Fundamental Errors Obama Depends On Pt. 2

Obama’s Constitutional Fraud

& The 20th Amendment

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

Another source of fundamental error in understanding the eligibility clause is a failure to grasp the meaning of the word “person”, -what it doesn’t mean and what it does mean.  It does not refer to the class of beings known as humans. Instead it refers to a particular class of humans, which can be discerned easily by process of elimination, -by eliminating a class it could not possibly include, and that is foreigners.  “No person” does not mean “No foreigner”.  Foreigners would not have been and were not even possibly included in its meaning.   They were universally automatically excluded as understood by all.  It was a given.
So with foreigners not even being in the picture, the only thing left was citizens.  Therefore the meaning of “No person” is in fact “No citizen except a natural born citizen”.

So what type of citizen was excluded by the presidential eligibility clause in favor of only natural born citizens?  Was it strictly naturalized citizens?  If it was, and if natural born citizens were considered indistinguishable from native-born citizens of foreign paternity, then the eligibility clause could have and would have been worded in a much more simple manner; i.e.; “No citizen naturalized after the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”  Bingo.
That is much plainer and simpler than the wording chosen, but it was not employed because it was not what they meant.
The provisional inclusion of the second exception allowing all citizens alive before the Constitution was adopted (who were 35 years of age and 14 years in residence) speaks independently that after that point, any citizen who became a citizen by law via naturalization was not eligible to be President.  So, since that is already stated in that segment of the sentence, it cannot possibly be redundantly focused on as the alternative type of citizen that was being prohibited by the “No person except..” language of the first segment.  The Constitution avoids redundancy and interpreting it requires avoiding it.

So if it wasn’t naturalized citizens that those words were intended to exclude, -since they were covered by the “or” segment, then it had to have been a different type of citizen.  What other types were there?  Only two:
Native-born sons of foreigners who were granted citizenship from birth by some states; or sons who obtained derivative citizenship as children upon their foreign father’s naturalization.  They, -being foreigners because they were born abroad, or being foreigners because they were born to a non-citizen, (-even though native-born) inherited by parentage, -by patrilineal descent via the natural law of inherited nature & and position, the new American citizenship of their father. Whatever he was, they were also since they were a reflection of him.
Those sons were the citizens who were not natural born citizens, and were implicitly excluded, deliberately, even though their number was minuscule as a percentage of American sons, perhaps less than two percent.  But if elected President, they could pose a potential security risk that was avoidable by their exclusion.  And so they were excluded.  But they were accepted during the founders’ generation because no monarch-loving wolf in sheep’s clothing would have gotten past the scrutiny of the founders’ generation, and its press.  Plus, Congress was expected to vet their constitutional eligibility to serve before the electoral college voted, or even after.  Congress was expected to nullify the election of any candidate it found unqualified to serve, i.e., -too young, not enough years of residency, or not an American citizen.
So a more clearly worded version would read something like this: “No citizen except a natural citizen, or a legal citizen of the United States living when this Constitution was adopted, shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”
Bear in mind that every citizen that was born of a foreign father was a legal citizen because their citizenship was obtain solely by the authority of law, and not by natural conveyance.

No natural citizen obtained legal citizenship at or after their birth.  Instead, they were born being a “citizen by nature”.  The native-born sons of foreigners could only obtain state and national citizenship via law.  If a state, like the national government, had no such law, which was most, then the children of a foreigner were not citizens of that state nor of the union.  They were viewed as foreigners also, like their father, until he naturalized, -then they acquired derivative citizenship by law and nature, become the same as what he had become.

~       ~       ~       ~       ~

The Twentieth Amendment versus  Obama’s Election

There’s one other area of Constitutional law that has never been enforced regarding Obama’s assumption of the presidency, and that is the authority and presumed requirement of the Twentieth Amendment.

That amendment deals with the qualification and terms of the President and Vice-President.  It states in Section 3: “, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice-President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice-President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is  to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified.”
Its words “failed to qualify” are unmistakably not figurative but literal.  The President must qualify, and therefore to fail to qualify must mean that he failed a review of qualification.  That implies that there must be a review which one may fail because if there is no review then there is no possibility of failing to qualify.  That means that someone or some group had to be charged with ascertaining whether or not the President elect met the requirements of eligibility for the office.
And who would the congressional authors of the amendment have entrusted to ascertain the facts?  Only the representatives of the people, i.e., Congress.  Therefore it was up to Congress to inquiry as to the constitutional qualifications of the men who sought to hold the highest offices in the land.

If they were to find that they did not met the requirements, then they would have been obligated to bring the facts to the full body of one or both houses and take a vote as to whether or not it was agreed that the President elect and/or the Vice President elect had failed to qualify according to the Constitution for the offices they were elected to assume.  So Congress was expected and obligated to be the gate-keeper for the command of the presidency and the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.
That is clearly what the 20th Amendment is worded to mean and yet do we any recollection of Congress actually carrying-out its duty to protect the presidency and the nation from unqualified persons who had the audacity to run for the office, the good fortune, moxie, chutzpa and persuasive power and/or backing to bamboozle their way onto the election ballots of every state, and then win the election?
Well we don’t because they never have, nor ever encountered (until Obama) an elected candidate that was manifestly unqualified, although Congress did hired a high-profile pair of attorneys [Tribe & Olsen] to research whether or not one born outside the United States, but under U.S. jurisdiction, could qualify as a natural born citizen which is the first and foremost requirement of qualification for the presidency.    They concluded that having been born of American parents made John McCain an American citizen regardless of where he was born and that such citizens are the natural members of the American nation and are therefore qualified for the office of the President as natural American citizens.

They had that opinion in hand before Obama was even elected, and it would seem that in order to secure a unanimous consent vote of the entire Senate (in absentia) that declared the opinion of the Senate was that McCain was qualified, the republicans made the choice to violate their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution by remaining silent about the ineligibility of McCain’s fellow Senate presidential candidate Barack Obama, who in fact was not a natural born citizen, and thus was not qualified to be President.

John McCain and his ilk knew full well that Obama was not a natural born citizen but they traded a chunk of their honor, along with their fidelity to the nation’s foundational charter, for the benefit of great opportunity.   They, and the entire United State government committed treason against the Constitution (for “the greater good”) afraid to appear out of step with the momentum to have a serious black candidate for the presidency.  And so they all remained silent, -both before and after the election.  Then even worse, the chief justice-traitor of the supine court acquiesced to the expectation that he swear-in the usurper and thus make the constitutional treason a perfect trifecta of governmental criminality by misfeasance non-feasance, thereby facilitating Obama’s perjury by his false-swearing as he vowed to uphold the same Constitution that he was violating by assuming the office that it declares him ineligible to hold.

And what made it worse was the fact that not even one voice in the media, including the conservative media (other than the internet) would even acknowledge that there was anything suspect about Obama’s eligibility.  And worst of all, all 50 state governments allowed him on the ballot for a second time (!), -and the government repeated its constitutional treason twice!

Like Humpty-Dumpty, this broken government can’t be fixed because its aggressive entrenched attitude of being superior to and unchained by the limitations of the Constitution is not the exception but is the norm.  That’s business as usual.  The attitude in Washington is that institutional power based on institutionalized error and independence from the Constitution in any and every way which they can get away with is the perfectly natural way of running the country, and anyone who wants to hold them to the limits of the Constitution is insane and living in La-La Land because they will never agree to such limitations.  But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

We shall eventually see the dynamic conservative Edward (Ted) Cruz seek the office of the President with the goal of turning the country back to the Constitution and its limitation on federal power, and when he does we will all be engaging in a huge national discussion about who actually is and isn’t eligible to serve as President because he was not born in America but in Canada, and his father was not an American but a Cuban refugee who fled the growing communist oppression.  Such a person with such a perspective is just what America needs to shine a bright light on what statist totalitarian federal power devolves to when the chickens let the fox guard the hen house.

Will you support his unconstitutional bid for the presidency?  What should your criteria be for deciding?  Simple; the lesser of two evils is best, and a minor violation of the Constitution is far less onerous and destructive of the future than another term or two of socialistic-Marxism-leaning progressive policies being forced on everyone in the country in stark violation of the nation’s most basic tenets, those being independence and liberty, self-reliance, individual  and governmental responsibility, and unalienable rights that belong to the People or to the States.

I would support his candidacy fully, especially after being plagued by the milquetoast Republican candidates of the last couple decades, -men who had no idea of what they stood for, and didn’t quite grasp or embody “the vision thing”.  I’d hold my nose so to speak and mark his name choice instead of the democrat candidate’s name.  A glass half full is much better that a glass that’s empty, and a man working toward the right goals is much better than a man or woman not only not working toward them but actively working against them.

What wouldn’t I give to hear a newly elected Ted Cruz, upon the occasion of his inauguration as he prepares to take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and fidelity to the office, then instead decline the office because he has become aware that he is not eligible to hold it.  That would be a moment like when the thick curtain that separated the common outer area from the Holiest of Holies in Solomon’s Temple was ripped by God in absolute disgust from the top down to the bottom.  That would mark the end of one era and the beginning of another.

That would explode the issue of presidential eligibility like nothing else will ever be able to, and put Obama right in its cross hairs where he belongs.  Short of that the truth might never have a chance of breaking through the thick wall of indifference and resistance put up by the opposition in Congress, the Attorney General’s office, and the courts, along with the sycophantic lame-stream media.  They’re all like Obama’s flying monkeys, and act like the three monkeys that see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

That is perhaps the wisest attitude when your emperor is parading around  without a shred of constitutional clothing to cover his naked ineligibility (nor his counterfeit birth certificate fraud).  No one dares question the emperor, not O’Reilly, or Limbaugh, or Levin, or Hannity, or anyone else.  They don’t want anything to do with that third rail which they fear may fry them good if Obama’s henchmen in SEIU decide to start doing more than making threatening comments anonymously.

They might be aware that he is from Chicago, home of Al Capone and institutionalized corruption by gangsters and unions and politicians.    They might be aware that he has brought that same kind of corruption to Washington and put it into power which is exercised not so much by breaking the law but by ignoring it outright and doing whatever they can get away with that is outside of the law and the authority with which they have been entrusted.

Short of such an action by such a person as Ted Cruz, it would seem that a badly needed revolution in constitutional awareness will never sweep nor creep across this country to a degree that would make a real difference.  Americans will sleep on, focused on their favorite sports or gambling or drugs or music or video games or watering hole and their consciousness will never be raised nor awakened.  “Asleep at the wheel”, we will surely suddenly one day find ourselves sleeping comfortably in our own bed when the floor falls away from under us and we disappear into a giant sinkhole of debt and collapse of confidence in the entire American monetary system.

Have a nice day!

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

The Bastardization of Citizenship Law & Principles

~Wong Kim Ark & Legal Perversion

From the founding of the nation, opposing ideas about the origin of citizenship have been in conflict.   An erroneous assumption, held even by men in high regard, produced presumptuous statements supporting the belief  that birth within U.S. borders constituted a traditional right to U.S. citizenship, or worse, that such citizenship could be presumed to be natural citizenship.  Their stated view revealed the conflict between those who understood the inescapable meaning of the English word “natural” and those who had risen to positions of authority while adhering to a baseless  certainty in a belief unsupported by logic, -by any universal colonial tradition, nor universal state or federal law.
That belief (the human-contrived convention of assigning national membership by the geographical location of one’s mother during delivery) has no connection to Natural Law, nor the unalienable Natural Rights with which humans were “endowed by their Creator”.
The Founding Fathers were steeped in the consciousness of Natural Rights, and viewed them as the only legitimate source for guiding principles upon which to found the first national government of a free republic in world history.
Those who held the opposite view about citizenship were in fact unknowingly adhering to a philosophy that was antithetical to American values.
They were unaware of that fact because their  focus was only on American magnanimity toward valued immigrants, -whose children they viewed as being new Americans even if their fathers were un-naturalized foreigners.  But that position came with a history and philosophy that was evil, -not in its branches, but in its root.

If one’s national membership is assigned by the GOVERNMENT based on nativity, -not nature, then one is a prisoner of a system that is opposed to the authority of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s GOD”.  Instead one is a cog in a Godless machine that’s lacking any Supreme authority or principle,
-a machine devoid of unalienable Natural Rights
given by a Creator who made man in the likeness of his own nature, i.e., as free individuals, (-not drones) possessing a free-will, and the innate unalienable right to exercise it for one’s own benefit as well as his own family & people as long as one’s action does not infringe on the rights of others to do likewise.
Instead, the cogs in the machine are the property of the GOVERNMENT, and all rights derive from it and
therefore are not permanent and unalienable, but can be canceled by the Government’s choice.

Such a Government’s foremost “RIGHT” is ownership of all who enter its realm via birth.  Such an attitude could not be applied to those who enter it via travel, because then other governments would do the same and travel therefore would cease, along with trade and all the benefits that come with it. But those born into the Big Government’s realm via birth can be claimed because they emerged on the property that belongs to the LORD of all the LAND and they therefore, -as with the off-spring of cow, sow & fowl, as well as serf and slave, belong to it also, claimed by the Baron, the Colonel, the Don, the Duke, the Lord, the Prince, the King, or the autocratic Dictator (or in the case of free republics; BIG GOVERNMENT).

If Big Government is Lord & Master of the land and all who reside within it, then they belong to it and no other government.  They are its property exclusively, -its subjects for life due to the place of their nativity, and nothing can ever change that, or cancel that imposed relationship.

It’s strictly an issue of sovereign Property Rights, so they are owned by the government and not their parents.  Parental Rights do not exist in that sense.  The father is not the true head of the household, -the government is.  He does not own his own children because he is not the Lord and Master of the land on which they were born.  That is the principle of Jus Soli, -the law of the soil.
Opposing that philosophy, (known as The Divine Right of Kings) is the Natural Law principle that:

    a.) Off-spring inherit their parents’ nature.

    b.) Parents of the same nature (including political nature) naturally produce off-spring with the same nature and group membership as themselves.

    c.) Off-spring are solely the property of the parents that produced them.

    d.) The group into which they were born is their natural group, and they are natural members of it.
    e.) That group can be a family, a herd, a pride, a clan, a tribe, a people, or a country.

    f.) They are members because they are the product of member parents, -cast from the same mold, -grown from the same DNA, whether it be biological or political DNA.
Their membership is natural membership, based on Nature, and not the borders surrounding the location of their nativity.  Man-made contrived, conquest-determined borders have nothing to do with their natural membership.  Their national membership is natural membership, and does not require and is not based on human choice, human law, nor dictator decision.
Whatever group their parents belong to, -they belong to also (for better or for worse) by being born a member, -not made a member by authorities.  They are beyond the will and choice of authorities.  Authorities’ only option is to accept and recognize that which is naturally determined.
They can write that acceptance into law, but they cannot change their natural membership by any legitimate law because they don’t possess the authority to abridge the Natural Rights with which the human race was endowed by its Creator.  That is the principle of Jus Sanguinis, -the law of blood.

The Founding Fathers never wrote any such law regarding the national membership of natural members of the new nation, -with one small exception which sought to protect the rights of natural members born in other jurisdictions, i.e., in other nations.
Since the  status of Americans born abroad was not addressed in the Constitution, and since enacting a constitutional amendment to protect their rights was not convenient nor perhaps feasible, the first Congress, including 40 authors of the Constitution, dictated that Americans born abroad were to be “considered as natural born citizens”.
They did that via the Nationality Act of 1790, by which they set a minimum standard for all states to adhere to in choosing which immigrants they would grant citizenship to via naturalization, and by which they addressed the  Constitution’s silence regarding the unmentioned status of children born abroad to America’s Ambassadors, Consuls, diplomats, military personnel, merchants and scholars, including their right to one day be entitled to serve their country as its President.

The act’s authors made no attempt to declare what their choice was regarding the citizenship of those children because they knew that they had no choice since it was naturally determined via patrilineal descent.
They not only intended that foreign-born American children not be viewed as foreigners who needed to be naturalized, but that they were to be viewed as that which they were by birth, namely; natural Americans.
Why did they insert such language into the naturalization act?  Because it needed to be stated, and an act that dealt with citizenship was the only place it could be stated.  Very likely they heard from Thomas Jefferson (serving as Ambassador to France) and John Adams (Ambassador to England) who might have had children in those countries while serving in them. Why, they would have wondered, (and would have asked of the authors of the Constitution), should such sons be viewed by their government as disenfranchised from a right possessed by their siblings and their American brethren domestically born?
Upon finally thinking about it, all would have agreed that they should not be considered to be anything other than natural Americans also, and so they echoed the the Constitution’s phrase regarding presidential eligibility by adding the words “natural born” to the basic word “citizen” in order to define them as more than just non-descript citizens whose presidential eligibility might be questioned, -sending a clear message that they were, by nature, not excluded from eligibility for the office of President.

As the purpose of the first Congress in adding those words was later overlooked, future revisions of the Act omitted “natural born” when declaring that such children are to be recognized as U.S. citizens, -which made sense since language with a political significance is not a logical element of naturalization law.
But by that omission, the only statement ever in federal law supporting the truth about who is a natural citizen was erased.  In the absence of “natural born”, the thinking of many in the 20th  century was  affected.  By then they failed to grasp the Nature Law principle that children born to Americans are Americans no matter where on earth they are born; -whether born inside of the United States or born outside, -that children take after their parents, -meaning they inherit their political  nature, i.e., nationality.
Consequently, a century later, the distortion that resulted from the 1898 lawsuit by Wong Kim Ark led to the current bastardized status-quo view.

No other act regarding the natural U.S. citizenship of Americans born to Americans has ever been passed, although later revisions all reaffirm the citizenship of American children born abroad to American citizens.

Stephen Tonchen, author of Obama &  Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Citizenship Primer    http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
noted that regarding the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” (which the President alone is required to be), the consensus legal opinion is that English Common Law is the source of what the term means, and that: ‘this last word’ [the Wong opinion] overrides and overrules all prior Supreme Court opinions on the matter, and negates all modern-day opinions to the contrary.  In other words, it doesn’t matter how many historical and legal sources you cite in support of your viewpoint. In the mind of the American judiciary, The United States vs. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court opinion and dicta supersedes all of them.”
The Truth debunks the consensus view that the Wong opinion declares that  native-born citizens are also natural born citizens whether born of Americans or aliens. The first is related to the meaning of “natural” (as used in the presidential eligibility clause: “NO PERSON EXCEPT A  NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, …SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT”) and the second is related to the meaning of “jurisdiction” as used in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
Two simple questions serve to demolish the logic of the erroneous, entrenched consensus view, and they are:
1.) “Is the word “CITIZEN” a term derived from the Natural realm or derived from the LEGAL realm?”
2.)  “Is the word Natural a term derived from the  LEGAL realm or from the Natural realm?
Since natural is derived solely from the natural realm, examining the principles of Natural Law is sufficient to explain it.  All post-Constitution legal opinions can be dispensed with as unneeded (they didn’t even exist when it was written).
The word is not dependent on the existence of those opinions since its meaning was fully and unambiguously understood by those who used it in the Constitution.  So we must understand it just as they understood it, which was via its natural meaning, -a meaning derived not from the physical realm and its man-made borders, but from the natural realm with its natural transmission of the parents’ nature.
The combination of “natural” with “CITIZEN”, (or “SUBJECT”) -yielding “natural citizen” (or “natural subject”) is an amalgamation of both the Natural realm and the Legal realm. That combination is unnatural because it’s a hybrid, abstract concept, -like the combination of water & steel, resulting in something new, -liquid steel.
The legal term “CITIZEN” can only serve to describe the general category of membership in a nation, -as in: “is one a member?…or an outsider? …a citizen?…or a foreigner?”    It cannot detail the specific character of one’s citizenship.  It cannot differentiate between those who have obtained it naturally and those who have obtained it artificially via legal process, procedure, provision, or permission, i.e., via positive law, -they being “LEGAL CITIZENS”.
What such naturalized citizens, statutory citizens, 14th Amendment citizens, and derivative citizens all have in common is that one or both parents were not American citizens.
To differentiate them from those with American parents requires the use of a word not found in the Legal realm, namely, the word “natural”, resulting in the hybrid-concept term:  “natural CITIZEN”.
Citizenship is not a natural thing since it’s strictly a legal thing, (-describing membership in a nation) and no nation is a natural thing.  Instead, nations are  a man-made thing, [-although they can be both in rare cases such as with a single-island nation whose boundaries are determined by nature].
Membership is not a Legal term used in reference to NATIONS because it’s a term in reference to animal and human societies, -and those things are not LEGAL things, but are natural things.
Straddling the divide between the LEGAL realm and the Natural realm is the “natural CITIZEN” -one who’s a natural member of the society by being born of native parents who are members, -as well as being a CITIZEN of the nation by being born of parents who are citizens.
Just as there is no “official membership” in natural groups, so there is also no “official citizenship” for natural citizens. There’s no law that makes them a legal member of the nation since their membership/ citizenship is not a legal grant or gift. It’s not via legislation, controlling opinion, executive order, nor constitutional amendment. It’s via the natural transmission of one’s parents’ status and membership, in particular, one’s father (-universally the head-of-the-household in patriarchal eras).
No law exists making them members of the nation because no lawmakers possess the authority to grant nor rescind unalienable rights, -and natural membership, like the right to life, liberty, property, self-defense, parenthood, etc., is just such a right. It begins with the mother and father of a child. They have the right to have their child belong to them and be a member of their family.
The child has a right to belong to its parents and not to the government. A child’s membership in its own family is purely a natural thing and no human being that has ever lived was able to alter that fact.

All lawmakers could do is to mandate that it be officially recognized, -as was the case in every  Nationality Act since 1790, thereby directing every knucklehead bureaucrat, magistrate, and immigration official in government positions to recognize such children as being what they were born as, namely; American CITIZENS, (-not foreigners in need of naturalization processing).
Neither their citizenship nor that of their domestically born brethren was a subject of human choice, or decision. It is for that reason that no law exists by which natural citizens are “official members” of the American nation.
The 14th Amendment served to declare the citizenship of the freed slaves who had been denied it, -not to bestow, validate, authorize, or grant membership (citizenship) to those who already possessed it naturally from birth. The Amendment is irrelevant to all who were not born of slaves or born of a foreign father.
They are citizens with or without the Amendment, but those born in the U.S. with foreign parents are not since their citizenship is directly dependent on the consensus legal opinion resulting from the official opinion of the turn-of-the-century Attorney General who interpreted the official opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Wong Kim Ark (which the court majority based on a deliberate misconstuence of the 14th Amendment, -contrary to all previous court cases).
That AG’s erroneous opinion then became the official policy of the federal government and has been “the law of the land” ever since even though it sprang from not understanding the meaning of the word “jurisdiction”.
The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark opinion, went a bridge too far, -bastardizing their interpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment, [deliberately ignoring the authors’ stated definition] by opining that children of foreigners (immigrants) are American citizens regardless of being born to foreigners (-a “good” and practical  but totally erroneous legal position).
But then the Attorney General went a second bridge too far and bastardized the court’s limited opinion by assuming that it extended to everyone born in the United States [with the lone exceptions of children of ambassadors and Native Americans] making all others citizens even if they are merely children of foreign guests (“non-immigrant aliens”) or “illegals” present in the U.S.
But what neither of them did was to bastardize the 14th Amendment into declaring that all persons born within U.S. territory are not only citizens of the United States, but are natural citizens also. That distortion is a modern perversion that arose only in response to the need  to legitimize the candidacy of a supposed 14th Amendment citizen, named Barack Obama, who was constitutionally unqualified to be President.
The Immigration Service labels 14th Amendment citizens “native-born”, (in contrast to naturalized, and natural-born citizens) since their citizenship does not exist if they are not native-born, whereas  natural citizens and naturalized citizens can be born anywhere on earth.
The current consensus legal opinion is held by mindless minions with no interest in the historical truth nor philosophical fact, (just in knowing; “what’s the law -so I can unquestioningly teach it, or learn it, or practice it?)  Their attitude is “what does everyone else think?”; “what does everyone agree on?  I need to know and adhere to it because I don’t want to stand-out from the crowd, -to swim against the stream, -to be looked at askance like a dimwit and elicit disapproval or scorn”; and besides, “everyone can’t be wrong!..if everyone agrees on something then it must be right, right? or else why would they agree on it?  Why get involved in an issue that is already ‘decided’?  Why research something that can’t possibly help one’s career?  Why risk becoming convinced of something that no one embraces?  Where’s the upside of that?”
And so the status quo continues to be stuck in the mud of consensus thinking, -frozen in error, ossified by legal and intellectual inertia.  No different than almost every major widely-held belief in the history of man, -beliefs that in time were found to be false (including the one that gave us the name “Indian” -a term forever entrenched as a permanent  institutional error).
But all it takes is one honest judge, -one lawsuit with legal standing to proceed, and the huge dam of establishment resistance could crumble beneath the weight of truth and logic (assuming that bribery, coercion and intimidation don’t alter the ruling).
Such a thing has happened many times before in American judicial history.  And so we hold on to the slim hope that it might happen again.  Otherwise, as in the Eminent Domain, and Health Care Act decisions, it will become even clearer that there are traitors among us and over us, -the foxes are guarding the hen house.  The wolves are dressed in shepherds clothing, and the emperors of the American courts have no cloths, taking sides against the Constitution, -having been in cahoots with the self-described Kenyan-born emperor in the White House to prevent anyone from claiming that even though he passed himself off as being fully clothed in eligibility, he was in fact stark naked, having been born ineligible for the office of the President of the United States by not being born as
“a natural born  CITIZEN”.

by A.R. Nash  Oct 2012    obama–nation.com

The Lost Truth about Citizenship

~THE TRUE MEANING OF 14TH AMENDMENT “JURISDICTION”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE & RENUNCIATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia at age 10 to live with his grandparents. At age 14, Obama began fulfilling the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act’s  five-year continuous residency requirement to become a U.S. citizen. (INA) 301(a)(7) and 301(b) See 8 U.S.C. 1409(c)
http://www.theodora.com/ina_96_title_3.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by a.r. nash 2012  http://obama–nation.com

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

A Presidential Citizenship Eligibility Primer

~Obama Presidential Eligibility
- An Introductory Primer excerpt

Copyright (©) 2009-2012 Stephen Tonchen

Revision date: October 10, 2012

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

introductory remarks by Adrien Nash:

This section (and the one that precedes it, -which details the statements of those who held to the presumption that birth within U.S. borders constituted a traditional right to U.S. citizenship, and worse, that such citizenship could be presumed to be natural citizenship) illuminate the conflict between those who understood the simple actual meaning of the English word “natural” and those who had risen to positions of authority while adhering to a baseless  certainty in a belief unbacked by logic, any universal colonial tradition, nor universal state laws, nor federal law.
The belief that the human-contrived convention of assigning national membership by the geographical location of one’s mother during delivery has no connection to Natural Law, nor Natural Rights.  The Founding Fathers were steeped in the philosophy of Natural Rights, and viewed it as the only legitimate source for guiding principles upon which to found the most unique and free nation in world history.
Those who later held to the opposite view were in fact unknowingly adhering to a philosophy that was antithetical to American values.  They were unaware of that fact because they only focused on American magnanimity toward valued immigrants, whose children they viewed as being new Americans, even if their fathers were unnaturalized foreigners.  But that position came with a history and philosophy that was evil, not in its branches, but in its root.
If one’s national membership is consigned by the government based on nativity and not nature, then one is a prisoner of a system that is opposed to the authority of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s GOD”.  One is instead a cog in a machine what is Godless, -a machine devoid of unalienable Natural Rights given by a Creator who made man in his own image and nature, i.e., as free individuals, -not drones, possessing a free-will, and the innate unalienable right to exercise it for one’s own benefit and that of his own family and people as long as one’s action does not infringe on the rights of other to do likewise.
The cogs in the machine instead belongs to the GOVERNMENT, and all rights derive from it and therefore are not permanent, unalienable, and can be canceled at the Government’s choosing.
Such Big Government’s foremost “right” is ownership of all who enter its dominion via birth.  Such an attitude could not be applied to those who enter it via travel, because then other governments would do the same and travel therefore would cease, along with trade and all the benefits that come with it.  But those who emerge into the Big Government’s realm via birth can be claimed because they emerged on the property that belongs to Big Government and they therefore belong to it, -just like the off-spring of cattle and fowl.
If Big Government is Lord & Master of the land and all who reside within it, then they belong to it and no other government.  They are its property exclusively, -its subjects due to the place of their nativity.  It is strictly an issue of Property Rights, and they are owned by the government and not the parents.  Parental Rights do not exist in that sense.  The father is not the head of the household, -the government is.  He does not own his own children because he is not the Lord and Master of the land on which they were born.  That is the principle of Jus Soli, -the law of the soil.
Opposing that philosophy, (known as The Divine Right of Kings) is the Natural Law principle that:
     a.) Off-spring inherit their parents’ nature.
     b.) Parents of the same nature (including political nature) naturally produce off-spring with the same nature and group membership as themselves,
    c.) off-spring are solely the property of the parents that produced them.
    d.) The group into which they were born is their natural group, and they are natural members of it.
    e.) That group can be a family, a clan, a tribe, a people, or a country.  F.) They are members because they are part and parcel of their member parents, -cast from the same mold, -produced by the same nature, grown from the same DNA, whether it be biological DNA or political DNA.
Their membership is natural membership, based on Nature, and not the GPS coordinates of the location of their nativity.  Man-made contrived, conquest-determined borders have nothing to do with their natural membership.  Their national membership is natural membership, and does not require, and is not based on human choice, human law, nor dictator decision.
Whatever group their parents belong to, -they belong to also (for better or for worse) by being born a member, -not made a member by authorities.  They are beyond the will and choice of authorities.  Authorities’ only option is to accept and recognize that which is naturally determined.  They can write that acceptance into law, but they cannot change their natural membership by any legitimate law because they don’t possess the authority to abridge the Natural Rights with which the human race was endowed by its Creator.

The Founding Fathers never wrote any such law regarding the national membership of natural members of the new nation, with one small exception which sought to protect the rights of natural members born in other jurisdictions, i.e., in other nations.
In one of the first acts of the new Congress, they wrote the Nationality Act of 1790, by which they set a standard for all states to adhere to in choosing which immigrants they would grant citizenship to via naturalization.  Since the  status of Americans born abroad was not addressed in the Constitution, and since enacting a constitutional amendment to protect their rights was not convenient nor perhaps feasible, the first Congress, -including 40 authors of the Constitution, dictated that Americans born abroad were to be “considered as natural born citizens” they not only intended that they not be viewed as foreigners who needed to be naturalized, but that they were to be viewed as that which they were by birth, namely; natural born American citizens.
That protected the rights of children of American Ambassadors & diplomats, merchants, attorneys & scholars living overseas to one day be entitled to serve their country as its President.

No other law regarding the natural U.S. citizenship of Americans born to Americans  outside of U.S. borders has ever been passed except to assert the same principle but minus the political component which is not logically an element of naturalization law.  Future revisions of that Act simply omitted the inclusion of “natural born” when mandating that such children were to be recognized as U.S. citizens.  That omission was a logical choice for a naturalization statute, but the absence of “natural born” clouded the thinking of many in future years who failed to grasp the Nature Law principle that children born to Americans are Americans no matter where on Earth they are born; -that children take after the parents, -which if born within Holy Matrimony (wedlock) meant that they inherited the nature and status of the father, including his political nature, i.e., nationality.

Section 12.  Doesn’t the Julia Lynch case show that Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen”?

In 1789, two years after the Constitution was adopted, David Ramsay argued that a child naturally receives federal (United States) citizenship at birth only if the child’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Anyone can acquire U.S. citizenship artificially either by state law or by naturalization statutes enacted by Congress. Anyone who acquires state citizenship according to state law is automatically a citizen of the United States.  But, in the absence of an applicable state or federal law, you do not receive federal (U.S.) citizenship at birth unless your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born:

[Birthright citizenship] …is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. … The citizenship of no man could be previous to the Declaration of Independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776. … From the premises already established, it may be farther inferred, that citizenship, by inheritance, belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the Declaration of Independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring. (Ramsay)

Ramsay’s comments were made in connection with a dispute over William Smith’s eligibility to serve as a U.S. representative from South Carolina. Despite their disagreement on the eligibility issue, Smith agreed with Ramsay that you naturally receive, at birth, the citizenship of your parents, particularly your father:

Vattel says, “The country of the father is that of the children, and these become citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (William Loughton Smith, as quoted in The Documentary history of the first Federal elections, 1788-1790, Volume 1, pp.178)

In 1811, the U.S. State Department refused to recognize James McClure as a U.S. citizen (Publius Enigma). McClure was born in the United States, but his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. He would have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if he had been born in a state (such as Virginia) which conferred state citizenship to anyone born within its borders.
At the time, anyone who acquired state citizenship under state law was automatically a citizen of the United States [31]. But McClure was born in a state (South Carolina) which had not enacted any state citizenship laws. In the absence of state citizenship laws, federal (United States) citizenship is conferred only to persons born in the United States, of parents who are U.S. citizens:

Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States — he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does — for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen.

The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen — but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such. (“Case of James McClure”, The Alexandria Herald, Vol. I, No. 37, October 7, 1811, page 2, left-most column)

In 1845, an article entitled “Massachusetts and South Carolina”, appearing in The New Englander, explained that, in the U.S. Constitution, the term “natural born citizen” means a U.S. citizen not owing allegiance, at birth, to any foreign state. According to the article, all adult U.S. citizens are presumed to owe allegiance to the United States exclusively, but a natural born citizen owes exclusive allegiance from the time of her or his birth:
The expression ‘citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states; in the other cases the word ‘citizen’ is used without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. (“Massachusetts and South Carolina”, The New Englander, Volume 3, 1845, p.414)

In 1859, Attorney General Jeremiah Sullivan Black clarified the distinction between a native and a naturalized citizen. All adult U.S. citizens are presumed to owe allegiance to the United States exclusively. The native is a citizen who never owed allegiance to any sovereignty other than the United States. Only a native (i.e., natural born citizen) may serve as President.

There can be no doubt that naturalization does, pro facto, place the native and adopted citizen in precisely the same relations with the Government under which they live, except so far as the express and positive law of the country has made a distinction in favor of one or the other. … Here none but a native can be President. … A Native and a Naturalized American can go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under heaven, including the country in which the latter was born.
They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization, solemnly and rightfully, in pursuance of public law and municipal regulations, threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. (New York Times: Attorney General Black’s Opinion upon Expatriation and Naturalization, July 20, 1859)

In 1866, during a speech before the U.S. House of Represenatives, John Bingham (1815-1900), the father of the 14th Amendment, said that a natural born citizen is one who is born in the United States, of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [of the 1866 Civil Rights Act], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Congressional Globe, 39th, 1st Sess.(1866), p.1291, center column)

In 1884, an article by George Collins, appearing in the American Law Review (1884), criticized the Lynch v. Clark ruling:

In Lynch v. Clark, the vice-chancellor held that the common-law doctrine — that the place of birth and not the nationality of the father determined the political status of the child — was applicable to the United States, constituted a part of the jurisprudence thereof, and that accordingly a person born within the United States, whose father at the time of such birth was an alien, was a citizen of the United States.

This case, aside from its fallacious and unsound reasoning, can not be upheld upon principle. It is well settled that the common law is not part of the jurisprudence of the United States. … Birth [in the United States] … does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, on in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. (Collins)

In 1894, The Nation magazine reported an opinion by Thomas Bayard, who was U.S. Secretary of State under Grover Cleveland. In Bayard’s opinion, the U.S.-born child of alien parents was not subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of its birth, therefore was not a U.S. citizen at birth:

In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ‘subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’” (The Nation, Vol.59, No.1521, August 23, 1894, p.134, near bottom of right-most column)
In 1896, an article by Percy A. Bridgham, appearing in the Boston Daily Globe, defined native born as “born within the United States,” and natural born as “born of parents who are U.S. citizens”. In Bridgham’s opinion, one did not need to be native-born in order to be natural-born. His understanding, at the time, was that all post-1787-born Presidents were both native-born and natural-born; the United States has never had a President who was strictly natural-born (natural-born only, without also being native-born).

The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen….
It seems to me that if the founders of the government had meant to confine the presidency to such of its citizens as were born upon the soil of the country, they would have used the word “native,” which is a much more apt word than natural….

A comparison of the meanings of native and natural as given by Webster bears me out in my opinion of the intent of the constitution. The very first definition of natural is “fixed or determined by nature,” the nationality of a child born abroad of American parents is fixed by the nature of things and not by the locality of birth. I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship, so we must take its ordinary meaning. (Percy A. Bridgham, People’s Lawyer, Boston Daily Globe, November 9, 1896. See also The Boston Globe: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibilty)

Also in 1896, the New York Tribune published an article, questioning the eligibility of Mr. Shurmann, the Labor Party presidential candidate. Mr. Schurmann was born in the United States, of non-U.S.-citizen parents:

Is he [Mr. Shurmann], under these circumstances, “a natural-born citizen” in the sense implied by the fifth clause of Art. II. of the Constitution? Various Attorney-Generals of the United States have expressed the opinion that a child born in this country of alien parents, who have not been naturalized, is, by the fact of birth, a native-born citizen entitled to all rights and privileges as such, and the State Department has always acted on this presumption in deciding upon questions of this nature brought before it.
There is, however, no United States statute containing any provision on the subject [of natural born citizenship], nor have any judicial decisions ever been made in regard to it. It is at best an open question, and one which should have made Mr. Schurmann’s nomination under any circumstances an impossibility.
(New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS)

In 1904, Alexander Porter Morse argued that parental citizenship is essential to natural born citizenship; one cannot be a natural born citizen unless one’s parents were citizens at the time of one’s birth:
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, immigration was anticipated and provisions for naturalization would immediately follow the establishment of the government. Those resident in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted were made citizens. Thereafter the president must be taken from the natural-born citizens. If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. (Morse)

In 1916, attorney Breckinridge Long argued that Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes was not eligible to serve as president. Hughes was born in the United States, but at the time of his birth, his father was not a U.S. citizen. In Long’s Legal Analysis, a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen father is not a natural born citizen of the United States:

It must be admitted that a man born on this soil, of alien parents, enjoys a dual nationality and owes a double allegiance. A child born under these conditions has a right to elect what nationality he will enjoy and to which of the two conflicting claims of governmental allegiance he will pay obedience. Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States. If his sole duty is not to the United States Government, to the exclusion of all other governments, then, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States. (Long)
Roots of the Dispute: There is general agreement concerning state citizenship. When the original thirteen colonies became independent states, some of them (for example, Virginia) retained the jus soli principle of English common law. In these jus soli states, any white person born within the borders of the state (other than the child of a vagrant, slave or foreign diplomat) was a citizen of that state. Anyone who became a citizen of any state was automatically a citizen of the United States [31].

However, there is disagreement as to the manner in which a person acquires federal citizenship in the absence of state citizenship. If you did not receive state citizenship at birth from any state, under what circumstances would the federal government still recognize you as a citizen of the United States? Regarding this question, there has been (and still is) a dispute between:

~authorities who believe that all persons born on U.S. soil (except the children of foreign ambassadors) are natural born citizens of the United States, regardless of their parents’ citizenship; and

~authorities who believe that one cannot be a natural born citizen of the United States unless one’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of one’s birth.
The dispute arises, in part, from differing understandings of our nation’s founding principles. Those who believe that the Founding Fathers were guided by English common law tend to believe that the jus soli principle governs the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Federal Constitution. Those who believe that the Founding Fathers were guided by European political theorists, such as Vattel, tend to believe that the meaning of “natural born citizen” is constrained by the jus sanguinis principle. (See Section 26: Root of “Natural Born Citizen” debate).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers