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, for a pound.  In for rebellion, 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–

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–

Nations, Citizens, Responsibility, & Natural Law

Mario Apuzzo wrote: “So if it was not the English common law which controlled the definition of national citizenship, which law was it? The historical record shows that the law of nations became American national law which the U.S. Supreme Court considered as “common law.”

The Supreme Court, being the final arbiter of legal matters, should and does (usually) consult prior authority in forming its opinion.  To do that there must first be some prior authority, and there almost always is.  But sometimes there isn’t, and so what they must consult is merely opinion, and some issues are strictly philosophical so all that legal determination can do is consult opinions by lawyers regarding philosophical issues that are outside the legal realm.

The legal mind sees everything connected to the law through legal eyes.  It is incapable of seeing things as they really are, -they can’t see the forest for the trees because they are completely surrounded by trees.  To see the forest they must move far away, -to a vantage point outside of the legal realm.  But they are not wired to do that because their minds are filled with legal trees.

The very question itself, quoted above, reveals a lack of natural perspective into the reality of the issue.  Understand this: the words “controlled” and “definition” and “which law” should be thrown out completely unless arguing before a judge because they come from a realm that is outside of the real world, the natural world, the world from which the word “natural” is derived.  “Natural” does not come from the Legal realm nor is it defined in that realm.  It comes only from the natural realm.

In the natural realm there is no such thing as control of definitions because definitions do not exist, nor do human laws.  There is only natural relationships and natural laws & principles.  The term CITIZENSHIP is a concept from the Legal realm.  Membership is a reality in the natural realm, describing the connection of families, herds, prides, tribes, and clans, which on a larger scale includes countries and nations.  To be a Citizen is to be something that the legal realm can define, but to be natural is not something that the legal realm defines, -natural things are only described by natural law principles.  So to describe a type of national member which is a native, indigenous member requires spanning the gulf between the legal realm and the natural realm by creating a hybrid concept involving both.

The natural realm is not a part of the legal realm and the legal realm is not a part of the natural realm, but a hybrid combination of the two is needed to describe native members of nations, and that combination involves the use of the term
~natural CITIZEN, or natural born citizen, implying that such a person was born being a citizen via natural inheritance of their parents’ political nature.

There is no controlling authority to define that which requires no defining.  Does anyone need a legal definition of what a child is? (meaning a natural child)  Everyone knows what a child is because a child is a natural thing.  A definition is only needed when the law becomes involved, as in “an adopted child”.  So it is with natural national membership.
If one is a member by birth then that is self-explanatory.  What needs explaining is how non-natural members are made members at birth (via automatic naturalization by law).  Natural membership needs no explanation, nor any law, nor any constitutional clause, nor any SCOTUS opinion, nor any Attorney General Interpretation.  It exists apart and beneath all legal acts & definitions because it exists even in the absence of their existence.

Anyone born as a member of a group is born with a responsibility to help defend it when its survival is threatened.  That responsibility exists apart and beneath all legalisms, such as Allegiance, Obedience, Protection, Subjection, Jurisdiction, none of which speak to the primacy of natural obligation, -the same kind of obligation that a father has in regard to protecting his family.  All of those concepts can be tossed out because they obfuscate the otherwise obvious.  Their origin is not found in natural relationships because the relationship they spring from is not a natural one but one conceived with the sole intent of legitimizing the autocratic rule of Kings.

The Divine Right of Kings makes all subservient to his Royal Highness, his Imperial Majesty and justifies his absolute authority by asserting that total obedience is the just compensation for his protection.  But in a democratic republic, that relationship is turned completely upside down.

It is not the People who owe the rulers obedience, its the rulers that own the people obedience, as in obedience to their foundational charter and the laws based on it, and the rights that they secure.  The government does not bear the responsibility of protection of its “subjects”, instead, “The People” bear the responsibility of protecting the nation and its government via their obligation to serve in its defense, -an obligation with which they are born -if….they are male.

Females are not under that obligation because the males of a society will not require it, nor tolerate it being required.
Hence the true and full meaning of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is revealed.
Subjection involves four areas; 1. Civil Law,  2.  Criminal Law,  3. Political Law,  &  4. Military Law.

Subjection to Military Law is the foundation of nations, -without it they would cease to exist because they would be conquered and destroyed.  While females are under the authority of the other three areas of law, those alone do not make them a part of the primary foundation of nations because they are exempt from military obligation.

They are like a three legged table.  It can stand on its own, but you cannot stand on top of it.  But nations cannot stand without all four legs because without the fourth leg they will topple when push comes to shove.  No nation in history that was populated solely by children, women, and civilians would have survived for very long because without a military sector it would lack the shield and sword vital for national defense.
So it should be understood that the subjection required in the 14th Amendment cannot be imparted by one’s mother, but only by one’s father because one’s mother is not subject.  If one has a foreign mother and an American father then the obligation of national defense is passed to his children and they are born subject (latently) to federal authority.  Their subjection to the authority of the federal government and the military obligation it enforces on behalf of the defense of the nation becomes active at the age of 18.

But if one is born in the U.S. to a non-immigrant alien father (like a tourist or student) then there’s no inheritance of an obligation to defend a nation that is not one’s own.  But if one is an immigrant, then one bears a responsibility to defend and protect the society that is his home, and that responsibility extends to the real-world obligation to serve in the nation’s military service.  That’s why even immigrants must register with the Selective Service if between the ages of 18 and 25.

The 14th Amendment opinion in Wong Kim Ark imposed a new definition of who is subject to the federal authority.  By declaring the children of immigrants to be subject, they were also issuing a de facto ruling that their fathers were also subject because subjection only flows from father to son, -not from mother to son, nor from father to daughter, nor from nothing to something.
That declaration of the subjection of the children of immigrants altered the executive branch’s policy of not viewing immigrants as responsible for national defense by reason of them being foreigners.  It made them, in effect, co-equal to citizens in respect to the responsibility to protect the nation, all while not possessing citizenship rights.

Women were the exact opposite.  They, after passage of the women’s voting rights amendment, then enjoyed the privilege of voting but not the responsibility of national defense.  But immigrant males were, by the 14th Amendment, subject to the full jurisdiction of the federal government (civil, criminal, political, and military) while not possessing the full civil rights of citizens.

This truth is critical to understanding the actual meaning of jurisdiction and how it applies to Barack Obama.  Since his father was not an immigrant, he was not subject to federal jurisdiction, and therefore had no obligation toward American national “defense”, including service in the Army in Vietnam.  So subjection to American authority could not possibly be passed on to his son.

Additionally, full subjection could not be passed from his mother since she was married to a non-immigrant alien and she was not subject either, although that could be viewed differently if they had not been married.  Then the obligation of national defense would fall on his shoulders at age 18 as it does to all permanent residents but not as a 14th Amendment citizen under its original meaning.
Throughout the half of American history preceding the 14th Amendment, her bastard child would have been viewed as either a foreigner or as a stateless person, -never a natural citizen.  He would have needed to be naturalized as an adult in order to become an American because he would have been viewed as the hybrid bastard son of an alien, born outside of Holy Matrimony, legitimized by nothing.
As an “illegitimate” person, he would have been viewed as a less than acceptable member of the nation, having an odious and unnatural status in the environs in which he lived.  No doubt, no such case ever came before a court to determine such a citizenship status because such persons would have sought naturalization as an adult or legitimation via a step-father as a minor.  Or, he may have not cared about his citizenship status if he was illiterate or semi-literate and not politically inclined nor active.  Voting was an irrelevant right to the disinterested, and travel abroad only a pipe dream.

Note:  The executive branch enforces an extra-legal policy of ascribing subjection to its jurisdiction based on its arbitrary authority alone, and not on any law or natural principle or natural responsibility.  It does so in regard to children of parents who are not subject to federal authority, including babies born to foreign visitors, and even consulate officers.  By that bastardized policy it is free to ascribe U.S. citizenship even to children of foreign terrorists and illegals if they happened to be born within U.S. borders.  Any Attorney General or President could end that policy overnight with a mere signature.  It’s not based on law.

Similarly, citizenship acquired at birth by the 14th Amendment could be completely eliminated by simply repealing it.  That fact demonstrates the tenuous nature of such citizenship.  Though it is above the authority of Congress, it is not above the authority of the people.  But what is above all authority is that for which no authority is needed, and that is natural citizenship.  It is not dependent on any law or constitutional clause.  It exists as a primary principle of nature and an intrinsic element of the foundation of all nations.  All fundamental national laws are based on fundamental moral laws and natural or philosophical principles, and by those principles, Barry Obama is not a natural citizen of the United States and is therefore an unconstitutional President.

Visit Mario Apuzzo’s latest treatise on the history of British & American citizenship at:

It’s enormously informative, historically thorough,
and entirely convincing.  It’s a college course on one page.  It’s only drawback is the conviction that natural law must be combined with human law and royal policy, -requiring that birth location be viewed as a major factor in natural citizenship.  But Natural Law and reason dictate that it is totally irrelevant, as I’ve explained exhaustively in numerous expositions.

by a.r. nash  nov. 2012   obama–

The Lost Truth about Citizenship


Nations, -like their citizens, reserve for themselves certain unalienable rights which no other nation has a right to abrogate. The first and foremost of which is the right of survival via self defense.   A nation’s government has as its highest priority the survival of the society that composes the nation.  A member of society has as his primary responsibility the survival of his family, and then his society, and that includes the nation that is its home.
A nation, in order to mount its defense, has the right and obligation to require of its male citizens that they shoulder their responsibility to participate in that defense.  It uses its authority to insure that they do participate.   It is the responsibility of the society’s male members to be subject to that authority in time of national threat.  They, in training and fighting and dying, learn the full meaning of subjection to the authority of their nation’s full jurisdiction.

Its meaning was forged in agony and written in blood in places like Valley Forge, Gettysburg and European trenches, -at Normandy, Iwo Jima, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Its meaning involves full subjection to the full authority of a lawfully constituted government, and its military arm.

The self-defense of nations can be characterized by bands of patriotic volunteers joining together to mutually take on the burden of armed combat.  But when the going gets seriously tough, such bands will crumble because they lack the iron hand of a powerful, dominating, merciless authority ruling over them.

The American revolution began as the former but would have crumbled if it had not evolved into the latter.  General George Washington hired a Prussian military officer to organized, train, discipline, focus and harden his troops for the long war ahead. Until their contract of service expired they were fully under the military discipline imposed by that trainer and Washington’s officers.  They had surrendered their right to do as they please, -to quit the fight, quit the war, quit obeying orders if they tired of the whole thing.  Their desires no longer mattered.  Their preferences were irrelevant.  Their personal choices were no longer legally possible.

When, after a long period of winter without adequate provisions, adequate protections from the elements, and without pay, a group of soldiers rebelled, -mutinied, and that created a horrible tension and schism that had to be resolved.  It was resolved, but not to their liking.  They were arrested and sentenced to death.  They had committed the treasonous act of disobeying lawful orders in a time of war.  Their hanging was scheduled for a certain day soon after their sentencing.  When it arrived, there was a great sadness enshrouding the entire camp.  The gallows had been prepared, and a hangman’s noose placed around each of their necks.

Everyone was about to have their heart broken.  But Washington was someone that they didn’t really know at that point.  He was someone wiser than they knew, and he knew that the damage of that execution would be worse for morale than it would be good for discipline.
And so, at the very last minute it was announced that the execution was canceled and their lives were spared.  A great sigh of relief was felt as that news lifted the spirits of the soldiers and united them in a bonding experience that only they had ever been through in American history.

The seriousness of such a war experience has been illustrated by other experiences depicted in many motion pictures.  The authority of military command over the actions and lives of those subject to it has been demonstrated in scenes in which an officer is confronted with a soldier who has had enough and is unwilling to carry out the possibly fatal orders he’s been given.
He refuses, and turns and starts to walk away.  The officer pulls out his pistol, aims it at him and warns the man to stop, -to obey the lawful order he’s been given.  Either he realizes the seriousness of his action or he stubbornly continues walking and consequently receives a bullet in the back of his head.
The point has been made that free-will is out, and total obedience is in.  Being less than fully subject to orders is forbidden.

Washington’s army had equal and greater suffering awaiting them in coming years.  Conditions got so bad that a second rebellion resulted.  But they were fools to think they had any chance of succeeding in achieving their righteous goals since they were vastly out-numbered by the obedient.  Consequently they were captured, tried, and sentenced to death.  But that time was different.  The earlier lesson had been forgotten or ignored, and so the result was that no mercy could be shown.

The leaders were ordered to be executed by firing squad, and the soldiers who were ordered to form the firing squad were the mutineers’ second-in-command.  They had to kill their own friends and leaders, -men that they might have been willing to die for if necessary, but now it was a matter of carrying out the execution order or joining their companions in being executed.

What’s the point of sharing these scenarios?  It’s to illuminate the fact that the civilians in the federal government are oblivious to.  They who have never taken the oath, never worn the uniform, never been subject to the total absolute authority of military command, nor faced the danger, nor possibility of danger that comes with defending the nation, -they who have never fired a weapon, -not in offense, nor defense, and definitely not in national defense, have no comprehension of the foundational requirement of societal membership and national citizenship.
Thus they’re completely ignorant of an important truth that’s been forgotten with the passage of time.  The result is that America is following and believing a false view of just what subjection really means.

The ignorance that is now almost universal is allowing foreign persons to be rewarded with the    prize of American citizenship by their act of breaking our sovereign entry laws.  They don’t obtain it directly for themselves but obtain it for those dearest to them, -their newborn babies.
One such baby was Barack Obama.  Although not born to an illegal foreign mother but to a legal foreign student father, what they both have in common is that of not being born subject to the full authority that a nation can require of the male  members of its society.

If a legal permanent-resident foreigner wishes to become a new member-citizen of a nation not his own, he will swear on all that is holy that he will bear arms for his new nation if needed and be subject to its full authority.  His life, his survival, is thereby made subordinate to that of the survival of the nation.  Consequently he is accepted as worthy of citizenship.

If he is unwilling to swear to serve the nation when called, then citizenship is not granted to him.  But if a child is born to him in the nation he wishes to join, and that nation is the United States, then that child is automatically granted citizenship because the father, like it or not, is subject to the requirement of the nation to participate in it’s national defense if called, because he is a legal member of American society and bears the responsibility for national defense to ensure the nation survives.
Since he is the owner of his own children, his responsibility is conveyed to them and shared by them.  They are born subject to no government but the American government as long as they are minors and U.S. residents, even though their father is subject to two governments.

But the pencil-pushing government lawyers in Washington D.C. (following, an 1898 interpretation of the 1868 14th Amendment by the pencil-pushers on the Supreme Court ) had no comprehension of what the subjection in the amendment meant.  Even its civilian congressional authors didn’t grasp its full meaning, but many of the American people that ratified it did, because they had just passed through the bloodiest war in world history, a war in which men were required and expected to give their last ounce of devotion and obedience.  And they did so by the hundreds of thousands.  They filled the cup to the full with their subjection to the responsibility of citizenship.

That is in stark contrast to the relationship a visiting foreigner has with the United States government.  His or her only responsibility is to not break the law, and to obey the limitations of his or her visa.  Nothing more.  Guests in one’s home are not required to scrub the floors, clean the toilets, or fight off marauding enemies seeking to take possession.  They are under the protection of the home owner and not required to put their life on the line for a home that is not their own.
Same with temporary foreign visitors, tourists, workers scholars and students.  The government labels them “non-immigrant aliens” and they are in the same class as foreign ambassadors, consuls and military attaches, except that they are not immune from punishment for breaking the law.

Obama’s father was not subject to the jurisdiction of Washington’s will over him as a citizen nor as a legal resident because he was neither.  He was merely a temporary guest of the government in order to attend college.  Nothing more. He could not stay here.  He could not be drafted into the military.  He was not subject to being forced to undergo the tortures of boot camp and orders to engage in combat in Vietnam unless they were given by Kenya or Great Britain, since he remained under the jurisdiction of his own government.

Similarly, a foreign woman is also not subject to the same national responsibility, especially if she is in the country illegally.  But even if she’s not, it doesn’t make a difference, nor does it make a difference if she is an American woman.  Women have never been subject to the responsibility to defend the nation.
What about foreign immigrant women who become naturalized citizens upon completing the required process and taking…


by which they pledge to bear arms to defend the nation?  Does that mean that they are subject to be drafted if needed?  No.  It means that the ancient oath was not written for women but only
for men.
What is the implication of that?  It’s a rather profound one since it indicates a significant fact about the role of women in the world and in American society in particular.  Women have never been subject to the authority of a nation’s government which governs men, with the except ion of Israel, because only men shoulder the burden of national defense.

The government does not retain for itself the authority to put a gun to the heads of American women and order them to advance against an enemy machine gun.  But it does retain the authority to do that to men.  And that is the ultimate true meaning of being subject to the national authority of a government.  It means being subject to orders to defend the nation, -even at the cost of one’s own life.

Women are exempt because they are women and that’s what makes all the difference in the world.  Men never have, -and never will, tolerate putting women in danger, but they will and do tolerate putting themselves and other men in life-threatening danger and they tolerate allowing their government to do the same.

Men of a certain age are the members of a singularly responsible group that are subject to the most fundamental responsibility of national life and that is the ultimate inescapable obligation and responsibility that comes with membership in the nation.
That obligation is to fight in and possibly die in war.  Citizens are the most obligated, but if the threat is dire, then legal immigrants can also be called upon to defend the nation, as was the case during World War II.
But women can’t because they are in a deliberately protected class.  The men of no nation will ever require that their women be forced to fight, and possibly die in war, -although they may be allowed to do so if that is what they want and are as capable as men.

To what is this relevant?  It’s relevant to the national delusion that the 14th Amendment makes Barack Obama a constitutionally eligible President. That delusion results from a loss of the understanding of what its second citizenship requirement means.
Everyone understands what the first requirement means, (being born in the United States)  but their understanding ends there. The amendment’s citizenship clause states:

“All person born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

That wording is very plain and simple.  Too simple in fact, because its true meaning has been lost due to its constitutionally elegant simplicity.  The ambiguity of that simplicity has resulted in half of its citizenship clause being totally ignored.  It came to be ignored because it was totally misunderstood.  Thanks to that misunderstanding, the nation is saddled with perhaps a million U.S.-born people assumed to be U.S. citizens but who in fact are not constitutionally qualified to be U.S. citizens.  [There's a high-profile citizen who happens to be among them, and he happens to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  His initials are BHO.]

If either of the amendments two requirements is missing, [1. birth within the United States  2. subjection to the sovereign authority of the federal government] then citizenship is not conveyed.
In essentially all contested cases, the determinant is related to the second requirement.  Was one born subject to the sovereign authority of Washington D.C.?  What are the factors that determine the answer?  What is the constitutional authority of Congress or the executive branch to alter the meaning of the Constitution or its amendments, -the subjection requirement in particular?

Congress has no authority to alter the meaning of what the Constitution & its amendments say.  Only the Supreme Court reserves the right to trample all over the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.  But Congress and the executive branch do have the ability to ignore it or misconstrue it if they don’t understand it.  And that is exactly what they’ve done for over a century.

The delusion that has overtaken the entire government is that the jurisdiction referred to is something other than what it really is.  Civil authority and criminal law have become substituted for the authority that is the bedrock of a nation, and that is the right to require of its male members that they sacrifice their security, comfort, and possibly their life in order to preserve the nation from destruction.
General Robert E. Lee’s soldiers understood that authority as they were foolishly and recklessly ordered to march into the withering fire of the union soldiers defending a hill at Gettysburg.  The soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy, wading into German machine gun fire understood it as well, as did the Marines that confronted deadly Japanese Army resistance on one Pacific island after another.
But our leaders in Washington, -including the civilian lawyers in the State & Justice Departments, and the naturalization service do not understand it at all.  Its meaning is not what  they have erroneously and superficially assumed.
That is part and parcel of a national landscape in which men who’ve never received nor given a military order in their lives are elected and appointed to the most powerful offices in the nation.
Ignorance is part of what they are because they do not have the experience that brings understanding.  As a consequence, no one realizes that that truth, -besides having a direct bearing on the citizenship of children born to illegal aliens, has a direct bearing on the citizenship of B. H. Obama. Jr.

Neither the father nor the mother of Barack Obama were ever subject to the jurisdiction of our full national authority.
That means that they were incapable of bringing a child into this world that was born subject to that authority.  Though his father and mother were not subject to it, he himself eventually became subject by remaining in the United States instead of living abroad, and so the provisional citizenship he acquired after his parents’ divorce eventually became permanent citizenship.
[It’s doubtful that he ever felt subject because his Selective Service registration card appears to have been forged.]

Since his father was merely a Visa card foreign student and not an immigrant, -not a member of American society, the subjection required by the 14th Amendment was not passed onto the shoulders of his son.  He was exempt from it because he was born subject, like his father, to the jurisdiction of the British government and government of Kenya.
As his own 2008 election website proclaimed, his father “was subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948, as were his children”.  So he was born as a provisional subject of the shrinking British Empire. Therefore the location of his birth within the United States is insufficient to meet the second requirement of the 14th Amendment.  Hence U.S. citizenship cannot legitimately be ascribed to him by it.

That only leaves the citizenship of his mother as his source of citizenship.  Before the Cable Act of 1922, the citizenship of American women did not pass to their children.  It was the father’s citizenship alone that determined one’s nationality.  But thanks to that Act, if an American woman divorced her foreign husband, or he died, then she could reacquire the U.S. citizenship that she lost by marrying a foreigner, and her foreign-nationality children were then allowed to obtain derivative U.S. citizenship through her.

Eventually, following many revisions over decades, an American woman married to a foreign man, even one living with him in his foreign homeland,  was deemed to have passed her citizenship to her children, which, along with that of her husband, made them dual-citizens.

But what of such a woman who (along with her foreign husband) remained in and gave birth in the United States instead of abroad?  Did those nationality statutes contain any provisions for a domestic-birth situation?  It appears that the answers is that no such statute was ever written.

Why would it not exist?  Because no one ever thought there was a need for such a provision since everyone assumed (erroneously) that everyone born on U.S. soil was automatically a 14th Amendment American citizen except children of Native Americans and foreign representatives.  But since that is constitutionally false, Barack Obama was not born a citizen either by the 14th Amendment nor by a naturalization statute written for the foreign born.  So he’s neither a “natural born citizen” as the Constitution requires of the President, nor a naturalized citizen via the citizenship process, nor a 14th Amendment constitutional citizen.  Instead he’s a citizen via an obscure naturalization statute.

But natural citizens have no need of U.S. statutes or constitutional amendments to make them citizens (and no such law even exists) because they are born as citizens by natural political inheritance.
The children of foreign fathers can only obtain citizenship via American law because they have no natural right to it, -nor natural acquisition of it.  That’s why citizenship law is needed, -to accommodate those who aren’t automatically imbued with it via a citizen father.

If Obama Jr. had been born as a natural citizen of the United States, -with American parents, then he would have been subject to U.S. jurisdiction no matter where in the world he was born, raised, or lived.  Natural citizens cannot escape what they are by birth no matter where they live, unless they choose to become naturalized citizens of another nation.  The United States absolutely does recognize that choice because it was the very choice which led to the War of 1812 and the near destruction of the young nation.

But only a citizen himself can make that choice, -the choice to abandon his American citizenship. The government cannot make it for him because he is an American by nature and has no other national nature.  He was born as an American and as only an American, and being an American is his unalienable right, -just like the right to life.
But one born to a foreign father has no such right.  If he obtains membership in the nation of his birth it’s because the nation allows it for humane as well as practical reasons. But having it does not make him a natural member of the nation because he is a natural member of the society & nation of he who fathered him.

That nation has first claim on him unless his father (-with or without citizenship) had become an officially sanctioned legal member of the foreign nation in which his child was born.
If the father had become a member of a foreign nation, then he made himself one who is subject to the jurisdiction of that nation’s government and become responsible to defend it if needed and called.  He’s then subject to both governments.  That’s the conundrum of dual-citizenship.  Which nation has one’s primary loyal?
If one is not a part of the society and nation in which he is temporarily visiting or living, but fathers a child which is born there in wedlock, his child lacks the full natural connection to that nation which the children of its citizens inherit, and therefore his child possesses no natural membership in it, even if the nation grants him membership by its nationality law or by an erroneous policy based on a misinterpretation of that law.

Such children are statutory members of the nation, -not natural members, because their membership is dependent upon federal statutes, and not natural law.
Barack Obama was such a child and being such does not meet the qualification to be the President because he is not, as the Constitution requires, a “natural born citizen”.

Is Obama then solely a citizen of the United Kingdom & Commonwealth?  No, his membership in it was contingent upon his Kenyan citizenship.  Since Obama’s membership in the Commonwealth was strictly through his father’s connection to it, and that connection ended along with his Kenyan citizenship at age 23, he therefore has no connection to the Commonwealth.  He has no direct connection to Britain since his father was not a citizen of England, nor the United Kingdom, nor born of an English father.  Since he wasn’t born to parents who were, he’s left with no connection other than a discontinued Kenyan connection.

So what is one left to conclude?  It’s that no provision exists in American law by which a child of a transient foreign father, though born in the United State, inherits his mother’s citizenship.  Without such a provision, -without the 14th Amendment, without naturalization, without natural citizenship, Barack Obama was not born with permanent U.S. nor British citizenship.  Instead, he was born with only provisional citizenship in the British Commonwealth.

Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia at age 10 to live with his grandparents. At age 14, Obama began fulfilling the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act’s  five-year continuous residency requirement to become a U.S. citizen. (INA) 301(a)(7) and 301(b) See 8 U.S.C. 1409(c)

His provisional citizenship (dependent upon his mother divorcing his foreign father) became permanent then at age 19.
But from early childhood the INS deemed Obama Jr. to be a native-born 14th Amendment U.S. citizen due to the six-decade old error that pervades much of the government.  But by actual U.S. law he had no U.S. citizenship at birth.

So, being neither a natural citizen, nor a naturalized citizen, nor a constitutional citizen, nor a derivative citizen, he became a statutory citizen by a provisional statute in the U.S. Code that very few know about and which applies to very few.

But although he is a U.S. citizen, Obama still has a big problem.  It’s not a matter of whether or not he’s even a citizen, nor whether or not he’s the type of citizen qualified to be President of the  U.S. Senator, or Speaker of the House, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  He is qualified, (all citizens are) but he is unqualified to be the President and Commander-in-Chief.

Is his type of citizenship “natural”?  No one who has become a U.S. citizen via some form of naturalization (which only pertains to persons with one or two foreign parents) possesses natural citizenship.  No one with a foreigner for a parent is a natural American because natural Americans are purely American.
Their American lineage may go back hundreds of years, or only one or two generations.  If their father, who’s married to their American mother, is a naturalized citizen when they are born, then they are a natural American citizen because they were born to American parents.

Obama wasn’t fathered by an American, a naturalized American, nor an Green Card legal immigrant, but a non-immigrant visa card foreigner, and therefore is not in the same ballpark as the natural citizens of the nation, nor the constitutional citizens either, and consequently has been allowed to unconstitutionally usurp the office the President.

But who can blame him?  If you were what he is, -believed what he believes, and someone offered to pave the way for you to rise to the highest office in the land, how could you refuse the offer?  You couldn’t, anymore than you could resist driving to a distant town if you could there obtain a winning, huge-payoff lottery ticket for free

Until our modern era of ignorance, (including the entire 20th Century) birth within the United States was not viewed as a prerequisite for citizenship, nor did such a meaningless fact automatically result in a natural American citizen, even though the law and custom in some colonies/ states was that all those who were native-born were deemed to be citizens.

But that was never federal law, practice, nor policy.  The federal government required the children of immigrants to undergo the naturalization process if they reached adulthood before their father completed it.  It he completed it first, then through their blood connection to him, they became what he had become, -a new American possessing derivative citizenship.

A “son of the soil” (one born of immigrants in a State that allowed their children to be citizens from birth) would be a citizen of their home State, and a citizen of the union of the States, aka the United States, but not a citizen of the United States government.  It’s citizens were those born within its territory, on federal land, -the federal district and any of its territories.  They were not citizens of any State because they belonged to no State.  They were Americans citizens by being federal citizens, -not State citizens.

The federal government had total sovereignty over how it ascribed citizenship to such persons, and no one born of a foreigner within its jurisdiction was deemed to be a citizen.  One consequence of that was that without naturalization they could never be qualified for any federal elected office, including the Presidency (because they not only were not natural born citizens, -they were not even citizens at all.

Before Barack Obama Jr., no child born in a State to a foreign father ever attempted to run for the presidency, so there was never a court case brought to contest the refusal of the federal government to recognize “a son of the soil” as being a natural born American citizen, although one such citizen did once become President (Chester Arthur, born to an unnaturalized English father) but it was via assassination of the President and not via election.
The federal policy that recognized only patrilineal descent was based on Natural Law, Roman Law, Natural Rights, and the principles elucidated in a major legal work of their era titled “The Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel.  It was an important staple of the Founding Fathers and the law colleges that they founded.  George Washington failed to return a copy to the library that he borrowed it from, but curators of his estate finally returned it in the 21st Century.
Patrilineal descent was the American way, and remained so until the 14th Amendment of 1868, -written to declare the citizenship of freed slaves, was applied also to children of immigrants when, in 1898, the Supreme Court interpreted its words to mean what they seem to say [-the Wong Kim Ark decision].

Ever since then, -following the Attorney General’s misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, the meaning and significance of what federal jurisdiction involves has  faded from the collective consciousness of the American people, including those in its government, its Congress and its courts.  It’s possible, perhaps probable, that none of them understand it. And that is not likely to change.
As a result of that ignorance, the practice and policy of the executive branch is contrary to the  14th Amendment.  Their views and policies currently are law.  Everything that has been related here is irrelevant because the authority rests with them even if they apply it incorrectly and unconstitutionally generation after generation.

What can change our current situation?
Nothing.  Regardless of which party is in power, neither will enforce the true meaning of  “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because it would alienate Hispanics whose votes are needed.

The Supreme Court could, if given the chance, turn everything upside down, but that would require an opponent to the current policy having standing to sue the government, and only states would possess that standing because illegal immigration affects them directly.  But if they did so, it would create an administrative nightmare involving unraveling decades of error, and children and grandchildren of citizens who should never have been viewed as citizens.  But I digress.
Just as correcting the mistake of the presumed citizenship of those born to illegals and non-immigrant foreigners would be a nightmare, so unraveling the impact of the execution of presidential authority by one ineligible to wield it would also be a nightmare, and that’s a headache that no one in Washington or the courts is willing to contemplate.  It’s the unthinkable thought.  The aversion to it is so strong that our leaders would rather hide in a closet than confront it.

Maybe they are right to fear it so.  Maybe they realize things that the rest of us don’t.  I hope so, because if their silence is strictly out of cowardice, or aversion to a sticky, messy situation, then the betrayal of the Constitution has been and remains totally unjustified because it is far more important than our or their comfort.

The constitutional criminality at the heart of an illegitimate presidency is accepted and unmentioned in the corridors of power in Washington, and around the world.  Meanwhile, no competent government in the world is unaware that Barack Obama posted on the White House website a nine-layer fake image of a Hawaiian birth certificate because they have examined it just like tens of thousands of Americans have done, and found that it is totally unexplainable as being the result of the scanning of a real document.  It was clearly constructed on a computer.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from that fact is that no original exists, and that must be because his actual birth place was somewhere other than a hospital in the United States, -and he also is unwilling to reveal the birth certificate that he has used all throughout his entire adult life.
It’s evident that he’s boxed-in on every side when it comes to the nature of his citizenship and his unconstitutional presidency. But knowing about it and being able to do something about it are two very different things.  Congress definitely will not act since no one in it will speak the unspeakable truth, -especially if they’re ignorant of it.  So that leaves only the courts.

But they’ve been unwilling to get involved in a process that could de-legitimize their Progressive political champion, or, if they’re neutral, place themselves in the cross-hairs of nefarious men who will do anything to protect their usurper-in-chief, including making frightening reference regarding the safety of their spouse or children.
So the status quo holds for now, but like a dam with a serious crack in it, time will eventually exact its toll as the cracks increase and the truth begins to gush out and spread far and wide.  Will you help spread it?

The biggest crime committed against the country was not the assumption of the presidency by Barack Obama, -it was what he did once he was in office, in addition to the trampling of the Constitution in order to make it possible.  To be an ineligible President is not an actual crime, but to violate one’s sacred oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution is constitutional treason.

How many traitors do we have to kick out of office before we finally return to a government that acknowledges and obeys our most fundamental law?
Answer:  ~a whole boat load.   So let’s begin.
All sane, informed, and concerned Americans must work together to reset our course and save the future.

by a.r. nash 2012  http://obama–

[Update, Oct. 2012:  The U.S. Supreme Court declined, without an explanation of any sort, to hear the appeal of the case against an unconstitutional President (-rejected at every level in Georgia) which was decided in favor of a defendant whose lawyer refused to even appear before the court, -that defendant, -Barack Obama, was unwilling and unable to defend his  eligibility to be President, nor his counterfeit birth certificate image.  Nevertheless, the umpires called it for the team that refused to even show up.  Now are you beginning to understand what constitutional treason is?]


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers