Fundamental Errors Obama Depends On Pt. 2

Obama’s Constitutional Fraud

& The 20th Amendment

Article II, Section I U.S. 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.

Another source of fundamental error in understanding the eligibility clause is a failure to grasp the meaning of the word “person”, -what it doesn’t mean and what it does mean.  It does not refer to the class of beings known as humans. Instead it refers to a particular class of humans, which can be discerned easily by process of elimination, -by eliminating a class it could not possibly include, and that is foreigners.  “No person” does not mean “No foreigner”.  Foreigners would not have been and were not even possibly included in its meaning.   They were universally automatically excluded as understood by all.  It was a given.
So with foreigners not even being in the picture, the only thing left was citizens.  Therefore the meaning of “No person” is in fact “No citizen except a natural born citizen”.

So what type of citizen was excluded by the presidential eligibility clause in favor of only natural born citizens?  Was it strictly naturalized citizens?  If it was, and if natural born citizens were considered indistinguishable from native-born citizens of foreign paternity, then the eligibility clause could have and would have been worded in a much more simple manner; i.e.; “No citizen naturalized after the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”  Bingo.
That is much plainer and simpler than the wording chosen, but it was not employed because it was not what they meant.
The provisional inclusion of the second exception allowing all citizens alive before the Constitution was adopted (who were 35 years of age and 14 years in residence) speaks independently that after that point, any citizen who became a citizen by law via naturalization was not eligible to be President.  So, since that is already stated in that segment of the sentence, it cannot possibly be redundantly focused on as the alternative type of citizen that was being prohibited by the “No person except..” language of the first segment.  The Constitution avoids redundancy and interpreting it requires avoiding it.

So if it wasn’t naturalized citizens that those words were intended to exclude, -since they were covered by the “or” segment, then it had to have been a different type of citizen.  What other types were there?  Only two:
Native-born sons of foreigners who were granted citizenship from birth by some states; or sons who obtained derivative citizenship as children upon their foreign father’s naturalization.  They, -being foreigners because they were born abroad, or being foreigners because they were born to a non-citizen, (-even though native-born) inherited by parentage, -by patrilineal descent via the natural law of inherited nature & and position, the new American citizenship of their father. Whatever he was, they were also since they were a reflection of him.
Those sons were the citizens who were not natural born citizens, and were implicitly excluded, deliberately, even though their number was minuscule as a percentage of American sons, perhaps less than two percent.  But if elected President, they could pose a potential security risk that was avoidable by their exclusion.  And so they were excluded.  But they were accepted during the founders’ generation because no monarch-loving wolf in sheep’s clothing would have gotten past the scrutiny of the founders’ generation, and its press.  Plus, Congress was expected to vet their constitutional eligibility to serve before the electoral college voted, or even after.  Congress was expected to nullify the election of any candidate it found unqualified to serve, i.e., -too young, not enough years of residency, or not an American citizen.
So a more clearly worded version would read something like this: “No citizen except a natural citizen, or a legal citizen of the United States living when this Constitution was adopted, shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”
Bear in mind that every citizen that was born of a foreign father was a legal citizen because their citizenship was obtain solely by the authority of law, and not by natural conveyance.

No natural citizen obtained legal citizenship at or after their birth.  Instead, they were born being a “citizen by nature”.  The native-born sons of foreigners could only obtain state and national citizenship via law.  If a state, like the national government, had no such law, which was most, then the children of a foreigner were not citizens of that state nor of the union.  They were viewed as foreigners also, like their father, until he naturalized, -then they acquired derivative citizenship by law and nature, become the same as what he had become.

~       ~       ~       ~       ~

The Twentieth Amendment versus  Obama’s Election

There’s one other area of Constitutional law that has never been enforced regarding Obama’s assumption of the presidency, and that is the authority and presumed requirement of the Twentieth Amendment.

That amendment deals with the qualification and terms of the President and Vice-President.  It states in Section 3: “, or 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, or the manner in which one who is  to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified.”
Its words “failed to qualify” are unmistakably not figurative but literal.  The President must qualify, and therefore to fail to qualify must mean that he failed a review of qualification.  That implies that there must be a review which one may fail because if there is no review then there is no possibility of failing to qualify.  That means that someone or some group had to be charged with ascertaining whether or not the President elect met the requirements of eligibility for the office.
And who would the congressional authors of the amendment have entrusted to ascertain the facts?  Only the representatives of the people, i.e., Congress.  Therefore it was up to Congress to inquiry as to the constitutional qualifications of the men who sought to hold the highest offices in the land.

If they were to find that they did not met the requirements, then they would have been obligated to bring the facts to the full body of one or both houses and take a vote as to whether or not it was agreed that the President elect and/or the Vice President elect had failed to qualify according to the Constitution for the offices they were elected to assume.  So Congress was expected and obligated to be the gate-keeper for the command of the presidency and the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.
That is clearly what the 20th Amendment is worded to mean and yet do we any recollection of Congress actually carrying-out its duty to protect the presidency and the nation from unqualified persons who had the audacity to run for the office, the good fortune, moxie, chutzpa and persuasive power and/or backing to bamboozle their way onto the election ballots of every state, and then win the election?
Well we don’t because they never have, nor ever encountered (until Obama) an elected candidate that was manifestly unqualified, although Congress did hired a high-profile pair of attorneys [Tribe & Olsen] to research whether or not one born outside the United States, but under U.S. jurisdiction, could qualify as a natural born citizen which is the first and foremost requirement of qualification for the presidency.    They concluded that having been born of American parents made John McCain an American citizen regardless of where he was born and that such citizens are the natural members of the American nation and are therefore qualified for the office of the President as natural American citizens.

They had that opinion in hand before Obama was even elected, and it would seem that in order to secure a unanimous consent vote of the entire Senate (in absentia) that declared the opinion of the Senate was that McCain was qualified, the republicans made the choice to violate their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution by remaining silent about the ineligibility of McCain’s fellow Senate presidential candidate Barack Obama, who in fact was not a natural born citizen, and thus was not qualified to be President.

John McCain and his ilk knew full well that Obama was not a natural born citizen but they traded a chunk of their honor, along with their fidelity to the nation’s foundational charter, for the benefit of great opportunity.   They, and the entire United State government committed treason against the Constitution (for “the greater good”) afraid to appear out of step with the momentum to have a serious black candidate for the presidency.  And so they all remained silent, -both before and after the election.  Then even worse, the chief justice-traitor of the supine court acquiesced to the expectation that he swear-in the usurper and thus make the constitutional treason a perfect trifecta of governmental criminality by misfeasance non-feasance, thereby facilitating Obama’s perjury by his false-swearing as he vowed to uphold the same Constitution that he was violating by assuming the office that it declares him ineligible to hold.

And what made it worse was the fact that not even one voice in the media, including the conservative media (other than the internet) would even acknowledge that there was anything suspect about Obama’s eligibility.  And worst of all, all 50 state governments allowed him on the ballot for a second time (!), -and the government repeated its constitutional treason twice!

Like Humpty-Dumpty, this broken government can’t be fixed because its aggressive entrenched attitude of being superior to and unchained by the limitations of the Constitution is not the exception but is the norm.  That’s business as usual.  The attitude in Washington is that institutional power based on institutionalized error and independence from the Constitution in any and every way which they can get away with is the perfectly natural way of running the country, and anyone who wants to hold them to the limits of the Constitution is insane and living in La-La Land because they will never agree to such limitations.  But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

We shall eventually see the dynamic conservative Edward (Ted) Cruz seek the office of the President with the goal of turning the country back to the Constitution and its limitation on federal power, and when he does we will all be engaging in a huge national discussion about who actually is and isn’t eligible to serve as President because he was not born in America but in Canada, and his father was not an American but a Cuban refugee who fled the growing communist oppression.  Such a person with such a perspective is just what America needs to shine a bright light on what statist totalitarian federal power devolves to when the chickens let the fox guard the hen house.

Will you support his unconstitutional bid for the presidency?  What should your criteria be for deciding?  Simple; the lesser of two evils is best, and a minor violation of the Constitution is far less onerous and destructive of the future than another term or two of socialistic-Marxism-leaning progressive policies being forced on everyone in the country in stark violation of the nation’s most basic tenets, those being independence and liberty, self-reliance, individual  and governmental responsibility, and unalienable rights that belong to the People or to the States.

I would support his candidacy fully, especially after being plagued by the milquetoast Republican candidates of the last couple decades, -men who had no idea of what they stood for, and didn’t quite grasp or embody “the vision thing”.  I’d hold my nose so to speak and mark his name choice instead of the democrat candidate’s name.  A glass half full is much better that a glass that’s empty, and a man working toward the right goals is much better than a man or woman not only not working toward them but actively working against them.

What wouldn’t I give to hear a newly elected Ted Cruz, upon the occasion of his inauguration as he prepares to take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and fidelity to the office, then instead decline the office because he has become aware that he is not eligible to hold it.  That would be a moment like when the thick curtain that separated the common outer area from the Holiest of Holies in Solomon’s Temple was ripped by God in absolute disgust from the top down to the bottom.  That would mark the end of one era and the beginning of another.

That would explode the issue of presidential eligibility like nothing else will ever be able to, and put Obama right in its cross hairs where he belongs.  Short of that the truth might never have a chance of breaking through the thick wall of indifference and resistance put up by the opposition in Congress, the Attorney General’s office, and the courts, along with the sycophantic lame-stream media.  They’re all like Obama’s flying monkeys, and act like the three monkeys that see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

That is perhaps the wisest attitude when your emperor is parading around  without a shred of constitutional clothing to cover his naked ineligibility (nor his counterfeit birth certificate fraud).  No one dares question the emperor, not O’Reilly, or Limbaugh, or Levin, or Hannity, or anyone else.  They don’t want anything to do with that third rail which they fear may fry them good if Obama’s henchmen in SEIU decide to start doing more than making threatening comments anonymously.

They might be aware that he is from Chicago, home of Al Capone and institutionalized corruption by gangsters and unions and politicians.    They might be aware that he has brought that same kind of corruption to Washington and put it into power which is exercised not so much by breaking the law but by ignoring it outright and doing whatever they can get away with that is outside of the law and the authority with which they have been entrusted.

Short of such an action by such a person as Ted Cruz, it would seem that a badly needed revolution in constitutional awareness will never sweep nor creep across this country to a degree that would make a real difference.  Americans will sleep on, focused on their favorite sports or gambling or drugs or music or video games or watering hole and their consciousness will never be raised nor awakened.  “Asleep at the wheel”, we will surely suddenly one day find ourselves sleeping comfortably in our own bed when the floor falls away from under us and we disappear into a giant sinkhole of debt and collapse of confidence in the entire American monetary system.

Have a nice day!

by a.r.nash  march 2013  http://obama–nation.com

Natives, Tribes, & Forgotten Citizenship Truths

Rvised & corrected March 22

In case some missed the added comments and addendum from “Fundamental Constitutional Errors Obama Depends On”,  here they are as a revised separate post.

Understanding Presidential Eligibility

Understanding the meaning of the presidential eligibility clause requires nothing more than being aware of natural roles that exist by blood connection, by inheritance, by parentage, by nature.
Nature has only three patterns defining the relationship between members of a species, including humans.  One pattern is that of individuals being loners who do not live in a social group.  The next pattern includes those that do.
The third is a pattern similar to but different from the second because the second produces groups comprised of creatures having equal size and strength regardless of gender, while the third is comprised of members having different  sizes and strengths, with the weaker being the females and the stronger being the males.

The first pattern is rare in the human world, -exceptions being the homeless and hermits, while the second and third are the norm, and express the difference between the modern world and the world in which women are a form of property, -the world of dominant male-chauvinism and machismo.
The second pattern includes an anomaly in both the animal and human realms.  Among elephant herds there are no males because they are driven away as teenagers since testosterone makes their behavior unacceptable, and so the pattern developed of excluding them.
In a welfare society, unwed mothers are excluded from welfare if a father is present to care for his own child.  But without a job or career, fathers can’t support their children so they never assume responsibility for them, leaving them to be raised by welfare-receiving mothers.  That whole category of society is devoid of adult male father-figures.

But the third pattern of nature is the one most common among primates and many higher-level  mammals, including lions, tigers, elk, deer, goats,  cattle, walruses, etc.  The male is the dominant sex, the protector of the females and off-spring.  He is master of the domain.  That has been the common pattern in human society throughout the ages, including in the group that is a pre-cursor to nations; namely families, clans and tribes.
The male head of the family group is the ultimate authority because he is the one on whom falls the responsibility to sacrifice life and limb to defend his charges, his family, his people.  With that assigned role and with his strength, his position is preeminent.  When a female accepts him as her mate, he becomes her protector and she becomes subservient to his leadership role.  She takes his name and abandons her father’s name and authority.  She becomes a part of him and his world and takes a vow of obedience.

If she is an outsider from another tribe, it doesn’t matter in regard to their children because they are not what she was, instead they are what he is.   She is subsumed by the blood connections of his family sphere.  She takes pride in what he is and accomplishes, as do their children who also draw identity and pride in the ancestral heritage inherited from him, of which they are a part.  His wife is woven into that fabric as a naturalized member of the family and tribe.

But if a female native marries an outsider who co-habitates with a tribe not his own, their children will not be in the same circumstance because their father is an alien.  Their mother takes on a connection to him, and he is connected to another people, and thus also are their children; dual and conflicted identity and loyalty.  He could take his brood and move out of the tribe and go back to his own people, while the children of the male native father have no other people since the former tribe of their mother is foreign to them and they to it.  She is no longer an attached part of them, having been naturalized by marriage and motherhood into her husband’s clan or tribe.

Her sons can one day be the Chief, but the sons of the outsider father can never be Chief because they are not pure-blood natives of the tribe.  They do not belong to it exclusively.  They are not natural members but are members by permission of the tribe because its membership is passed from father to child, -not from mother to child.
That’s the natural pattern, and that’s the way it was in 1787 when the Constitution was written.  It has never been constitutionally altered except that now daughters can also be Chief.
Native-born citizens are to natural born citizens what fraternal twins are to identical twins.  The common perception of twins is that they look alike, and yet there are exceptions, as in when they are not the result of one egg but of two.  The result can not only be that they don’t look alike, but they can even be different races and genders.

Years back there was even a case of a mother who gave birth to a white baby and a black baby at the same time.   And recently in the news was a case of a mother birthing two sets of twins at once, -one in 300 million odds.  Those children exist against the same odds as Barack Obama’s presidency.
Suppose that one set of those twins were identical, and let’s say beautiful girls, while the other set were fraternal twin boys, -with one being albino and the other being black.  No one would look at them and think that they were all the same, -that they were indistinguishable.  Yet in the minds of the ignorant, the children of the descendents of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are identical to the U.S. born children of Osama bin Laden because natural citizenship does not exist.     They only recognize legal citizenship and think that being born in America makes one a legal citizen and therefore equal and indistinguishable in any way from those whose roots go back to the Mayflower.

But children of foreigners and children of Americans are as distinguishable as those two very different hypothetical sets of twins.  They were both born having membership in their family, just as natural and native-born citizens have citizenship from birth, but fraternal twins are not, and can never be, identical twins.  They are different,  (by nature),  just as natural citizens are citizens by nature, but native-born children of foreigners are like a child adopted from a mother in the next hospital bed who didn’t survive childbirth.  It can never be a natural child of the adoptive mother and her family since an adopted child is not hers by nature but by law -even if it became hers from the day of its birth.

Clearly, there is a distinction between reality and perception about twins, just as there is in regard to the nature of the citizenship of the native-born.       The children of Americans are not the same as the children of foreigners, -regardless of the common geographical location of their births or the equality of the character of their devotion to their country.  Children of foreigners may well have a greater appreciation for being an American because their parents have made them aware of how pathetic life was in their homeland.

But the issue isn’t a quantification of loyalty to America but of the reality of a real and natural difference in the nature of their citizenship.  One is natural national membership, -the other is man-made, artificial, legal membership which does not come by Right but by permission.  It’s not transmitted by Life but by Law.  Citizenship connected to land & law is not natural.  Citizenship connected to borders, and not blood, is not natural.

It is indisputable that legal citizenship is not natural citizenship because natural citizenship exists in the total absence of any law, while legal citizenship is 100% dependent on law and without it, it would not exist.

For Obama, it’s even worse since his citizenship is not the result of any law, but the result solely of an erroneous policy based on an erroneous understanding of a bastardized Supreme Court majority opinion that threw out over 100 years of national policy and Supreme Court precedence, and rewrote, in effect, the 14th Amendment and its meaning.  That Supreme Court opinion became  the law of the land, but the policy that misconstrues it by going beyond it is not “The Law”, and could be changed overnight.
Obama’s citizenship is not a result of American law but of an American policy based on ignorance and the power of entrenched, institutionalized error.  His citizenship is as rare and unnatural as is the albino white buffalo.  He could not be farther from being a natural citizen unless he was not even born in America.

The legal nature & origin of his presumed citizenship is as cloaked in mist and mystery as is the nature of the white buffalo, and just as rare, but there is nothing normal and natural about anything that is rare.
The rare is abnormal, aberrant, deviant from the norm, strange and unique, -just like Obama’s pdf computer-crafted counterfeit birth certificate which was produced from real parts, but like Frankenstein’s monster, had no origin in a natural source.  The monster walks and talks but that doesn’t make it a natural human being, nor does the superficial appearance of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth make it a true, unaltered, replica of a real hospital record, nor does his albino, white buffalo, presumed citizenship make him a natural or law-based American citizen.

There are three distinctly different positions regarding what a natural born citizen is; the one on the extreme left ignorantly declares that it means “a native-born citizen”. The one on the extreme right erroneously declares that it means “a native-born natural citizen”. While the one in the literal-language middle argues that it means only what it says and exactly what it says and nothing more and nothing less. In fact, it says more than it actually needs to say because the word “born” is implied by the word natural. One cannot be a natural citizen without having been born one, and so in that sense it is redundant to include the word “born” when using the word “natural”.
But in the absence of the word “natural”, the word “born” usefully modifies the word “citizen”, since without it there’s no differentiation between those who are citizens naturally and those who are naturalized since both are Citizens.
But even with the word “born”, ambiguity still exists because it does not differentiate between those who are born as citizens naturally and those who are born as citizens by law.

One is a natural citizen while the other is a naturalized-at-birth citizen. What difference does it make what type of born citizen one is? Well, essentially none, and positively none as regarding one’s rights and protections and obligations. In those regards they are identical, but there is one other category established by the Constitution and it is occupied by only two people out of over 300 million, and in it there is an exclusion made, -an exclusion found no where in American society or life except in regard to who is eligible to wield the power of the Commander-in-Chief.

Constitutionally speaking, that is the truth  regarding the President and Vice-President alone, but not true practically speaking since others are also assigned to that category by the government, and they are those who guard the President, Vice-President and their families, and those who guard, maintain, control and launch American nuclear bombs.  Only natural citizens are allowed to occupy those positions because, like the presidency, it’s a matter of national security.  [those with the highest security clearances probably must also be natural Americans, -including those who work at the Groom Lake facilities of Area 51]

For the one unique position of the presidency, along with its back-up officer, the category of privilege contains a mandatory differentiation between those who are assigned the status of citizen by human mandate, and those who are born with the natural political nature of Citizen in the absence of any human mandate or judicial opinion.   Only they are the true natives or natural members of the nation, while their brethren by law are not natural members because they inherited a foreign political nature from a foreign father, and are only permitted the status of Citizen by the permission of the laws passed by the representatives of the natural members of the nation.
That permission could be withdrawn by a constitutional amendment and thereafter no person born in America with a foreign father would be considered a United States citizen unless granted citizenship by State law, as it was for over 100 years from the founding of the nation.
But such an amendment could not be adopted in regard to natural citizens because they would have to be the ones adopting it. It would be a Bizarro World situation when the members of a group or a game adopt a rule that says they (or their children) are no longer members of their own group.
The framers of the Constitution had the opportunity to describe the citizen nature of a President in different words and yet they choose the words that they settled on. But they could have stated instead that “No person except a native-born citizen shall be eligible…”; or “No person except a native-born natural citizen shall be eligible…”, or “No naturalized citizen shall be eligible…”; and yet they did not accept those clearly understood descriptions because none of them says what they wanted to be said, -which was that all sons of Americans are eligible at 35 years of age to be President as long as they’ve lived in America for 14 years, provided that  those born of a foreign father became Americans before the Constitution was adopted.
By requiring the citizenship of the President and Vice-President to be natural, they effectively barred the U.S. born sons of foreigners from holding the highest and most powerful position in the nation since sons of foreigners are not natural citizens but are citizens by law, (if citizens at all)  that “law” didn’t even exist until four generations later when the 14th Amendment was ratified, and which meant something that was assumed to be the age-old policy of the United States, but, being ambiguously worded, was altered by the Supreme Court’s majority opinion regarding it meaning, (their Wong Kim Ark opinion of 1898) -an amendment which was written for those denied U.S. citizenship in the South because they were not born to citizens even though they were born in America, -they being freed slaves.

Clearly, those who are citizens by nature and those who are citizens by law are distinguishable, and that distinction was drawn by the founding fathers in regard to one and only one office, the presidency. And by that distinction, Barack H. Obama Jr. is an invalid, illegitimate, unconstitutional President.

A distillation of the presidential eligibility clause and the 14th Amendment is as follows:
“Every person born subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States government is a citizen of the United States irrespective of birth location. American children not begotten by foreign fathers subject to a foreign power, nor to American naturalization statutes, are natural born citizens irrespective of birth location. They alone are eligible to the office of the President.  All other citizens are prohibited, including foreign-born naturalized citizens, foreign-born natural citizens who have not lived in the United States for 14 years, statutory & derivative citizens [foreign-born (including Guam, Puerto Rico, and Vietnam) who obtained U.S. citizenship as adults via congressional statute, or as children of those granted citizenship], and native-born 14th Amendment citizens.”

If the 14th Amendment meant what the Supreme Court majority in 1898 agreed that it meant, then there had been no need to mention a requirement for birth in the United States because children of foreign fathers are only born subject to the jurisdiction of Washington if they are born within the United States. That is a fact that goes without saying and didn’t need to be stated as a determining factor.  Therefore the wording of the Amendment is inherently redundant.
By first listing the factor of birth within the United States and then listing the factor of subjection to the authority of the United States government, the amendment’s language is requiring something that is impossible for those not born within the United States unless they are natural born citizens, (for whom the amendment was not written, and does not apply since their national membership pre-dates the Constitution).  No child born outside of the United States is latently subject to U.S. federal authority unless their parents are Americans.
Placing an emphasis on native-birth distracts focus from where it rightly belongs, which is on subjection to the political authority of the federal government.  The Supreme Court felt that birth within the United States makes one subject, even though that view was in violation of the policy of the government since it was created.  The Justices in the majority decided that subjection alone is the basis for granting citizenship, not native-birth. But that subjection only exists if one born to foreigners (or a foreign father) is born within U.S. sovereign jurisdiction.  But native-birth, in and of itself, does not make one subject. For that, one must be legally, permanently or semi-permanently domiciled, meaning one must be a member of American society and subject to the responsibility to defend it.

“All…and…are…”.   “All persons…and subject …are citizens.” What’s redundant is the first half. It could be dropped completely and rewritten as “All persons born subject to the United States’ sovereign authority are citizens of the United States”  That would have covered every person born in every state as well as federal territories.
Constitutional amendments can only revise the Constitution by mandating something that expressly nullifies, supersedes, alters or adds to the meaning of something in the Constitution or something that was universally accepted as the norm and status quo of the nation when it was ratified. The 14th Amendment makes no alteration in the meaning of what a natural born citizen is, nor did the Supreme Court in its Wong Kim Ark opinion since it did not address its meaning in its decision.
No one who is a citizen via the Supreme Court’s Wong opinion is eligible to be President because such citizens are legal citizens and not natural citizens, even though they are native-born Americans.
Citizenship dependent on birth within the United States, or Supreme Court opinion, or Congressional legislation, or executive branch policy is the definition of not being a natural born American citizen. If native-birth is needed in order to obtain legal citizenship then it is solely because one was born with the alienage of a foreign father.  Those without any foreign parentage can be born anywhere on the planet and are automatically American citizens because they are what their parents are.  They come into this world with an American political nature, American national membership, via natural political inheritance.

Aside from the common forms of legal citizenship, which include naturalized citizenship, statutory & derivative citizenship, and constitutional citizenship (via the 14th Amendment), there is also a form of citizenship which operates outside of the law although it has the force of the authority of the government.  That form is citizenship by policy rather than law.
That is the form of citizenship which Barack Obama actually possesses.  His citizenship is not citizenship by national law but by national policy alone since the “law” that is presumed to cover him (the Wong opinion regarding the 14th Amendment) does not in fact do so through his foreign-student father nor through his mother since neither foreign transients nor females are subjects of the full authority of any free nation (with the possible exception of Israel).

Statutory citizenship is that mandated by Congress and doesn’t involve naturalization.  It involves non-citizens being granted citizenship outright without undergoing the naturalization process.  It includes citizenship via the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (superseded by the 14th Amendment) and grants of citizenship to Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Guamians, as well as around a hundred thousand Vietnamese boat people who fled to America to escape communist persecution.
None of them were natural Americans but were made to be Americans by the exercise of legislative power, becoming legal citizens.  On the individual level, statutory citizenship involves the off-spring of an American and a foreigner being born outside of the United States jurisdiction, as well as the citizenship status of American women who marry foreign men (a century ago the Naturalization Act of 1907 stripped them of their American citizenship).

But no “legal citizen” is eligible to serve as President. Only those who are NOT legal citizens (the 97%) are eligible, because only they are natural citizens of the United States. Their citizenship is passed to them by American parents apart from and in the absence of American law. They are the true natives of the nation, -not by native-birth but by birth to natives.
If the 14th Amendment was exclusionary, then it would not have used the opening words; “All persons” but would have instead employed language used in the presidential eligibility clause; “No person except…”.  Or used its own wording but in negative terms: “All persons not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are not citizens of the United States.”.
The inclusive language of the amendment has this as its skeleton: “All person born in…and subject to the United State”, -meaning: born within American jurisdiction and subject (latently, -through American parents) to American authority at birth.

If couched in exclusionary terms that results in: “Any person born in the United States but not subject to its political authority is not a citizen of the United States.”
What it doesn’t say is: “No person born in the United States and subject to its central government is not a citizen thereof.”
What it absolutely does not say nor mean is: “Every person not born in the United State is not subject to its political authority, and therefore is not a citizen.” Or worse:  “No person born outside the United States, even though subject to its jurisdiction, is not a citizen of the United States.”

Or worst of all: “No person not born in the United States is a natural citizen of the United States, nor a citizen of any sort whatsoever.”
Its opposite is: “All persons born subject to the authority of the United States are citizens of the United State regardless of where they are born” (with the exceptions American Samoa & Swain’s Island, -and indigenous Americans who opt out). That’s the widest true blanket statement possible.

But the amendment was not focused on including natural citizens born outside the United States, nor on persons born within the United States that were not subject to its authority nor members of its society, (Native Americans, Gypsies, Martians, and foreign visitors and representatives) but was focused solely on those people who were both born in and subject to the United States. The Supreme Court felt that the 14th Amendment meant that sons of immigrants are subject and therefore are citizens even though their parents are not.
But Attorney General John Griggs distorted their words by surmising that the Supreme Court had opined that every child of every foreigner born in the U.S. is subject (except children of foreign ambassadors), which is false and which the Supreme Court did not say. He turned “All persons…and subject…are citizens,” into “All persons…are citizen” by overlooking both visiting and illegally-present foreign women, and babies that might be born to them.  That wasn’t a significant oversight until the southern border became the gateway for an invasion of foreigners not subject to the American government.

We’ve been stuck with Griggs’ error ever since, which allows “citizenship tourists” giving birth in the U.S. and claiming American citizenship for children who, like them, are not subject to American political authority, and a President who isn’t even a genuine American citizen  -not by Nature nor by Law.  That error may doom our future as a demographic shift produces a voter majority that is unwilling to rein-in unsustainable spending.

by adrien nash  march 2013,

http://obama–nation.com

http://obamabc.wordpress.com

 

Presidential Legitimacy:

 ~the Constitution versus the 14th Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official State Error & a non-citizen President

~vs Truth, History & U.S. Law

“Unknown” wrote: Blacks Law Dictionary, the preeminent reference on American legal terms, has for decades defined natural-born citizens as those born in the jurisdiction of a national government. The sixth edition goes farther; “Natural born citizen: Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”
People make mistakes.  Experts make mistakes.  Lawyers and judges make mistakes.  Presidents make mistakes.  Doctors make mistakes.  Surgeons remove the wrong kidney, or operate on the wrong side of the brain because they, like their understanding, are fallible.  The Black’s Law Dictionary “expert”  was fallible and he, like Congress, like the Supreme Court, like Columbus, like Einstein, like theorists in every branch of science, were capable of error and being intellectually imprecise.
The description of  “a natural born citizen” in the Law Dictionary was the result of only one thing; the incorrect conflation of those words with the words “a natural born subject”.  It was made in error because the author failed to grasp the distinguishing principle of natural citizenship and subjecthood, -the one needed for an understanding that would produce a precise and accurate meaning.

It’s all too easy and natural for humans to unknowingly use ambiguous or imprecise language in everyday speech, and that tendency carries over into how one might write, -especially when writing in great volume.  I once read that Greek has about a half dozen words for “love”. while two-fingered English only has one.  That is an example of lack of precision of meaning.  That deficiency results in ambiguity.  Ambiguity results in one mentally picking a meaning in a process akin to that of the toss of a coin, -or in the case of the word “love”, several coins.

If a word or phrase has two meanings, then odds may be 50-50 that the listener or reader will make an incorrect presumption as to what was meant.  It would be a great travesty if a battle field message was sent to headquarters but it was ambiguous and the response was the incorrect one because its interpretation was the incorrect one.  Battles, wars, and kingdoms could be lost due to simple everyday ambiguity.

The ambiguity at the heart of the citizenship issue is found in references to children, -of foreign fathers, born in England.  No doubt, instances of discrimination had appeared against them when it came to rights or privileges, and so authorities had to defend them against such discrimination.  As a result, authorities ruled that their national and social standing was identical to that of natural born subjects, and so they would have ruled and written that alien-born subjects are indistinguishable from natural born subjects, or shall be considered as though they are the same.
With the full weight of the crown and the government behind such judicial opinions, and magisterial edits, or parliamentary mandates, one would hence be viewed as farting in the face of the national policy if one pointedly and prejudicially made utterances about the difference between the two.  And so it became accepted that the children of those foreigners made subject to the Crown by its own authority based on them living in the King’s domain, were to be considered as being the King’s natural born subjects also…(even though they technically weren’t).

Warping the language alters perceptions, -as was ably demonstrated by the Nazis and the Soviets, as also in writings such as Animal Farm and 1984.
If the authorities call alien-born subjects natural born subjects then the foreign alienage of the father will be ignored and not imputed to his children.  That was the goal and it was legally effective, but not socially effective.  I read somewhere that in America, even after an immigrant naturalized, the natural natives of the colonies and states still referred to such a person as a foreigner because they were born and raised as such.

The children of foreigners (unnaturalized) were never referred to as natural subjects or natural citizens in any colony or state.  Only in the rare colonies/states like Virginia, which granted subjecthood or citizenship to native-born “sons of the soil” (children of immigrants) were they even considered to be “born subjects” or “born citizens”.  None of the other colonies / states, nor the central government ever considered them to be fellow natives, -fellow blood-relatives (in a nationalistic sense), -fellow natural members of their state nor the American nation as an aggregate.

They were foreigner-born, -alien-born, -subjects of their father’s homeland unless  and until he became an American.

If he was unwilling to do so, then his children deserved no accommodation regarding the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the male adult Caucasian freemen of America.  His children would thus remain as domestic subjects of the state and central governments until, as adults, they themselves naturalized to become Americans.

They, thereby, were expected and required to swear before Almighty God that they renounced any and all allegiance to any foreign power, and would support and defend their “adopted” native-land, both state & nation, (by bearing arms if need be) as well as their laws and constitutions.  If they were unwilling to take the oath, then they indeed were foreigners at heart and undeserving of the title and position of “citizen”.

Recall what I wrote regarding experts and imprecise language which results in ambiguity.  The Black’s Law Dictionary definition is a glaring example of such flawed origin.  Where is the flaw you ask?  It is very subtle and hidden and easily overlooked, and that has resulted in an institutionalized error adopted by all those who are unaware of it.  It’s all connected to the wording of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, which reads: “All persons born in the United States, or naturalize, are citizens of thereof.”  If that is how it actually reads, then there would be no ambiguity.  But I left out the second requirement for citizenship.  It actually reads: “All persons born in the United States, or naturalize, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”

The flaw in Black’s definition is in the use of the word “within” (the jurisdiction)”.  That word resulted in the greatest of errors possible.  How?  By conflating two different meanings of “jurisdiction”.  It can refer to a specific area but it can also mean authority.  One can’t be subject to an area, (a physical jurisdiction) nor can an area exercise jurisdiction (political authority).  It is confusing but accurate to state that the government can exercise its jurisdiction within its jurisdiction.  Clearly, the word has two different meanings, and as with the flip of a coin, the defining authority in 1898 choose the wrong one.

Consider the use of the words “reed” and “read”, and also the words “red” and “read” (past tense).  Those are four distinctly different words and yet when reading the two different versions of “read” one may read the word incorrectly and then be momentarily confused because of mentally pronouncing it incorrectly.  A similar situation results when hearing the words and being asked to define “reed” or “red”.  One can’t know that the words meaning “read” are not intended because of the ambiguous pronunciation.  Only by using precise explanation can one distinguish the difference between two or more ambiguous possibilities.  The logical error to be avoided, but unfortunately easily made, is the equivalent of conflating “reed” with “red” based on the similarity of “read” with “read” (past tense).
A legal error of that sort occurred related to “jurisdiction” due to failing to comprehend that citizenship is not connected to the meaning related to area but to the meaning related to authority.
The correct language to use to avoid the ambiguity is “subject to the jurisdiction”, not “within the jurisdiction”.  Figure this out: “It is within the authority of authorities to make subjects of all born within the jurisdiction of the authority if their fathers are subject to the jurisdiction in authority within the area of jurisdiction.”
Yeah, you might say that the term “jurisdiction” is rife with possibilities for confusion and error of interpretation.  And error prevailed when it came to defining it as used in the 14th Amendment, which uses both meanings within the same paragraph.  It first refers to authority, mentioning those born “subject to the jurisdiction” but later refers to area, mentioning being within state jurisdiction (state borders).
The erroneous conflation occurred in the minds of those who failed to distinguish the difference between area and authority.  Hence the assumption that those “born within the jurisdiction” is equivalent to those “born subject to the jurisdiction”, when in fact they are very much unrelated.
Native Americans were born within the jurisdiction but not subject to the jurisdiction, (as were Gypsies and slaves, and probably the French) but such persons had no connection to the duties and responsibilities of citizens, -the first and foremost of which is the requirement to help defend the nation.  They had no stake in the American society that comprised the nation, and thus were not viewed as fellows in the obligation to be a part of national defense in time of emergency, -the most fundamental duty of citizens.
They were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States even though born “within the jurisdiction”, except as is expected of all “subjects” living under the rule of moral and civil law.

Transient, visiting foreigners, and their pregnant wives and the children they might deliver within U.S. national borders, are not and have never been “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. government even though they are “within the jurisdiction” of the government.  They remain subject to the father’s government because they are subject to him and he is subject to his own nation’s authority.
That is the natural order of things and is how it has existed for thousands of years.  Only the era of women’s rights has altered that order, but it has not altered the past.  It is still what it always was, but everyone fails to recognize what it was because the perception of reality has been distorted by the error of a presumption based on the incorrect definition derived from ambiguous concepts and language.

A coined was tossed into the air in the mind of Attorney General Griggs without him realizing it, and it came up tails.  He choose the wrong possibility of the two that were before him because he was unaware of the other possibility.  He choose the one that failed to distinguish between children of immigrants who are members of American society, and children of foreign transients who are not.
He choose the one that exalted the erroneous “within the jurisdiction” (related to civil law)  instead of the correct one “subject to the jurisdiction” that had always been based on a man’s national obligation to defend his homeland.  Transient foreigners are not subject to that obligation nor the jurisdiction that stems from it.

What is the unimpeachable authority behind the Black’s Dictionary author-definer’s claim that those “persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government” are natural born citizens?  There is none whatsoever.

He made an unfounded presumption based on the dishonest language adopted in Britain regarding its alien-born subjects.  His mistake of adopting the English bastardization of language was compounded by the baseless presumption that it could be transmuted to directly apply to the American federal government and it’s view regarding citizenship and its origin.
Just because Americans avoided calling children of immigrants “alien-born citizens” does not mean that they therefore are not precisely that.  Just because we choose to call them “native-born citizens” as is still the practice of the CIS (formerly INS) today does not in any way make them indistinguishable from natural citizens.
It is sloppy and lazy thinking that fails to consider that just because nearly all natural citizens are born in the United States, that therefore all who are born in the U.S. must therefore be labelable as natural born citizens.  The reality is that if a George Armstrong Custer Jr. entered this world on Sioux land, that would not make him Sioux, nor make him eligible to one day be the Chief of the Sioux nation.
Jus soli was never the policy of the central government, nor that of the most of the states, but the Black’s Dictionary word-definer was so infused with the misunderstanding of the Wong opinion of the Supreme Court (1898), -a misunderstanding promulgated by Attorney General John Griggs in 1898 or ’99 and universally adopted by the government ever since, that he simply assumed that the “common knowledge” origin of citizenship was correct, when in fact it is pure fiction.

The government, and “experts” such as Black’s citizenship-definer, have been living in a fantasy ever since that erroneous interpretation of A.G. Griggs was disseminated.  It is because of his error and it alone that Barack Obama is considered to possess U.S. citizenship.  But there is nothing in the Constitution, nor any Congressional statute, nor any SCOTUS opinion that provides citizenship to native-born children of transient aliens.  It exists solely are an aberration of law resulting from the Justice Department’s erroneous policy, which is based on a misconstrued interpretation of the Supreme Court’s misconstrued interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

That policy could, like Barack Obama’s “recess appointments” to the NLRB, go down in utter dismissal by federal courts or by an honest Attorney General.  Same with Obama’s supposed American citizenship.  He, like Hamdi the terrorist, was born of a transient foreigner and was never a legitimate citizen of the United States.  His citizenship is supported solely by the powerful weight of the executive branch strongly enforcing erroneous precedence.  It is his Achilles heal, and any reasonable examination of the truth, like any reasonable examination of his Certificate of Live Birth, will reveal him to be a fraud and a criminal forger.  The forgery was necessary not because he would be considered to not be a natural American if born abroad (as John McCain is considered), but because of the bastardized, erroneous and confusing view that by not being born in the U.S. he would not be a native-born citizen and therefore wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

All “common knowledge” concepts about Obama’s citizenship are wrong.  His birth certificates are counterfeits.  No one can demonstrate that he was born in Hawaii or anywhere else.  All possible evidence is under lock & key or has been destroyed, and all witnesses to that campaign are either on his side and part of it or are silenced by fear. The facts regarding the cover-up are multitudinous but are hidden from and by the members of the government and press corps in order to preserve the status quo and individual’s standing within it.
Furthermore:
His birth outside of the U.S. would not disqualify him nor any American from serving as President.
His birth inside the U.S. would not qualify him to serve as President.
His birth inside the U.S. does not qualify him to even be a U.S. citizen via actual U.S. law and court opinion.

If he had been born in Panama like John McCain, everyone would assume that he is ineligible to be President, yet all assume that John McCain was eligible, including the legal investigators for the Congressional Research Office.  What’s the difference?   A father who not only was not an American, but was not even an immigrant.   The consequence of that fact is that Obama was not born as an American citizen and has never become a naturalized citizen either.

America is Obama’s home and country, but only because he has chosen to adopt it as such.  And half of it has adopted him as one of them.  The other half have not because they see the ambiguity surrounding him.  He, by provisional law, would or could be a citizen of the Islamic nation of Indonesia.  He, by provisional law could have been a citizen of the nation of Kenya, not because he was born in either country but because he had fathers from both of them.

Just as Indonesia adopted Obama as a citizen through his step-father, so Obama adopted America as his country, a possibility solely because of 20th century law regarding his connection through his mother.  But natural citizens have no such choice.  They have no other alternate nationality that can replace or co-exist with their American political nature because it is the only nature that they have.  They are Americans by nature, and don’t have a choice to be so or not.  Just as children of Jews or Arabs or Chinese are inescapably the same as their parents.

Natural citizenship is citizenship without any choice involved, whereas every other form of citizenship involves choice and/ or law; -choice by parents, choice upon adulthood, or force of law regarding persons born to a father from a foreign nation, with the exception of someone like Obama.  He isn’t covered by nature nor law since no American law exists which provides him citizenship if he was born in the U.S. with a non-immigrant foreign father.
He would have had to have been born outside of the U.S. to have obtained U.S. citizenship through his mother.  So his supposed citizenship is not the result of natural inheritance, Congressional statute, constitutional amendment, Supreme Court opinion, nor international treaty.  It’s a vague, intangible, revocable thing that is, like petrified rock or pearl, a solid “legal” accretion based on a century old erroneous opinion regarding an erroneous opinion rendered by the personal will of six Supreme Court justices who choose to ignore all of the court precedence that preceded them, -and not based on legal, state nor national common law and tradition.
So if you want to say that Obama is an American citizen, you’d be right if referring to the stupid official Policy of the United State government for over a century.
And if you want to say that he is not an American citizen, you’d also be right if referring to the actual Law of the United State government.
But if you want to say that he is constitutionally eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of all of the federal, and military forces, and all of the nuclear bombs of the United States, and the office of the President as well, well….you’d be wrong.

He is not eligible.  He was born ineligible.  He is President by fraud and treason against the Constitution.  His oath of allegiance to the Constitution was a total farce since by taking it he was breaking it.
He is the greatest fraud in American history regardless of whether or not the powers-that-be are willing to acknowledge that fact.  They can’t be expected to because it would put their whole world in jeopardy.
Obama sits as the supreme lord of the realm, -the Emperor of the Land of Oz, impervious to almost everything, possessing citizenship that is legitimized by nothing but his own illegitimate and unconstitutional executive authority.

It can’t be said to be legitimized by the Attorney General who is his brother-in-the-cause and beholden to him since if he declared the President to not be a true, legal American citizen, then he would also be rendering himself illegitimate by being the appointee of an unconstitutional President.

America, like Nazi Germany, has suffered a perfectly legal coup, -in both cases by ignoring their constitutions to legitimize ineligible leaders, -Hitler not being a natural born German as required by the German constitution, but a natural born Austrian, and in our case by Obama not being a constitutionally-required natural born citizen of any state, (nor of the federal government, nor any other nation).
The Democrat powers that accomplished his election are not the worst enemy that the founders feared because he owes no overt allegiance to any foreign power, (although he seems to place a high priority on the world-wide opinion of Muslims, possibly because he is still a closet Muslim -something that may have come about and  been revived during his guided tour of Pakistan in 1980 by his well-off Muslim room-mate at Occidental College), -but that doesn’t mean that the founders didn’t fear exactly what Obama has pulled off.
Their fear was of a very possible form of disloyalty, -one fostered by someone, -and his party, that “only wants what’s best for the country” (meaning what in his mind is fair and equitable from a warped philosophical historical perspective) and is willing to do anything to bring it about, including destroying the solvency of the future by limitless spending for “the General Welfare” (meaning those who will be inspired to vote for him and his party) and endless regulation based on no constitutional authority whatsoever, and in clear violation of the 9th & 10th Amendments.

Just imagine the magnitude of fear across the land  in the early 19th century regarding the untrustworthy tendency of those with ultimate power using it illegitimately.   That fear inspired the powerful impetus behind the authoring and ratification of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
IX.  The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
X.  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That fear was regarding the very kind of over-reaching, all-powerful central government that Obama and his ilk are determined  to force on all of the states if possible, and all of the citizens of a once free, lawful, and courageous land.  That land now exists as only a shadow of its former self, having become the nightmare reality of one of the founder’s worst fears.

How dare I risk “exposing” such things?  -because I live far from any population center, and the federal government is merely an abstraction to me.  Similarly, Obama’s citizenship is also an abstraction based on nothing but entrenched institutionalized error.  The only thing semi-solid about it is the fact that it depends entirely on his own presidential authority and nothing else.  But Hell would freeze over before he would use his authority to declare the fact that national policy and citizens’ assumptions are based on error, and that he, in fact, is not an American citizen due to the devil in the details of American law and jurisprudence.

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