an enormous bomb had been detonated from inside the monster.  “Shattered” hardly describes it.  I think of it now because of the cause of its fall.
The Roots of Fundamental Rights

Giant Coastal Redwoods do not have deep tap roots to securely anchor them, so when the rain continues for a period that allows several feet of water to fall in a short number of days, then the grip of its shallow roots is badly weakened because the soil they are embedded in turns to mush.  One powerful gust of wind can spell disaster, -not just for one tree but for many within quite a considerable distance of it since it might be 300 feet tall, -the height of a 30 story skyscraper.
Natural rights are like those roots and the law emanating from them is like the trees.  One can’t see the roots but they are the source of the law that springs from and is grounded by them.  If the tree is slowly separated from its roots by deliberate chipping away, then the tree of civil law grounded by roots of natural rights will gradually come to be grounded by very tenuous root tentacles, and can fall in a strong storm.
The chipping away happens when people forget, misunderstand, or neglect the fundamentals of the laws that they hold as foundational, -and happens even faster when they deliberately ignore those fundamentals.  That is our current state of affairs in too many central areas of American life.  When Congress, the executive branch, and the individuals making up the federal courts do not understand fundamental things, or choose to ignore what they know, then we find ourselves living in a forest of trees with badly damaged roots, and no one knows how it will fair when a strong storm blows.  A hundred thousand Japanese Americans found out the hard way during World War II when their unalienable rights were leveled by the storm of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Constitutionally Unqualified to Serve

Another area of constitutional law connected to the presidency that has gone off the tracks is that of succession.  Article II, Section I, Clause 6 provides that if the President and Vice-President shall both be unfit for office, then the Congress may by law provide the choice of who will succeed them, “declaring which Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly…”.  That declares that the office of the President is to be held by none other than an officer of the U.S. government.  That means that the replacement for the head officer of the executive branch must be a substitute office of the executive branch and not someone from the legislative branch.  Officers are those who execute the law, not legislate it.  While the houses of Congress have leaders who are called officers, they are only officers of their own house and members, and not of the nation.
Article I, Section 6; “…and no person holding any office under the United States [an officer] shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office.”  But what has Congress done throughout much of its history of legislating presidential succession?  They’ve usurp the office of the chief executive by assigning it firstly to the Speaker of the House, and secondarily to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and if they are both unable to serve, only then will it fall to an officer of the President’s cabinet.  That is a reasonable tiered delegation systems but it just happens to be in violation of the Constitution.  Oh well, changing the Constitution is too cumbersome so we’ll just let it slide.  No one is bothered by the violation so everyone just ignored it.  Congress is a master at ignoring things, just as they totally ignored the Constitution’s prohibition against anyone serving as President who was not born as a natural citizen of the United States.
Misfeasance or Nonfeasance?

Congress has the authority to stop a President-elect dead in his tracks, but they failed to exercise it as is their responsibility.  We see this authority in the 20th Amendment, which was ratified in 1933.  It reads in part: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice-President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,..”  I’m no constitutional scholar but “qualified” seems to imply that Congress has some responsibility to vet the qualification of those elected to those two top offices.  But who’s ever heard of Congress engaging in such a process?  Have they ever?  They certainly didn’t do so when it was needed the most, -namely in 2008-2009 when a constitutionally unqualified President elect was illegitimately allowed to assume the office for which he did not qualify.
They simply closed their eyes, looked the other way, shirked their responsibility, and pretended that everything was on the up-&-up.  Or, equally bad, they simply were just like those who elected them as well as the President elect, -namely, ignorant.  But one has to wonder how they could think that a dual citizen, -someone whose primary nationality was foreign, could be logically seen as a natural American.  It was their job to ensure that Barack Obama was 35 years old (check), -had lived in the U.S. for 14 years (check), and was “a natural born citizen” (born of American parents (???).  Two out of three ain’t bad?  Where does the Constitution say that we only have to follow two out of every three of its statutes?

Obama is to natural citizenship what the Avatar was to the Na’vi of Pandora.  Not. One. Of. Them!  To be one of them he would have to have been born as one of them.  He was not a natural member because he was not born to members.  In the national context, one cannot be a natural citizen without being a natural native of the nation.  Simply being born within the country does not make one a native.  A perfect example is what happened to Kuwait when the Iraqi army invaded and took over the country.
The nation of Kuwait consisted of her people and their leaders.  They inhabited the country of Kuwait, up until an armed mob of Iraqi army thugs invaded their land and plundered it.  The nation had to flee the country but they were still a people and their children born in exile were still Kuwaiti by birth.  They were members of the nation but they were lacking a country that they could go back to.  If Iraqi invaders had wives who came to live with them in Kuwait, their children were not Kuwaiti simply due to being born there.  They were Iraqi.  Where they were born was irrelevant, just as with Kuwaiti children.  Just as with American children born to American parents.
But that is not true of children of American immigrants.  They absolutely must be born in the United States or else they are not citizens.  But being citizens does not make then natural citizens because only the children of the native members of the nation are natural citizens.

The Law of Nations

Some illegitimately argue that from before the creation of the United State, citizenship followed the feudal/slavery model based on place of birth and property rights of those who own the land where birth took place.  They assert that what “natural” means is “native”.  Thus a native citizen is a natural citizen.  But they fail to explain just what native is and what it isn’t, and they can therefore drive a Mac truck through the loop-hole of the ambiguity that they pretend does not exist.  They ignore the fact than only natives can give life to natives, -that mere birth on the native’s land does not make one a member of the native group.
They embrace “common law” citizenship as practiced in feudal England and on the slave plantation, while they reject acceptance of the principles of natural law as described by the Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel in his masterful work of 1758 known as The Law of Nations, -the Principles of Natural Law.”

They cling to the belief that citizenship was separate, apart and independent of one’s father’s citizenship, -claiming it was wholly determined by where one’s mother gave birth to them.  They postulate that the founding fathers weren’t influenced by Vattel’s work when they penned the presidency requirement that one be a natural born citizen.  But they were in fact very much influenced by Vattel, -as is shown by Benjamin Franklin and others having and sharing copies of his work, particularly leading up to and during the writing of the Constitution.
While this author is no scholar on American history and can’t cite references to their use of and affinity for the Law of Nations and its description of a nation’s citizens as being the natives, or natural inhabitants of a country, as opposed to foreigners,  but I can point to one thing that I discovered recently.  I found it in the Constitution itself.  It’s included in the enumerated powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8, and reads as follows: “to define and punish Piracy and Felonies committed on the High Seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations.”

In having to determine how the United States and Congress would and should relate to other nations, their source for the principles of such relationships was found in Vattel’s comprehensive work.  So it can reasonably be assumed that they were very familiar with it, along with his common sense observations about the nature of citizenship.  That observation was relied upon by the Supreme Court nine decades later when they had to ascertain what the basis was for citizenship, and they noted his observation that those born in a country to members of that country were members also.
That observation was flawed and ambiguous as a rule or definition because it didn’t distinguish whether or not membership was due to being born in their own country or being born to natives of that country.  That confused ambiguity still plagues the United States to this day and in very important ways that can’t be ignored or overlooked.

Because of a similar ambiguity in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, the confusion has been made even greater.  Important false assumptions have resulted from that ambiguity, one of which is the assumption that the amendment’s sweeping, almost all-inclusive language covers all citizens and all citizenship.  That couldn’t be farther from the truth since it covered, and was only meant to cover, those who had no citizenship before it was written as a constitutional amendment version of the Civil Rights Act of the same year, 1866.  They were the stateless freed Negro slaves, as well as the children born of immigrant fathers.
It declared them to be citizens if they met two requirements.  The first was that they were born within the United States, and the second was that they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  So if they were not born in the United States they were not citizens.  And if they were not born subject to a father who was subject to the full political authority of Washington, then they were not citizens.  It had to be both, not simply the former.
But that fact has been ignored, forgotten, overlooked, and misunderstood by the entire U.S. government.  They’ve taken instead the path of least resistance, least discernment, least wisdom, least adjudication, and least thought.  They buried the second requirement under another ambiguity of misunderstood meaning, and by that ambiguity have rendered it essentially meaningless, superfluous, and redundant.  The meaning that’s embraced is that the authority of Washington is extended over all persons except representatives of foreign nations, -that view being based on additional forgotten and over-looked realities (namely that all foreign guests of a government are immune from its political authority because they remain, via the Law of Nations, subject to their own government).

Everything has come to be based on views that are dumbed-down versions of dumbed-down earlier views.  Everything has been reduced to a factor of 1.  No complexity beyond one simple single determinant, -that being the soil on which one exited the womb, not the political nature (nationality) of those who gave you life.
As a consequence, the inmates are currently running the asylum, with citizenship being ascribed to as many as 30,000 babies born monthly to violators of our national borders who have entered the country illegally, representing, according to The Center for Immigration Studies, about 10 percent of all children born in the United States.
There are now around 5,000,000 children assumed to be citizens but whose parents were not and are not subject to the authority of Washington.  The reward for their parents’ crime is the gift that they desire more than anything to procure for their children, but which they has no natural right to possess.
What would be the attitude of those in power if our southern border were with a nation like North Korea or Pakistan, and all factors were otherwise identical?  Would sanity perhaps then reign?

Our immigrant population problem was exacerbated in 2008 by the election to the presidency of one who also was born of a father who was not subject, per the 14th Amendment, to the authority of Washington, and whose son therefore did not fulfill the requirement of subjection since he was instead subject (as stated on his own election website) to the jurisdiction of the British Nationality Act of 1948 along with his father.  So now we have not only vast numbers of persons with alien political DNA, but we also have such a person unconstitutionally occupying  the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.  No one in authority will dispute that fact because no one will even dare address it.  The closest they come is to regurgitate the erroneous assumptions that suffuse the entire government, -those assumptions resulting from ambiguities, forgotten truths, distortions, and outright lies.  But none of those things is a crime and so there will be no end of them as we slide farther and farther away from any semblance of true fidelity to the Constitution that every public official swears insincerely to protect and defend.

by a.r. nash may 2012

Fundamental Questions And Fundamental Truths

“Citizenship is a legal concept, not a matter of Natural Rights.”

This statement begs the question: “What is the concept and where does it come from?”  It certainly doesn’t come out of the ether or from another dimension.  It has to have a source, and that source is in the principle of natural membership.  By that principle animals and humans are, by birth, members of the group into which they are born.  They are natural members of the group.  They are natural members/citizens of the nation.  They aren’t outsiders because they were not born to outsiders but to members.  Their membership is therefore natural.

Wasn’t it Justice Waite that wrote “Citizenship is nothing more than membership in a nation”?  That is a fact one has to grasp and accept because the implications of that truth are enormous.  That means that the addition of extra adjectives (“natural”, and “born”) to modify the word citizen does not come from the laws of the federal government, but those adjectives are simply common language words with common meaning.  They can’t be twisted and contorted simply to fit someone’s preconceptions, even if that someone is a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The word “natural” actually means natural.  It does not have any reference to the location of one’s birth.
A born citizen is one with citizenship from birth.  A natural born citizen is one with citizenship by birth, -independent of the existence of any law, -not dependent on human legislation, -a citizen by being born as a citizen.

If one is a citizen by birth then one is not a citizen by law because law only relates to the citizenship of those who are foreigners and children born to them.  No other law regarding citizenship can legitimately exist because no authority is provided to Congress to legislate regarding the citizenship of natural members of the nation.  Their citizenship is beyond the authority of Congress to touch.

Thanks to the 14th Amendment the same is true in regard to children of immigrants.  But even though the amendment is a much higher law than what the Congress can pass, it nevertheless is law, and is necessary in order for U.S. born children of immigrants to obtain citizenship.  Without it, or without a domestic birth, they have no citizenship because they have no natural right to membership in a group to which they inherit no membership from their outsider parents.

Here’s some questions you need to ask yourself :
“If Obama is a natural citizen via birth on U.S. soil, then would he still be a natural citizen if born abroad?  And if so, by what principle? -by the same principle by which Senator Obama and the entire U.S. Senate declared John McCain to be a natural born citizen?”

“If Obama had been born in Panama like McCain, would he have also been qualified to be President?  If so, by what principle or law?”

“Are governments not grounded on fundamental laws, and are not fundamental laws founded on fundamental principles?”  “Can fundamental laws violate fundamental principles?”

“If the right of natural membership (the basis of citizenship) is not a natural right on the nation-state level, is the right to live and be free also not a natural right on the same level?”

“If the right of natural membership does not underlie the legal concept of citizenship, then what does?”

“Is no one born with a natural right to citizenship, including descendants of George Washington and settlers that came over on the Mayflower?”  “If they have a natural right to citizenship does it not follow that some people do not, and that their citizenship must be granted by law because they have no natural right to it?”

“If the jurisdiction that persons must be subject to in order to be a U.S. citizen by the 14th Amendment is the full and complete jurisdiction that U.S. citizens are subject to, then why would the amendment not have excluded American women and children of non-immigrant aliens since neither can be forced to serve in war?”
Answer: It did exclude them both.  Foreign women could not be naturalized by federal authorities as individuals apart from a naturalized husband.  As a rule, foreign single women could not become American citizens because they were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.

“Why did/does the Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation require the naturalizing foreigner to state that he/she will fight for the nation in time of war unless it was written solely to be taken by men?  If foreign women must swear to fight for the nation even though American women have never been subject to conscription, nor historically allowed to serve in the military, how can such an oath not have been written solely for men and reflected the full subjection to the jurisdiction of the national government?”

“How can a father who cannot be forced to fight for a country that is not his own be considered to be subject to the full jurisdiction of that country when he is immune to the most fundamental responsibility of citizenship?”

“How can a man who is a law-abiding lawful member of his national homeland produce a son who is a natural member of a foreign nation?”  How does merely being delivered from the womb within the borders of a foreign nation make one a natural member of that nation and society?”

“How can anyone be considered to be a native member of a nation to which neither of their parents belong?”  Why would any people trust a non-native or half-native member of their society to control the full power of their military and their nuclear weapons?”

“How does one who is a student and teacher of the Constitution, who was fathered by a foreigner, not know immediately upon reading the Constitution’s requirement for the presidency that he is excluded by it?”

“How does one who’s offered the chance to be President not accept the chance when everyone is willing to overlook the inconvenient truth about the little road-bump of the Constitution having something uncomfortable to say about his qualification?”  If no one else cares, why should he?  And why the heck should the Constitution matter anyhow?  Who made it the boss of us all?

by A.R. Nash  April 2012