The Citizenship of Illegal Aliens & Barack Obama

  Implications Hidden in the 14th Amendment

The citizenship of millions of Americans is dependent on the citizenship declaration of the 14th Amendment.  Most are dependent on its true meaning, but a great number are dependent on its false interpretation.
That misinterpretation springs from the unspecified meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” as mentioned in the amendment, which is here quoted:  All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.

Subject to the jurisdiction of government means subject to the government’s authority, which means being under and bearing the legal obligation of citizenship, which comes with the obligation of obedience to authority.  No baby ever born in any age has ever been born subject to a citizen’s obligation of obedience to government authority.

No one who is not an adult is subject to  the jurisdiction of the government.  All subjection is real but does not become real until one becomes an adult member of a society or  country or nation.  It is real only for them and not until they are members of the adult group.
It is not real for their younger siblings, nor for their children, nor, in a sense, for their sisters, mothers, aunts, nor daughters.  Only men are fully  subject to the citizen’s obligation of obedience to government’s full authority because only men are obligated to fight for their nation.

No baby has ever been obligated to fight to defend its nation, -nor has any female.  That was the reason they were not accorded all  the civil responsibilities of citizenship.
That is the reason that national membership did not descend from mothers, being as mothers were not the head of the family  (unless divorced or widowed).

The wording of the 14th Amendment has created massive misunderstanding because it is elegantly but horribly worded being as it was authored by men who did not understand the underlying principle with which they were working.  They built a statement  composed of parts that they arranged in an order which left out essential elements of reality, and for that reason it didn’t make the  clear sense that it made in their minds.  But their minds were not cognizant of all of the factors that are part of the formula that they  intended to elucidate.
Two elements were missing from the abstract picture or structure that they constructed.  They didn’t intend for it to be abstract but  the absence of those two factors resulted in it being an abstract construction, because its middle was missing.

What was missing?  The Truth about subjection; who is subject and who is not.  Minors are not subject.  They are not born subject  to anything other than natural desires and needs.  The authors of the amendment knew that, and so what they wrote in fact left out  that truth, and its absence requires that it be deduced since it’s only implied and not stated.

It’s implied that those born with an inherited obligation of obedience, -a latent responsibility that they must one day bear, are  considered to be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the central government.  All who read the amendment are expected to  understand the unstated, and to not misinterpret its words to mean something unintended; namely, that babies are subject to the  obligation of obedience to government just like adult citizens.  The mind that would understand the simple words of the amendment  must fill in the blank elements that are missing thanks to its elegant simplicity.

The other element that is missing is the one that was of such antiquity that it probably never even occurred to the authors.  It’s  position in the original picture, -the original construction of the principle of citizenship, had faded into invisibility and was not  included, -just as it was not included anywhere in the Constitution.  What was that element?  The element of gender.
Just as babies are not subject to  the obligation of obedience that citizens bear, so also from time immemorial women were not subject to the obligation either  because they also were the exempted and protected vulnerable class that the male citizen class existed to protect and defend as their  first and foremost obligation.
Does the Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause read: “No man, except a natural born American man, shall be eligible…”?
Certainly not.  Instead is says “No person”.  But is that what it really meant?  Does not the word person include adult women?  Were  women allowed to vote or hold public office?  “Not in a million years.”  So what is the mind that reads the requirement forced to do?   It is forced to translate “ideal speak” into “real speak”.
“No man except a natural born American man shall be eligible…” or “No citizen except a natural born male citizen shall be  eligible…”  Truly, words are one thing; reality is another.

So if in reality women and children were not subject then how did the idea arise that temporarily present foreign parents could also bear the obligation of citizenship?  Why would the male tourists of a foreign nation be obligated to fight for America and her women  and children and elderly and incapable?  If the male father is not so obligated, then how can his child inherit an obligation that does not exist?  Answer:  He can’t.

This fact is glaringly evident in the example of foreign couples on planes that make a refueling stop-over in Hawaii while on a flight from the far East to the Western hemisphere.  If a pregnant wife goes into premature labor and delivers her baby on Hawaiian soil,  does that mean the child is born with an inherited innate obligation to defend America?  Can that child, when grown, be expected to  register with the Selective Service regardless of the fact that its parents are not Americans and never even lived in America?  Of  course not.

But what does “lived in America” really mean?  Does it describe that brief stop-over?  Does it describe a one-day visit across our  international borders?  How about a two day visit, or a two week visit, or a two month visit, or a two year visit by full-time students?   The truth is that a visitor is not  a resident, just as a guest is a still a guest, whether for an hour or for a month or for several months.  Visitors and  guests are not under the obligations of residents because they are not members of the family, the household, the society, nor the  nation, and thus neither are the children born to them under the roof of the home where they are guests.
That includes the child of a foreign student named Barack Obama.  Neither he nor his son were subject to American authority since  the father was merely a guest, a visitor.  So by the words of the 14th Amendment and its subjection requirement, Obama Jr. was not an American citizen.

But there is more to it.  The Supreme Court, when it interpreted the 14th Amendment in the Wong case (1898), jammed back into  the missing middle of the amendment’s citizenship construct, a new group which then became viewed as being part of its authority.   They were included in an utterly stealthy manner.

The amendment does not spell out who is and who is not subject to the full authority of the American central government, leaving  that to be filled in by those who read it, likewise, the Supreme Court did not spell out who is subject either, but its ruling that children of immigrants (permanent members of American society) are also citizens of the United States, forces those reading the amendment and reading their ruling to have to draw a conclusion as to the logic, -the principle, underlying their decision, and there is only one.

It is that fathers of native-born children, whether citizens or not, are subject to the obligation to defend the nation as long as they are  more than mere guests, but are indeed full-fledged members of American society with permanent legal permission to live and work in  the United States.
One is forced to infer that because of the obligation that adult male members of society bear, their sons inherit that obligation as a latent responsibility which they must shoulder if they come of age in America as children of America, and because of  bearing that obligation they were deemed to be American citizens at birth by the Supreme Court even though such a view was never  intended nor imagined by most of those who wrote and passed the amendment, each of which was okay with its ambiguous wording because it didn’t mean at the time what it could and did come to mean in the future, and like most people, the authors weren’t thinking  much about the future.
Its inherent ambiguity may have been viewed as a positive when it came to getting it ratified because everyone  could read into it what they wanted.

So 30 years after its passage, children of immigrants were deemed to be United States citizens, while children of mere foreign visitors were not addressed  since the subject of the case was a native-born child of immigrants and not tourists.  But that fact escaped the Attorney General at the  time, one John Griggs, who jumped to the conclusion that the decision applied to all U.S. birthed children born to all foreigners,  -whether members of American society or merely passing through, -with the lone exception of foreign diplomats.

His erroneous view then became the unofficial “Law of the Land” and has ever since been ossified as part of the legal skeleton of  the nation as a fully institutionalized error.  It is by that error that Obama is commonly assumed to be a U.S. citizen, supposedly  having been born in Hawaii.  But by the real truth, and the real decision of the court, the 14th Amendment does not apply to the  circumstances of his birth since his father was merely a foreign student and not an immigrant.

He is not the only type of presumptive citizen that results from the error.  Children of illegal aliens also are deemed to possess U.S.  citizenship merely due to being birthed within U.S. borders.  That is not based on the amendment nor the court decision regarding that child of immigrants but merely on the presumptuous error of that Attorney General in 1898.

Could a law be passed to correct that error?  Sure, but one isn’t even really needed.  Since it is merely a policy error, and not an  error of Law nor the court, the Attorney General or the President could order that it be corrected immediately.
How could it be corrected?  By declaring that it is the policy of the United States government that illegal alien fathers are not subject  to the obligation of obedience and military service that citizens and immigrants are subject to.  Then, since the fathers would not be  subject to the jurisdiction of Washington, their children also would not be subject through them, and therefore would not qualify for  citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

The subjection that children of illegal aliens are ignorantly presumed to be born under would vanish instantly and it would be recognized that they are not legally Americans but are foreigners only.  They then, in adulthood, would have to choose which nationality they wished to embrace and would have to be naturalized or be deemed illegal aliens.

But there are few if any politicians who would or could call for taking such action.  Yet without such a common sense solution to  an age-old error, how can any sane person view our government as not being insane?  A government that could make and follow, (-as well as  institutionalize) an error so large is not a government that any sane person can depend on for their future survival.  Just ask the people  of New Orleans.

They thought that they were safe, -that the government was protecting them from the lake waters that threatened their endless levees.  But the government, and its levees, were an abject failure.  And that failure is just the tip of the iceberg.  Only a  government populated by citizens of a moral and responsible and patriotic and God-fearing society will take their responsibilities with  the gravity they deserve.
Such an America no longer exists, if it ever did, except in pockets here and there.  It would be wise to live  in one of them going forward, otherwise your community will likely be going backward, fiscally and socially and morally speaking.   You probably already know that and can see evidence of it all too clearly.  Graffiti is the most blatant sign.

By A.R. Nash  May 2013

http://obama–nation.com

The Phantom Citizenship of President Obama

  Citizenship via Natural Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BORN to OBEY VS OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primal Law & Fundamentals of Citizenship

Primal Bonds & Primal Obligation

cooked version:

Natural Instinct,  Natural Bond,  Natural Duty  & Natural Rights

raw version:

Primal Instinct,  Primal Bond,  Primal Duty  & Primal Rights

Primal instincts determine fundamental things in
life.  The most primal instinct of all is a craving for oxygen.  The experience of water-boarding is so distressing not because it inflicts pain or injury but because it induces panic by interfering with the freedom to satisfy a primal urge, the urge to breath.
Perhaps second is the primal reaction to being burned by fire or high heat, followed by aversion to the pain of stepping on piercing objects like thorns, nails, and needles while barefoot.  Avoiding pain, cold, thirst and hunger are primal responses.

But another primal instinct comes into existence after a mother has a baby. The development of a primal maternal bond to her baby results in a new instinct, one felt by every sentient being that feels that bond, -the most primal bond of all.  It’s the instinct to protect, provide for, and possess one’s own young.  A world without that bond and the instincts connected to it would be quite different;

~on the personal level;
Stranger: “I want your baby and I’m gonna take her.”
Mother:   “Ok,..I don’t have a feeling either way.”

~ on the national level;
Potentate: “I want your country and I’m gonna take it.”
Passive citizen: “Ok, I don’t have any feelings about that either way.”

~on the international level;
Alien:  We want your planet and we’re gonna take it.”
Earthling: “Ok, we don’t have any feelings about that either way.”

Primal bonds are very real even though they exist on a level that rarely reaches our conscious mind.  We aren’t conscious of how strong they are until they are violated by those who would sever them in the physical world.  Then we awaken, like Lambert, the Sheepish Lion, as his adoptive mother, a sheep, is carried off by a ravenous wolf.  Then the bond’s full primal power comes to the surface.
Nascent Dictator: “I want your freedom and I’m gonna take it.”
Passive male citizens: “Ok, we don’t really have any feeling about that either way.”

We, like free stallions, have a primal instinct against being enslaved and chained; -against our liberty being robbed from us.  That’s obvious, but there’s another less obvious primal instinct.
Primal bonds are a form of primal instinct, -an instinct that rebels strongly at separation from that to which one is bonded.  That instinct is the source of a primal right, -a right to own that which one’s own body has produced, -one’s own young.  From another angle, it is a  primal property right, -the right to own not just one’s self, but what one makes, or fairly and legitimately acquires.

Primal rights start on a primal level, with the right to live, to breath, to walk, to speak, to think, and to feel, and they are always accompanied by primal instincts, beginning with the instinct to defend one’s self from harm.  Followed by, or preceded by the instinct to defend those to whom one is bonded.
A mother is bonded to her children, and ideally to her husband.  A father is bonded to his wife & children, and it is his primal instinct to defend them against attack, -be it by an animal or a person or a mob or an army.  His right of self-defense extends to them as well since they are his and are of him.

They, being dependent on his primal instinct to defend them, have a right to count on him to defend them because they cannot defend themselves to the degree that he can.  He bears an obligation to be their defender.  It is his primal responsibility.

But if he is a freeman, then his responsibility does not end there.  He also bears a responsibility to participate in the defense of the community to which he belongs, including his clan, his tribe and his country.

If such a responsibility were not real and not felt, there never would have been such a thing as the Confederate Army, which was populated by common men who were not slave owners.  They either felt the responsibility to defend their own and volunteered, or they were conscripted by their government to perform the duty that issues from their primal obligation to defend those to whom they are bonded, along with those to whom they are connected in the struggle to remain alive and free.
Just as the individual has the right to defend his own, so also the tribe leader has a right to defend his tribe even if mounting that defense requires ordering his men-folk to perform their duty of defending their greater family, -their own people.

It is not fair to those who shoulder their responsibility voluntarily when some are unwilling to do so and thus place a greater share of sacrifice on those who are willing, and so it is the right of the leader, in doing his duty to defend his people, to order the recalcitrant and reluctant to perform their duty whether or not they feel the primal instinct, and embrace their primal duty.

His primary means of enforcing his fair orders is the use of force and punishment, both of which can be considerable.  The individual, who’s a member of a community, is not an island with no connection to others.  He is part of a matrix of similarity and common dependency when it comes to avoiding being annihilated or enslaved.  He bears a responsibility to man the position that is assigned to him in the circle of common defense.
In nations that do not practice ostracizing, the only penalty for disobedience is the use of force and /or  incarceration.  Discipline must be maintained or troop- cohesion will evaporate.  That is essentially what happened in South Vietnam, but not in North Vietnam.  The south was not gripped by the primal instinct of self-defense and resistance to enslavement, nor community duty, and so they were over-run by those in the grip of the ideology of totalitarian Marxist “liberation” in the form of Statist nationalistic dictatorship.

A big brother (the United States) cannot fight all of your battles for you.  At some point, you have to grow up and fight your own battles, but the South was far too immature, and so was not prepared for the invasion to come.
Mature nations know that vigilance is the price of freedom, and vigilance requires the participation of the able-bodied men of the nation.  In time of peace, that participation may be voluntary, but in a time of war, it may not be.  It was not voluntary during World War I & II because the man-power raised voluntarily to fight and win the wars in Europe, -threats to the free world, was insufficient, and so a draft was instituted.  And men were conscripted to fight for their country -whether it was their native country or their adopted country.  They were fulfilling their primal duty to fight for those who could not fight, -for the defenseless, the exempt and incapable or less capable.
Whether defense is on the personal level or on the national level, the principle is the same; -the primal duty to defend those who depend on you and to whom you are bonded.
Back when the 14th Amendment was being written, -with its added citizenship clause, Native Americans and Gypsies were deemed by many to be outside of its citizenship provision because they had no bond to American society and were not viewed as being under the jurisdiction of the local or county or state governments because they were a people unto themselves.
Gypsies were transients everywhere they went, -with no attachments to other Americans, having their own law and leadership.  Therefore they were not included in the meaning of the jurisdiction under which citizens lived because they did not live under it, and therefore citizenship was not intended to be imputed to them since they were completely outsiders.

They had no primal bond to other Americans, and therefore they were not under any duty to defend a people that they were not a part of.  As such, they were not under an obligation of obedience to the authority of the government of the American people since they were separate and apart from them.  They had a right to not be subjugated by a power that was not a part of their structure and identity.  That’s especially  true of Native Americans.

Immigrants come from a place and life where the same circumstance is true, but after adopting America as their new home and nation, their former bond and duty is overlaid by their new obligation to their new society and country.  They therefore become subject to the authority of their new nation’s government.

That is a truth that was not acknowledged by the United States government from its establishment until the Supreme Court in 1898 declared that the native-born children of immigrants are born subject to the authority of Washington and therefore are American citizens by the authority of the 14th Amendment.  That opinion was diametrically opposed to the position of the United States government until it was tried before a federal court, followed by the Supreme Court and upheld by the majority in the suit of the U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark.
What primal principle was the government following for over a century instead of the one the high court mandated be followed?  It was the principle of duty being tied to identity.  If your identity was not American, then you were not under the jurisdiction of the American government because you were under no obligation to fulfill a duty to a people and nation that are not your own.
To be a part of the American people and nation you had to be American-ized by rejecting your former nationality, your former sovereign, monarch, or potentate, and his government.  If you were not willing to do so, then you were not to be considered to be an American, and only American parents were capable of producing American children.

Every family had only one nationality, one loyalty,   and one government. Dual citizenship was not possible because nationality was not inherited from one’s mother unless the father had died before her child was born.  Also, from the founding of the nation, a foreign woman who married an American man became a derivative citizen of the United States through her husband.  And from 1907 until 1922 an American woman who married a foreign man lost her American citizenship outright (Nationality Act of 1907).   If Obama had been born in the year in which his grandfather was born, he wouldn’t even be an American citizen.
Clearly the citizenship of American women was viewed as being less than that of American men.  Why was that the case?  Because they were not under the primal duty to defend the nation.  American women, like immigrant men, could not be ordered to serve the nation in time of war nor forced to undergo combat training, much less actual combat.  But American men could, including American blacks, and because of that obligation blacks were in the strange and awkward situation of being second-class citizens and yet they could vote and serve on juries  (and be elected or appointed to public office) regardless of being dirt poor, while American women could not, regardless of how wealthy or educated or intelligent or powerful they were.  Discrimination was the American way in actual practice though not in philosophy.
The implication of these facts is that when the Supreme Court ruled that domestically born children of immigrants were subject to federal authority (even though it was only latent subjection until they reached adulthood) it did not simultaneously rule that domestically born children of non-immigrants were also born under that subjection.
It could not rule that they were because that would be a violation of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause since non-immigrant fathers bear no responsibility to defend a nation that is not theirs.
Their visit to America, along with their pregnant wife, did not obligate them to defend America because they would not have a primal bond to America, nor a primal duty to serve in its defense.

Being merely guests, America would have no right to force them to.  They remained subject to their duty to their own nation and people, and their son born in America would inherit that same duty as a latent obligation to one day defend that foreign homeland  if needed, -the homeland where they would grow up,  -unless their mother was not foreign but American.  Then, if the marriage was a fraud, they might grow up in America, but their nationality would have been inherited only from their father.
The result of these facts is that the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to children of non-immigrants because they, like their fathers, were exempt by primal law, and international law, (as were U.S.-born children of immigrants by the previous national policy and tradition).  But the Supreme Court imposed the principle of primal duty on native-born children of immigrants, while not imposing it on native-born children of non-immigrants.  That is the clear limit of their opinion, the boundary that it did not cross, but unfortunately for our nation during its last several decades, that was a boundary that the Attorney General in 1898 (John Griggs) did cross in interpreting their opinion.
And now the belief that any child born in America (except to foreign diplomats) is a citizen via the authority of the 14th Amendment is an institutionalized error that is assumed by all to be a fundamental element of American law when in fact it has no basis whatsoever in actual law.
He made that erroneous conclusion because he had no clue about what the subjection requirement of the amendment meant, and so he ignored it, and it’s been ignored ever since.  But without meeting its requirement, no child is born a citizen of the United States, even if the incorrect and ignorant policy of the government since then has assumed that the opinion and resulting policy of Attorney General Griggs is the law of the land.
But in actual truth, it is not “the Law of the land”, it is merely the policy of the land.  It was not a position passed by nor endorsed by any Congress other than by passive acquiescence, nor did it comport to the limited ruling of the Supreme Court.  By that policy Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States, but not by any law or court opinion ever issued.

Barack Obama, being a national policy citizen, and not a naturalized citizen, nor a statutory citizen, nor a derivative citizen, nor a constitutional citizen (via the 14th Amendment), is least of all a natural born citizen as the Constitution requires all Presidents and Vice-Presidents to be since the only political nature he inherited was through his father, and his father was an alien visitor, and not an immigrant.  Hence his presidency is unconstitutional.

By Primal Law, he had no duty to the United States since his latent primal duty was to Kenya, -the home land of his father.  So the United States had no obligation to embrace him as one of its children, and he in turn had no right to expect that it did.  He only had the right to expect that his paternal ancestors’ homeland owed him the right to be a member of its society and nation since he was one of its descendants.

And its laws, and those of Britain, acknowledged such a right, and he had two years after reaching adulthood at age 21 during which to embrace that right and to shun the non-primal right of American-policy  citizenship, and become a fully subject and singularly loyal Kenyan citizen by taking the Kenyan oath of Allegiance and Renunciation.

Presumably he didn’t do that since American citizenship was of far greater value even as he was probably maintaining the story that he was Kenyan born in order to receive financial assistance as a foreign student.  That can’t be proven because he has kept all of his records secret.  One can’t assume that he is doing that for no good reason.  Secrets are kept for a reason, and that reason usually begins with embarrassment or evidence of lying, and fraud.
But the American citizenship that he presumably possessed was a form that allowed him to become not just a state representative, and state Senator, but even President of the Senate, -but…not President of the United States.
It was a citizenship which allowed him to not only become a United States federal judge, but even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but…not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military.

Article II, Section I  U.S. Constitution:  “No person except a natural born citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,”.   As such, his reign as POTUS is an ongoing crime against the Constitution since he is an illegitimate President of the United States.
ps:
Nationality and citizenship are two separate concepts.  One is a National of his country, and a citizen of his nation.  No one is a citizen of a country because a country is not a political-legal entity but is instead a large natural association of people within a contiguous land area.  Indonesia is not a natural country because it is comprised of 18,000 island, with 6,000 of them inhabited.  The people are citizens of a nation but not nationals of a country except in regard to the main island and those close near.
Originally India was not a natural nation because of the Hindu–Muslim divide, so it split off the nation of Pakistan.  It also was an unnatural nation because it was comprised of two separate countries, one on each side of India, so it split-off the nation of Bangladesh.   Just as one can be a U.S. Citizen but not be a real American (Boston bomber) so one can also be an American but not be a citizen (as was the case with Native Americans and children of illegal immigrants who were raised in the United States.  They have no other identify or country, but aren’t true citizens.
Obama isn’t a “true American” due  to his upbringing immersed in  Islamic culture & schooling and Islamic religion, -along with his mentoring in Hawaii as a  teenager by the Communist Frank Marshall Davis.  Proof of just how un-American he is is seen in a video in which former governor Richardson and Sec. Of State Clinton and others are on a stage with their hands on their hearts while Obamas’ remained at his side all through the singing of the Star Spangled Banner.  His heart belongs to Allah and Alinsky,-not America.
by a.r. nash  april 2013  obama–nation.com