Full-Blood Citizens & The Presidency

The Whole Truth about Chiefs, Kings, Koreans & Vampires

Full-Blood Citizenship & The Presidency

    Aside from survival and living in peace, there’s no aspect of the communal life of a natural group more important than that of who its leader is.  Beyond the larger sense of immediate family, he is the center of their world and his decisions may one day make the difference between life and death, -freedom or enslavement for the group.  So choosing him wisely is an important role for all adults who have a say in that choice.

Wanting him to be the best choice possible, they realize that they must always follow the ancient tribal guidelines in making their selection.  But with or without guidelines, they want something about him that is not related to his wisdom or experience.  It is his nature.
Is he one of them?  Was he born of them?  Is he wholly of them and of no other people?  In other words, is he a full-blood member or just a half blood member, -or worse, a no-blood member?  Only full blood members have no distraction of divided loyalty from being half something else.
So even before they weigh whether or not he is wise enough to lead them, they must be certain that they can fully trust him because their lives will be in his hands.

When one is about to testify in open court, one must raise their right hand and swear before God and man that they will tell the truth.  Is that “tell the truth, period”?  Or is there more?  Everyone knows there is more, because one must swear to not just tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth.  Merely telling “the truth” is not good enough because that is not complete.  It could and would be missing something, -something potentially vital and life changing for the person on trial for his or her life.  One’s whole future could be ruined for lack of the full truth.  And so it is also when it comes to leadership and the lack of full loyalty.

A half loyal leader could make choices that would destroy the future of the tribe.  His being of two minds when it comes to where his strongest allegiance lies could redound to the tribes detriment and have dire consequences.  So full loyalty is the first and foremost essential quality that a new leader must possess.

How could assurance be had that he would be fully loyal to the tribe and not half-loyal to a different tribe that one of his parents came from?  The answer is obvious; he must be a full-blood member of the tribe having neither parent from another one.
That is directly related to who would inherit the Throne if a monarch had only two sons and one of them was from his wife the Queen, while another was from a commoner, or worse, a peasant or princess of a competing king’s nation.

The royal ascension would require a full-blood heir, -not a half-blood heir.  That would especially be true if the child was the son of an adulterous wife.  Her  illegitimate child would be completely ineligible to be king unlike that of his majesty the King.

There would, in both cases, be a rule that would need to be followed, and it would be the common sense requirement that he who would lead the nation must be a full-blood member of the group, (the Royal family) and thereby have undivided and unquestionable loyalty to his own people.

The rule, at some point in the tribe’s history, would be written down as the Law of the tribe for all future generations to follow, and the words used to express the rule would be something like these:
1.   No member, except a blood member, shall be eligible to be the Chief.
Or perhaps:
2.  No member, except a native born member, shall be eligible to be the Chief.

Now put on your thinking cap and bore down into the implied nuanced subtle meaning inherent in those two possibilities.  Is one or the other ambiguous?  Or worse, both?

The answer is “both”.   If you can’t figure out why, then you need to think deeper, just as in being a swore witness, what is needed is not just the truth, but the whole truth.
It is not enough, in the first possibility, to be merely a blood member, because that leaves wide-open the possibility of being merely a half-blood member.  That of course would mean that one could possibly have a divided heart that is half loyal to another tribe.  So blood alone is not enough.  It must be Full-blood.

The second possibility also contains a huge ambiguity because being native-born has two meanings.  Does it refer to being born of two native members of the tribe, or being born within the tribe’s territory?  Which would be more important to tribe loyalty?  Would a son of outsiders, though born on tribal land, be more loyal to the tribe than the son of full-blood members who happened to be born outside of the territory, especially when such a son might be the son of a Chief who also was son of a Chief (as would be the case of a child of George W. Bush if born abroad, as during a stint as a foreign ambassador)?

The answer is obvious.  Loyalty does not grow from the soil, nor from boundaries, but from blood connections.  The full-blood son would be acceptable to lead the tribe because his loyalty would be unquestionable, while the son of the outsiders, though “native born” would not because his loyalty would be highly questionable.

Likewise in the situation of monarchs.  When King Solomon of the nation of Israel was visited by the Queen of Sheba, he may have sired a child by her and the possible son that she may have produced would be the king’s half-blood heir.  But when it came time to ascend to the deceased Solomon’s throne, only his full-blood Hebrew son would be allowed.  Being a native-born half-blood Prince would not be good enough to be the nation’s king.

Likewise in the situation of pure-bred canines.  No dog will ever be registered by the American Kennel Association as a pure-bred unless both parents were pure-bred members of their breed.  Crossing a Dalmatian with a Poodle will not produce natural pure-bred puppies of either breed.  It’s all about the parents and their origins.  Is its parentage from within one single breed, or was one parent from another breed?  Only full-blood off-spring are eligible for certification by the association as pure-bred members of a unique breed.

Likewise in the situation of Vampires.  Who is eligible to the throne of the Vampire tribe?  Would a recently bitten, “man-made” new vampire be eligible?  Or would it have to be one who was born a Vampire?
Obviously, it would have to be a born vampire, but again, that term is ambiguous.  Our founding fathers faced that same ambiguity when deciding who would be eligible to be President.  Would a new man-made (naturalized) citizen be allowed?  Or only a born citizen?  Oops, there’s that ambiguity again.

One might be called a born vampire, or a born citizen even if one’s father was not a vampire or a citizen.  If the vampire tribe accepted such children as vampires even though they were only half-vampire, and the American individual states accepted such children as state citizens even though they were half American and half foreign, then you would have an ambiguity of terms.
Being native-born of foreigners (or even foreign-born but very young) and growing up in America would make one an American, as would having a foreign father and American mother and raised in America, but by birth one was only half-American in reality.

Such a description was never used because it might sound biased, so such children would be described as “Americans”, or “citizens at birth” (via either a native-birth location or a citizen parent), or “native-born”, and even “native born Americans”, but never “natural born Americans” because that implies something altogether different.

So throughout much of American history, one could be an American but not necessarily a citizen if born of Native American parents, (Indians) or a Native American father, or of Gypsies. Such children, even though native-born and raised, would not be citizens of the United States because they were not born of American citizens; and some native-born persons, -being born of  foreign government representatives, or foreign tourists, would be neither citizens nor Americans.

To avoid ambiguity, it is necessary to add an additional qualifier to “born vampire” and “born citizen”.  You must make it clear that the king of the vampires must be born a full-blood vampire, and the President of the United States a full-blood citizen.
That sounds quite discriminatory.  Why would that be allowed?  Because of the power of those positions and the negative potential effect that divided loyalty might produce.

So the law of ascension to the Throne, as with eligibility, would have to be clear without any ambiguity, -just as the United States Constitution is clear without any ambiguity:

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

Let’s look at the alternate ways that could have been stated, and see if they would convey that same message.

“No Vampire except a blood-born Vampire shall occupy the Throne of the Vampire King.”  Clearly ambiguous, requiring a change:

“No Vampire except a full-blood Vampire shall occupy the Throne of the Vampire King.”

“No American, except one born an American shall occupy the office of the President.”  That would exclude naturalized Americans, but…it would be ambiguous.

Born an American by laws or by nature?  By parents or by legal permission?  By blood or by borders?  To remove the ambiguity requires a change:

“No American, except a full-blood American shall occupy the office of the President.”

That eliminates the possibility of mere native-birth as well as  dual parental nationality.  A full-blood American is not the result of the borders within which one was born, but the parents to whom one was born, -and the word “full” requires that both parents be Americans, -not just one.  So that eliminates all ambiguity.

So that leaves only one question; “Does full-blood mean the same thing as “natural?”  To answer, we must resort to examining things that are not of the legal realm, but are of the natural realm.
“Natural” is not a legal term but is from outside of the closed system of law which exists within the natural realm of the universe as a man-made construct.  But it can’t exist in a total vacuum apart from the greater natural realm in which it was created.  So understanding that, let’s consider the principle of all life and how it provides the answer to the question.

Every form of life reproduces the very same form of life, always and forever.  That is because by the Law of Uniformity, parents of the same species produce off-spring of the same species as well.  The off-spring are the natural product of natural reproduction.  Both parents are blood members of one and only one species, and so their natural off-spring are full-blood members of that species, just like their parents.

That principle is violated as in the cross-breeding of a horse and a donkey.  They, like similar nationalities, are related (like American and British) but they cannot produce a natural member of either group because the off-spring will be a sterile mule.  Mules are not natural because they cannot reproduce since they are not full-blood products of the universal principle of Uniformity.

So also, the product of an American parent and a British parent is not a full-blood American nor a full-blood Brit.  It is a natural member of neither nation because its parentage violates the natural principle of Uniformity.  So such a child could never be qualified to be the American President.

But just such a child did become the American President (Chester Arthur) but only by concealing the truth about his origin.  His British father did not become an American until many years after Chester was born.  So he was not a full-blood American from birth as are 97% of American citizens, which doesn’t include the current President since he is only a half-blood American, and by American law, not even a citizen at all, -although presumed to be one because of his presumed native-birth.
I say “presumed” native birth because he told his publisher and the American people, (through it) and the Kenyan people for around nearly two decades that he was born in Kenya, the land of his ancestors through his father.  So Kenya was supposedly his home for all of those years. which he maintained as his biographical narrative.  Were you to travel in a Time Machine back to 2006, less than a decade ago, you would find a U.S. Senator self-described as being Kenyan at birth.  At that time it meant that he was not a U.S. citizen at birth because his mother was several months too young to permit his American citizenship to pass to her son by law.  So by Obama’s own narrative, he was not even an American citizen by birth.

So that leads to one of two possibilities; either he is an unconscionable liar and will say anything that makes him appear more appealing story-wise, including being born in a far-off foreign land even though that is a flat out lie, or it is actually the truth and a birth certificate exists for him in Kenya, -one which they will not allow access to.

Since all records are non-existent or sealed regarding his life, all one has to go on is his two counterfeit digital birth document images and his counterfeit Selective Service registration card.  But now there is a new one besides those.  It is a registration in the British Archives of a son born in Kenya to to Barack Obama (Sr.) in 1961 but under the handwritten spelling of “Burack or Biraq Obama”.

The presence of two possible spellings must mean that the information was convey verbally and taken down informally by hand and not typewriter.  That means that those spellings are not the definite spellings of the name of another individual with a similar sounding name, because there being two possibilities indicates that there is nothing certain about the spelling of the name, only how it sounds.

So where he was born is a total mystery, perhaps even to him, but that would be highly unlikely since his mother would have no reason to keep such a thing secret from him.  But that information is the secret that he does not want the nation to know because it would reveal something that would make him clearly ineligible to serve as President.

Another comparison to citizens with a dual background and uncertain motives would be that of a hypothetical birth on top of the border inside the DMZ between North and South Korea.  The child, born of a South Korean mother and a North Korean father, would definitely be Korean by nature, just as would a similar child born on the border between the United States and the Confederate States of American be American.  But to which nation would the child belong?

Just because the question can be asked does not mean that it can also be answered, or that there is any logical answer.  It can’t be answered because the situation, a very real though highly unlikely possibility, would be a totally unnatural situation since there is no analogy to it in the natural world.

How is the South Korean Constitution written regarding the eligibility of the President?  Would it be enough to simply require that the President be Korean and not foreign?  That would not bar the possibility of a North Korean serving, -nor one born to a South Korean mother and a North Korean Father and raised in North Korean.  Such a possibility would not be acceptable under any circumstance.  So a more specific requirement would have to be written.

So how about the requirement that the President must be a native-born South Korean?  How would that preclude a son of North Koreans which was born in a more modern South Korean hospital from being a native-born candidate?  It wouldn’t, and so a more stringent requirement would have to be crafted.

How about if it said that no Korean except a South Korean shall be eligible?  That would work unless South Korea had the same kind of citizenship law as the U.S., -law which allows foreigners to become naturalized citizens, -law by which the native-born son of the foreign North Koreans would be considered to be a citizen based solely on where it was born.  With such law controlling citizenship, a son of North Koreans could be the President of South Korea.  Again, unacceptable.

Or similarly, if the South Korean law allowed children of mixed parentage to be accepted as citizens, including a North Korean father married to a South Korean mother, how would that prevent the child from being eligible to be the ROK President?  The child would be considered to be a South Korean by such law, and so limiting the presidency to only South Koreans would not have the intended effect that was sought.

So how could they prevent and exclude naturalized foreigners and native-born North Koreans, (including half-blood North Koreans) from being the leader of South Korea?

They would have to utilize wording that referred solely to those who were neither.

They would have to require that the President be no one except one born of South Korean parents, -a born South Korean, but more; -a natural South Korean and not simply one born in South Korea to parents of any nationality.
The  off-spring of foreigners (North Koreans) would not be natural South Koreans because they would have no attachment to South Korea even though allowed to deliver their child in a South Korean hospital.  But all of the off-spring of South Korean parents would be the natural citizens of the nation, and therefore would be trustworthy to hold the office of the President.

If Barack Obama had been born of a North Korean General, -an authoritarian anti-American supporter of North Korean supremacy who also raised him, would Barack Obama be seen in the same light?

Would not the “alienage” of his paternal background be viewed in the way that the Founding Fathers viewed British paternity?
How would that not make an enormous difference in everyone’s mind?  How would anyone suppose that he could fit the label of “natural born citizen?”  What would be natural about such a father versus being a natural American child of only American citizens?

Another comparison to citizens with a dual background and uncertain motives is that of the person one might get to know through a match-making service, the person who presents him or herself in a carefree unscarred way but who in fact has hidden excess baggage.
It can’t be seen and isn’t revealed until some event triggers its revelation.  Only then does the truth come out that there is much more to this person than was  presented, -things that were hidden in order to win another’s affection.

In the case of the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, the hidden excess baggage was a strong affinity for the religion of Islam, and its “holy ground” of Saudi Arabia, along with its king, besides a lack of respect for the gospel of Christ and Christianity in general, -plus an affinity for Socialism and gigantic government, and the Social Gospel of Collective Salvation through collective good deeds (by Government) required of the citizenry through their taxes.

That was a whole lot of excess baggage that his similarly-minded three-monkeys media didn’t permit their spotlights to shine on.  And so he successfully portrayed himself as something that he was not. -namely a centrist Democrat in the same mold as Bill Clinton.

My final analogy is the Coffee analogy.  The CEO of a gigantic corporation hires a new secretary and informs her that he takes coffee in the morning, and only coffee, -not juice (i.e., no foreigners).  She understands,…or thinks she does, until the next moring she realizes that she has no clue as to what kind of coffee he takes.

Or maybe she’s a person who also drinks coffee in the morning and only considers coffee with cream and sugar as ingestible.  So maybe she prepares him just such a cup and brings it to him.  Without looking he picks it while reading something and takes a drink, only to spit it back into the cup.
What’s this crap? he asks.
“It’s your coffee, like you asked.”
“I didn’t ask for this!”

Clearly, what you have here is a failure to communicate.  That is due to ambiguity.  Coffee can come in different forms; from sweetened and creamed (including with artificial sweetener and  artificial creamer) to the straight full-on unadulterated black fresh ground & brewed stuff.
Citizenship also comes in similar varieties, -from that of one of the Boston bombers, to that of sons and daughters of the Mayflower, or of the later American Revolution.

But in the eyes of the government, there is only one type of citizenship.  All types of citizenship are deemed to be the citizenship of the natives of the nation by a fiction of law.  That way there is no bias and discrimination.  That’s a fundamental principle of American philosophy and law.  All citizens are equal, -equal to natural citizens because by that fiction they become natural citizens.

But that legal fiction generalization was not an adequate safe-guard against unrevealed foreign attachment in the heart of a European-fathered American citizen who might be elected to the highest and most powerful office in the land though secretly loyal to a foreign monarch.  And so they qualified their description of what kind of citizen the President must be.  He must be more than simply a born citizen or simply a natural citizen by a fiction of law.  He must be both a born citizen and a natural citizen.  He must be a born natural citizen.  He must be in the words of the Constitution; “a natural born citizen”.

A natural born citizen is akin to a natural born slave but on the opposite side of the coin.  Did you know that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, (a twin of the U.S. Constitution) banned the import of slaves?  That ended the transoceanic slave trade.  That meant that no more slaves would be coming to America.

That meant that the continuance of the slave trade was wholly dependent on the production of slave children who were not born free (in Africa nor America) since their parents were property and thus their children were property also since they were what their parents were.

That reveals the view of all that children inherited that status of the parents, which usually meant the father, since he was head of the family.  That meant that the children of slave fathers and mothers were natural born slaves.  Natural born slaves are not half-slave and half-free (like half American and half foreigner).  They were 100% full-blood born slaves, just as children of Americans are 100% full-blood citizens, meaning they are born as citizens by nature, -by the nature of their parents, -whether born on the plantation (inside U.S. borders) or outside the plantation.  Regardless of where born, they are what they are by birth, and not by borders.

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

The Truth about Vattel, Presidents, Citizens & Subjects

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

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

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

Those who are Americans are so in these 10 ways:

1.  Children born of citizens in the United States

2.  Children born of citizens outside the United State

3.  Immigrants naturalized by the naturalization process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States Constitution:  Article II, Section I, Clause IV:  No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President,..(age & residency requirements).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth about Allegiance & Natural Citizenship

Allegiance: Bastard Child of Royal Despots

Some folks with a strong belief in strict national security measures, have fallen under the persuasive allure of an ancient imperial dogma of deceit, the doctrine of dictators, embracing and espousing the notion by which royal despots persuaded the gullible that they had the right to rule over them as their lord and master, -their absolute sovereign, the one to whom they “owed” allegiance, loyalty and obedience due to the happenstances that their mother was within the boundaries of the monarch’s land when she delivered them from the womb.  I speak of the Divine Right of Kings, -that pseudo scripture-based doctrine invented by the religious sycophants of the king in order to justify his power and reign by beknighting his sovereignty with the primatur of Divine authority, -which he supposedly was endowed with by He who made him the head of Church & State (King Henry the VIII made himself both by severing English ties to the papacy).

How does that impact us today?  It does so by confusing the truth about the ineligibility of Barack Obama to be the President of the United States.  That confusion springs from an erroneous understanding of the meaning of the words “natural born citizen” which is the type of citizenship with which the President must be born.  The Constitution rejects all other types of citizens for that one position alone in order to assure that the Commander-in-Chief has no loyalty to a nation other than the United States.

The confusion springs from an observation made by a Swiss philosopher in his seminal work published in 1857 in French, and titled The Law of Nations; Principles of Natural Law.  He, Emmerich de Vattel, observed in that work that societies and nations are comprised of members born in the country of their parents’ nationality.  Being born to citizen parents in the land to which they belong made them that country’s natives, or naturals (“indigenes ou naturels”), -”naturels” as in natural members, natural inhabitants, natural citizens.

No one would disagree with that observation, but some have taken it and falsely characterized it as a stamped-in-stone definition -from which no deviation is possible.  What Vattel described did not meet the definition of a definition, and therefore cannot rightfully nor logically be declared to be one since it lacked the definitive qualifiers of “only” or “all”.
His description was a general one, not intended to be all-inclusive without exceptions.  As such, it didn’t focus on any possible exceptions, and thus didn’t bothered to bring up the nature of the citizenship of children of citizens born while a mother was not within her nation’s borders.  It didn’t raise that issue nor declare such children to not be a native of the parents’ country, -to not be a natural citizen of their nation.  Yet that is what some have taken upon themselves to declare while basing that authoritative stance on Vattels limited observation.

In describing his description as an authoritative “definition” (-one which supposedly became part of American common law), leads to the assertion that no one is a natural member of a people, country, or nation unless they are born on its soil to parents who are members, -no exceptions.  Therefore all children born over the border, or on top of the border, are not natural Americans like their parents and siblings because they were born with an unshakeable allegiance and loyalty to two countries, -one of which is not the United States.  Supposedly they were born with conflicting and dual allegiance and therefore the founding fathers supposedly felt that they should not be trusted to not betray their country, -where they probably grew up, in favor of the other nation where they entered the world.

It’s hard to believe that intellectuals would write the things they’ve written about babies.  So let’s be clear; no baby ever born was possessed of an innate sense of allegiance to anything or anyone other than its mother.  No toddler that ever walked felt a sense of loyalty to the foreign soil its mother was located on during delivery, yet statements have been made that imply just such a thing.  Allegiance has nothing to do with children and everything to do with free adult males; -not babies, not youths, not women.

Question 1: Would or must a seven year-old girl swear or profess allegiance to a sovereign or any other entity?
Question 2: Would or must a eight year-old boy swear or profess allegiance to a sovereign or any other entity?
Question 3: Would or must a 17 year-old young woman swear or profess allegiance to a sovereign or any other entity?
Question 4: Would or must a wife, mother, or single woman swear or profess allegiance to a sovereign or any other entity?
Question 5: Would or must an 18 year-old young man swear allegiance to a sovereign or any other entity?

The answer to all of them is “no” except for the last one, -unless the woman is a foreigner taking the oath of allegiance & fidelity to the United States Constitution while being sworn in as a new American citizen.
But that oath was not written for people like her, meaning people who are not male, because it also involves swearing to bear arms in defense of the United States, which is something that has always and only been required of men since that obligation and responsibility only falls on the shoulders of the younger able-bodied non-felon males  of nations.
So allegiance at birth is a fiction since it only becomes an issue at maturity, -when and if a male is called to military service, or required to register with the government’s conscription service to fulfill his obligation to serve in the effort to defend the nation.

It has never involved women, so its presence in the oath is evidence that when it was written only men were allowed to become U.S. citizens.  [Their wives derived derivative citizenship through their husband's naturalization. They proved their citizenship by showing their marriage certificate and their husband's naturalization certificate.]

Allegiance to a nation is something that can only spring from the socialization of a individual during their up-bringing.  It does not spring from the soil nor the borders of a foreign nation.  If one feels a longing to be part of and supportive of a foreign nation that they’ve never known, though born there, then they are either a very sad and lonely outsider, or they have been inculcated with the love and nostalgia of their foreign parents for their homeland.
But when the parents have abandoned their homeland and freely chosen America as their one and only home, then they are highly unlikely to indoctrinate their children into believing that their foreign homeland is so much preferrable to America and that America should not be embraced as their true homeland, .-unless they are traditionalists from fundamentalist Islamic countries.   The main priorities of immigrants were to find a home, a job, friends, a spouse and then have children, and see that they assimilate.

Does the United States government care whether or not young male individuals feel a sense of patriotism and allegiance to America?  Absolutely not, because it wields the authority to draft them into its military and send them to their death in battle, even against their will.  Allegiance if irrelevant.  But responsibility is paramount.

Every free adult non-felon male citizen bears the responsibility to defend himself, his sisters, his mother, his younger brothers, his grand-parents, his community, and his nation.  That responsibility is one with which he is born, and exists as a latent future reality that becomes real and present when he comes of age.  A sense of allegiance has no part in that responsibility, but does serve to motivate one to fulfill it.

All talk of allegiance from birth serves only to obscure the truth that it is not something with which one is born.  Instead it only serves to falsely validate the view that only via birth on the soil of one’s own nation (or territory under its jurisdiction) can one be a natural member of that nation and thus eligible to be President.  That false and falsely based concept is in violation of the very natural law that it espouses to support since the location of a pregnant mother during delivery has no impact on the nature of her off-spring for any species that ever existed, including the human species.   In natural law, parentage is everything; location is nothing, -but in human law it’s everything when it comes to children born to foreigners.  Without it they have no citizenship.

Suppose that John McCain, who was born in a Panamanian hospital, was the son of Five-Star General & President Dwight D. Eisenhower.  Who wants to step up to the plate to argue that he would and should be ineligible to be President because he would be a potential threat to the nation by having been born with dual allegiance and loyalty?  Who volunteers to argue that in the minds of our brilliant and insightful founding fathers, he should never be trusted to not be a secret Panamanian patriot who would not have America’s best interests at heart and might work to undermine them?

The flip side of the founding fathers having no confidence in, but rather distrust of, the patriotism of American-born sons of loyal British subjects and aristocrats, is their trust in the loyalty of sons of patriotic American fathers, regardless of where their sons were born, -be they born in Boston or Bangkok, Philadelpia or the Philippines; -be they born to a peasant or a President.

Their confidence in American fathers, -who were raised to believe in freedom, -the very reason for the existence of the American colonies, led them to author the first naturalization act with the expressed mandate that American children born abroad were to not only be accepted by the U.S. government magistrates and officers as being American citizens, but even natural born citizens, -and thus indistinguishable from their domestically born brethren, -with eligibility for the presidency being their natural birthright.

They thought they were making it perfectly clear that sons of American fathers are natural citizens of their father’s nation no matter where they are born, but because a later Congress dropped the words “natural born” while retaining only “citizen of the United States” (presidential eligibility not being the focus of a naturalization act) error arose in minds that leapt to the false conclusion that they must therefore not be natural born citizens simply because they were no longer being labeled as such.  Worse than that, they presumed that they were viewed by Congress as being aliens in need of naturalization law to make them American citizens!

But not calling a red rose red does not make it not red.  Not labeling something with all of the adjectives that describe it does not alter what it is.  It is what it is, especially if it is what it is naturally, -without any human interference (or legislation).

John McCain would be a natural American citizen even if born on the moon, just as Barark Obama would be a natural born Kenyan even if born in America, because one’s natural citizenship comes by descent, descent from one’s father, and, as Obama openly  claimed on his 2008 election website, his father was a British subject, and both he and his children were subject to the British Naturalization Act of 1948, by which Obama inherited his father’s nationality.

Not being born in America would not make Obama ineligible to be President of the United States because it wouldn’t matter since he is ineligible naturally, -by natural law.  One cannot possibly be a natural member of two nations, -anymore than one can be a natural member of two families.  Either one is a natural member (by birth) or one is a legal member (by law), i.e., -a member by adoption.

Obama’s paternity didn’t make him a natural citizen nor a legal citizen because his father was not a member of American society (being as he was a foreign student) and therefore Jr. did not fulfill the requirement of the 14th Amendment that he be born subject to the full jurisdiction of the American government.  His father had no “allegiance” or duty to the United States and could not have been drafted and sent to say…Vietnam, so his son, likewise, was not born under a jurisdiction to which his father was not subject since subjection flows through the father, and the father was subject only to the British government.

The bottom line is that only adult male residents of the United States are under its full jurisdiction, including sons of Green Card foreigners, -not foreign visitors, so Barak Obama is not only not a natural American with the Right of Citizenship via patrilineal descent, but is also not an American via the naturalization authority of the 14th Amendment either.  He is nothing more than a citizen by State Department policy.
The supposed duality of his inborn allegiance is like a red herring because it sows only unnecessary confusion, while presenting the concept as a reasonable philosophical framework in which the truth about citizenship can be explained by relying on the historic dogma of English monarchs, but having no place in Reality, -except the false reality fabricated in the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

by a.r. nash  april 2013  http://obama–nation.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”.