Obama’s Kenyan Birth Claim

by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.  http://puzo1.blogspot.com  copyright 2014

…You claim that there was confusion between the son Obama and the father Obama. This is a ridiculous excuse. This same excuse has been used to explain away how that Kenyan Ambassador, when asked specifically about President-Elect Barack Obama’s birth place, could have said that Obama’s birthplace in Kenya was well known and already a landmark.

You state that “some reports got confused.” First, reports do not get confused, people do. Second, you do not tell us who got confused, the literary agency or Obama. I do not see how the literary agent would have gotten confused with Obama right there to guide her.

The text of Obama’s biography in the brochure created by Obama’s former literary agency, Acton & Dystel in 1991, and reported on by Breitbart News on May 17, 2012, states:

“Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.

He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii .

The agency used Obama’s birth story in connection with marketing a future book called “Journeys in Black and White,” which neither Obama nor anyone else ever wrote. Twelve years later, in 2003,  Dystel of Acton & Dystel, which was then promoting Obama’s new book, “Dreams from My Father,” still publicly proclaimed through the brochure that Obama was born in Kenya.

Through the Internet archive Wayback Machine, WND found an August 2003 listing of Dystel & Goderich’s author bios, stating the following:

“Barack Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago. His first book is ‘Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/shocker-obama-was-still-kenyan-born-in-2003/#xKCqEtw1IKYPxoxB.99

WND also reported that in April 2007, two months after Obama had launched his presidential bid, the same agency was still holding Obama out as having been “born in Kenya.” Dystel & Goderich described Obama this way:

“Barack Obama is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.”

It was not until April 21, 2007 that any evidence appeared that the same agency changed Obama’s place of birth from Kenya to Hawaii.

I cannot imagine a competent publicist just on her own concluding that Obama was born in Kenya and then publishing that information to the public without having been provided that information and been so authorized to publish it by Obama himself.

Obama well knew what his publicist published about him 1991. In fact, it would have been Obama who provided his picture and “resume” to her so that she could have his background for any marketing materials that she published in connection with his first book which neither he nor anyone else ever published.

Obama would have told her that he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, that he was born to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and that he was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago. And he would have also told her that he was born in Kenya. There simply is no way that the agent could have made up any of those facts on her own.

Obama would have reviewed and corrected any marketing materials before they were published. It is standard practice that before biographical materials are published, that the interested person review them before final publication.

Furthermore, Obama would have seen the marketing pamphlet which was used up to 2007 in the public domain. Obama would have also known that the agency said that he was born in Kenya when marketing the book, “Dreams from My Father.” Yet, throughout all those 16 years, there is no record of Obama ever having taken any steps to correct the alleged error.

On the contrary, Obama ran for state senator, U.S. senator, and even President of the United States, while the alleged error still existed in the public domain.

If the publicist made the error and caused the inaccurate publication, not only in connection with the first book that was never produced, but also in connection with “Dreams from My Father,” then she should provide a credible explanation as to how the error was made and why it was allowed to stay uncorrected for 16 years and through the intended publication of two books and through Obama’s several political campaigns for high public office.

To date, the publicist has not provided any credible explanation showing that she herself erroneously concluded that Obama was born in Kenya and that she erroneously published it.

~What the Supreme Court Doesn’t Know But Should

The Origins of U.S. Citizenship

Maybe in an unforeseeable future the U.S. Supreme Court will accept for adjudication a case requiring establishing the meaning of the phrase  “natural born citizen” as found in the presidential eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.

supreme-court

If that ever happens, the outcome may prove to be completely wrong if the following facts are not presented and accepted.  A true and correct presentation should go something like this:

Your honors,

The question before us is “who is a natural born citizen and who is not?”  For answering that question allow me to pose a question to you:

What is the legal basis of your authority to find someone in contempt and violate their constitutional rights by throwing them in jail for an unlimited period of time without trial or conviction of anything?  By what law do judges possess such authority?

Answer: by no law whatsoever.  So then what is the source of such authority if not law?  It is a source more ancient and fundamental than any law ever written because it is a necessary element of the nature of all societies, -even the barbaric, and that element is the need for respect.

No family or society or nation can exist in a state of order without respect.  It’s influence must be present or chaos and anarchy result.

It began with respect for fathers, and alpha males, -extending to respect for leaders of clans and tribes and eventually kings and high priests.  Respect for leadership was and is the glue that holds groups together.  It binds the elements of the foundation to each other.  But there is an even more fundamental element that glues groups together, and that is “blood”.

Blood connection is the largest and most central block in the foundations of all natural groups, -from families, flocks, herds, prides, tribes, -all the way up to nations.  Nations are structures built atop of countries which are their foundation.

Countries pre-date all nations and are more organic than structural and it’s because their composition is essentially the land of a group and the people of the group, including their leadership.

But nations are something else.  They are composed of the country and the government legal structure built atop of it, -which is the floor of the nation.

The government and its laws are not organic or natural.  They are man-made and changeable, but countries only change by war, and great natural cataclysm.

Nations include in their floor of law a means by which outsiders may be allowed to become members of the country and thus be recognized as citizens of the nation.  To become members of a country, outsiders must first be given permission to dwell within it.  Nations give that permission in the form of granting permanent residence.

GreenCardSampleFINAL

With that grant, the outsiders are not compelled to leave the country by a certain date, but instead are allowed to stay indefinitely.

After they have stayed for several years and been law-abiding members of the society, they are allowed to petition to become more than just members of the society and country but also citizens of the nation.

If they fulfill the requirements for citizenship, they then become a part of the floor of the nation via its naturalization law.

Naturalization ceremony

But if they become a citizen of the United States in particular, while they were once perceived as being a plank in the floor of the nation, in fact they became more than that.

Planks can be removed and tossed out, but the foundation stones cannot.  In America new citizens do not become planks in the floor but stones in the foundation.  They cannot be removed and tossed out because they are equal in all regards to the natural members of the country who are the natural citizens of the nation.

They are not equal like fraternal twins are equal, -the same but separate and distinct.  Rather, they are indistinguishable in every way because they are identical in essence.  They are one and the same as the natives of the country by the American doctrine of Citizenship Equality.

By it all citizens are of the same nature.  That nature is not a legal nature but a natural nature.  All natural citizens are organic members via blood connection.  That is what makes them all citizens by nature.

How can foreigners become natural citizens?  By natural-ization.  They are made natural, -or natural-ized; -not citizen-ized.

By our widely unknown fundamental American Natural Rights philosophy, they are not made into a member of a second class of citizens but are adopted into the only class of citizens existing, -which is the natural class.  And then the fact of their adoption is essentially buried and banished from thought and recognition.  They are accepted as new members of the national family as though they were and are such  from-&-by birth.

That view of them is a pretense of egalitarian democracy.  [egalitarian;  e·gal·i·tar·i·an,  adjective:

1. of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.   ~ "a fairer, more egalitarian society"

Egalitarian democracy embraces, practices and follows a blind-folded view of the nature of all Americans.  By its fiction of law all Americans are not just brothers by name, or by adoption, but by blood.  They are blood brothers and blood citizens.

2767_n

In a civic-political sense they are all identical twins or clones.  Those who were born as foreigners via birth to foreigners have been separated from that past and that fact and have become new natural citizens like their native brethren.

That legal fiction is what protects their equality and equal treatment under the law.  By it there is only one form of citizenship [natural citizenship] and only one form of American, not two.

If there were two, then one of them (the original, native, citizen-born members of the nation) would be seen as having greater natural rights than those made into citizens though having been born of alien outsiders or even born as aliens.

Not all nations embrace our American fiction of law, including at one time the former United States of America.

~     ~     ~     ~

Do you understand what has just been explained to you (excluding the last sentence)?  Is it not fairly simple to comprehend?  Could a child not understand it?  A simple, fair, innocent mind can understand it, but self-important, elite, privileged, top-of-the-pyramid wealthy & powerful alpha-males in government were incapable of understanding it in America for nearly a century of Congressional law-making, executive branch administering, and  judicial branch adjudicating.

They had no idea of the truth that has just been  explained.  They thought that (-like other nations) America was not so egalitarian in it fundamental philosophy and that they had the power and authority to treat naturalized citizens differently, -as though they were merely planks of the floor of national law and not stones of the foundation.   They thought that naturalized citizens were second-class citizens created by law-makers and thus still subject to their whims and preferences.  They thought wrong.

They felt that just as they had the power to give citizenship, they also had the power to take it away.

They failed to grasp the fact that America does not create new naturalized citizens.  It only creates new natural citizens and they are all stones in the foundation of the nation.  They are considered Americans by nature, and not by mere permission.

But eventually they were put in their place by the Supreme Court.  It only took four generations of bastardized laws, regulations, and court opinions before fundamental American values were finally acknowledged and given preeminence over the matter.

2658_n-50

How did that come about?  By striking down the basis of the so-called Bancroft treaties which allowed the governments of treaty nations to strike the citizenship from their naturalized citizens if they returned to their homeland and lived there again for two full years.

220px-George_Bancroft_US_Sec_of_Navy_c._1860 US Ambassador George Bancroft

Other nations had that authority but the high-and-mighty leaders of the United States did not possess that authority because of the American doctrine of CITIZENSHIP EQUALITY.

By it, naturalized citizens were natural citizens, -citizens by blood, by birth, and were not in a second-class category that gave the government the power to treat them differently and discriminate against them.

That discrimination was manifested when a naturalized citizen sued the Unite States government for discrimination when his or her citizenship was revoked for living abroad when no such authority existed for doing the same to those born as Americans.  Only in the face of that discrimination did the doctrine of citizenship equality once again come to light.

As I recall, the over-throw of four generations of U.S. law and policy began with the case of Afroim v Rush in the 1960s.  In it, the court found it was unconstitutionally discriminatory for Congress to revoke the U.S. citizenship of American women who married foreign men and then lived with them in their country.

I’m not sure but I suspect that the court’s members may have viewed the situation is a different light, -in the light of the equal treatment guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

In other words, they looked at it as they look at almost everything, -in a legal light.  I doubt they even got past the legal justification for overturning discrimination and looked at the underlying reason why that ban on discrimination exists, (-the fundamental reason that is not a part of the floor of the nation but is a part of its very foundation).

That foundation is built of Natural Rights and natural members.  The first tenant of Natural Rights governing a nation is and must be based on the belief that all men are created equal, with no superior and inferior classes.

A confusion exists because of conceptual ambiguity surrounding the nature of citizenship and citizenship terms.  The one regarding the nature of American citizenship has been cleared up, but there remains another one which normally would be irrelevant, or, as in dictatorships, non-existent since they do not have an office of a freely elected President who commands all military forces.

In America it has always been non-existent as an issue because no President in U.S. History (until Obama) was someone who ran for office as the son of an alien and thus the subject of a foreign power.

Those who are ignorant of the truth and cling to the faith that Barack Obama is a legitimate President do so on the false basis that all “born citizens” are natural citizens, -embracing the fiction that citizenship-from-birth is all that is required to fit their false definition of what a natural citizen is.  But they are ignorantly playing with ambiguous words.

A perfect analogy is the word “twins“.  When we hear the word we immediately have a concept of what it implies.

r-kate-25 l-emily-25

If we hold fast to that concept then we are holding fast to a delusion because, like “born citizen”, it is also ambiguous since there is more to it than a single simplistic definition.  There are in fact two completely different forms of both twins and born citizens.  What is the difference?  ORIGIN!

Identical twins have the same origin, -one single fertilized egg, but fraternal twins are the result of two fertilized eggs.  They have different origins.

denise_n_helen1-33

It’s the same with born citizens.  One type is born of an American egg, -having American parents, while the other is born of an alien egg, -having one or two foreign parents, and only becomes American by the allowance of American law.

Two Americans who were born of Americans are American identical citizen twins, but one born of aliens is only a fraternal twin in a real-world sense.  But all are considered to be identical citizen twins except in regard to the power of the Commander-in-Chief.

Only in regard to the issue of who is given Chief Command of the American military is the hair split and a distinction drawn between fictional “identical” U.S. citizen twins and actual ones.

Then the ambiguity of “born citizen” must be parsed because the United States Constitution requires that it be parsed since its authors stepped outside of the fundamental legal fiction of equal citizenship to delineate a real-world difference based on ORIGIN.

They went “there”, -outside of the legal system that they were constructing and they had to do so because of the fundamental fiction that was an inherent part of it.  They had to make it clear that the legal fiction did not reach all of the way into the post of ultimate power over all military forces which the President, as Commander-in-Chief, would occupy.

So to make that point unmistakably clear, they had to employ language which would have no other application in American life.  They had to resort to language dealing with blood inheritance, patrilineal descent, hereditary birthright, natural transmission, and unalienable rights and thereby shove egalitarianism aside regarding one single matter for the sake of national security and possibly national survival.

They had to restrict the office to only those who were of the class of Americans who were the citizen equivalent of identical twins and reject all who were only native-born fraternal twins, -or not twins at all (the naturalized, -born as foreigners).  The origin of the citizenship of candidates for President was singled out as either qualifying or disqualifying.  That was not the case for any other office in the nation.  Only for the presidency.

Article II, Section I, U.S. Constitution:

 “NO PERSON (meaning no born citizen) SHALL… BE… ELIGIBLE… to the office of the President, -except…a natural born citizen;”.

The U.S. President must be an American citizen not only from birth but by birth, …by birth to Americans.

by Adrien Nash  Jan. 2014  http://obama–nation.com

0126_n 131_n387_n 1193_n

Native-Born Tadpole Citizenship

The Reality of Native-Born Tadpole Citizenship

As I detail on my home page at obama–nation.com, and in several expositions, I discovered something important that was evidence of what I had been asserting endlessly but without any proof, -my basis being logic alone.  It was the smoking gun that no one knew for sure existed.  It was “buried” in an obscure internet page of the CIS (Citizenship and Immigration Service; formerly known as NIS).  When I discovered it, it was like finding the Holy Grail.

After I made its discovery known on the internet, word of it spread and that was noticed by Obama’s flying monkeys who then sent word to one of his minions with significant authority.  That traitor then surreptitiously changed the URL-web address of the page so that thereafter all of the links to it were broken, resulting in “Page Not Found”.  But I managed to eventually relocate it.

What was the smoking gun that I uncovered?  It was the delineation of citizenship terms into “naturalized, native and natural born”.  “Native” can only mean one thing, which is native-born, (-as opposed to natural born).  It can’t mean Native American -as in “Indian”, and it can’t mean pure native because that would be identical to a natural citizen as only natural citizens are real natives.

There is no such legal term as “Native Citizen” because “native”, like “natural” is not a legal descriptor but a natural descriptor of the legal concept and term “CITIZEN”.  The legal version is “native born”, so “native and natural born” refers to native-born & natural born, -but foregoes the unnecessary repetition of the word “born”.

What’s my point?  It’s that it is, and always has been, the rational and realistic policy of the federal government to distinguish between three very different groups of citizens. The United States government does not confuse the three variations.  The naturalized are not the native-born, and the native-born are not the natural born.  That is reality.
A foreigner is someone born in a foreign nation.  By coming to American he does not become an American, nor do any children he brings with him.  But if he and his wife are immigrants, and she produces a child in America, then the child is a native-born American due to the Supreme Court’s opinion in 1898, (based on the 14th Amendment),  regarding the citizenship of the native-born son of Chinese immigrants named Wong, .
When he, as an adult, produced an American child, it was not only a native-born American, it was also a natural born American, unlike its father.  How so?  Because it was born to an American father and not a Chinese father.
What that evolution describes is a progression from one thing to another.  From initial pure foreign-ness to eventual pure American-ness.  Like the evolution of frogs & toads.  The first stage is entirely different from the final stage.  The first stage, equivalent to a foreigner, is that of the polliwog.  It has no limbs and is like a fat-headed fish.
The human version can become a citizen via an artificial process known as naturalization, -which is intended to make-over, or convert, a foreigner into a facsimile of a natural American.  Naturally, nature can’t do such a thing, and so the polliwog gradually changes by growing arms and legs.
No one would argue that a tadpole is a toad anymore than one would argue that a polliwog is a toad, because its body is distinctly different.
Once it has evolved fully, it no longer has the characteristics of a polliwog.  Those characteristics, -like those of a foreigner, are completely gone.
In national life, just as in nature, it takes three stages to convert outsiders and their off-spring into natural born natives of America.  The immigrant is equivalent to a polliwog.  The children of immigrants are equivalent to tadpoles.  The children of the children are equivalent to toads.  The change is then complete.  The original nature has been completely remade.

Polliwog — Tadpole — Toad ;  Foreigner — Native born American — Natural born American.        Three generations.  The grandchild has no connection to the foreign-ness of the grandparents, but its father does because he was raised by them.
But the grandchild was raised by an American.  So it was with my own natural born mother, her native-born mother, and her foreign born grandparents.  If my grand uncles were born to my great-grand parents before they became Americans, then they would not have been eligible to serve as President even though they were native-born.

When a son of traditional conservative Saudi immigrants looks up at mommy and daddy, he sees people who are very different from Americans.  He sees their foreignness and is exposed to it all throughout his childhood and youth.  If he attends an American school, he becomes Americanized.
But if he attends a Wahabi Islamic school for 12 years, -isolated from exposure to American culture, -for better and for worse, then he will not become what would be described as Americanized.  He would instead be bound to and assimilated into the foreign culture of his parents.  Two very starkly different cultural and national orientations.
He clearly would not be purely American.  He would be like the young tadpole, -barely different from the polliwog.  With only tiny new limbs.  Or, with complete brain-washing, (acculturation) into Saudi cultural and religious values, he might be purely a polliwog like the parents, -but not in a nationality sense since he would be an American citizen.
But if he was schooled in American schools, then he would become Americanized and would one day produce a child that would look up at him and not see a Saudi but see an American, -one who would be steeped in American values if he attended school before the 1970′s (or if he attended a parochial school where he might learn values still).

So it is clear that just as immigrants are not natural Americans, neither are their native-born children.  But the children of the native-born will be natural born Americans.  Their citizenship nature is natural, unlike that of their parents who are the in-between generation,..the tadpole generation,..the native-born generation,..the bridge between total foreignness and total American-ness.

Mere birth within invisible, conceptual American borders does not a natural citizen make, but it does make a native-born citizen.  If a Brown bear gave birth in the Arctic, its cub would not be a Polar bear.  It would have to mate with a Polar bear, and produce a hybrid off-spring, (which was something that seems to have happened in the strange case of a giant slain white bear that could not be identified as any known species) and that off-spring would have to mate with a Polar bear to produce a cub with a close resemblance to a Polar bear.

The change from one thing to another completely different thing cannot be accomplished in one stage of change.  It requires two; -two generations of change in order to go from pure outsider to pure insider.  The middle stage is “tainted” by foreignness, and that is why the founding fathers barred it from the position of Commander-in-Chief.  Only a pure American can serve as President.  Not a naturalized American, and not a half-natural American whose citizenship is totally dependent on the permission of law.  If one’s citizenship is dependent on American law then one is not a natural American but is a legal American only.

So does that mean that Barack Obama is only a native-born American and not a natural born American?  Actually, he is neither due to Congressional misunderstanding of the boundaries of the Supreme Court’s Wong opinion which resulted from a misinterpretation of it by Attorney General Griggs in 1898.

Without an American father, no one is a natural American even if they are a legal, constitutional native-born American.  So Obama is not that, but is he a legal constitutional 14th Amendment native-born citizen instead?  Actually, his situation falls between the legal cracks because, by implication, the 14th Amendment as construed by the Wong opinion, requires parents who are immigrant, and Obama Sr. was not an immigrant.
American mothers are not addressed by the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment since women were not subject to the responsibility of citizenship, although they were the beneficiaries of its civil benefits.  They weren’t obligated to take lives in combat  nor risk their life to protect the nation, * nor allowed to vote nor serve in any high office.  Clearly, they weren’t, as the amendment requires, subject to the (full) federal jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and so, like foreign visitors, were incapable of producing a child that was subject through them.  Single immigrant women were not even allowed to become naturalized citizens except in rare cases.

Thus, the 14th Amendment did not apply to Obama Jr. through his father or his mother, -regardless of a native-birth.  He was an exception to the general rule that applied to all children of all immigrant fathers.
So is he then an American citizen through his American mother?  U.S. citizenship was never transmitted from mother to child by law until years after the ratification of the 19th Amendment around 1920 which gave women the right to vote.  Before Congress passed statutes allowing that, citizenship passed exclusively from father to child, being as he was the head of the household.  Even a foreign wife automatically became an American, like him, by marrying an American.

Citizenship passing from mother to child has never been natural citizenship and the past cannot be erased nor be altered by changes in society in the present.  In 1788 when the Constitution was adopted, no child in any state could inherit its nationality through its mother.  All natural Americans had American fathers without exception.

But for Obama, it’s even worse than that, because the mid-20th century laws that allow citizenship through the mother only pertain to births outside of the United States.  They do not mention the situation of birth to a foreign father within the United States.  So his nationality was not conveyed to him through his American mother nor his non-American father, nor through the 14th Amendment.

So what is the source of his citizenship?  There is none in American law, but that doesn’t rule out administrative policy.  Since Attorney General Griggs’ mistake in 1898, which erroneously assumed that all children born in America are born subject to the jurisdiction of the United State and are therefore 14th Amendment citizens, the policy that he established affirming that error has remained in place and become petrified in essentially all venues of jurisprudence; -from law schools, to the field of immigration law, to the immigration service, the State Dept. and the judicial system.  It is all a massive accretion of precedential error.  It has become as harden as bone.
There is no authority and no court that would dare attempt to challenge it nor correct it.  In fact, they consider it heresy, although without knowing exactly why, other than that’s just the way it is and has been since before they and their parents and grandparents were born.

Yet if the 14th Amendment meant what it has mistakenly been construed to mean, (every native-born person is an American) then its wording is completely superfluous in the sense of the false presumption that every person born in America is subject to the American government; “All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”
-so if everyone was automatically subject, then why the need to require in its wording that which was already always a fact?  Answer: Because of Native Americans and foreign ministers, (and foreign visitors).
Neither they nor their native-born children were subject to the American government as are American citizens.  Although they were born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States, they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Why were foreign minister not subject?  Because they were not Americans, -nor were children born to them in America, because they were not in the role of citizens nor immigrants but were in the role of guests.  Guests are exempt from the duties of residents, and it doesn’t matter if they work for a foreign government or are visiting from a foreign nation for a day, a week, month, or a year.  As long as they are guests, they are not subject to the responsibilities of residents, i.e., citizens and immigrants (who are required to defend the nation, -as every foreigner must swear to do in order to become a naturalized citizen) and thus are not among those whose native-born children are covered by the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment.

So, like the pivot mechanism of a rudder, A.G. Griggs changed the course of American nationality law without the authority of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the President, and it will never be changed back unless and until sanity (i.e., knowledge and wisdom and integrity) returns to the governance of the nation.

That will never happen because it would require the passage of a constitutional amendment similar to the 9th Amendment, which reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

That is similar in nature to the 10th Commandment, -the one unrelated to behavior; “Thou shalt not covet”.  It is an order as to how people are to think, -or not think.  “shall not be construed”, meaning shall not be misconstrued by ones warped, ignorant, misinformed, misguided or dishonest thinking into calling a pig a pony.
A new amendment would have to order the government to change its thinking, to cease and desist from enforcing Griggs’ misconstruence of the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the 14th Amendment and the citizenship of children of non-immigrant and illegal-resident foreigners, and throw out a century old policy not authorized by that limited court opinion.

But it technically would not require an amendment since the Attorney General and the President have the authority to correct administrative errors if they so choose, -which they would never do because the result would be that Obama becomes recognized as not possessing legal American citizenship.  That would be political suicide.  But it would be just that simple to do, -even a judge could do it (though none in American have the nerve) just as a federal court ruled that Obama’s policy of appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board while Congress was still in session was an unconstitutional policy.  Just because the executive branch operates as if their policy is legitimate, does not make it legitimate.  The Law is the law!  And by the Law, -not policy, Obama is not an American citizen.

But…even if his father was an immigrant and thus subject to the full weight of American authority over citizens and immigrants, or even if his mother gave birth overseas and thereby passed her citizenship to him, he still would not be what the Constitution requires of the President, which is that he be “No person except a natural born citizen”.

Having an immigrant father would have made him a real, native-born Legal citizen (1866 Civil Rights Act), and a Constitutional citizen (1868 14th Amendment).  Or if he was born in his probable birth location of Vancouver, Canada, that would have made him a provisional citizen, but nothing at all could have made him a natural citizen because just as a tadpole is not a toad, -so also the 2nd generation is not the third generation.  A half-&-half citizen is not an exclusively-100%-American citizen since only native-born members of American society can produce native natural members such as Obama’s children.  They are real natural born Americans and eventually eligible to serve as President, but their father is not because at best he can only be considered to be a tadpole native-born citizen.

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

PS  The inability to discern between native-born and natural born is like the inability to discern between fonts with serifs and those without.  They all are the same or similar languages and identical letters, meaning the same thing, but one lacks what the other possesses, just as “natural born” Americans have something that “native-born” Americans don’t, namely American fathers.

 

Believing that everyone born in America is eligible to be President (except children of foreign ambassadors) is as erroneous as believing that first names come first and last names come last.  It seems to be a fact but that view is limited to a narrow ignorant outlook which fails to take all the facts into account, namely the fact that over one billion Chinese, -and perhaps Japanese and Koreans as well, position the surname first and the given name last.  Thus the most famous name in the citizenship debate, Wong Kim Ark, is in the opposite order from Western names, with the surname being Wong, -not Ark.

Thinking that something is true does not make it so, and assuming that one’s assumptions are correct does not make them all correct.  Facts and discernment are essential to finding the truth, and even a child can discern that a tadpole is not a toad, just like a native born citizen is not a natural born citizen.

My final analogy is the comparison between the natural and the artificial.  Image two planes, like two levels of a bunk bed.  The lower plane is the fundamental, organic, natural plain.  On it is found natural foods, drinks, stones, marble, wood, leather, gems, and metals.  On the upper plain one sees artificial restaurant-window foods, plastic imitations of all sorts of things, particle board and plastic-based lumber, Formica, cultured marble, cement bricks and stones, metallic plastics, artificial sweeteners and flavors and drinks; soda, tang, fruit punch, fake hair, teeth, limbs, imitation leather, gems, pearls, etc.
Similarly, artificial citizenship is as unnatural as the imitation items on that plain.  It’s purely man-made via laws and opinions of judges regarding those laws.  But natural citizenship is of a natural origin.  There is no input nor interference of man.  Law and government are not needed for it to exist because it exists anyway.

It would not bear the label citizenship if not connected to a nation, but it would still exist in the form of natural membership because individuals do not exist as individuals but in groups, clans, and tribes.  When the tribes are all consolidated into one union by the choice of the individual tribes/colonies/states, then the members become known as citizens because they all then bear a civic responsibility for the survival of their union and their people.  And more than that, for the creation and perpetuation of their chosen form of government and their selection of representatives to administer that government.
Artificial citizens have no natural right to participate in that government, but by the magnanimity of the natural members, they are granted equal rights to them, -with the one exception that they are not allowed to be their chief or supreme commander.

* The primary responsibility of citizens, as with fathers, is protection of the defenseless, meaning one’s own family members, or one’s own defenseless fellow citizens.  That responsibility is an obligation to be part of the protection and defense of the nation when threatened.  You think that no one in the country has the authority to require you to shoot someone, and yet the government does possess that authority if you happen to be born male.  The two things that are most fundamental to the men of every society and nation are the orders one must obey, unless exempted, to take the life of enemy combatants; -to kill, and to place your life at risk in extremely dangerous situations.  Without that authority, a nation’s preservation cannot be assured.
Foreign guests of the government are not subject to that authority and therefore their sons do not inherit it, -even if they enter the world within the boundaries of the American nation.  They can never be ordered to serve a country that is not their own because they are not subject to its jurisdiction, -unless their status changes by living in America through to the age of 18.  Then they must register with the Selective Service.

Presidential Legitimacy:

 ~the Constitution versus the 14th Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers