LEGAL NATIVES & UNNATURAL CITIZENS

Are you a legal Native?  How about a citizen Inhabitant?
How about a citizen Native?  How about a citizen American?  How about an indigenous citizen?
None of these questions are logically legitimate.  They sound as awkward as they do for a very good reason, and that is that they combine concepts from two very separate, though related, spheres.
One of the spheres is the Natural sphere where Nature and it natural laws constitute reality.  It’s a realm that has existed as long as there has been life on earth and will continue to exist as long as life exists.

The other is the Legal realm.  Its origin came into existence when social species came into existence.  Before them, only the law of the jungle existed.  Which pretty much means there were no rules between living organisms.  “Eat, or be eaten”.

When man came into existence, it was as a social being, -meaning a member of a human society.  All societies have rules because not all behavior is acceptable, and all societies must have leadership.

Leaders enforce the rules, and in time, with the development of writing and government, those rules became written rules, which were then authoritative mandates or prohibitions.  They were then more than just informal or unwritten rules.  They were written in permanent form and that was the origin of the Legal realm.

The Natural realm and the Legal realm are two very separate things, but the legal realm is all about humans, and humans are natural beings and not robots, so their nature and natural behavior is a significant element of Law. [The other element is their Natural Rights]

The Universe is characterized by two things: The nature of its parts, -and how they relate to each other.  That includes all things and all life.  The nature of the human element is that it is social.  Its parts relate to each other in the form of social associations.  But because of friction and disagreement over desires and  rights, humans also relate to others often by a legal association intended to secure their rights or procure them justice.

In the natural social realm, the primary association is either the mate bond or the parental bond.  Both are central to the formation of a family.  It is the foundation of all social associations of all societies.  It is the model for larger associations.  In the animal world they are herds, flocks, prides, schools, pods, etc.
In the human realm they include the greater family group that’s called a Clan.  Clans that are related and live together constitute a Tribe.  Tribes that are related though living at some distance from each other, constitute a country.  That is the natural realm of human association.

Sometimes, often even, countries eventually come to be ruled by one conqueror who subjugates all of the other tribes, and then forges them into one nation.  His hegemony, or that of his off-spring, often has not stopped there, and so his megalomania turns its eyes to neighboring countries and even neighboring nations.  So he builds his armies into such a powerful size that he is able to conquer and subdue his neighbors and thus form a Kingdom, a melding of countries, nations, and peoples who are not naturally related (dissimilar language, history, culture, religion).
Such a kingdom is an unnatural thing, and so in time they disintegrate due to disloyalty, greed, distance, rebellion, or conquest by an even greater kingdom.

So Reality is seen as being comprised of those two very different realms; -the Natural realm and its natural associations, and the Legal/ Political realm with its artificial associations; -artificial meaning man-made, and not nature made.

Those two realms are dissimilar enough to be comparable to oil and water.  They don’t naturally mix, but they can be forced to mix and remain together by the use of an emulsifier.  The emulsifier in human society is fear.
The government has the power to punish and penalize, and so the fear of personal consequence for disobedience is the emulsifier that keeps individuals and natural groups in line.  That was the case in unnatural nations such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein.  Power keeps conflict in check.

But in everyone’s heart, there is no mistaking the difference between a natural mandate and a government mandate.  You know that you must honor your mother on Mother’s Day, and that you must honor the law and the IRS by paying your taxes, but you don’t confuse the nature of those two requirements.  One is from the natural realm while the other is from the legal realm.

Understanding the clear difference between them clarifies the reason why the questions that open this exposition are unnatural questions.  They improperly combine terms that are from the two different realms when they should be used only with the realm from which they spring.

Are you a legal native?  Clearly, “legal” is not from the natural realm, and “native” is not from the legal realm.  They should never be cross-associated.  It’s the same with the terms “country” and “nation”.
One can be a “legal citizen” because citizens are the legal memers of the political entity known as a nation.  But one cannot be a legal American because the term “American” refers to membership in a country.

It existed even before the creation of the unifying government and its legal structure.  “America” as a country pre-existed “The United States” as a nation.  The country had members before the nation had citizens because the members created the nation and thereby became its natural citizens.

So one can be a legal citizen of the United States or a native American / natural American but one cannot be both.  Because the natives of the country did not need to give themselves permission to be citizens of the nation that they decided to create.  And so they didn’t.   They wrote no rule into their foundational charter by which they were declared to be citizens of the nation, because their national membership did not spring from national law-making but from State law or the absence thereof.

Their citizenship was natural citizenship and so they were and are referred to by the unnatural cross-association label of “natural citizens”.  That is the counterpart to the unnatural label “legal native”.  Both are counter-intuitive in a sense because they combine concepts from different realms.  But both are in fact grounded in reality.
A “legal native” of a tribe could be created by adoption of a non-tribal child.  And a natural citizen could be created by birth to natural members of the nation.  And from a legal stand-point, a natural citizen could also be created by birth to non-natural citizens since in the eyes of the law, all citizens are deemed to be natural citizens by a fiction of law.

That makes them all equal members of an unnatural nation.  An unnatural nation is one formed by forces other than the dominance of a powerful leader using natural force to make himself ruler of all.
A nation formed by the intellectual and spiritual and natural bond between members who are related and equal is an unnatural basis of a nation, and had not existed on earth for about 2,000 years.  It is based on a higher law than natural law, -a spiritual law that is founded not on the natural strength of the few or the one, but on natural rights.

So, if you are a natural American, then you are not a legal citizen.  Rather, you are a natural citizen because your membership in the nation is not via the legal permission of the government and its legal structure.  Instead, it is natural membership which was inherited from parents who were members when you were born.
Just as members of American Tribes are not “legal natives”, so also, you are not a “legal citizen” unless your citizenship is an allowance of the government, -including the allowance of citizenship from birth which required government permission (via the 14th Amendment) because you were not born of American parents but of foreign parents, [or a foreign parent].

The 14th Amendment only describes United States citizens domestically born, and did so to declare the parameters of citizenship for those born in America, thereby making non-citizen freed slaves citizens also, -as well as leaving the door open for domestically born children of immigrants.

But it had no authority to alter or regulate or legislate the natural national membership of those who were the nation’s natural citizens.  Congress has never possessed such authority and it never will.
The citizenship of natural Americans is beyond the reach of Congress.  Only the natural members themselves, with the accompanying votes of legal members, have the authority to alter the Constitution.  Not the Congress.  With the citizenship of ex-slaves and native-born children of immigrants written in the stone of a constitutional amendment, it also is beyond the reach and authority of Congress.

But what is not beyond the reach of its authority, nor that of the Attorney General and the President, is the supposed citizenship of those who are not described by the parameters of the 14th Amendment.

Besides a domestic birth location, it equally requires that one be born subject to the full authority of the national government.  Children of illegal aliens are not under that authority unless their parents have been illegally allowed to become integrated members of American society.  If that is possible, and I suspect it is, then their children, -their sons, must register with the Selective Service when they turn 18 years old.  But since even children of legal immigrants, children who are not citizens since they were foreign born to foreigners, must register also, it is not a given that the intent of the amendment was to convey American citizenship to children of those who are in America illegally.

That is a toss-up, -a truly gray area without natural or legal boundaries.  But there is a similar situation which is not gray at all, and that is the relationship of foreign guests to the United States government.  They are not under any obligation to defend the nation that they are visiting and it is indisputable that they are not described by the 14th amendment regarding being subject to the national government’s full authority, -the authority that [male] citizens are under.

They are not under the obligation nor bear the responsibility of citizens to defend their homeland, and so a child born to them while within U.S. borders does not inherit such responsibility either and that fact eliminates them from the naturalizing power of the 14th Amendment

It requires that one be born fully subject to the national government, -meaning being subject to obedience to all of the obligations of citizens.
Since Barack Obama’s father was not under that authority, he could not inherit it and he therefore does not fall under the citizen-izing power of the 14th Amendment.

If one does not meet either of its requirements, then one is not an American citizen by law. [but don't forget that natural citizens are not citizens by law, but by nature]
If not born in the U.S., then one is not a citizen by the 14th Amendment.  If not born subject to the national authority that governs citizens, then one is not born a citizen.

O.J. Simpson is innocent and Obama is a U.S. citizen

Understand this, by the authority of the 14th Amendment and its interpretation by the Supreme Court, Barack Obama is not a United States citizen.  It does not make him an American citizen regardless of a possible birth location within U.S. borders.

One would then ask if he is a citizen via his mother, or via a naturalization statute, and the answer to both is “no”.  Neither provide him with citizenship, and neither he nor his sycophants have ever claimed that they did.
He is presumed to be a citizen because everyone presumes that everyone born in the U.S. (except children of foreign diplomats) is a citizen even though that is in fact false.  But that false presumption goes far beyond mere ignorance because it also intrudes into the area of absurdity by its accompanying presumption that everyone born in America can be President when that is even more false.
The United States Constitution does not limited the presidency to native-born citizens and no others, but limits it to only natural born citizens.

Not all natural born citizens are native-born, and not all native-born citizens are natural born citizens, but people don’t know that, nor understand what-is-what when it comes to the reality of citizenship.

But even if Obama’s citizenship was not simply “presumed citizenship” but was actual legal citizenship, he still would not be eligible to be President because legal citizens are barred from the presidency.  They are a tiny minority of American citizens since they constitute only about 3 % of the American population.   The other 97% is made up of natural citizens born of American parents.  Obama is not one of them.

He is not even one of the small percentage of people born to immigrants since his father was neither an American nor an immigrant.  He was a guest of the American government, as was the son born to him within the sacred and legal institution of marriage.  That would not be true if his father was unknown, or unrevealed.  Then he would have inherited the obligation of citizenship from his mother since she would be the “head” of the “family”.

But his story is that they were married, and so American law and tradition prevails, and by that law and tradition he was not only not born as a natural born citizen, but was not born as a citizen at all, -although always erroneously presumed to be one because of the story that his mother or grandparents told the Hawaiian Health Dept. -that he was born of a resident of Hawaii who had lived in the islands for one year.
That was true since his mother had lived in Hawaii for one year.  Or was it?   It’s known that her parents moved the family to Hawaii in summer of 1960, but where she was living from Feb. 1961 to late August of 1961 is unknown.

So not only is Obama’s birth location unknown, so also was the whereabouts of his mother during the full year that she was required to be living in Hawaii in order to legally be allowed to register her child as a Hawaiian resident and thereby receive a birth certificate which would presumably be “proof” that he was born in America, and therefore could be presumed to be a United States citizen.

Let’s delineate the facts as they are known and unknown.

Obama’s father was not an immigrant but merely a foreign student.

Obama was therefore not a citizen via the 14th Amendment.

Obama was not a citizen via any statute nor the naturalization process.

Citizenship through an American mother married to a foreign father is only transmitted by statute for a child whose birth occurs outside of the United States.  Obama has claimed since about 2007 that he was born in Hawaii, although he claimed since 1991 or earlier that he was born in Kenya.

Obama’s two counterfeit computer-fabricated, digital, abstract, unsigned, unsealed birth document images provide only proof that he is willing to engage in criminal fraud and but not proof of where he was actually born.

No one in the Hawaiian government has ever sworn under oath to any facts regarding the nature of the documentation that is located somewhere in their archives, nor characterized it as being an original Hawaiian birth certificate.

Hawaii allowed those who were residents for a year to register children born elsewhere and to receive a Hawaiian birth certificate.

A Hawaiian birth certificate is then presumed to be proof of American citizenship even though it is not proof.

Obama’s mother’s whereabouts during that important first year of residency is unknown, unprovable, and possibly lied about by her or her parents in an affidavit submitted to the Hawaiian Health Dept. claiming him as a legal resident of Hawaii though born abroad or in another state, -or as born at home in Hawaii with no proof of either other than possibly a hidden, secret birth certificate from a foreign nation.

No actual hospital birth certificate exists, and the fervent Obama supporting governor was unable to unearth one, even with subpena power.

No hospital in Hawaii claims that it is the birth place of Obama, much less the provable birth place.

The hospital named on his counterfeit long-form 9-layer birth certificate pdf image would not allow the detective from Arizona’s Cold Case Posse to examine the public record book of hospital admissions and births for 1961 as he requested.

In May 2013 an Amicus Curiae brief was submitted to the Supreme Court of Alabama by Lucas Smith which contains a certified copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Obama II.
“On the 19th day of February 2009 Amicus (Smith) walked out of the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya with a certified copy of President Barack Hussein Obama II’s original hospital birth certificate.” – Lucas Smith.
He recounts that it cost him several bribes including a $5,000 remuneration for the clerk of the Health Dept. that held the original and issued a certified copy in under twenty minutes as he required.
Obama’s Purported Kenyan Birth Certificate Submitted In Alabama Supreme Court Case

That birth certificate, if a counterfeit, would have to have been fabricated by or for Mr. Smith.  The question is “why would any sane person offer an image of a fake document to a state Supreme Court unless he had the original to verify the validity of the photocopy submitted?”

That would not be reasonable, but we can’t go on what is or isn’t reasonable, because the supporters of Obama’s eligibility, (based supposed on him being a natural born citizen) and birth certificate (if there still are any) and Hawaiian birth location believe their arguments to be reasonable, (or so they pretend) so instead we must look to known and proven facts and any inescapable deductions drawn from them.

But what we find is a black hole of missing facts, missing records, sealed records, falsified records, non-existent sworn testimony and non-existent witnesses.

It’s like trying to get to the bottom of Watergate, or Enron or World Com or Bernie Madoff before the truth was exploded into public light.
It’s like trying to get the facts about Area 51 and u.f.o.s.  No one is talking.  There are more secrets that we don’t know than facts that we do.  Just ask anyone with a top-secret security clearance.  Ask them how many documents are off-limits to public eyes.  A million?  Ten million?  50 million?  Secrets are not rare, they are the norm, especially in politics.

So we are nationally governed by an Enron Administration.  A Madoff presidency.  An R.J. Reynolds government that swears under oath that cigarettes are not harmful to human health,  and a President who is as much a natural born citizen as O.J. Simpson is an innocent man who  just wants to find the real killers.

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

The Phantom Citizenship of President Obama

  Citizenship via Natural Association

There are three qualifiers needed in order to be the President of the United States.  In reverse order of importance they are; 14 years of residency, 35 years of age, and the most common type of citizenship.  That type is known as natural citizenship, -as distinguished from legal citizenship.  The nature of natural citizenship has not been understood in American law because it is not of American law but from outside of it.  The issue of what it is has been considered in a few cases that made it to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Waite, in the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett [88 U.S. 162, 1874], reviewed the citizenship exposition of Emmerich de Vattel found in the 1797 English translation of his 1758 tome “The Law of Nations”.
The Chief Justice wrote [with my comments inserted]:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.  At common-law,… 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, ["naturels" in original French] as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [he overlooked native-born foreigners]
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens [not natural citizens] children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the  citizenship of their parents. As to this class [persons born within the U.S. to parents other than citizens] there have been doubts, [as to their citizenship existing] but never as to the first…”[those born to citizen parents]

What was never said by any Supreme Court, Congress, or Attorney General is: “Some authorities go further and exclude as citizens all children born outside the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” [whether they are Americans or not]

Yet it is claimed by some to be a fact that that was the undeniable intent of the Framers, although based on nothing.  No supporting evidence or authority.  None has been given because none exists.  But just the opposite does exists.

The very first Congress declared in the first naturalization act (1790) that the children born abroad (of American parents) are to be  “considered as natural born citizens”.  The intent was that they not only be recognized as being what they are by birth, (American citizens) but recognized also as being natural American citizens, and thus the same as citizens born within American boundaries.
Without that express language, which was completely absent from the Constitution, the sons of America’s public servants serving abroad as Ambassadors & Consuls, Generals & Admirals, soldiers & sailors (etc.) would have gone unrecognized as being what they are, fellow natural members of their country and natural citizens of their nation.

That order by Congress to all port immigration authorities and magistrates was not aimed at, nor was it intended for, them alone.  It carried one and only one connotation, and that was eligibility to become the American President.

There is no other purpose served by that language, and because of that clear fact, it was removed by a later Congress that thought itself to be newer and wiser in its recognition that presidential eligibility was not properly to be addressed in a naturalization act.

What they failed to address was the fact that it was addressed no where else, and they in turn failed to provide any direction regarding what the rule of natural law is for Americans born abroad, thereby turning what the original Congress had made clear into something unclear and lost in a fog of uncertainty.

That uncertainty has not been made clear to this day because the principle of natural law by which such children are Americans is obscured and forgotten, -unrecognized as even being connected to natural law, but is assumed to be instead a matter of legislative authority via the law-making naturalization power bestowed on Congress by the Constitution.

But that authority only applies to foreigners and their children,  -and not to Americans and theirs.  Do Americans give birth to foreigners when traveling or residing outside U.S. borders?
Does a mountain gorilla give birth to a monkey if its off-spring is not born within gorilla territory?  The answer is self-evident.  Nature determines the outcome, not ideas about human law and human authority concerning artificial man-made borders.

Question 1: How does a country maintain and increase the number of its members?
Answer:   Through the children born to its female members.

Question2: How does a nation maintain and increase the number of its citizens?
Answer:   Through the children born to its female citizens.

Exactly the same principle.  Member numbers grow via birth and citizen numbers grow via birth.  The natural members are the natural citizens.

A mother and father’s child is a natural member of their country even if delivery happens to take place outside of its society.  So also a mother and father’s child is a natural citizen of their nation even if delivery happens to take place outside of its national boundaries.
Both facts are true by the same natural law.  The number of members of a society, tribe, or country does not increase due to rules or laws, but due to births.  So also, the number of citizens of a state or nation does not increase due to laws but due to births.  It increases naturally and even in the absence of, and before the existence of, human laws to natural-ize and citizen-ize outsiders.

A member of a country is a citizen of the nation established in that country.  Those born to members / citizens are what  they inherit from their parents, namely their same race, ethnicity, and nationality.  Parents pass those traits to their children without effort, action, or legal maneuvers.  Transmission is natural, not legal.  It requires no law to happen.  Any attempt to mandate otherwise would be unnatural, illegitimate and “a fools errand” because the principle of natural law can’t be nullified.

One is known by and associated with those to whom they were born.  If one were a son of George Washington,  Abraham Lincoln, or General /President Eisenhower then one would carry that respectable identity throughout life.  If one were a son of Adolph Hitler, or just a relative, one would carry that ignominious identity through life unless it was kept as a state secret for the sake of the person’s disassociation from such a heinous figure.  There are such relatives of Adolph Hitler, but no one knows who they are.  Their identity is hidden forever.  Association with one’s relatives is an association that is part of every society on earth, and in some, the men sanction “honor killings” of relatives that are viewed as bringing dishonor on them via that association.

One is a natural part of the family, clan, tribe or society into which one is born.  Similarly, one is a natural citizen of the nation into which one is born.  But such natural citizens are not legal citizens because legal citizens are only citizens via positive law, not via nature.  There’s an uncrossable divide between the two.
No legal citizen can ever become a natural citizen because they were born being a natural citizen of another society and nation.  Similarly, natural citizens are never legal citizens unless they renounce their citizenship and later regret it and become legal naturalized citizens.

What distinguishes the legal from the natural citizen is nothing other than the parents to whom they were born.  Were they citizens or foreigners?  Children of foreigners need naturalization just like their parents, but in America they obtain it from birth as long as they are born within territory that is part of the United States, or born in Guam or Puerto Rico (two  unnatural exceptions).

The authority that provides them naturalization at birth is the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898 (Wong Kim Ark) which ruled against the combined authority of all of United States history to that point, as well as  the Attorney General.

But the majority of justices decided that it was preferable to grant citizenship to children of immigrants than to not do so, and they were sociologically correct since the nation at that time was experiencing a flood of immigration, (including my great grandparents) but they were “legally” incorrect because the 14th Amendment citizenship clause was written to not extend such a right to such children, even though it was viewed by at least one of those who gave birth to it as implying just such a thing.

But instead of debating and settling on the meaning of its simple and elegant language, [All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein the were born,] they passed it in its fully ambiguous but elegant form and consequently its uncorrected ambiguity may result in the ruination and bankrupting of the United States via the misconception that was subsequently arrived at by the Attorney General at the time, John Griggs.

He presumed that not only children of immigrants are to be recognized as American, but children of any and all foreigners must be assumed to be Americans simply based on their birth within U.S. borders, whether or not their parents be in the country as legal resident Green Card immigrants with permanent residency, or be among the flood of illegals who give birth in a country which is not their own, and to which they and their children have no natural attachment, nor natural right to be accepted as members.  No other nation on earth follows such an insane and damaging policy.  Truly, there are none more stupid than us.

Barack Obama’s father was neither a legal immigrant nor an illegal immigrant because he was not an immigrant at all.  He was a Visa Card foreign student and therefore his son was born subject to his father’s nation’s jurisdiction only, and not that of his mother’s nation since jurisdiction flows from the head of the household to the children, -which, within the institute of marriage, is legally the father in immigration law.

Thanks to Congressional statutes passed within the last three-quarters century, a mother’s American citizenship can be imputed to her foreign-fathered children, -if, that is, they are born outside of the United States as provided for by such laws.  But there are no statutes for the case of such children born inside of the United States because it has been erroneously presumed that they are covered by the 14th Amendment since A.G. Griggs made the mistake of assuming that all foreigners’ children are under its naturalization authority except children of foreign ambassadors.

Even foreign Consular Officers are amazingly presumed to fall under U.S. jurisdiction, thereby their U.S. born children are deemed to be U.S. citizens even though their fathers cannot be drafted into the U.S. military as can all U.S. citizens and immigrants who are male, and of military age.

Which brings up another important point, namely, that the first naturalization act which identified American children born abroad as being natural born citizens carried an unspoken and impolite connotation which revolved around the fact that American women were excluded from political life.  Therefore presidential eligibility was something none of them could qualify for.  That means that to label foreign-born Americans as presidentially eligible “natural born citizens” was aimed specifically at American sons born abroad, and not American daughters.

Neither the responsibility of citizenship nor subordination to U.S. federal jurisdiction was attached to American women because that involves being subject to the central government’s power to force American men to perform their national duty and enter military service, train for combat, and fight in war for the defense of their people and nation.  Women have never been included under that full authority.
Hence, for those reasons, Barack Obama did not obtain naturalization at birth through his father nor his mother, but was instead born without legal American citizenship, although deemed to be a citizen based on the error the Attorney General made in 1899, -which was adopted and became the policy of the INS and State Departments ever since as a fully institutionalized error.

But policy, though it has the force of law, does not have the legitimacy of law because it is not backed by anything passed by Congress.  It exists in the same nether-realm as executive orders, which are found nowhere in the Constitution, -along with Washington’s authority to compel by force, and the coercion of fines, formerly free American citizens to be party to an insurance contract involuntarily, which renders it thereby illegitimate and neither a valid contract nor insurance since that requires free voluntary choice and a monetary gamble that one side will come out ahead.  No gamble?…then it’s not insurance.  Pre-existing condition? Where’s the gamble on the company’s part when it is a loser from day one?

So our “Mr. President”, our bogus Potus, is not a natural citizen, nor a legal citizen but is only a phantom citizen whose citizenship is backed by nothing in any law that anyone can identify because nothing exists.  Barack Obama is the man who fell between the cracks of American law, and no one like him is eligible to be the American President because the President must be a natural born citizen, and he is not that, even if born in the oval office.

But he did a very curious thing for perhaps two decades.  He, being born God-only-knows where, and raised for years in a reverential Islamic school in Indonesia, -then mentored by a Communist is Hawaii from the age 10 and on, never had any strong sense of being an American.  After-all, his mother conceived him with a foreigner, -married two foreigners, moved to a foreign nation with her foreign husband, and so the natural attachment to America didn’t form in him as it does in normal American children.  So it didn’t rub him the wrong way at all when he saw a chance to make some easy money by getting a publisher to pay him a large up-front fee for a biography.  What was it about him that they felt was more interesting than 12 million or so other African American men?  It was that he was not one of them because he was, as he claimed, born in AFRICA to an African father.

What could be more psychically titillating than such an exotic background and story?  It surely would attract book buyers.  He used that story to his advantage, and possibly even to obtain foreign student financial support at Occidental College.  It was a story that he wore well, and continued to work to his advantage all the way into state and national politics.

He had no reason to alter it after a decade and a half or more because it had no downside, -after all, it wasn’t like anyone would consider a person like himself (a lazy ,unaccomplished, academically invisible former pothead and cocaine user) as presidential material.  [no facts about his academic history have ever been made public]
So he had no reason to not stick to his story, -until, that is, someone convinced him that they would back his candidacy for the presidency all the way to and through the Democratic convention and on to the White House.

Only then did he have to do an about-face regarding where he was born.  The story had to change, -change either to the truth, or change to a lie and away from the truth.  There’s a lot of smoke about the issue, but documents are universally missing or sealed or off-limits, -including public records.  So without them, he remains upright though skating on very thin ice.

But what is deducible from his claim of Kenyan birth is the legal consequences of such a birth location.  It would have meant that he would have been born without American citizenship since his mother was too young by law to convey it to him if born abroad.  So assuming that Barack Obama was an honest man and his long-running story was true, then his own story had him being born as only a Kenyan native  and British subject with a Kenyan father.  So before the possibility of being President ever occurred to him, his story was that he was born a Kenyan citizen and not an American citizen.

That raises two very difficult questions for him in the time-frame before becoming a presidential candidate and changing his place of birth story:

1. How can a born foreign national be considered to be a natural American citizen?

2.  When did he become an American, and by what means?

A third disturbing question is: Why do most Kenyans believe that he is a Kenyan who miraculously became President of the United States?

They claim that he is Kenyan not because he said he was, but because he was born there, in a specific village that is widely regarded as his birth place.
Well, one thing is clear,…no, actually nothing is really clear except the fact that his official documents are fraudulent computer-fabricated digital abstract constructs.  We know that much, but knowing a negative is not the same as having proof positive of what the truth is.  We can’t know the truth because he can’t tell it, since instead of it setting him free, it would likely imprison him.

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

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