Why most citizens of “The United States” can’t be President -pt.2

Which government’s nationality is sovereign over the native-born children of immigrants in America; -the one of their foreign father who is still subject to his own government, or the one of the nation of the State republic in which his children were born?

The new national government, facing a Europe with which it might find itself at war at any time being as it was still ruled by despots, chose to not recognize the children of foreigners as being American citizens nor American nationals. They were foreign nationals born of foreign nationals even though born in America. They were alien-born. A child could not have a nationality that was different from that of the father who produced him.

So the States had one citizenship recognition process while the central government had another, and it was in relationship to something beyond the purview of any State government; namely foreign relations, -along with the conduct of war.
Suppose that a European Prince & pregnant wife had a baby while visiting an American State which by law bestowed its citizenship to all born within its borders, (-without regard to whether or not they were immigrants or merely visitors). Suppose they all traveled back to their European kingdom where the young Prince would grow up. Suppose that he was murdered.

Would it be an issue involving the American government because it involved the murder of an American?
No, because he would not have been viewed as being an American by the American government even though he was a citizen of one of the States.
Suppose he was murdered by his American illegitimate half-brother? Would the nation of the deceased prince view the murder as merely one American killing another, or as an American killing one of their own subjects, -a royal one at that? The question hardly needs to be asked since the answer is so obvious.

His true nationality was determined by blood, not his birth place. They would not care if his half-brother killer was viewed in his home State or home nation as a fully recognized citizen or as a mere American national. “Citizenship” would not be even considered; only nationality. American? or not? It would not be couched as “U.S. CITIZEN, or not?”.
They would view the murderer as a national of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA, -without regard to which State republic he was born in and a member of.

Suppose the “American” half-brother had been born in Europe and not America; what would determine his nationality? Answer: Within marriage, the nationality of the head of the family; i.e., the boss and master of the house; the father.
Everyone in the family had one nationality and it was his. They were a single unit within the greater units of county, State and nation. His one vote was the vote of the family unit. A wife, per the wedding vow to obey her husband, yielded to the authority of her husband and his decisions, whether family decisions or political decisions, and she took his name and nationality.

But an out-of-wedlock half-American son might be seen as an American through his mother, -unless the foreign father acknowledged paternity.
The government of the Prince would not be required to recognize such a son as a citizen of the nation because he was illegitimate, perhaps might be a fraud, and perhaps might have been born anywhere, or at least not in his kingdom. Thus, in the founders’ era, the child would probably be stateless, -having no nationality whatsoever, -an international conundrum due to infidelity and illegitimacy.

There are four ways such a child could be deemed to be an American, but only one existed before the 1920’s. One would be if he had been born within one of the State republics that gave the gift of citizenship to those born within its borders, -with illegitimacy not addressed, pro nor con.
Another would be possible if the District of Columbia had a similar allowance thanks to the choice of Congress. But it did not recognize such a child as an American having dual citizenship because dual citizenship was not recognized.

It would have been different if born of a European Princess and an American man. Then he would be a freak because he would be a cross between an non-royal American father and a royal heir to a European throne. In such a case, the father might acknowledge paternity and thus provide U.S. citizenship to his bastard son.
But understand that the American laws for a long time did not acknowledge the situation of children without married parents, nor the situation of dual nationality within marriage.
A bride, though foreign, became an American by marrying an American, thus one single nationality for them and their children.

Now let’s move forward in time to when a foreign woman who married an American was viewed as retaining her foreign nationality. The nationality of the child was still determined by the American father from the viewpoint of the American government, regardless of how the government of the mother viewed their child.

The child, through a blood connection to the man who fathered it, was seen as an American by blood, and the law recognized such children as Americans. But what if the American parent was the mother?
That changed the situation significantly since by accepted policy, it inherited the nationality of the foreign father, and thus was not an American, -but in time, -with women’s rights and women’s suffrage being recognized by law and constitutional amendment, the nationality of the American mother was deemed to be passed to her child if born abroad via a foreign father. Her child was a statutory citizen by congressional statute.

What did such citizenship have to do with any of the States of the union? Nothing. It was purely federal, by federal statute. The laws of her State did not make her child an American via making it a citizen of her State because by then the State’s were out of that business following the federal government totally taking over the administration of immigration and naturalization.

That later switched to American volunteers who were forced to take on the chore after the federal government and the federal INS were stopped in their tracks when the Supreme Court ruled their take-over unconstitutional.
Then there was no entity left with any organization to take on the task other than volunteer organizations. But with massive immigration, they were overwhelmed and finally convinced Congress to act and make the job a federal chore by law, -not merely executive policy.

So a child of an American mother and foreign father could not be deemed to be American by a State statute since State governments were out of the naturalization business. Then such a child would not be a citizen of any State, but purely and solely a citizen of the nation as a whole via the federal government’s law; -a national citizen only (at least until the mother returned to live in one of the States).

Such a citizen would have to be labeled as a citizen of “The United States”, or “The UNITED STATES of AMERICA”. It could not be labeled a citizen of “the united States”, -or a citizen of a State republic because its “citizenship” was strictly federal until it became domiciled as an adult within an individual State.

Another way to become such a citizen would be via birth within the boundaries of federal land in the eras following that in which dual citizenship was not acknowledged. If born in D.C. or on federal land within a State, -or within no State, one also would not be a State citizen but a federal citizen only.

Men who work on such lands for Washington are not officers of “the united States”, because they do not work for any State, but are instead officers of “The United States”, -the entity and name of the national government.
As officers of the United States Government, they do not represent the authority nor interests of the States. They only represent the authority and laws of the national government, and it is quite separate and apart from those of the States.

Keeping the difference straight in one’s mind requires recognizing the difference between the use of the word “united” as an adjective and its use as a part of a title. A national title calls for the capitalization of the major words included in the title, while a word used as merely an adjective should not be capitalized even though it makes a label seem more weighty and authoritative.

Let’s look as the name of the nation that has the same initials as our own; the Union of South Africa. One must not fail to capitalize the word “union” because it is a part of the title of the nation, just as one must not fail to capitalize the word “united” when referring to the American nation.

“Union” is not an adjective but is a noun, whereas “united” is an adjective, and when used in reference to the union of the individual States, it need not be, and should not be capitalized, even though everyone does it out of a habit dating back to when most significant nouns were capitalized in formal writing, -as seen throughout the Constitution.

“The united States” is an unambiguous reference to a union of States, whereas if “united” is capitalized, one cannot tell what the reference is made to except by analyzing the context in which it is ambiguously used. In most cases it does not refer to “the general government” of the nation but the union of States.

[addendum: After posting this exposition, I was trying to find out if the Confederacy required an oath of allegiance for citizenship and came across a website seeking the revival of the Confederacy, and it contained this paragraph which shows that I was not the first to understand the difference that capitalization makes:

Remember, or learn if you didn't already know, our founding fathers created the Confederacy in 1778 when they created the Articles of Confederation under which they, with General George Washington, fought and won a war against the British Empire. The Constitution of 1789 was but a more complete contract of government between the various State republics which they began to call the States of America or the "united" States of America.]

So one can see that in the real and unambiguous world, there is a distinct difference between a citizen of “The United States of America” and a citizen of “the united States”, but that difference is so invisible, undetectable, unacknowledged, unimportant, and insignificant that it is completely meaningless, -except… in one very rare and unusual circumstance. That of seeking and obtaining the office of President of the United States.

The Constitution requires that only “a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of the President;”.
So what sort of citizen is a natural born citizen? It is the sort that created each of the State republics and the union that they formed. It was the natural inhabitants or indigenous population of the American colonies and future sovereign States. It was the children of Americans, -people who had American-ness as their common background via their birth to Americans, -almost all of whom were also born in America.

They were all born as the natural citizens of their colonies and States. They were responsible for their common defense, administration of justice, and the operation of their government and civil societies.
They were citizens even while being subjects of the British Crown. They were born as citizens, and since their citizenship was not via a gift of the government that they created but via their blood connection to citizen parents, they were natural citizens. They were citizen-born natural Americans. Just what the Constitution required.

But those born of outsiders, -of foreign immigrants, were not the natural citizens of the colonies or States but were merely legal citizens, even though made legal from birth in some States.

That which is natural cannot, by definition, be made by government, and that which is made by government cannot, by definition, be natural.
It can only be man-made, including citizenship.

No man-made citizen of “The United States” is eligible to be President because they all acquired citizenship via American law which makes an allowance for those of foreign or mixed nationality & blood connection. Some U.S. government citizens are natural born citizens because they were born of citizens within federal territory.

But in the beginning, nearly all natural born citizens were only State citizens since they were born of State citizens and not born out in the western wilderness claimed by the Americans and ceded to the U.S. by the British after the Peace Treaty of Paris was signed.

In fact one could even assert that only federal “citizens” are truly “citizens” of “The United States” (-as apposed to being merely U.S. Nationals as State citizens could be considered) because all citizenship relationships are State relationships involving civic rights and duties, -with the lone exceptions of paying taxes and serving on federal juries. So in reality, State citizenship is/was the dog, and national “citizenship” is the tail. But guess which one wags which in everyone’s mind?

In another sense it would be accurate to state that we are all, in reality, simply Nationals of “The United States”, and not “citizens” since our rights and duties are still quintessentially State rights & duties, -with each individual being a citizen of one of the united States.

Even the duty of national defense can no longer be considered as a national “citizenship duty” because even non-citizens are obligated to serve when called, and sent to prison for refusing. That leaves only the century-old federal taxes on income, and federal jury service, and not many people ever even experience that. So in what sense are we truly “citizens” of the central government of the nation?  Because we are forced to pay federal taxes?

Historically, Americans never had to pay a “tax” on wages and salary because the meaning of the word “income” did not include compensation for time one surrendered in a mutual exchange of labor for money.  That was considered a barter and not an income.  Income was earnings that one’s money or property earned.  So as established, Americans never had any connection to the central government unless called to sit on a federal jury, -or working in interstate law, commerce, or the new central government.

Plenty has been illegitimately and unconstitutionally altered from the way our nation was founded, but the basic structure has not. We live our lives as local and State citizens, although convenient transportation makes changing one’s State very easy, yet the functions of government, for the most part, have not been ceded to the federal government, so we live and serve as citizens of our home towns, cities, counties, and States and do not serve as “citizens” of the national government, nor the aggregate nation as a whole. And, our governors have the authority to block our extradition to another state because we are not citizens of any State but one.

One can truly assert that we are still essentially nothing more than citizens of our State republic and merely nationals of our nation, yet our programmed thinking tells us just about the opposite.
To say that we are citizens of our nation is at least half as absurd as saying that we are nationals of our State since we have practically no national citizenship duty at all.

This truth is seen in the actual status of children, and, for over half of American history, women as well. No one considers babies and children (minors) to have any duties of citizenship. They are exactly what a National is, and definitely not what a citizen is. Citizens have CIVIC RIGHTS as well as duties. Children have neither, and neither did America women until they were given the right to vote, and the rights that accompanied it.

Foreign permanent-resident immigrants are treated as U.S. Nationals, -under the protection of the government, and bearing certain responsibilities toward the nation that they have joined. That is why they can be drafted into the U.S. military.  They must answer the call of duty or suffer the consequence even though their natural allegiance and subjection is still to their foreign homeland, and yet American women are not subject to the call of duty even though they are citizens.  They are not subject because they are not of the warrior class gender.  They are the main protected class that is defended.

 

The history of Congressional ignorance regarding American citizenship is appalling. Many of the major and long-standing edicts of Congress have been over-turned by the Supreme Court because they failed to adhere to fundamental American principles of equality.

They passed laws treating naturalized citizens differently than natural citizens, and American women differently than American men. [That was eventually brought to a silent stop, but not completely when it comes to foreign birth involving a foreign parent.]

The most egregious violation was the total implementation of male-dominated citizenship determination.
It was one thing to deem an American husband’s foreign bride to now be an American too, but it was quite another to deem an American bride who married a foreign groom to have forfeited her American citizenship by having done so, (in reciprocity with the foreign nation of the husband).

That was the law of the land, passed by Congress, and signed by the President as the Naturalization Act of 1907. Any child born to such a mother was denied American citizenship up until long past its repealed in 1922 by the Cable Act.

So you can see, citizenship has been quite paradoxical throughout periods in American history as the roles of men and women became ever more equal. But through it all, the meaning of what is a natural born citizen has never changed, -except perhaps at the margins where very odd circumstances might be involved.

The birth and nationality of Barack Obama was not such a circumstance. He was not even in the same ballpark as natural born citizens. He was born subject (solely) to the British Nationality Act of 1948, as his own 2008 election website explained, with that Act applying to both Obama Sr. and all of his children.

Obama openly acknowledged that he was born as a subject of the British Commonwealth and as a future citizen of Kenya once it became an independent nation a few years later, and he has never claimed to be a natural born American citizen, calling himself only a native-born citizen.  But he must have been ignorant of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

It preceded the writing of the 14th Amendment by a few months, and its wording declares that those born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are citizens of the United States [“United” should not be capitalized because it essentially refers to State citizenship for freed slaves. They were not foreigners, nor born of foreigners since the importation of slaves had been banned a half century earlier.]

So even if assumed to have been born in America, he would still be ineligible to be President because he was born subject to a foreign power, and was not a natural citizen of any State since he was born of an outsider.
So an alien father prevented him from being a natural born citizen, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 bars him from even being a citizen at all since his mother was too young for her citizenship to legally be transmitted to her son by a statute that didn’t exist for another 75 years or so.

Some falsely assume that the 14th Amendment,-by its presumed lower standard only requiring that one be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,  over-rode the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but in fact, the authors said just the opposite.

One, when asked, proclaimed emphatically that being subject to American jurisdiction meant being subject to no foreign power. So that meant that dual citizenship was not recognized, and one could not be subject to two separate nations, -just as freed slaves were not.
But to avoid that truth, they float the notion that children, (even babies!) are directly subject to national governments. In fact, people on both sides of the Obama eligibility issue assert that falsehood.

First, only adults are subject to governments. Second, in the Christian and patriarchal tradition, wives were always subject directly to their husbands, -not the government. And their children were directly subject to their mother and father, -not the government.

So their doctrine that any child born in America is automatically subject directly to the Federal government is insanely absurd. The family unit was a vertical hierarchy, -not a horizontal one having each element subject to Big Brother, -the hub. Only the head was subject. The relationship of the children to the government of the nation in which they lived was solely through their father. If he was subject, then one day they would also be. They inherited his subjection, (along with his citizenship) -and fully so if male.

If he was alien, then they were viewed as subject to the foreign power that he remained subject to since national borders do not terminate one’s national obligations.  If one’s nation is attacked, one must heed the call of duty even if living abroad.

So, we have a President who is not only not constitutionally qualified to serve since he is not a natural born citizen of Hawaii nor of the federal government, but is disqualified from even being an American citizen since his father was not an immigrant subject to Washington, but merely a temporary foreign guest still subject to the government of Kenya.  But might he be a naturalized American?

We have no way to know because all records related to him have either been “lost” removed & hidden, classified, closed to inspection, or destroyed. Nothing yet released by his or the Hawaiian government has been legitimate, but what has been released is an attempt to benefit from the ignorance of the American people who do not understand that it does not matter where he was born, -only to whom he was born; -an American father? Or an alien?

Regardless, he is an American National, but that does not make him an American CITIZEN.
He logically can be viewed as being an American, -just as can children brought illegally into the country at a young age, and then raised and schooled as Americans. But being the equivalent to an American National does not make one eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military.

So Barack Obama, being an alien-born child of a non-subject foreign student, is not a natural citizen of any State, -nor of any nation, and regardless of native-birth, all such persons are constitutionally barred from being the President of the United States.
So why is he President?

Because America has become a reflection of the O.J. Simpson jury.

Why most citizens of The United States can’t be President  1 & 2;  pdf -11 pages  revised

by Adrien Nash April 2014 obama–nation.com

The Law of Natural Belonging

versus U.S. “Imperial” Citizenship Policy

Individuals who think have at some time or other wondered “who am I?”. But that question can’t be answered without first answering the question that precedes it, -which is; “what am I?”
The problem is that that question is never answered because it is never asked. It never even comes to mind. It’s like the air pressure we exist in. It’s unrecognized, along with all of the implications of its answer.
What we are is the most fundamental issue in human life because our entire orientation to the rest of humanity is determined by it. Are we born as human cattle, required by our subservient nature to obey and follow our masters? Or are we born free?

With the complexity of human nature being what it is, it’s accurate to say that for many people, the answer to both questions is “yes”. That’s possible because the question combination isn’t legitimately logical. What we are by nature and what we are by Right are two different things.

We may be born free by natural right but not be adult enough to want to be completely non-dependent on those who are more adult or more capable at caring for us, -including financially.

So the questions are really aimed at those who are beyond the adolescent stage of life and are far closer to what is conceived of as being adult, if just in the social sense. What we are determines our role and position in life; …leader?… or follower?; -teacher or student?; superior or subordinate?; independent, or dependent?
What we are determines our role(s) in life, including our relationship to those with the legal and martial power of government. What is the proper role of government in society? What are its rights?

That can only be answered by first knowing what the natural rights of individuals are. What they are determines what those of government are, -and are not, since it is an artificial creation of the individuals of a nation, -provided the nation is actually free and not an autocracy or plutocracy. Under those systems the answer to the question of what we are is answered very negatively, with negative consequences for all who are not members of the ruling elite.

They define  RIGHTS  in terms of the rulers and not in terms of the ruled. The problem with that satanic approach is that there is no natural limitation on where their RIGHTS and assumed POWER ends. That is why absolute power has always corrupted absolutely.

Mature human nature rejects the power-grabbing greed of would-be masters and senses that their good intentions will not outweigh their bad and selfish inclinations when they reach the point where they have to choose their own personal benefit or the benefit of others.

Those who come to positions of authority, and see themselves as directors, executives, officers, administrators, supervisors, judges, masters, deciders, decree-ers, and dictate-ers are almost always incapable of seeing themselves as servants, -as in servants of WE, The PEOPLE.

Their power gives them a sense of “rightful authority” over their equals as well as their inferiors when there is nothing “rightful” about it. It is instead a sacred trust, a moral duty which springs from an obligation to represent the protection & defense of the rights of The People, and not an arbitrary and self-benefiting exercise of power lacking the consent of the governed.

The rights of the governors is therefore rightfully determined by their relationship to the rights of the individual. So determining what those rights are will answer the question of what we are.

We cannot be something that we are naturally not, and we cannot not be something that we naturally are, so we must deduce what we naturally are.
That is achieved by understanding how we are naturally constituted. How are we made or what is our innate nature? Not our own individual nature at today’s point in our life, but the innate nature of our species at the stage of adulthood.

Being born into a matrix of societal authority, our thoughts do not generally turn to the issue of what our rights are but to what our needs are, -what our wants are, -what will fulfill us and make us secure. As seen in a nation like China, one’s natural rights take a distant backseat to the issue of one’s financial advancement, and that is easily understandable since you cannot eat or wear or drive your right to speak your mind.
We treat our rights merely as an issue that opens doors to fulfill our needs and wants, and not as a primary issue of life that is equal to or superior to our needs and wants. We fail to properly prioritize our rights until they are threatened or stolen from us. That is exactly the reality expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

It speaks of how men naturally acquiesce meekly to the trampling of their rights because rebellion is an extreme and radical response to abuse, but… when the abuse becomes intolerable, they will forcefully reassert the rights that they had unwillingly let slip away via the usurpation of personal liberty, -a usurpation fostered by the oppressive dictates of dictators.

Only then do their minds begin to fully focus on what their natural rights are. The first one that then comes to mind is the natural right of self-defense. No one can tell anyone that they have no right to defend themself because that right is an innate instinct of all living things.

What does it spring from within human society? It springs from the first right of all, which is born in the most fundamental instinct of all, and that is the innate will to live.
The will to live and the right to live are naturally married throughout one’s life, -although they can tragically become divorced.
The right to live is the right that is most central to humans living together and not annihilating each other. If a despotic sadistic alpha-male has no consideration that others have that right, then you have pure evil on Earth. But among civilized beings, that right is recognized and paramount.

But an even deeper question can be asked, and that is; “From what even deeper right does the right to live spring?” That question is not one that need not necessarily be asked because it necessarily must be asked and answered because the answer changes everything by providing a force to make possible a matrix or framework of free and civilized life.

That force is like gravity. Without gravity we still have life, but we do not have an order conducive to living and pursuing happiness. We need gravity to ground us, and everything else, -just as we need an answer to the question about what our right to live is based on. The answer is the gravity that holds together a human existence that is capable of seeking and finding happiness within a social environment that includes individual Liberty.

The answer to the question is that the right to live springs from the fundamental right of ownership, -not of property but of one’s very self. Who owns you? Is it anyone who is stronger than you and can dominate you? Is it the government? Or do you own yourself? If you own yourself, then your life belongs to you, and no one has any right to take it.

What does human nature tell us about ourself? Does it tell us that we are born to be someone’s slave? Or that we are born to be free of anyone else’s ownership over us because we own ourselves?
The answer is not a philosophical one because it springs from the very nature with which we are constructed. It is innate, part of the fabric of our being. Independence is the only air that our spirits want to breath until the heart enters a relationship of co-dependence.

Beings that own themselves (“freemen”) do not accept dictators running their lives and herding them like cattle because the self-appointed masters do not own them. No one does. They own themselves. That is their natural right because that is how they are made. The core of their make-up is the spirit of self-autonomy.
But their natural right to own themselves does not end at just themselves. It extends to that which they rightfully own and need for self-protection and maintaining their existence. And it extends further still, -to those who are intimately tied to them; -their spouse and children.

They are a part of them and cannot be separated by any authority other than rightful punishment, -or for their own personal protection and right to be free from threat and harm. Otherwise they are all one unit, bound together by bonds of devotion and blood. They belong to each other.
And that brings up the issue of the other fundamental right, and that is the right to belong. One might think of it as co-ownership. One belongs to one’s self but also to another to whom they are naturally connected.

I’ve been told that there is a grove of Aspen trees in the High Sierras which are unlike other trees in that instead of each tree being a single individual tree, they are all linked together underground. Their roots are all connected to each other as one organism. No tree is an island unto itself.
That is similar to the situation of families, clans, tribes, and countries. In all natural countries, bonds of kinship bind them together, and those bonds are all natural bonds. Those bonds are the reason they are all natural members of their own people, -their own country.

When a country is advanced enough, it becomes a nation that is governed by established laws, written laws, administered by servants of the State. If the State is a monarchy or a dictatorship, then the members of the nation are its subjects.
If the State is an independent democratic republic, then the members of the country are the citizens of the nation. They are bound to their countrymen and to their nation by the natural bonds of kinship, -including the kinship of respect for natural rights and principles of individual liberty.
It is those natural bonds that produce natural members of the country, and natural citizens of the nation.

Government does not produce natural members of the country. Rather, the natural members of the country produce the government and the nation of which they are natural citizens. The nation belongs to them and they belong to it as a member of the national family.

They do not require the government’s permission to be what they are naturally.
Their membership is automatic, immutable, permanent because they are either of the generation that created the government or are descendants of those who did. (or they are members by legal allowance, -being children of those made legal members by immigration and naturalization)

What they are is seen in what they naturally belong to. They are first freemen and members of their family, and second they are countrymen, and members of their homeland, -and third they are citizens, -members of the nation established in their country.

The government does not make them freemen. The government does not make them sons and daughters, husbands and wives. Those bonds are natural bonds; -bonds of the heart and bonds of blood.
The government does not make them countrymen because they are born into that relationship with the fellow members of their homeland.
And THE GOVERNMENT does not make them CITIZENS because they are born as citizens by being born of citizens, -as the natural members of their own country and nation.
Their relationship to their family, their society, their country, and their nation is a blood relationship passed from parents to children generation after generation after generation.

Government does not create that relationship and government cannot terminate it. It is beyond any authority given to it by those who created the government. How could freemen give the government the right to own them and own their children as well, and to tell them whether or not they are accepted as members of their own nation?

But that absurdity is exactly what most people were raised to believe to be true. It’s not an overt belief that is indoctrinated into us all of our young lives. It is very covert, and it comes in the form of the belief that government owns us since it owns the means by which we were allowed to become members of our nation. It makes the rules and its rule is that members must be born on the government’s land.
Where do we find such a rule that is the source of the government’s “authority” over our membership? It does not exist.
The government has no such authority over us nor over our natural membership in our own country and nation. We belong because we were born belonging. Belonging is as much our fundamental right as is the right of self defense, -which is its sister right.
The right of belonging comes with the right to be defended and the duty to defend those to whom we are bonded. The able defend the disabled or less able. The strong defend the weak. The young defend the younger and the elderly. The mother’s defend the children. The males defend the females, etc. That is the duty of their bond.

That duty extends all of the way from one’s own immediate family on up to one’s nation. It is a natural duty to which we are born and which sustains societies and nations in times of attack or grave impending danger.
Governments are aware of the natural bonds and natural duties of their citizens, and require that members fulfill their obligations when and if needed. Many nations have mandatory military service for all young men, and Israel requires it even of her young women. That reflects a clear understanding of the right of self-defense, not just of individuals but also of nations charged with protecting them in perpetuity.
Governments rightfully require young people to do their duty not because they own them but because it is their natural duty to their own people and their own countrymen who are united in the task of national survival and defense of freedom.
And like a father who does not allow his children to shirk from their assigned chores, so the government does not allow its lazy and reluctant sons to shirk their national duty.
If they refuse, they will be sent to the woodshed of the federal penitentiary. But just as one can quit their family, so citizens can quit their nation because that is their natural right since they own themselves and are not the property of the government.
If the government owned you then it could tell you that you are no longer a member of the nation, and perhaps worse, neither is your wife, -nor your children. But if you have a primal right to own yourself, and a natural right to belong to those to whom you are bonded by nature, then government can do no such thing since you belong to the nation by a fundamental natural right which cannot be infringed.
That right does not evaporate at the water’s edge, nor just across an artificial and usually invisible border. It is an organic right that cannot be separated from you by any circumstance because it is supreme over all legitimate government authority.
An extension of your right to belong to your own is the right of the children you might produce. They inherit that right as a birthright and it is theirs regardless of the location of the momentary transition from womb to world.
Neither that event nor its location can negate their natural right to belong to the people and nation of those who produced them and in whose image they are formed. They are natural members at birth, by birth, before birth, and after birth. And “birth” does not mean birth-location. It means the process of producing new life, -new American life.

end of part 1 (of 3), pages 1-4 of 10.

by Adrien Nash  March 2014  obama–nation.com

Revealing the Truth and Exposing Errors

about the nature and origin of citizenship

Part 1.  Revealing the Truth and Exposing Falsehoods  (Parts 1 & 2 PDF)

An advanced search of the term “natural citizen” located this from the Harvard Law School Library;     ~THE VEST POCKET LAWYER booklet c. 1919
~418. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
419. The Constitution of the United States gives to every natural citizen (and guarantees to that citizen) political, religious, and civil rights.
420. Every natural citizen of the United States is, first, a citizen of the United States.
The term “natural citizen” describes one who is naturally a citizen and not so via permission of law written for allowing foreigners to become fellow citizens.
The term is included here because of its absolutely central importance in understanding the nature and origin of organic citizenship.  That origin is Kryptonite to both those who defend the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama, and those who debunk it.  It kills their erroneous theories.

a.r.nash ruminates:    ~a new thought…
One enters the world as a living infant but with a certain political character invisibly attached.  It’s not attached in the real world but in the political world, -the world composed of nations.

That character is determined by who one’s parents are. It is inherited. It determines one’s nationality and citizenship.
Also, what one is determines what one is not.
From that standpoint, one can make an metaphor of birth resulting in one of three possibilities in connection to presidential eligibility.

One is either born live, -possessing the life and the political DNA of their American parents (or a widowed American mother);  or…
one is born adopted, -possessing the political DNA of a foreign immigrant father or mother (via the political equivalent of a sperm-bank donor and/or egg donor with artificial insemination); or…
one is born dead, -with the political DNA of a non-immigrant foreigner who is the child of an ambassador, a hostile invader, or a guest of the U.S. government and in the country on a temporary Visa instead of with a Green Card (which makes one a member of American society).
Born Live: one is a natural born citizen by being citizen-born.
Born adopted: one is a constitutional citizen via the 14th Amendment (as construed in 1898) by being immigrant-born.
Born dead: one is an alien and not a citizen by birth to a non-immigrant father.
That is the category in which Barack Obama was born.
(1) He was born British. (uncontested).
(2) His mother’s citizenship was not transmitted by U.S. law.
(3) His father’s residence status was as a temporary guest so neither father nor son were subject to the full sovereign authority of Washington.

(4) Only those born fully subject (the citizen-born and the immigrant-born) are U.S. citizens.
(5) Obama Jr. was not born subject.
(6) Obama Jr. was not born a citizen.
(7) No non-citizen is a natural born citizen of the United States.
(8) No non-citizen is eligible to be President.
What could be clearer?  It’s natural logic and natural and national law.
~     ~     ~
So far, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. has not refuted anything that I’ve written because he has not addressed what I have actually written.  Instead he just pulls out his talking points one more time and rehashes them while leaving my remarks completely ignored.    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
He falsely thinks that merely countering them with his own views is a form of dissection of my comments, but if there is no dissection at all, then such a counter is a cop-out that avoids direct confrontation with that which he is unable to refute.
If I say that the sun will rise tomorrow because the Earth is rotating, and then Mario says the sun will rise because the Sun is revolving around the Earth every 24 hours, his statement refutes mine but it does not address it.  It merely proclaims an alternative explanation without first demonstrating the falsity of mine.
He can not demonstrate the falsity of things I’ve discovered and so he avoids attempting to even address them.  Rather, he just repeats his own view, which if accepted by the reader as true, then must be embraced as a pseudo-refutation that in fact is no refutation at all.
I share why and how his logic is defective, but one using defective logic may be unaware that they are doing so because of bias blindness.  I can’t fix that for him, -though Lord knows I’ve tried.

“When an honest man discovers he is mistaken,
“he will either cease being mistaken,
“or cease being honest.”
~anonymous

    Mario wrote in response to my claim “…you saying that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to naturalize people….”
Fact: Congress has no constitutional authority at all regarding immigration and naturalization except to make the State naturalization laws uniform.
All the authority it wields was stolen from the States by the federal government’s usurpation led by the Supreme Court.
“In Henderson v. Mayor of New York, the Court held [6-1] that all immigration laws of the seaboard states were unconstitutional because they usurped the exclusive power vested in Congress to regulate foreign commerce.”(!!!)
“In response to Henderson, States obediently  surrendered and abolished their Immigration Commissions and Port Authorities.
Then the entire burden of orienting foreigners and turning away the incapacitated fell to private, philanthropic organizations.  Overwhelmed by the strain that immigration put on their resources, charity workers petitioned Congress to have the federal government assume the duties of regulating the influx…
In the 1880s Congress began to bring immigration under direct federal control for the first time.  It could no longer rely on volunteerism or informal processes to manage this powerful social force.”
Kermit L. Hall, PhD  “Immigration,” The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005
~      ~      ~
Mario talks a great game when it comes to “allegiance”, steeped as he is in the King’s royal right of human ownership, obedience, and subjugation, but for one born of Americans, allegiance is not relevant except in regard to the upbringing of children, and the naturalizing of foreigners.
There is no allegiance required of the natural citizens of the United States because where natural obligation begins, required allegiance ends.

What free men are bound by is natural DUTY; -RESPONSIBILITY for their own defense, and that of their family, and society, and nation, -not loyalty and obedience to a king or government.
Free men are not subservient to a monarch or government in exchange for protection because they protect themselves!
Young men “owe” their society their service as they replace older men who rendered theirs when they were young.  Allegiance is not a factor, whether felt or not.  Obedience trumps loyalty.
Necessary obedience to their natural duty is what justifies government forcing them to perform it.
Those who’ve never signed their life away to the federal government do not know the reality of such things, and have no grasp of the depth of their ignorance.
Naturally, loyalty is highly desirable and a unifying and inspiring force in all military units, but with or without it, orders must be obeyed because one is obligated to do their duty for national defense.
The founders though were bound by allegiance, to each other by solemn oath; pledging to each other their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
They required a similar oath of all men following the Declaration of Independence.  “With us or against us… decide and swear, -or refuse and leave.”
Btw, no oath of office in America requires swearing allegiance to the United States.  Instead they require defending and following the Constitution and the law.  Your oath is to it, not to the government or nation.
The bond of all countrymen is to each other and to our Constitution, -not the government that bastardizes it with almost everything it does.
The only allegiance the Americans embraced was to the revolution and to each other, and to their home country (colony). They had no allegiance to other colonies / States, and their relationship to the Union was purely self-defensive in nature, since if one was attacked, they all were threatened.
Promulgating a doctrine that is quintessentially  un-American requires wandering into a political religion that has no American roots. Its roots are in the Divine Right of Kings. And we overthrew that system.
If those who are possessed of patriotic notions of allegiance connected to U.S. citizenship could do so, they would quotes oaths of allegiance to America, to the United States, or to the government, but they can’t because they do not exist.
All allegiance is to the ideals of America, to its foundational values, -to the Constitution, and the rule of law, and to each other.  Nothing else can be trusted. We can’t even really trust each other because a third or more of us are socialists.
Mario’s quoted paragraph from a “prestigious law review made in its 1845 edition” is pure anti-American garbage!  Is that too blunt?
It is 100% statist delusion, -having no connection to republican democracy.  It begins right off the bat with a gigantic ignorant error: “…the character of an individual, as citizen or subject,”
Understand this, the character of a CITIZEN is not to be associated with that of an owned, subservient subject, anymore than it is to be associated with the character of a slave.  The two are from two related but completely different worlds.

William Rawle was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania. Later, in 1825, Rawle authored, “A View of the Constitution of the United States” in which he specifically addressed national citizenship. Rawle wrote, “every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution”.

Everything Mario wrote is correct about Wilson and Rawle.  He did not supply any quotes but I came across the Holy Grail of citizenship origins in the Dissertation of David Ramsay (a founder), What he wrote flattens everyone’s sacred beliefs, and I illuminate it in its own lengthy exposition.

Rawle was a Pennsylvanian.  That is equivalent to being a Virginian.  Jus soli was an entrenched part of their consciousness, and that’s why he wrote with unwavering certainly regarding native-birth equaling natural born citizenship.  That was his view of natural membership, but it was not based on nature.  Nature is this: Like father, like son.
And what did the Supreme Court say in Minor v Happersett? Did it express his confidence in his belief about natural belonging?
No!  It said there are unresolved doubts about the citizenship of the merely native-born (born of foreigners).  So the dogmatic authority of Rawle was no authority at all, except in Pennsylvania, -and Virginia and the other two “commonwealth” States, -in those “countries” (as they called them) they allowed native-birth citizenship instead of only natural or naturalized citizenship.
But what was the basis of civic participation under the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776?  Only that one had a stake in society.  That meant any freeman who paid taxes.
There was no such term as “subject” or “citizen” even used in their Constitution because all were viewed as equals.  All adult male members of society could vote and be elected, even if of foreign origin, because they had a stake in everything that native-born members did.  That was true equality.

Article I. That all men are born equally free, and independent; and have certain, natural, inherent, and inalienable rights;
II. That all men have a natural, and unalienable right to worship Almighty God.
It was all about Natural Law and Natural Rights.  They viewed the native-born as equal and indistinguishable regardless of parentage.  But that was not the view of the future central government of the nation.
It rejected presidential eligibility based solely on native-birth because that didn’t prevent loyalty to a foreign power.
Everyone belongs to the society in which they are raised. It is their only world and they are a part of it.  But no one belongs to the place where they were born unless that is where they were raised.
Two hundred years ago they were one and the same.  Everyone was raised where they were born, so a logic error came naturally, one which conflated the two and failed to recognize the possibility of being raised somewhere else, somewhere foreign, with foreign values and foreign loyalty.
The Founders were not unaware of the easy possibility of a British wife giving birth in America and then returning to Britain where she and her loyal-subject husband would raise a son who was loyal to their king.
They knew that such a son could not be recognized as an American merely because of where he exited his mother’s womb.  The place born and the place raised in such cases would NOT be synonymous. And that hair needed to be split, and it was (for the sake of national security) by employing the world “natural” in the presidential eligibility clause: “No person except a natural born citizens… shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
That means a citizen by nature, -and that means by blood connection or natural political conveyance.
The State where an alien was born might consider him to possess State citizenship.  No problem.  He would use State citizenship as the basis of possessing American nationality.
But the national government had a Constitution which prevented him from being President because he was not a natural citizen of the nation.
A State might view an alien-born son as one of its natural born members but it was only one “country” of thirteen.  It didn’t matter what it considered.  What mattered was “who rules the full executive and military power of all thirteen countries of the Union?”.
That person had to be guaranteed to possess no foreign alienage, and that was impossible to guarantee if born of an alien with foreign attachments.  Hence, the term “natural born citizen” meant something different at the national level than it may have at the State level.  Two different entities, only one of which determined the constitutional meaning of natural born citizen.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. validly wrote:
“~notwithstanding Justice Gray’s bold and unsubstantiated pronouncements in Wong Kim Ark regarding the English common law, there was no English common law jus soli rule of citizenship that prevailed in the United States after the Constitution was adopted and ratified that would have made Joseph a citizen at birth, let alone a natural born citizen.”
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. validly wrote:
William Rawle is not in the same league as Founder, Framer, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson.
Rawle’s is not a statement of a man that was influenced like the major Founders were by natural law and the law of nations in forming the new America.
There is no element of Lockean consent to being a member of society in what he said.
Missing from his statement is the element of parental influence over their children emanating from their duty to rear and educate their children.        He does not ascribe to the idea that children have no capacity to consent during their years of minority, and therefore follow the condition of their parents, and are not truly “free” like their parents until they reach the age of majority, -a concept which is the foundation for the Founders’ political philosophy that man had the natural right to expatriate himself from the society in which he was born.”

“On the other hand, Wilson was steeped in natural law and the law of nations; believed in consent, parental influence over children, that children followed the condition of their parents, age of reason, the state of being “free” obtained at the age of majority, and the natural right to expatriate.
Rawle was not a signatory to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and a major contributor to the drafting of the Constitution. Wilson was.
Rawle simply stated a conclusion without any context or support. Wilson did not.”
“Rawle conflated and confounded being a citizen of a state with being a “natural born citizen.”  For Rawle, being a citizen of a state prior to the adoption of the Constitution automatically made one a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. Wilson did not so err.
Rawle does not have historical and legal sources which support his statement. Wilson does.
In short, Rawle missed the American Revolution and is no authority on the meaning of a “natural born citizen.” Wilson is.”     ~     finis
~     ~     ~
There was no natural born citizenship in common law.  There was no citizenship period.

“The Framers definition is the only one that matters.”

They did NOT have a definition of “natural born citizen”.  The English language defined it, -not men, not law, not a foreign philosopher.  ENGLISH!
Who defines “native inhabitant, or “indigenous population”, or “natural member” or “first born sons”?  Men? -or the definitions of words?
If you ask a false question, (What is the legal definition of a natural born citizen?) you’ll get a false answer.  There has never been a legal definition.
~     ~     ~
Not all American families (and college students) were present in America in 1776, but in due time returned from England to the land of their nativity as new CITIZENS of their native country  (former colony) which was then an independent sovereign nation) and took the citizen’s oath of allegiance then.
Where their children were born was irrelevant (in their home country or abroad) because their national membership was via inheritance, -nothing else, -no added extraneous factor included, in other words; native-birth.
If after July of 1776, they traveled abroad after becoming CITIZENS of their homeland, (-the country/colony/ State of their birth), a child born to them abroad was an American by Natural Law and a recognized natural born member of the father’s country, -as would have been the children of all American Ambassadors and others born abroad before the adoption of the Constitution, -including Thomas Jefferson (Paris) and John Adams (London).
The word “natural” is devoid of any connection to native-birth.  Natural is via blood, inheritance, parentage.  “Native-born” is via location, borders, & law.  No connection between the two.  Two different worlds.
Confederate States Constitution:
“7) No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, OR a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible…”
A blogger wrote: “The Confederate authors obviously meant that ONLY a child born on the soil of a Confederate state would be considered to be a ‘natural-born citizen’ of the Confederacy…”
That language was confused and confusing.  There is no mention of a natural born Confederate citizen being necessarily native born, so none can be presumed, even though 98% of them probably were.
The second group could have been naturalized foreigners, while the third group had to be natives of any of the States who were born before the date of secession.
What language supports claiming that native-birth was required? None. Using your own self-determined definition to explain the meaning of what is actually NOT defined is not how arriving at a definition works.

end of Part 1.  by Adrien Nash  March 2014

Membership by Right vs Citizenship by Law

Membership by Right vs Citizenship by Law  pdf

The American national history and policy regarding citizenship for foreigners is spread across three distinct periods. The second began when the new nation was formed in 1789, and the third began in 1898 with the Wong opinion of the Supreme Court.
Before that, national citizenship was based on State citizenship  with the individual States that formed the union retaining their sovereignty over who they regarded as their citizens and Congress only tasked by the Constitution with making a uniform rule to make their naturalization qualifications uniform across all of the States.

For nearly a century, foreign women could not become Americans except by marrying an American. Why not?  Because they were under the headship of their father well into adulthood and carried his foreign nationality as their own.  They remained as a member of their own family and that family was foreign.  Only sons could step outside of the family and attach themselves to another nation and seek to become a member of it.

Why were they allowed to naturalize but not their sisters?  Because they could and would become full citizens while women could not become full citizens since they were viewed in the patriarchal world as akin to chattel.  They did not possess the rights of CITIZENS because they were not subject to duties of citizens, -the first and foremost of which was the obligation to contribute directly in national defense.
That obligation was enshrined in the oath of naturalization that men-folk took in order to sever their remaining connection to the sovereign government of their homeland and pledge their allegiance to their new country and its Constitution.  They swore on the Bible that they would bear arms in the defense of the nation (if required) and that was an oath not written to be taken by any woman.  Women were not under any obligation to bear arms since they and children were the ones for whom defense was purposed.  Being in the protected group that men were responsible to defend, they were not subject to the federal jurisdiction that extended to all able-bodied American men within military age.

That meant that foreign women could not be required to serve in the American military, so since women had no civilian citizenship privileges and duties anyway, there would be no purpose for them to obtain American citizenship.   They could not defend the nation and its people.  They could not vote, serve on juries, serve as government officials nor as elected officials.  And they could certainly never be President.  Thus no naturalization rule was ever written for them.  [Their rights in foreign nations were no better, but were probably worse.]

Naturalization in America involved a serious severing of a man’s old loyalties and obedience to his own nation and government.  The severing via the taking of the sacred Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation was akin to cutting an umbilical cord that attached him to his homeland and it’s society, and rejecting the umbrella of protection of its government, -which was accompanied by an obligation of obedience.

To understand that second period of American history, one needs to think of the immigrant foreign family (such as my mother’s immigrant great, grand parents and their four daughters) as a single unit, -headed by the husband & father, encapsulated within a political placenta attached to an umbilical cord rooted in their foreign homeland, -to which they could return and continue their lives there as natural members and natives of their country.

The attitude of our national government was to view them as a single foreign unit separated from all Americans by being surrounded by the barrier of foreign membership.  If a birth occurred within that foreign sphere, -within the placenta with a foreign attachment, it was as if it did not occur on American soil but on foreign soil because the foreign subjectship of the father surround him and his, the whole family unit.

That was exactly the same as the attitude of the national government toward a foreign minister or ambassador if his wife gave birth within one of the several States.  He was alien as well as all within his family regardless of their birth location.
The sphere that surrounded the immigrant family can be thought of as comprised of two hemispheres.  -One is the natural connection to his own kinsmen or countrymen, while the other is his location within the sovereign borders of his own nation.  He and his own were “within and under the jurisdiction” of his own nation while living within it.

But while living within the American States, half of that sphere was no longer surrounding them.  Only the natural ties to his homeland remained, -also known as his alienage.
Within some States, that openness and closeness to American soil fostered the attitude, policy and law (inherited from colonial law) that any children that might be born to him in America would be considered as a citizen of the State into which he had emigrated.

But that was not consistent with the view adopted by the national government which was ultimately responsible for dealing with international relationships, including those regarding foreign subjects.
As a result of the two different approaches to citizenship, for a century there were unresolved doubts that such domestically born children were really American citizens.
Those questions were resolved by the Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark when the court opined that U.S. born children of Chinese immigrants are American citizens, and thus by extrapolation, so also were the U.S. born children of all other immigrants.

The issue as to citizenship hadn’t been in regard to alien-born females (because all females were in effect merely American subjects) but rather their brothers.

If they were viewed as State citizens due to native birth, and were elected to office as adults, then were they also eligible for national office when the national government did not recognized their national citizenship?  So, under the rule of two separate governments, State citizenship was not the same as national citizenship, in particular regarding the right to serve in Congress and as President.

They were foreigners by birth to foreign parents who might have always remained foreigners, and the U.S. government rejected the notion of embraced dual-citizenship, just as bigamy was rejected by American society.
What happened in 1898 was the Supreme Court deciding that the original and intended meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment’s nationality clause; “All person born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are a citizen of the United States” would mean something else, something much less than what they meant as written and ratified.
That something that they dropped out of sight was one’s natural obligation to defend one’s own nation.
That obligation was invested in the men of the family, starting with the father, and inherited by his sons upon maturity.
Foreign men, by American law and policy, were not subject to that obligation as American men were because they were not citizens, remaining still within the remaining hemisphere of their foreign attachment and jurisdiction.
When the high court ruled that the native-born children of immigrants were Americans regardless of the families intact foreign attachment, then that opened the door to the view that if the child had American roots via its birth within American jurisdiction, then the father and sons also had connections to their new nation and thus shared the responsibility for national defense.
From then on, they were subject to military conscription, even though they were viewed as foreign nationals.  And that remains the policy still. They must register with Selective Service.

In response to the court’s opinion, the Attorney General adopted the policy that subjection to American sovereign authority was not a consideration and in effect had no meaning as concerns the male responsibility in national membership.
He thus eviscerated the intent of the 14th Amendment, the concept of family unity under the father, and natural foreign attachments as a factor in determining American citizenship for any and every baby born within U.S. jurisdiction, -even if not subject to it as required.

Ever since his total bastardization of the very clear and simple Supreme Court opinion covering children of only immigrants, any baby born in U.S. territory is erroneously assumed to be a U.S. citizen as long as his father isn’t an ambassador.    ~   ~   ~

When you were born, by what right did you belong to your mother (and she to you)?  I know what you’re thinking; by every right, -both natural and legal.  But you are mistaken.  Your right was 100% a natural right and 0% a legal right if one is referring to actual law.
All that the authority of government does is to recognized and validate your natural right.  Your natural right is an issue of blood, -and whose blood you were born with by natural inheritance (aliens or Americans?) .

By your blood relationship to your mother, and your father, you are a natural member of their family, -and government is not needed to validate that right but is obligated to support and defend it.
That right never needed to be written because it is fundamental to the very nature of all living sentient creatures who have a higher nature that includes natural bonds.  That natural right exists side-by-side with the right to live, and the right of self-defense.  It can be called “the right of belonging”.

“The defense of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defense is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation—of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice.

James Wilson, -Lectures on Law, Chap. XII, “Of the Natural Rights of Individuals,” 1790.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

No one gives these rights to you, and no government grants them.  No matter how authoritarian a government might be, for its non-imprisioned population, the right of belonging is sacrosanct.  It cannot be violated without very good reason springing only from protecting a child from harm, which is an obligation of government towards all of the civilian members of the nation.

The natural right of belonging is not bounded by one’s immediate family only.  It extends to the greater family of which they are a part as members, from clans and tribes, to countries and nations.
Every child is born with the natural right to belong to whatever societal group the parents belong to.  That is not a right that our founding fathers would have ever ceded to government caprice, policy, sentiment, or legislation.

It was their inviolable right and would never be surrendered for any reason.  And it was not surrendered, -even though many who fail to understand fundamental American principles might think otherwise, presuming that the old way of the English Kings is still controlling the lives of Americans today.

We fought a war of independence to overthrow the old royal dictatorship, including ownership based on a native-birth paradigm.  The Americans switched from having to acknowledge before the revolution that “I am a subject of the King because I was born within his territory.” to “I am no one’s subject and I belong to my country and nation because I was born of countrymen and citizens of the nation.  I inherited my membership naturally through my blood connection to parent members.”

That declaration could and would be accompanied by its sister declaration: “And it does not matter where my mother delivered me from the womb, because I naturally belong to her and my father, and as part of them I am also a member of the people and society and nation of which they are a part.”

Bottom line?  Native-birth is absolutely an irrelevant factor in determining who is a natural born citizen of the American nation and eligible to be President, because the issue of birth location is wholly an arbitrary human-invented factor that has no relationship to natural membership and natural citizenship.   A “natural born citizen” is everyone born of citizens.

By a Supreme Court opinion, a child can be born as an American citizen, but being a citizen is not the same as being born as a natural citizen, which must be the true natural status of all Presidents.  They constitutionally cannot be alien-immigrant-foreigner-born.  They must be born of only an American mother and father.

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers