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

The Royal Law of Ascension & American Presidents

What you are about to read is a connecting of dots, a drawing of conclusions, and logical assumptions based on facts, deductions, and extrapolations.  Nearly all deductions are tied to facts, but one is tied to an assumption.  That assumption is in regard to who was the source of a serious constitutional error.  My extrapolation is that he was the person holding power when it was presumed by me to have gone into effect.  If that assumption is inaccurate then my assumption and assertion about when and by whom the error originated would be wrong, but not about the fact that it did appear at some (earlier) point in time.

The Marie Antoinette Electorate

& Their Cake President

When Marie Antoinette was asked what the starving peasant should eat since they had no bread (their dietary mainstay), she replied with a perfectly logical answer, -from her insulated perspective, “Let them eat cake.”
If you are out of one kind of food, like fresh fruit, you substitute another.  A non-brainer.  She was the Queen so she was an authority over others, -her words were authoritative because of her position, -but that was no preventer of her concepts from being dead wrong.  Being dead wrong isn’t something limited solely to insulated and isolated monarchs.  Entire indifferent, or biased and un-knowledgeable populations can be dead wrong in some of their concepts, -such as the Germans when it came to citizens of Jewish ancestry.  Americans are similarly ignorant of the errors in their own legal concepts, and mostly indifferent as well.  But that does not prevent them, and the authorities that support those misconceptions, from being dead wrong.

Marie Antoinette assumed that cake was a legitimate suggestion for what the populous should eat, but it was not in fact a legitimate suggestion.  But her ignorance didn’t allow her to recognize that fact.  The American people’s ignorance about whether or not a citizen such as Barack Obama is eligible to be President does not change the fact that his citizenship doesn’t allow him to be a legitimate President.  It doesn’t matter what the people or the authorities are aware of, the truth of the matter is determined by facts, not impressions or misconceptions.
Barack Obama’s presidency is as legitimate in the real world as was Marie’s suggestion.  He is the conceptual equivalent of cake as an acceptable solution.

Paper wrote: “Earlier you said all three words were necessary (natural born citizen).  Now you break them out into to different groupings (born citizen & natural citizen) to claim there is a historical source in the English language.”

When I started that sentence I was thinking of mentioning the three words individually, but since I’ve already done that repeatedly in previous expositions, and since they are self-explanatory, I changed my focus by namely the two phrases that they created when directly attached to “citizen”.
I think you’ll agree that the term “born citizen” expresses something real and not imaginary like unicorns.  But it is ambiguous since some are born as citizens by law, and some are not because they are born of Americans, not simply born in America (to immigrant foreigners) and are therefore citizens by nature, not by law.
Confusing?  That’s because there is no law by which children of Americans are Americans.

So it’s clear that citizens are real, born citizens are real, but what about natural-born?  What does that mean, if anything?  The answer is it means nothing other than a euphemism for out-of-wedlock children.  Well that is a use that is unrelated to the presidency as a requirement, so we can exclude it altogether.  That then only leaves for consideration “natural citizen”.  So are natural citizens something real or something purely imaginary?  Does their absence within American law mean that they are non-existent outside of American law?

The word natural defines what a natural citizen must be.  One who is a citizen naturally, -without the assistance or authority of law.  Law is not natural, and that which is natural includes no element of any man-made rules or laws.  It is only that which is related to life, living processes, blood connections and natural relationships.

That is almost self-explanatory since none of us would be here without those.  So we exist because of the natural, and not the legal.  The legal is purely a human construct, and not a natural force or principle.
We are what we are because of the life that created us.  That life made us the same form of life as our similar parents.  Whether by race, or ethnicity, or physical characteristics, or body type, or nervous system wiring, we inherit most of what we are via our genealogy.

Our relatedness to our parents is a natural relatedness, not a legal relatedness.  Nature governs.  But we are not alone in this life, nor alone in our family.  We have siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews, along with grandparents.  We all are a member of our family group, a natural group.  We are all group members and our membership is not a legal membership, or a commercial membership, nor a religious membership.  Rather, it is a family membership, and all natural clans & tribes, like families, are populated with the children of the natural members of the family groups.

Those who were adopted as youths or youngsters are not natural members even if treated as if they are.  They may even have equal civil and family rights, -like rights of inheritance.  But no matter how identical they are made within the family, -to the family members, they will never be natural family members because of having different parents.
Even if they are one of those individuals who looks almost exactly like someone else to whom they are not related, and they are adopted into a family with a child that looks exactly like them, they still would not be a natural child of the parents.

If the parents adopt a child before they become able to have their own, its younger siblings would have no idea when they later came along that the “firstborn” was born of other parents.
He could be indistinguishable from the natural children, -even have the same status in every way, but regardless of not knowing nor feeling that he was adopted, the parents know the truth, but never speak it.  They strictly maintain a pretense, a fiction that he is their natural child.

It all works out perfectly and everyone is happy, unless the family is one particular type of family, namely, the Royal family.  The Royal Heir must be a blood descendent.  And so, even in the face of having to hurt feelings by revealing the true relationship, the parents would have to discriminate against the “firstborn” who in fact was not a full blood member of the family.

And so the Royal ancient Law of Ascension must be read for all to understand what must be done, and it states clearly: “No child, except a natural born child of the crown, shall be eligible to ascend to the throne.”

To the dismay of many, the beloved “firstborn” is ineligible because of his non-royal parentage.  The position of King falls only to the true firstborn son, -a full-blood family member.

Some dislike the rule so much that they twist the mean of its words by claiming that under the law, all children are natural children by label, by a fiction of law, and therefore the adoptee is also eligible.  But they ignore and block out of their minds the fact that he must be more than a “natural child” by a fiction of law; he must be born a natural child, -not just labeled a natural child by a fiction of law.  So as the ancient Law of Ascension actually requires, he must be a natural born child of the King.

Who is an American?  And what does it mean?

Without the existence of law, native-born children of foreigners could not be recognized as being Americans.  I use the term “Americans” in the plural because if I use it in the singular then the answer is different.  After the Supreme Court ruled that the son of immigrant Chinese laborers (Wong Kim Ark, 1898) was a U.S. citizen regardless of his totally Chinese nature, (-appearance, dress, language, culture, and ancestry) and regardless of the Chinese Exclusion Act which barred “imported” Chinese laborers from U.S. Citizenship, he and those similar to him would be thenceforth known as Americans.
So if asked: “Are you an American?”  The answer would be “yes”.  But if asked: “Are you American?”  The answer wouldn’t be so clear, because his nature was not American, it was Chinese.
What is even more emphatically true is the answer to the same questions but asked of a naturalized Chinese who obtained citizenship before the ban.  He might be 35 years old, having lived in the U.S. for five years or more, and then naturalized.  He is then *an* American but he is not American.

Imagine you live among a large Mormon or Catholic family under one roof of a very expansive home.  The children in the home number so many it’s hard to keep count.  They could, if someone cared to, be categorized into three distinct groups.  Those who are full-blood children, those who are half-blood children from previous marriages, those who are no-blood children but were adopted from outside, those who are no-blood children but were born in the home and are being raised among the family by long-term guests of the family.  Then there is one more type of child and it is a half-blood child of a previous wife who gave birth in the home and left her child to be raised among its half-blood siblings.

So there are five distinctly different types of children.  Only one is a full-blood child of the father and mother.  If they all grow up and remain in their home as adults, and the parents have to travel to a foreign country for an extended period of time to care for a dying parent, they will have to decide who to leave in charge of the home legally.  Who would they pick?  A half-blood child?  A no-blood child? or the a full-blood child?
If they were to hypothetically be all of a similar age would it be impossible to choose?  Or would they simply and naturally choose their most capable natural child to be in charge?  What other choice would be better or even equal?

Parentage would make a difference, just as it does in nations.  Just because we in the United States maintain a fiction of law that all inhabitants are divided into only three groups;  citizens, immigrants, and non-immigrant aliens, that doesn’t make our fiction reality.

Where is the fiction in those designations?  It is in the simply title of citizen.  All citizens are equal citizens regardless of how they became citizens; (naturally or by natural-ization of some form, including naturalization at birth) but more than that, we regard them all as though they are natural citizens once they have been natural-ized.  And once they have been made natural, that is how our government then views them, -by seeing them as all equal through our fiction of law.

But when it comes to ascension to our throne, our throne of power, our ancient Law of Ascension distinguishes between American “natural citizens” by requiring that they be natural by birth, and not merely natural by a fiction of law.  Hence, they must be natural citizens by birth, -or born natural citizens, or natural born citizens (either way).  But it must be all three.

He who sits on the Throne can’t be simply a citizen, nor simply one born a citizen because some born of foreigners are natural-ized at birth by the 14th Amendment, making them “born citizens” also, albeit not naturally but by law.
So he must be a citizen, a born citizen, a natural citizen, i.e., -a natural born citizen.  The nature of his nature and origin must be describable by all three terms.

U.S. Constitution; Article II, Section I, Clause V:
No person except a citizen shall be eligible…
REJECTED.
No person except a born citizen shall be eligible…
REJECTED.
No person except a natural citizen shall be eligible…
REJECTED.
No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible…
ACCEPTED.

What brought all of this controversy into the open?  It was the election of a non-natural born citizen in violation of the United States Constitution.
And on what does it all hinge?  On the Supreme Court opinion handed down in the case of Wong Kim Ark in 1898.  Those who do not want to accept the obvious truth distort it by claiming that anyone birthed within our national borders is eligible to be President, and therefore the Constitution’s words must mean something other than what they mean; -they must mean what the royal British dictators decreed them to mean when it labeled for convenience and a fiction of law, all souls born within the king’s lands to be not just his subjects, not just his born subjects even if born of foreigners, but also his natural born subjects and equal in all respects regardless of whether or not their father was an English subject or an alien subject owing allegiance to a foreign king.
They claim that all our Founders and Framers were too stupid to discern the difference between reality and fiction and so incorporated forever an erroneous and ambiguous use of language following the pattern of the royal dictator whom they had utterly rejected.
By their reasoning, if the Framers of the Constitution really wanted to discriminate in favor of only sons of Americans, then they would have said that the President had to be a natural “natural born citizen”.  Does absurdity have no limit?

The true purpose and motive behind barring any children of foreigners from holding the reins of power held by the Commander of the American Army is illustrated by the very case on which they base their entire claim.

The founders wanted no foreign influence and ulterior motive secretly living in the heart of a U.S. birthed, alien-born & foreign raised royalist who won the office of President.

The defenders of the constitutional fraud known as Barack Obama maintain the fiction that where one is born is alone the determinant of one’s national loyal and attachment, and ignore the truth about the enormous influence that a British loyalist would have on his American-birthed son.  But ignoring reality does not change it.  Traitors do not become betrayers of their country because of where they were or were not born.  And loyalty is not instilled merely by that fact either, but by how one is raised and indoctrinated with pride in their family heritage and nationality.

The bond to one’s family homeland and relatives and society is well illustrated by the actions of Wong Kim Ark.  He was raised to know all about his parents’ parents and his parents’ homeland, and so as a youth he choose to make the long and possibly dangerous journey to China to connect with them for the first time ever.  A natural desire and human longing.  He not only then felt connected to them and their country but actually was connected by that direct exposure.

The bond between them was so strong that within about 5 years he felt compelled to make a second long and slow journey across half a world of ocean and return to China for a second visit, which lasted about a year.  It was upon his return to America that his trouble appeared when the port authorities in his home of San Francisco refused to allow him to enter the United States on the basis that he was an alien and not a citizen.

So his story is one to which we need to connect the dots regarding the meaning and intent of the framers when deciding that it would not be acceptable to allow any citizen who was not born a natural citizen from being President.

An American by birth and nature would have no similar attachments to a British family, history, ancestry, nobility, authority, and national pride in Britain.  His family would be American.  His tradition would be American.  His history would be American.  His national pride would be solely in America  His allegiance would not in the tiniest amount be divided between America and Britain.
His entire loyalty would be toward the Constitution and not the Crown.  His thoughts about government would be alien to the minds of Europeans that were loyal to their monarchs.  His philosophy would be rooted and grounded in the principles of Natural Liberty and Natural Rights, -including Self-governance and not dictatorship.

No acceptance of obsequious genuflecting before nobility.  No American man would ever again sheepishly bow to any king (including a Saudi king) unless he held secret feelings of loyalty and reverence which he kept hidden from all.  No American President would have secret longings to travel to Britain and connect and bond with his noble British brethern.  The thought of such a duplicitous allegiance was anathema and vomit to the very heart of the founders’ nature.

Wong Kim Ark was the poster child, if you will, of just what the founders and framers rejected.  The American leader must swear a solumn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, including those who are Americans.  And every American would-be citizen must swear an even stronger oath, -one by which they reject in the most absolute terms possible, all bonds, all devotion, all loyalty, and all allegiance to the beloved (or despised) monarch of their homeland.  All such ties must be utterly severed if they wished to become an American and solely an American.
The nationalism of the founders was absolute when it came to foreigners becoming Americans.  Why so strict?  Because there would be no second class American citizens.  The foreigners would be equal in all respects to their native natural American brethren and be free to serve in every single position of authority and representation in the land, including the national government, but with just one exception; -that being the position of Commander-in-Chief.  He must be American through-and-through, or almost.  He could actually be born of naturalized immigrants, but that is because they were, by a fiction of national law, natural citizens also.
~~~~~

~The blind lead the blind without even knowing that they are blind.
You are blind if you blindly think you understand that sentence.  It is inherently ambiguous.  It has multiple possible meanings, none of which is the clear meaning.  Your mind will stagger attempting to make sense of it.
Such is the nature of language, including that used in legal settings.  How does that impact America?  By allowing an ineligible candidate to run for the office of President, be placed on the ballots of all fifty states, (twice!), and then not be disqualified after being elected.

We are under the reign of an ambiguous, secretive closet socialist, -closet Muslim, black-hole background Griggs-citizen President whose citizenship is not the result of either natural transmission nor law but merely a policy established due to an error of understanding back in 1898.

If that erroneous, baseless policy had not been adopted by the U.S. Attorney General John Griggs, (who incorrectly interpreted a Supreme Court opinion to mean that all U.S. birthed children of all foreigners, including mere tourists, were American citizens, -except children of foreign diplomats) then Barack Obama would not only not be President, he would not even be a United States citizen.
Thanks to a seemingly insignificant mistake made over a century ago, our fate my be sealed due to a do-nothing President who happened to be one of those who obtained the appearance of citizenship by that error, and who is driving us straight toward a fiscal cliff at full speed.
~~~~

Natives, Tribes, & Forgotten Citizenship Truths

Rvised & corrected March 22

In case some missed the added comments and addendum from “Fundamental Constitutional Errors Obama Depends On”,  here they are as a revised separate post.

Understanding Presidential Eligibility

Understanding the meaning of the presidential eligibility clause requires nothing more than being aware of natural roles that exist by blood connection, by inheritance, by parentage, by nature.
Nature has only three patterns defining the relationship between members of a species, including humans.  One pattern is that of individuals being loners who do not live in a social group.  The next pattern includes those that do.
The third is a pattern similar to but different from the second because the second produces groups comprised of creatures having equal size and strength regardless of gender, while the third is comprised of members having different  sizes and strengths, with the weaker being the females and the stronger being the males.

The first pattern is rare in the human world, -exceptions being the homeless and hermits, while the second and third are the norm, and express the difference between the modern world and the world in which women are a form of property, -the world of dominant male-chauvinism and machismo.
The second pattern includes an anomaly in both the animal and human realms.  Among elephant herds there are no males because they are driven away as teenagers since testosterone makes their behavior unacceptable, and so the pattern developed of excluding them.
In a welfare society, unwed mothers are excluded from welfare if a father is present to care for his own child.  But without a job or career, fathers can’t support their children so they never assume responsibility for them, leaving them to be raised by welfare-receiving mothers.  That whole category of society is devoid of adult male father-figures.

But the third pattern of nature is the one most common among primates and many higher-level  mammals, including lions, tigers, elk, deer, goats,  cattle, walruses, etc.  The male is the dominant sex, the protector of the females and off-spring.  He is master of the domain.  That has been the common pattern in human society throughout the ages, including in the group that is a pre-cursor to nations; namely families, clans and tribes.
The male head of the family group is the ultimate authority because he is the one on whom falls the responsibility to sacrifice life and limb to defend his charges, his family, his people.  With that assigned role and with his strength, his position is preeminent.  When a female accepts him as her mate, he becomes her protector and she becomes subservient to his leadership role.  She takes his name and abandons her father’s name and authority.  She becomes a part of him and his world and takes a vow of obedience.

If she is an outsider from another tribe, it doesn’t matter in regard to their children because they are not what she was, instead they are what he is.   She is subsumed by the blood connections of his family sphere.  She takes pride in what he is and accomplishes, as do their children who also draw identity and pride in the ancestral heritage inherited from him, of which they are a part.  His wife is woven into that fabric as a naturalized member of the family and tribe.

But if a female native marries an outsider who co-habitates with a tribe not his own, their children will not be in the same circumstance because their father is an alien.  Their mother takes on a connection to him, and he is connected to another people, and thus also are their children; dual and conflicted identity and loyalty.  He could take his brood and move out of the tribe and go back to his own people, while the children of the male native father have no other people since the former tribe of their mother is foreign to them and they to it.  She is no longer an attached part of them, having been naturalized by marriage and motherhood into her husband’s clan or tribe.

Her sons can one day be the Chief, but the sons of the outsider father can never be Chief because they are not pure-blood natives of the tribe.  They do not belong to it exclusively.  They are not natural members but are members by permission of the tribe because its membership is passed from father to child, -not from mother to child.
That’s the natural pattern, and that’s the way it was in 1787 when the Constitution was written.  It has never been constitutionally altered except that now daughters can also be Chief.
Native-born citizens are to natural born citizens what fraternal twins are to identical twins.  The common perception of twins is that they look alike, and yet there are exceptions, as in when they are not the result of one egg but of two.  The result can not only be that they don’t look alike, but they can even be different races and genders.

Years back there was even a case of a mother who gave birth to a white baby and a black baby at the same time.   And recently in the news was a case of a mother birthing two sets of twins at once, -one in 300 million odds.  Those children exist against the same odds as Barack Obama’s presidency.
Suppose that one set of those twins were identical, and let’s say beautiful girls, while the other set were fraternal twin boys, -with one being albino and the other being black.  No one would look at them and think that they were all the same, -that they were indistinguishable.  Yet in the minds of the ignorant, the children of the descendents of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are identical to the U.S. born children of Osama bin Laden because natural citizenship does not exist.     They only recognize legal citizenship and think that being born in America makes one a legal citizen and therefore equal and indistinguishable in any way from those whose roots go back to the Mayflower.

But children of foreigners and children of Americans are as distinguishable as those two very different hypothetical sets of twins.  They were both born having membership in their family, just as natural and native-born citizens have citizenship from birth, but fraternal twins are not, and can never be, identical twins.  They are different,  (by nature),  just as natural citizens are citizens by nature, but native-born children of foreigners are like a child adopted from a mother in the next hospital bed who didn’t survive childbirth.  It can never be a natural child of the adoptive mother and her family since an adopted child is not hers by nature but by law -even if it became hers from the day of its birth.

Clearly, there is a distinction between reality and perception about twins, just as there is in regard to the nature of the citizenship of the native-born.       The children of Americans are not the same as the children of foreigners, -regardless of the common geographical location of their births or the equality of the character of their devotion to their country.  Children of foreigners may well have a greater appreciation for being an American because their parents have made them aware of how pathetic life was in their homeland.

But the issue isn’t a quantification of loyalty to America but of the reality of a real and natural difference in the nature of their citizenship.  One is natural national membership, -the other is man-made, artificial, legal membership which does not come by Right but by permission.  It’s not transmitted by Life but by Law.  Citizenship connected to land & law is not natural.  Citizenship connected to borders, and not blood, is not natural.

It is indisputable that legal citizenship is not natural citizenship because natural citizenship exists in the total absence of any law, while legal citizenship is 100% dependent on law and without it, it would not exist.

For Obama, it’s even worse since his citizenship is not the result of any law, but the result solely of an erroneous policy based on an erroneous understanding of a bastardized Supreme Court majority opinion that threw out over 100 years of national policy and Supreme Court precedence, and rewrote, in effect, the 14th Amendment and its meaning.  That Supreme Court opinion became  the law of the land, but the policy that misconstrues it by going beyond it is not “The Law”, and could be changed overnight.
Obama’s citizenship is not a result of American law but of an American policy based on ignorance and the power of entrenched, institutionalized error.  His citizenship is as rare and unnatural as is the albino white buffalo.  He could not be farther from being a natural citizen unless he was not even born in America.

The legal nature & origin of his presumed citizenship is as cloaked in mist and mystery as is the nature of the white buffalo, and just as rare, but there is nothing normal and natural about anything that is rare.
The rare is abnormal, aberrant, deviant from the norm, strange and unique, -just like Obama’s pdf computer-crafted counterfeit birth certificate which was produced from real parts, but like Frankenstein’s monster, had no origin in a natural source.  The monster walks and talks but that doesn’t make it a natural human being, nor does the superficial appearance of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth make it a true, unaltered, replica of a real hospital record, nor does his albino, white buffalo, presumed citizenship make him a natural or law-based American citizen.

There are three distinctly different positions regarding what a natural born citizen is; the one on the extreme left ignorantly declares that it means “a native-born citizen”. The one on the extreme right erroneously declares that it means “a native-born natural citizen”. While the one in the literal-language middle argues that it means only what it says and exactly what it says and nothing more and nothing less. In fact, it says more than it actually needs to say because the word “born” is implied by the word natural. One cannot be a natural citizen without having been born one, and so in that sense it is redundant to include the word “born” when using the word “natural”.
But in the absence of the word “natural”, the word “born” usefully modifies the word “citizen”, since without it there’s no differentiation between those who are citizens naturally and those who are naturalized since both are Citizens.
But even with the word “born”, ambiguity still exists because it does not differentiate between those who are born as citizens naturally and those who are born as citizens by law.

One is a natural citizen while the other is a naturalized-at-birth citizen. What difference does it make what type of born citizen one is? Well, essentially none, and positively none as regarding one’s rights and protections and obligations. In those regards they are identical, but there is one other category established by the Constitution and it is occupied by only two people out of over 300 million, and in it there is an exclusion made, -an exclusion found no where in American society or life except in regard to who is eligible to wield the power of the Commander-in-Chief.

Constitutionally speaking, that is the truth  regarding the President and Vice-President alone, but not true practically speaking since others are also assigned to that category by the government, and they are those who guard the President, Vice-President and their families, and those who guard, maintain, control and launch American nuclear bombs.  Only natural citizens are allowed to occupy those positions because, like the presidency, it’s a matter of national security.  [those with the highest security clearances probably must also be natural Americans, -including those who work at the Groom Lake facilities of Area 51]

For the one unique position of the presidency, along with its back-up officer, the category of privilege contains a mandatory differentiation between those who are assigned the status of citizen by human mandate, and those who are born with the natural political nature of Citizen in the absence of any human mandate or judicial opinion.   Only they are the true natives or natural members of the nation, while their brethren by law are not natural members because they inherited a foreign political nature from a foreign father, and are only permitted the status of Citizen by the permission of the laws passed by the representatives of the natural members of the nation.
That permission could be withdrawn by a constitutional amendment and thereafter no person born in America with a foreign father would be considered a United States citizen unless granted citizenship by State law, as it was for over 100 years from the founding of the nation.
But such an amendment could not be adopted in regard to natural citizens because they would have to be the ones adopting it. It would be a Bizarro World situation when the members of a group or a game adopt a rule that says they (or their children) are no longer members of their own group.
The framers of the Constitution had the opportunity to describe the citizen nature of a President in different words and yet they choose the words that they settled on. But they could have stated instead that “No person except a native-born citizen shall be eligible…”; or “No person except a native-born natural citizen shall be eligible…”, or “No naturalized citizen shall be eligible…”; and yet they did not accept those clearly understood descriptions because none of them says what they wanted to be said, -which was that all sons of Americans are eligible at 35 years of age to be President as long as they’ve lived in America for 14 years, provided that  those born of a foreign father became Americans before the Constitution was adopted.
By requiring the citizenship of the President and Vice-President to be natural, they effectively barred the U.S. born sons of foreigners from holding the highest and most powerful position in the nation since sons of foreigners are not natural citizens but are citizens by law, (if citizens at all)  that “law” didn’t even exist until four generations later when the 14th Amendment was ratified, and which meant something that was assumed to be the age-old policy of the United States, but, being ambiguously worded, was altered by the Supreme Court’s majority opinion regarding it meaning, (their Wong Kim Ark opinion of 1898) -an amendment which was written for those denied U.S. citizenship in the South because they were not born to citizens even though they were born in America, -they being freed slaves.

Clearly, those who are citizens by nature and those who are citizens by law are distinguishable, and that distinction was drawn by the founding fathers in regard to one and only one office, the presidency. And by that distinction, Barack H. Obama Jr. is an invalid, illegitimate, unconstitutional President.

A distillation of the presidential eligibility clause and the 14th Amendment is as follows:
“Every person born subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States government is a citizen of the United States irrespective of birth location. American children not begotten by foreign fathers subject to a foreign power, nor to American naturalization statutes, are natural born citizens irrespective of birth location. They alone are eligible to the office of the President.  All other citizens are prohibited, including foreign-born naturalized citizens, foreign-born natural citizens who have not lived in the United States for 14 years, statutory & derivative citizens [foreign-born (including Guam, Puerto Rico, and Vietnam) who obtained U.S. citizenship as adults via congressional statute, or as children of those granted citizenship], and native-born 14th Amendment citizens.”

If the 14th Amendment meant what the Supreme Court majority in 1898 agreed that it meant, then there had been no need to mention a requirement for birth in the United States because children of foreign fathers are only born subject to the jurisdiction of Washington if they are born within the United States. That is a fact that goes without saying and didn’t need to be stated as a determining factor.  Therefore the wording of the Amendment is inherently redundant.
By first listing the factor of birth within the United States and then listing the factor of subjection to the authority of the United States government, the amendment’s language is requiring something that is impossible for those not born within the United States unless they are natural born citizens, (for whom the amendment was not written, and does not apply since their national membership pre-dates the Constitution).  No child born outside of the United States is latently subject to U.S. federal authority unless their parents are Americans.
Placing an emphasis on native-birth distracts focus from where it rightly belongs, which is on subjection to the political authority of the federal government.  The Supreme Court felt that birth within the United States makes one subject, even though that view was in violation of the policy of the government since it was created.  The Justices in the majority decided that subjection alone is the basis for granting citizenship, not native-birth. But that subjection only exists if one born to foreigners (or a foreign father) is born within U.S. sovereign jurisdiction.  But native-birth, in and of itself, does not make one subject. For that, one must be legally, permanently or semi-permanently domiciled, meaning one must be a member of American society and subject to the responsibility to defend it.

“All…and…are…”.   “All persons…and subject …are citizens.” What’s redundant is the first half. It could be dropped completely and rewritten as “All persons born subject to the United States’ sovereign authority are citizens of the United States”  That would have covered every person born in every state as well as federal territories.
Constitutional amendments can only revise the Constitution by mandating something that expressly nullifies, supersedes, alters or adds to the meaning of something in the Constitution or something that was universally accepted as the norm and status quo of the nation when it was ratified. The 14th Amendment makes no alteration in the meaning of what a natural born citizen is, nor did the Supreme Court in its Wong Kim Ark opinion since it did not address its meaning in its decision.
No one who is a citizen via the Supreme Court’s Wong opinion is eligible to be President because such citizens are legal citizens and not natural citizens, even though they are native-born Americans.
Citizenship dependent on birth within the United States, or Supreme Court opinion, or Congressional legislation, or executive branch policy is the definition of not being a natural born American citizen. If native-birth is needed in order to obtain legal citizenship then it is solely because one was born with the alienage of a foreign father.  Those without any foreign parentage can be born anywhere on the planet and are automatically American citizens because they are what their parents are.  They come into this world with an American political nature, American national membership, via natural political inheritance.

Aside from the common forms of legal citizenship, which include naturalized citizenship, statutory & derivative citizenship, and constitutional citizenship (via the 14th Amendment), there is also a form of citizenship which operates outside of the law although it has the force of the authority of the government.  That form is citizenship by policy rather than law.
That is the form of citizenship which Barack Obama actually possesses.  His citizenship is not citizenship by national law but by national policy alone since the “law” that is presumed to cover him (the Wong opinion regarding the 14th Amendment) does not in fact do so through his foreign-student father nor through his mother since neither foreign transients nor females are subjects of the full authority of any free nation (with the possible exception of Israel).

Statutory citizenship is that mandated by Congress and doesn’t involve naturalization.  It involves non-citizens being granted citizenship outright without undergoing the naturalization process.  It includes citizenship via the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (superseded by the 14th Amendment) and grants of citizenship to Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Guamians, as well as around a hundred thousand Vietnamese boat people who fled to America to escape communist persecution.
None of them were natural Americans but were made to be Americans by the exercise of legislative power, becoming legal citizens.  On the individual level, statutory citizenship involves the off-spring of an American and a foreigner being born outside of the United States jurisdiction, as well as the citizenship status of American women who marry foreign men (a century ago the Naturalization Act of 1907 stripped them of their American citizenship).

But no “legal citizen” is eligible to serve as President. Only those who are NOT legal citizens (the 97%) are eligible, because only they are natural citizens of the United States. Their citizenship is passed to them by American parents apart from and in the absence of American law. They are the true natives of the nation, -not by native-birth but by birth to natives.
If the 14th Amendment was exclusionary, then it would not have used the opening words; “All persons” but would have instead employed language used in the presidential eligibility clause; “No person except…”.  Or used its own wording but in negative terms: “All persons not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are not citizens of the United States.”.
The inclusive language of the amendment has this as its skeleton: “All person born in…and subject to the United State”, -meaning: born within American jurisdiction and subject (latently, -through American parents) to American authority at birth.

If couched in exclusionary terms that results in: “Any person born in the United States but not subject to its political authority is not a citizen of the United States.”
What it doesn’t say is: “No person born in the United States and subject to its central government is not a citizen thereof.”
What it absolutely does not say nor mean is: “Every person not born in the United State is not subject to its political authority, and therefore is not a citizen.” Or worse:  “No person born outside the United States, even though subject to its jurisdiction, is not a citizen of the United States.”

Or worst of all: “No person not born in the United States is a natural citizen of the United States, nor a citizen of any sort whatsoever.”
Its opposite is: “All persons born subject to the authority of the United States are citizens of the United State regardless of where they are born” (with the exceptions American Samoa & Swain’s Island, -and indigenous Americans who opt out). That’s the widest true blanket statement possible.

But the amendment was not focused on including natural citizens born outside the United States, nor on persons born within the United States that were not subject to its authority nor members of its society, (Native Americans, Gypsies, Martians, and foreign visitors and representatives) but was focused solely on those people who were both born in and subject to the United States. The Supreme Court felt that the 14th Amendment meant that sons of immigrants are subject and therefore are citizens even though their parents are not.
But Attorney General John Griggs distorted their words by surmising that the Supreme Court had opined that every child of every foreigner born in the U.S. is subject (except children of foreign ambassadors), which is false and which the Supreme Court did not say. He turned “All persons…and subject…are citizens,” into “All persons…are citizen” by overlooking both visiting and illegally-present foreign women, and babies that might be born to them.  That wasn’t a significant oversight until the southern border became the gateway for an invasion of foreigners not subject to the American government.

We’ve been stuck with Griggs’ error ever since, which allows “citizenship tourists” giving birth in the U.S. and claiming American citizenship for children who, like them, are not subject to American political authority, and a President who isn’t even a genuine American citizen  -not by Nature nor by Law.  That error may doom our future as a demographic shift produces a voter majority that is unwilling to rein-in unsustainable spending.

by adrien nash  march 2013,

http://obama–nation.com

http://obamabc.wordpress.com

 

Presidential Legitimacy:

 ~the Constitution versus the 14th Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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