Full-Blood Citizens & The Presidency

The Whole Truth about Chiefs, Kings, Koreans & Vampires

Full-Blood Citizenship & The Presidency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BORN to OBEY VS OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE

The Origin of Nationality in Oaths, Obedience, Allegiance, and Action

What is the root of national allegiance?  Is it found in law, or in natural bonds?

There is a peculiar school of thought that dogmatically believes that the founding fathers placed far more importance on the place one’s mother birthed them than the environment in which they are raised, and the relationships into which they are born, and which form the familial protective and associative sphere in which one’s position in life is formed.
This issue is more than simply a matter of curiosity since it is at the heart of the greatest conflict in the history of the presidency.  I speak of the issue of whether or not an elected president is even qualified to serve.  More specifically, whether Barack Obama is qualified.

To understand the origin of our concepts of citizenship, it is necessary to travel back in time.  Not just a decade or a century, but millenia.  Back to times when national relationships were as clear as family relationships because there was a situation of “them or us”, and “us” was clearly understood since “them” were foreign invaders bent on conquest, killing, execution, and enslavement.  Nothing focuses the mind like a life-or-death situation that makes it clear who one’s friends, allies, companions, and compatriots are.  They are the natural members of one’s nation, and they are in the cross-hairs of people categorically different, and with no sympathy for any but their own.

How do you securely counter them when some of them are living among you?  The United States asked itself that question in 1942 regarding the Japanese citizens of the United States.  Unfortunately, in that case the authorities were lied to by a bigot general who wanted them all rounded-up and contained.  But what about the situation of single individuals and whether or not authorities can trust them?

That is the question when it comes to potential spies.  Our American spy-detection was a total failure when it came to our nuclear secrets during WW II, as Americans & Brits willingly served as spies for Russia, giving them most of our most classified designs and secrets.

But what about in general; what principle should a government follow to avoid such betrayal?  Well, beside screening for radical ideology, they could theoretically screen for national loyalty, by setting baited traps and seeing if a person bites.  If they do, and seek to exploit their “find”, by selling it to the enemy, that would be evidence that they were never really loyal, never really held any allegiance to their country, and never felt they were under the constraint of obedience to the power and authority rightfully serving over them.

Either one is wired by their life-long acculturation to respect authority and view it as empowered for the purposes of protection, justice, and securing Peace and security, or one is acculturated to view it as indifferent, unjust, illegitimate, corrupt and possibly even criminal.

Those in positions of authority over others cannot know how a person thinks or feels, nor what their motivations or grievances might be.  Such inner attitudes are invisible behind an opaque exterior, -as was the case with the Boston Bombers
Should we have known that they were different from us in the core of their consciousness?  Well, we shouldn’t have known if we couldn’t have known.  Is there any way that we could have known?

For this discussion, that is not the question.  The question is whether or not there is a general principle that we can follow, -that we can turn to in order to form judgements about who we should be able to trust, and who we cannot be assured that we can trust

That general principle exists but it is not found in the sphere of legal authority.  Rather, the principle is found in the sphere of rational thought, common sense, and natural relationships.

To understand the beginning of nations, one must go back to before the beginning, to a time when there was no king, no government, no absolute Lord  & sovereign.  Instead there were powerful warlords who each had conquered or inherited his own settled territory.  They either exercised restraint among themselves or they became enemies and engaged in hostilities.

But any friction between them was put aside when the entire country was under threat of foreign enemy invasion.  Then they had to band together in a common united effort to survive and not be slaughtered or enslaved.  They would already have everything that they needed except for more volunteers to fight, and one true lord under whose banner they could all rally and attack.
A King was needed, and like Arthur, one was chosen.  Then the warlords faced a huge hurdle they needed to get over, and that was the big surrender of their independent sovereignty over the actions of their own armies which would have to be given over to the new king via a gesture of total submission to him.  They had to stop being absolute kings within their own domain, and be sub-sovereigns who must be to the king what their men were to them.  They must be more like the knights of the round table who made Arthur their king.

They were the Obedient.  the Surrendered.  the Loyal, Faithful & True.  The discipline of all members of his loyal forces was essential.  There must not be unpunished disobedience.  To make men accountable for their disobedience, they were required to swear an oath before God and Man that they would be obedient, faithful and true to their lord and master, the King, and to those who serve under him.
Their oath required not only obedience but also loyalty.  One could be obedient but by not being loyal, might overlook a plot of mutiny or treason.  That would be a devastating failure of loyalty.  And so they were sworn to be bonded to their one and only earthly lord and sovereign.

Their obedience must be absolute.  And their allegiance must also be total.  After that swearing of obedience and allegiance, they were in a new national dynamic which changed all the relationships which preceded it.  They were from the taking of the solemn vow, wedded to the monarch and his reign unquestioned.    He became their head and they became his body, belonging to him and his authority and power to united them, lead them, and extend the umbrella of his protection over them and their lands.

Like the oath of obedience that the archbishops take to the newly elected pope, prostrate on their faces.  Their obedience was unquestioning obedience, and it was into that obedience that their children would come to be born.  They would enter the world under the sworn obedience of their father, -born into it, born as subjects of the king, and natural subjects at that because they were born to bonded servants of the king, -in contrast to those who were subjects of a foreign sovereign but had made their home within the King’s dominion.

Their children were not born into that obedience, that loyalty, that allegiance and so they were not viewed as being natural subjects but as being alien-born subjects.  That was the nature of reality and the consequence was that those alien-born children who grew up as subjects of the king had a cloud of uncertainty always hanging over their head when it came to positions of national security.

A hypothetical may serve to illustrate.  Suppose you were king, and had no sons, but only daughters.  Suppose one of them was your own blood daughter and the other was the daughter of a foreign king with whom your nation was not very friendly, and whom you had adopted when she was about 12 years old as a gesture of peace.
Suppose you possessed a doomsday bomb that was large enough to destroy an entire city.  To which daughter would you entrust on your death bed the combination needed to detonate that weapon?  Your own flesh & blood?  Or the off-spring of a foreign stranger, one raised in your own home as one of you, but who was different by birth?

Hypothetical #2.  Suppose you and your wife had to leave town for a week or two and were forced to leave your children at home.  Who would you entrust their care to?  Your own niece or the daughter of a strange family that moved in down the street about whom you know nothing?

They are the same age, go to the same school, speak the same language, watch the same movies.  But does that mean she can totally be trusted with the care of your children?

What devotion, bond, or responsibility does she have toward you and yours?  The same question can be asked of the children of foreigners.  Are they tied to us by a bond and oath of obedience, loyalty, and allegiance?
Not at all, unless their parents have become American-ized by the oath of citizenship.   Such parents are not passively part of us by merely being born and raised among us.  They have personally taken positive action by preparing and taking the naturalization Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation by which they absolutely and entirely renounce, reject, adjure, and abandon the bond of obedience, loyalty and all allegiance and fidelity into which they were born.

They thereby utterly sever their inherited bond to their own king, sovereign, potentate, czar, emperor, caliphate, shah, maharajah, chief or state.  They divorce themselves from the Lord / nation that they were betrothed to from birth, and become wedded to a new nation of their own choosing.  They surrender all to that relationship by swearing to bear arms to defend it, by swearing true faith and allegiance in its support.  They adopt a new allegiance  to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The founding fathers were religious and moral men who through the long winter of war and tribulation were bonded together in a relationship of mutual trust.  To them a sacred oath was a solumn vow that was made not just before men but before God, and if broken, though not punished in this life, would be punished at the Last Judgement when the Books of Life would be opened, and men would be judged by the Judge of the World by the things written in them.  That judgement would determine who would be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

So throughout the ages, to such leaders an oath meant far, far more than what it might mean to a juvenile, insincere alien who does not mean a word of it, as was the case with one of the Boston bombers.

To what does this all relate in  America?  It relates to the true meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.  And to what does that relate?  To the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
And to what does that relate?  To the meaning of who is eligible to serve as President.
The entire legal establishment of the United States has accepted an utterly false notion about what significance the Amendment plays in American citizenship.

They all consider the subject from inside a closed system, without any comprehension of the fact that the system’s origin is outside of the system.  It is in the realm of a natural open system.  That means that its fundamental elements are not defined by closed system definitions.  They in fact cannot be defined by law nor legal authority.

But worse, the authorities within the system have been ignorant for centuries as to the origins of the concepts on which their system is built.
They do not realize that fact though, because all of their certainty is rooted in the authority of words spoken or written by men from long ago who came to be seen as “experts”, even though in the age in which they wrote, they were already too far remove from the origins of their system to understand its underlying foundational principles.

Instead, they relied upon concepts invented to justify the reign of the monarch over his fellow Christians regardless of the facts that in Christ there are no kings but Jesus, -no Christian armies, no priests nor priesthood, nor establishment of official religion.  The kingdom of God being a spiritual Kingdom.

Those inside the system think they are masters of reality through their extensive knowledge base, but they are unaware that they are even in a system because it is the only reality that they know and can grasp.  Any knowledge from outside the system is incomprehensible to them because it doesn’t fit the definitions they’ve established to explain everything.

They don’t and can’t dwell on the unexplainable and unaswerable questions that exist inside the sytem and so they pretend that they don’t exist.  That way they do not have to answer them.  Einstein made that error and followed it throughout his long career, rejecting the implications of his own equations while believing until the 1930′s that the Milky Way Galaxy was the entire Universe, eternal, unchanging, finite and closed.

Reality is not bounded by our finite concepts of reality but those inside the forest do not know that they are not seeing the big picture, but only a portion of it.  And that is the problem regarding the legal mindset today concerning the fundamentals of citizenship.  They only see a small portion of the forest and have no grasp about the existence of the rest of it.

They falsely assume that their finite view of the meaning of the heart of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is the entire picture while ignoring the powerful evidence of their view being completely inaccurate.
The Amendment states with constitutional authority that “All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”
At least that’s what their minds conclude that it says because they completely refuse to understand the meaning of the section that is missing above, -which is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
The first part regarding place of birth is unambiguous, but the second part about being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is an easily explained concept based on their closed system thinking.

They think they have the answers to the questions of what exactly is subjection, and who exactly is subject, and how are they subject, and what exactly does jurisdiction mean?  They assert that those questions are pretty much answered by the writings of men who didn’t understand them at all.

Why would they place such confidence in such writings?  Because they happened to have been part of the historical legal exploration in a Supreme Court opinion.
In the minds of the closed system adherents, any opinion issued by a 5-4 court is an infallible, papal-like wise and true and factual opinion, regardless of the fact that what they issue is never referred to as the facts of the court but only as the opinion of the court.  Since they are the ultimate legal authorities, it never occurs to their devotees that they might be wrong by one swing vote.

But they have often been wrong and sometimes by far less balanced votes.   So if they were wrong about the meaning of the 14th Amendment, what were they wrong about?  They were right as to their final opinion or ruling, but were wrong about many of the points that they used to arrive at it.  That was because they, also, could not knowledgeable answer the questions that are posed above.

The court that made the fateful ruling did so 30 years after the amendment was ratified.  In that time knowledge was lost as to what its words meant.  But to be fair, they were already lost even to some of those who helped write and pass it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 stated that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, were citizens.  That seems clear and straight forward.  but soon after its passage, they changed the wording when authoring the 14th Amendment which would put its changes to American law above the authority of Congress to alter.

They switched it to referring to being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States instead of not being subject to a foreign power.  One of the authors defined the meaning of the former by the latter.
That means that anyone born in the United States who is not subject to any foreign power (nor an Indian not taxed, nor child of a foreign diplomat) is therefore subject to U.S. jurisdiction.  That seems like a logical deduction, but doesn’t answer the questions about what sort of subjection is referred to and what kind of jurisdiction is referred to.

Those who live inside the closed system never ask those questions because the answers don’t come from within the system.  That’s because the answers are from antiquity and natural law, neither of which are known nor understood.
They assert that American jurisdiction is merely American authority, but don’t define what that authority entails, nor do they, nor can they explain what being subject to it means.  Those answers are lost to the sands of time.  They aren’t explained in any law, treatise, or Supreme Court opinion’s explanatory background.
They exist suspended in mid-air by nothing because the authors choose to use constitutionally simply and elegant language rather than legalese language which avoids ambiguities and omissions.  So we are stuck with a fundamental law that the entire legal establishment cannot accurately define.  But it in fact is defined by the law that immediately preceded it.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866.

It used language that was far less ambiguous and vague.  It’s words are understandable in the light of history.  And those words explain the meaning, to a certain degree, of the 14th Amendment’s words.

The children and descendants of imported slaves were not subject to any foreign power.  They clearly were made citizens by it.  But the humongous question then and now is, “What about the U.S. born children of foreigners and immigrants?  Are they subject to a foreign power or not?”
The answer is found in antiquity.  All subjects were bonded to their lord and King for life.  So if they moved to another land, they were still the King’s subjects.  Or the Emperor’s subjects.  If you were Chinese and moved to and loved America and chose to become a citizen, the penalty for such a crime was beheading, along with the banishment to a great distance of all relatives, older and younger, including grandparents and grand children.

After the Revolution, British immigrants who naturalized were still viewed in the eyes of the British government and monarch, as being full-blood subjects of his majesty, and so the British stopped American ships and kidnapped and pressed into military service all persons who had been born British.  That was the unacceptable situation that led to the little and powerless United States, with only three naval ships, declaring War against the nation with the most powerful navy the world had ever seen.

WHO DO YOU BELONG TO?  Yourself?  Or your government?
The right of expatriation is one of the most fundamental American rights of all, because without it, the Revolution itself would have been illegitimate.  But, you belong to your country until you decide that you no longer wish to and choose to take positive steps to openly renounce your citizenship and take that of another.  That means that as long as foreign immigrants have not taken the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation, they remain as subjects or citizens of their homeland, and still subject to its jurisdiction, -which includes its military conscription authority.  But that creates a conflict and an ambiguity.

If you still owe allegiance to your foreign homeland, and perhaps some years of military service, and you owe obedience to your new homeland of the United States, and it wants you under its conscription authority, you are a conflicted and divided person because of dual subjection.  To which nation are you naturally subordinate?  The answer is both.  One by birth and blood, and the other by adoption and residency.  You have a schizophrenic nationality conundrum.

That is why such a situation was abhorrent to the founding fathers, who completely rejected the concept of dual allegiance.  It was a form of allegiance bigamy or adultery.  You can be wedded to only one nation at a time.  You can owe undivided, absolute loyalty to only one nation at a time.  You can swear to serve only one master at a time.  You cannot be a DUAL CITIZEN!
But time and peace allayed fears of treason or disloyalty, and nations of Europe became democratic, so dual nationality came to be seen as tolerable since foreign countries were mostly unresistant to their citizens also being Americans, especially after we twice shed our blood for their liberty.
America standing alone as the sole beacon of Freedom and democracy was no longer the situation in the modern world, so resistance to dual-citizenship faded away.
But meanwhile, the Constitution of the United States did not fade away nor change when it came to the qualifications to be President.  It included a qualification not required of any other office and that was that the President must be a natural born citizen.

Gee, that sure sounds like it means he has to be 100% American.  How could one be a natural American citizen if born to a foreigner?  That would result in being born into his foreign allegiance, obedience, and loyalty.  How could one be 100% different from their own father?  And…how could the U.S. government trust them to be 100% different?

If your father is subject to the jurisdiction of his foreign homeland, how could you escape not being born into that same status, same inherited national membership, -same national obligation?

Well, you couldn’t, unless you were born on Mars.  On earth these days, one can travel half way around the world in just one day, not three months or more.  So national bonds aren’t significantly weakened until one obtains legal permanent residency.  Then one can become a member of the society of a different nation, -put down new roots, make new friends and build new relationships, maybe even marry.

But the biggest determiner of one’s tie to their homeland is the factor of age.  Once you are too old, you cannot be drafted into the defense of the homeland and so its jurisdiction over you is then limited to things like taxes and pensions.
But if you are female, then you will never in your life be subject to the authority that never included wives and daughters and mothers and sisters.  Instead, you are members of the protected and exempted class.  It is for you that the men fight to the death.  They want you to be safe from harm, safe from rape, and safe from slavery.  Those threats will make men go to the ends of the earth in order to defend against them.

They are subject to the devotion to and responsibility for your safety in this world.  But that truth has been forgotten with the passage of the ages.  Their governments have the authority to require them to fulfill their obligation even if living in another land, because the males of the nation are born into that obligation, and their foreign-born sons are as well.  They would be “subject to a foreign power”, and therefore would not be viewed by the American government as being under its jurisdiction, because it did not believe in nor accept dual-jurisdiction, nor dual subordination, nor dual allegiance.  At least not until a Supreme Court decision in 1898 changed the rules of the game.

Ever since then, the original rules have been forgotten and foreign immigrant fathers and their American born sons are viewed as being fully subject to America’s authority to require the bearing of arms in defense of the nation, or for national security, -whatever that is.
So now immigrants can be subject to American authority and also subject to the authority of their foreign homeland.  It’s a Mad, Mad, schizophrenic nationality conflict conundrum.

How does this relate to you?  It relates to the legitimacy of the President which has been allowed to occupy the White House contrary to the requirement of the U.S. Constitution.  If even the Civil Rights Act denied citizenship for one born subject to a foreign power, then how could such a policy, tradition, philosophy have existed unless it was what had always existed and which from thenceforth would be formally mandated?

If one could successfully and logically persuade that it only referred to children of diplomats, then one could argue that no other foreigners were subject to the authority of their own government.  But one cannot logically nor factually persuade that that was ever the case.  Men remain subject wherever they go, at least until they are too old.  Then they are no longer a national asset when it comes to physically defending anything.  How is this truth too hard to comprehend?

Well, it’s not, but it is too hard to accept because that would mean that not only foreign diplomats are not subject to U.S. authority, but no foreigners are subject unless they are here to stay, officially recognized as having the authorization to be a member of American society by being issued a prized Green Card which allows them permanent residency and right to work

If that is what makes them subject to U.S. jurisdiction, then those without a Green Card are not subject, and cannot be required to register with Selective Service, nor be drafted.  That means all foreign tourists and visitors and students would be exempt from the obligations and subjection of citizens (and immigrants also).

There’s a huge “but…” attached to that conclusion because the father of the President was just such a foreigner.  And that would mean that he was not subject because he was not an immigrant.  That would mean that his son was not born subject either since subjection flows through the head of the family, and within wedlock, that is the father, legally speaking.

That would mean that the 14th Amendment did not apply to his son through him and therefore his birth in the United States was irrelevant.
You could argue that his mother was subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but just try to explain what the heck that actually means by any historical reference.  Women have not yet had the right to vote for a even century, nor the right for their children to inherit their nationality.

So whether or not one believes that Barack Obama is a 14th Amendment citizen or not, they cannot believe that he is a natural born citizen because such citizenship is not by law but by inheritance of a parent transmitted blood connection.

Their citizenship exists outside of the system, pre-dating the system, unchangeable, beyond the authority of men to legislate or regulate.  It is citizenship beyond all law, and cannot ever be revoked because there is no revoking what one naturally is, just as one’s race or gender cannot be revoked.
Natural citizenship and legal citizenship come from different universes, different spheres of reality.  One comes from within the legal system and is its child.  The other comes from outside of the system and is its father.    It is “a priori” citizenship.  It exists apart from and even in the absence of law or explanation.

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

The Royal Law of Ascension & American Presidents

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

The Marie Antoinette Electorate

& Their Cake President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is an American?  And what does it mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth about Allegiance & Natural Citizenship

Allegiance: Bastard Child of Royal Despots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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