When Everyone is Wrong, They All Seem to be Right

~why the founding fathers were all natural born citizens

Yesterday was different.  I finally felt done with editing & revising all the hundred plus expositions on citizenship and birth certificates I’ve written, and was in a somewhat different place with a different mental perspective.  That perspective happened to be that of 1787, and with all the dust of controversy having dissipated, I could finally clearly see the presidential eligibility clause through the eyes of its authors.
That was something that I was unable to do previously.  Instead I relied on logic shaped by a plausible and reasonable assumption that I had absorbed from others who had preceded me in examining the controversy of what the presidential eligibility clause really means.

What I saw yesterday, while thinking without any preconceptions, was that a huge factor had always been missing from the logical explanation of what the founders’ thinking was.  What I saw was surprising, and a reversal of what I had read, assumed, and written a dozen times over, and that was the central importance of the present epoch in which they lived, along with  those who populated it.
The huge factor that was missing was the natural importance of the Founding Fathers themselves, -alive and electable, in contrast to imagined future Americans who might seek the office of the President.  I saw the fact that the first qualification for who could be President applied not just to future generations but also to the Founders’ generation as well.
To refresh your memory, the Constitution states;
“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;”

It became clear that the language of that first exception did not exclude them because the first thing they would have written would not have been a restriction that excluded themselves, but one that included themselves as the exception.  That restriction of the universal prohibition of “No person”, meant no person was eligible to be President, with the exception of…., and then they inserted the description of what type of citizen would be allowed under the exception, and that description included all of them, which I’ll explain after pointing out that the exception that followed it was an exception to their exception.  In other words; they allowed another exception to the natural born citizen exception, permitting a second class of persons (citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted) to also be an exception to the “No person,” prohibition.

The Founders, all being natural born citizens, left the door open to another class besides the one that they were a part of, and that exception was for those who were naturalized citizens and thus not describable as natural citizens.
That allowance mirrored that for all other elected offices, permitting the candidacy of loyal, tested Americans who were born in a foreign land that they no longer considered to be their home, -America filling that role.  They gave them the respect and dignity that they had earned through a long war and its aftermath, and thus acknowledged them as equals, not inferiors.

I also realized something that surprised me, something that I had never read anyone point out, something completely overlooked, and that was the fact that the limitations on the presidency did not come with one of those for Representatives and Senators, which was a necessary minimum length of time of possessing United States citizenship.  Representatives had to be citizens for at least seven years, Senators for nine years, but Presidents?…zero years!?

The logical explanation for their lack of inserting a minimum number of years was that the presidency was safe principally by the natural born citizenship requirement, and secondarily by the 14 year residency requirement.  Any immigrant who had chosen America as his permanent home, and who had lived through the previous 14 years was very likely (if English speaking, -and more so if an immigrant from England) to be a naturalized citizen already, but even if not naturalized, was just as likely, or more, to be as loyal to America as native citizens, -large numbers of which had been devoted loyalists obedient and subservient to the King of England.

And on top of those two safe-guards was the fact that no one who was a naturalized immigrant or the U.S. born son of an unnaturalized immigrant, had any chance of being a candidate that anyone would vote for to be President.  Only natural native citizens, born and raised in America, stood any chance of election.  Immigrants were viewed and described as foreigners even after naturalization, because their origin and upbringing was foreign (along with their accents no doubt).
The presidential eligibility clause is the oddest clause in the entire Constitution because of the nature of its construction, -what it contains and what it doesn’t contain.  I read that it was kind of shelved until near the end of the long summer in which the Constitution was written, shelved because of the importance of the office of Commander-in-Chief of the national military power, power that could be used as Napoleon later used it, -to make himself Emperor.  They were fully aware of such a potential and that was why they put the power under the auspices of an elected officer, -the President, who could appoint and fire generals and admirals.

Along with allowing immigrant citizens who could never get elected, they added a residency requirement which applied not only to immigrants but also in perpetuity to natural citizens as well, which meant that Americans born abroad were required to have lived in the United States for fourteen years before being eligible to be President.  The question that raises is; “did  they connect in their minds the residency requirement to natural citizens also or only to naturalized citizens?”   The answer is unknown and unknowable.

What I saw from the founders’ perspective was the truth about what they had actually written, and not what I had evolved to presume they had meant.  I had come to presume incorrectly that one had to be “a natural born citizen of the United States”.  I don’t recall when that thought took seed but I know that it came to mind because of the conventional wisdom that explained natural born citizenship as referring to Americans born as citizens of the United States after the ratification of the Declaration of Independence, -as opposed to those born earlier as subjects of the Crown of England.

By that perspective, none of the founding fathers viewed themselves as natural born citizens of the United States (which didn’t exist when they were born) and they therefore had to add a “grandfather clause” to allow for their own eligibility.
But I realized that that perspective would not have been how they saw themselves, -and that that language was incorrect.  They did not require of a President a quality that they themselves did not naturally possess and that is evident in the fact that they didn’t require the President to be a natural born citizen of the United States.  They only required that he be a natural born citizen period, -without adding “of the United States”.

They all were natural born citizens of their home colony, being American natives by birth, born and raised in America and they certainly would have described themselves as such because the alternative would be describing themselves as immigrants and foreigners or naturalized citizens.  So the use of the term “natural born citizen” was in connection to their home land, the commonwealth or colony (state) in which they were born and grew up, and, -in the broader context, the American country comprised of similar English-speaking members of the American world created by descendants and immigrants from Great Britain, but not in reference to the evolving United States which was something that they were still attempting to create.

They had to have realized that if they allowed only the one exception (natural born citizens) -while it would have been adequate and identical in effect to the election result of adding the second exception, (allowing naturalized citizens) it also would have insulted the feelings of all immigrant men who fulfilled the other two requirements of maturity and residency, and no doubt the vast majority of them were men who had rejected life in England under the King and his minions, and embraced life in America with its principles of unalienable human rights, and protected freedoms as Americans.

Since there was no chance of any of them actually being elected President, there was no point in offending them in the name of a non-existent risk of such an American being a secret loyalist supporting the Crown although elected President.  So there was no good reason to not add an exception to the main exception, one to accompany the exception made for themselves and all natural Americans.  That way everyone was happy and everyone was equal and would be judged solely on the merits of what the voters saw in them.  No insult and no risk to nation security.  All citizens (males) were eligible.

A couple other points should be noted also.  They certainly would have put the primary exempted class first in the order of exceptions.  Which they did, and they also would have included themselves in the primary class because filling the office of the President would definitely be all about them in the present, and near future, and secondarily about the extended future.
The second point is that they realized full well that the second class of exceptions, unlike the first, was a finite group whose membership ceased being increased or replaced once the Constitution was ratified.  After June 1788, no more “citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” were coming into this world.  So the class of naturalized citizens eligible to be President at that time was a class that would disappear when the last of them was deceased in about 50 years.

Lastly, it should be recognized that the addition of the second exception for those who were  United States citizens only but not natural born was not written by the Founders to allow themselves to be President, but to allow naturalized Americans to not be and feel excluded from a high prize which would only be won by about .00001 percent of the population (more or less) meaning one in three million, [-today that ratio being 100 times greater].
The Founders were both types of citizens.  They were natural members of the American land of their birth by being fathered by subjects of their home commonwealth.  That membership was converted from belonging to Britain through their membership in their colony, to belonging solely to their state and through it to the union of the American States, making them therefore also citizens of the United States.

While the eligibility of those who were only “citizens of the United States” would self-terminate when all who were naturalized citizens when the Constitution was adopted had died, the eligibility of natural born citizens would continue on in perpetuity, at least until this modern era in which everyone is ignorant of what natural citizenship is, resulting in the election of one who not only was not born as a natural citizen, but also was not born as a 14th Amendment citizen, nor as a statutory citizen.

He was in fact, by the true and original meaning of the 14th Amendment, not born as a citizen of the United States by actual law but merely by an Attorney General’s erroneous administrative opinion based on a deliberately distorted Supreme Court opinion that rejected consideration of the true and original meaning of the words that they were ruling on (the words of the 14th Amendment).

The historical circumstances required in order for Obama to be considered eligible to be President is like a bank vault combination lock with half a dozen numbers that must be set in the proper order.  Or like the 6 steps that the managers of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant had to take in violation of proper procedure which caused the nuclear core to melt down.  Any one of them would have prevented it from happening.  But like a vault combination lock, they all occurred one after another leading to the worst nuclear disaster possible.  A similar American Chernobyl occurred in relation to the Presidency and via a similar error-based process.  Once ignorance replaced insight then the tumblers slowly began lining up leading up to a meltdown of the constitutional rules for selecting a legitimate President.

by a.r. nash nov. 2012  obama–nation.com

The Iron Gate that once protected the Presidency

    ~the source of Obama’s presidential ineligibility

     America is one of the most magnanimous nations on earth.  It was so from the beginning, and that fact was inscribed in the Constitution itself.  It provided that if a man met the age and residency requirements, he would be eligible for election or appointment to every office in the land, regardless of where he was born -as long as he was a citizen of one of the states of the union for the prescribed number of years
Everyone who previously had been a subject of one of the colonies became a citizen of their independent sovereign state along with being a citizen of the union of the States of America via their new state citizenship which began in July of 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was ratified.  So every citizen who met the requirements could serve in every office and position in the land, -they could be a representative, a Senator, -even President of the Senate, the Chief Justice, or a cabinet or military officer, and it didn’t matter how they acquired their citizenship, -whether naturally or by naturalization, -whether foreign-born or native born.

But without regard to length of citizenship, one could become Commander-in-Chief of the United States military forces and the American President as long as they were a citizen when the Constitution was ratified.
That was how it was because that was how the Constitution made it to be.  But the Constitution had two built-in timers that started ticking from the time it was ratified.  They didn’t pertain to anyone except those few rare individuals who might one day find themselves with the option of seeking the unique office of the President.
One of those timers involved an expiration situation for all of the male, Caucasian, Protestant, English-speaking citizens of America who were alive when the Constitution was ratified.  They, and their children would all be eligible to serve as President.
The timer that started ticking in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified was a biological timer counting down to death.  The gate that closed when it stopped ticking set a barrier on who could become President after the lives of all living eligible American citizens in 1788 had ended.
When they were all deceased, the iron gate closed and no one could become President unless they were born as a natural American citizen.  An era then ended, the era in which acceptable and eligible male citizens could serve as long as they were alive when the Constitution was adopted.  From that point and forward, “no person except a natural born citizen” could be the President & Commander-in-Chief.
So thereafter, the sons of non-citizen immigrants could not be President (because they were not citizens either), just as the US-born sons of foreign royalty, or foreign representatives or foreign visitors could not be President, -along with Native Americans, Gypsies, Asians and American women.

After the Declaration of Independence was ratified  another timer began ticking and the other iron gate began slowly closing on some of those who weren’t U.S. citizens at birth because their foreign immigrant father was not a citizen.  They drew their nationality from him and so, like him, they were not Americans.
That iron gate was a restriction relating to the nationality of the President.  It barred anyone living who wasn’t a citizen when the Constitution was ratified, -or was born to such a one, (a foreigner).

The timer that began ticking in 1776  involved the naturalization of the children of immigrants, -and whether or not they were naturalized before the Constitution was ratified or after.  It stopped ticking in 1788 upon the ratification of the Constitution by the 9th state, -New Hampshire.  Then the first iron gate closed on the presidential eligibility of  men naturalized after the Constitution’s adoption.

So if a foreigner had emigrated to America in 1771 with a one-year old son, and that son, upon turning 18 in winter or spring of 1788, had done what his father had not done, and had become a naturalized American, then he would have been a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was ratified in June 1788.  By the Constitution’s 2nd allowance to its restriction on the presidency,  -the allowance requiring simply United States citizenship, and not natural citizenship, he, like all native colonists born as subjects of the Crown, would one day become eligible to be the President.

But if his younger brother, (born in America in 1771) who turned 18 in 1789, then also became a naturalized United States citizen (via becoming a citizen of his home state) -he would not be eligible to be President ever because he was not a citizen at the time that the Constitution was adopted, nor was he a natural born citizen.   The iron gate had closed for him, barring any possibility to be President.  His older brother would one day be eligible but he never would even though born in the United States.

That would have been due to his father refusing to become an American, -which required swearing to totally reject all previous nationality bonds to his homeland and its government, along with the pledge to bear arms for the United States and bear true faith and allegiance to the United States and its Constitution.
By refusing to become an American, he and his household remained beyond the jurisdiction of the obligations, duties, and privileges possessed only by citizens.  All of those would be open to him, (and eventually his younger minor son) by becoming an American citizen, which would have automatically naturalized his son via his son’s blood connection to a new-citizen father.

But if the father had emigrated to a State like Virginia, his son, -by being born in the Commonwealth of Virginia, -even though born to a foreigner, would have been by law accepted as a Virginian citizen, -a “son of the soil” (and therefore a U.S. citizen) even though not born to a citizen father).
Even though a “son of the soil” would be a citizen, and be qualified to serve in Congress or on the federal bench, he wouldn’t be eligible to be President if born after 1788 because the iron gate had then closed on all who were not born as natural citizens.
To Congress, the courts, and the executive branch of the government, it didn’t matter where one was born, but to whom one was born.  If one was born to a foreigner then one was not an American.  One was a citizen of their father’s nation, a member of his society and tradition, and if that society and tradition was not American then a child born to such a person was no more an American than his father.
And it didn’t matter that one or more states granted such a “son of the soil” citizenship.  The Congress did not recognize such citizenship for federal purposes until a case of such a citizen being elected to Congress was settled by Congress in his favor, (but the presidency was always off-limits).
By the federal & state constitutions, the rights of such state citizens were protected, and they continued be eligible for all federal offices with the exception of the office of the President which remained off-limits by its unique restriction.  Being President was neither a civil nor a constitutional right, and only those persons recognized as being natural citizens were eligible after the gate of time had closed on the generations of citizens alive when the Constitution was ratified.

Following a Supreme Court opinion a hundred and ten years later (Wong Kim Ark 1898) the federal government was forced to ascribe U.S. citizenship to children of un-naturalized immigrants.  That didn’t change what the Constitution required of candidates for the presidency, but it changed the public’s and the government’s perception of what was required to merely be a citizen.
The misconception arose that merely being born within U.S. borders conferred U.S. citizenship, and worse still, that the U.S. citizenship of all persons born in the U.S. was the same, qualitatively, legally, and constitutionally.  The first two assumptions are correct, but the last one is patently false.

One form of national membership (-assumed to be constitutional since the Wong Kim Ark opinion) is newer than the other, while the other is the oldest form of membership in human history, i.e., natural national membership via a father who was a member.
So presidential eligibility boils down to one primary factor, -a factor over which no one has any control, and that is who one’s father was.  Where one was born is not relevant.    Barack Obama Jr. having no control over where his father was born or to which nation he belonged, was himself controlled by the supreme authority of the Constitution.  At least he should have been.
Unfortunately, he and his corrupt party chose to completely ignore the Constitution, so he illegitimately ran for, won, and usurped the office of the President in violation of the clear prohibition of the Constitution which directs that  “NO PERSON” shall be eligible to the office of the President “except a natural born citizen”, which excludes children of foreigners.
A similar type of travesty would be allowing a U.S. born son of Osama bin Laden or Fidel Castro to have command over a nuclear bomber, or a MIRV equipped nuclear submarine or ICBM.  No crew person who is not a natural born American is allowed anywhere near U.S. nuclear bombs because the absolute loyalty and obedience of children of foreigners cannot be assured.

No sane nuclear nation on earth has any other policy.  There is no room for mistake.  There is no room for subterfuge, there is no room for disloyalty, disobedience, or treason when it comes to such enormously destructive weapons.  The same goes for guarding the President.
Secret Service personnel and Marines entrusted with that responsibility must also be natural  American citizens, -having no direct foreign connection through foreign parents,-which is what the Constitution requires of the President first and foremost, and that is what Barack Obama violates every day that he occupies the presidency.

He is far less eligible to be President than every single one of the important people that work under his command in the field of nuclear weapons control and use.  He is not qualified to give presidential commands to them, nor to even guard himself.  For Obama to have authority over the  nuclear forces of the United States is equivalent to giving control of the Pentagon over to a buck private who’s half Russian.  Experience & qualification; both totally lacking.

He is an on-going fraud and an American travesty.  A living, breathing violation of the United States Constitution.  But the dependent lemming sheeple of the socialist left have done everything in their power to insure that he serves another unconstitutional four years.  Future generations and the fiscal solvency of our country be damned.
Unweaned, dependency populism led by a cool popular, confident, laid-back pot-loving dude is preferable.
Having succeeded, we’re doomed to a future even more bankrupt than what we already are facing.    We’re doomed to ever greater violations of the Constitution, -as bad as or possibly worse than the treasonous ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the unconstitutional health care monstrosity and its totalitarian “individual mandate”.
It’s bad enough that he is unconstitutionally serving as President.  He could do that and serve the country admirably, but instead his actions and inactions are more likely than not to be bad for constitutional fidelity, rule of law, government transparency, individual initiative, personal & corporate freedom, national fiscal solvency, national energy policy, international relations, and the Tenth Amendment limitation on federal power.

Let’s work to ensure that sane and constitutional policies find preeminence again in Washington.  That’s something we’ve never seen in our lifetimes.  What should be normal would truly be revolutionary, and millions of loyalists who support the statist, nanny, Big Brother government wouldn’t like it one bit.

They not only prefer the status quo, they want even more of it, -big government without end clamping on chains of socialist security while robbing the future, -until we find that the track ahead of us is gone and the credit-trestle spanning the gorge where financial solid ground should be is missing. All of that earth (the presumed wealth of the future) was removed in order to shore-up the track we are running on today.
Then, as the whole fiscal house of cards collapses and the pyramid scheme crumbles, as our credit-based-economy balloon deflates, we’ll fall right  into that abyss whose bottom is unknown.

Today’s “leaders” (with enormous assistance from the Federal Reserve) have stuck an IV line into the vein of the future tax-paying public.  Like vampires, they are draining the life-blood out of the body of the American nation of the future.  When that future finally arrives, we no doubt will find that the patient is not only horribly anemic, but may even be comatose.  Better prepare because actual national fiscal responsibility is about the last thing you can reasonably expect from what we call “our government”, -the one that does things it should not do and does not do the necessary things that it should.

by a.r. nash august 2012    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


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…


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)

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?]


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers