HOME Page ~Welcome to obama- -nation.com

providing insights into Presidential  eligibility and verification~

 an amalgam of original essays and comments
by a.r. nash and others, from many web sources, covering the Constitution, history, philosophy, the law, and the birth certificates.  You’ll find here insights found no where else, and an aggregation of information like no other site contains.

“There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away.  There is a time to fight, and that time has now come.” – Peter Muhlenberg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CLICK ON IMAGE

nazi-collage-thmb—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. 10 [1]

   “~All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

   ~It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

   ~For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, -a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

 “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”
Flannery O’Connor

Anonymous

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. they are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted”, February 5, 1775.

“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.  On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.”

H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun,  July 26, 1920.

Those who seek the truth should remember Joseph Story’s admonition that acceptable constitutional construction “can never abrogate the text; it can never fritter away its obvious sense; it can never narrow down its limitations; it can never enlarge its natural boundaries.”

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from “authorities” who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

Autobiography of Mark Twain

“It seems that the only way we can free ourselves from these preconceptions is this: that just once in our lives, we should make a concerted effort to doubt every previous belief in which we find so much as the slightest hint of uncertainty. It will even be useful to regard the beliefs we are going to put into doubt as false,…”

Rene Descartes, The Principles of Philosophy, Part I: “The Principles of Human Knowledge,” 1637

In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt penned these words:

“We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.

But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American,
-and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here.
Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.
~We have room for but one flag, -the American flag.
We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, and…

we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

a staunch constitutionist would be careful to remember Joseph Story’s admonition that acceptable constitutional construction “can never abrogate the text; it can never fritter away its obvious sense; it can never narrow down its limitations; it can never enlarge its natural boundaries.” – See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/alan-keyes-non-birther-rand-paul.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BirtherReportObamaReleaseYourRecords+%28Birther+Report%3A+Obama+Release+Your+Records%29#sthash.iPIVtAGO.dpuf
a staunch constitutionist would be careful to remember Joseph Story’s admonition that acceptable constitutional construction “can never abrogate the text; it can never fritter away its obvious sense; it can never narrow down its limitations; it can never enlarge its natural boundaries.” – See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/alan-keyes-non-birther-rand-paul.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BirtherReportObamaReleaseYourRecords+%28Birther+Report%3A+Obama+Release+Your+Records%29#sthash.iPIVtAGO.dpuf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BEARING ARMS, TRUE FAITH & ALLEGIANCE

WHY BABY OBAMA WAS BORN IN VANCOUVER   Pt. 2

Publius Huldah Exposition: natural born citizen explained by 18th century authors

A simulation of Obama’s Hawaiian archive vital record pdf   ~Print-size 860 Kb jpg

A Technical Analysis of Obama’s birth certificate PDF by Mara Zebest

Her exposition on the essence of her analysis

White House Xerox copier produces similar pdf results

Dissecting Obama’s Selective Service Card; Pro & Con views

Obama’s SSN Investigation Results: Inexplicable

FORGERY-GATE: A Nation-wide Conspiracy of Silence

The Obama File: the history and fraud of the first birth certificate

Birther Report; the history of fake first birth certificate, + links

FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM;

  “Let Justice Be Done Though The Heavens Fall”

Principles of Citizenship explained in graphic form.

American Citizenship Explained

American Citizenship Explained

  Double Screen-size  Screen Size  Prints-size (8 x 11)

Large-Size png version  Medium Size   PDF Version

CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES DEFINING NATURAL BORN CITIZENS

PRINT SIZE

*   *    *    *    *    *    *

Don’t visit “American Sod”  (sowing the seeds-Of-Destruction) unless you can handle a big dose of reality. http://americansod.wordpress.com/

Pdf version; Citizenship illustration

half-size, negative

half-size, negative

Full-size

8 types of citizenship black & white

8 types of citizenship
black & white

8 Types of Citizenship Large view size, 190 Kb

8 Types of Citizenship Large size, small,  Print Size

8 types of citizenship 
black & white Adobe PDF versions (with some exceptions)

The presidential qualification  (“natural born citizen,”) was reported out of Committee on September the 4th , 1787, and adopted in the Constitution.
The Federalist contains a contemporary comment on it written by Alexander Hamilton. It reads:
“Nothing was more to be desired, than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.  These most deadly adversaries of Republican government, might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

   How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
(Federalist, LXVIII.)

Natural Citizenship is not defined by anyone’s “common sense” but by Natural Law and Natural Law alone.  It is not Natural Law melded, blended, amalgamated, fused, grafted, or combined with border-based human law nationality mandates.
That is a bastardization of Natural Law, a freaky Frankenstein, Siamese twins combo of the natural with the unnatural.

  No where in the history of the world has there ever been such a fusion of jus soli and jus sanguinis.  It is as unnatural as a melding of dogs & cats, Angels & Devils.   It is nothing more than a fantasy dogma, -or as James Madison described it “a visionary principle” not grounded in any reality.    A. Nash

Titles listed below are not included in the Header Navigation:
Dozens of 2013-2014 expositions are not yet included.

PDF copies

TRANSCENDENT, INVIOLABLE, A PRIORI CITIZENSHIP

The Alpha & Omega of Belonging; Blood Citizens vs Soil Citizens

What the Supreme Court Should Know But Doesn’t

FOUR WAYS TO ACQUIRE UNNATURAL  CITIZENSHIP

Natural Nationality; Britain, U.S., and Mexico

American Foreigners and Native-Born Aliens

Our Asinine U.S. Citizenship Perversion

Oaths, Obedience, & Allegiance in Action

Of Truth & Fiction; Power & Treason

Who Is An American Citizen?

Why Baby Obama Was Born in Vancouver Pt.1

Why Baby Obama Was Born in Vancouver Pt.2

Of Children & Families; Citizens & Empires

The Da Vinci Code of American Citizenship

Citizenship: by Destiny or by Destiny Event

Of Presidents, Hybrids  & “Term of Art” Fantasies

When The SCOTUS Did Wrong for the Right Reasons

Citizenship Truths Learned from Apples and Antarctica

The Origins of Citizenship:   Predestination vs Permission

What the 14th Amendment Doesn’t Say and Doesn’t Mean

Understanding Vattel, Citizenship, and Presidential Eligibility

Naturalization: The Key to Understanding Presidential Eligibility

Martians, Koreans, Kangaroos, and Natural Citizens

The Quasi-Citizenship of Women and Immigrants

Citizenship Illuminated by Various Examples

Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong

Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong Pt.2

Comparing Opposite Forms of Citizenship

Historical Views of Natural Born Citizen

Respect for Obama; Why it’s Impossible

Obama & The Time Machine Revelation

TRAITORS IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

OBAMA’S SECRET ORIGIN

THE DANDELION ANALOGY

BARRY OBAMA: FRAUD TO THE CORE

WHY OBAMA IS NOT A REAL AMERICAN

THE GREATEST FRAUD IN HUMAN HISTORY

FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY & PRIMAL LAW

WHY OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE BELIEVED

OBAMA’S UNBELIEVABLE NEWSPAPER BIRTH LISTING

THE NATURE OF HUMAN ORIGIN AND CITIZENSHIP

THE BRITISH ROOTS OF PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY

DUMBOCRATS; DUMB ENOUGH TO ELECT A FRAUD

SLAVES, HALF-BREEDS, TRANSEXUALS, AND OBAMA

THE NATURAL CITIZEN IN AMERICAN LEGAL HISTORY

MENDACIOUS & FABRICATED LETTERS OF VERIFICATION

FROM CORRUPTED LANGUAGE TO CORRUPTED GOVERNMENT

CITIZENS AT BIRTH ARE INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

ALLEGIANCE:  BASTARD CHILD OF ROYAL DESPOTS

CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS OBAMA DEPENDS ON

THE PRESIDENCY AND THE 20TH AMENDMENT

ADAM AND EVE AND NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

THE RULES OF CITIZENSHIP AND ELIGIBILITY

JUS SOLI AND JUS SANGUINIS CITIZENSHIP

ALIEN BABIES VS IMMIGRANT BABIES

 CITIES & CITIZENS; NATURAL vs LEGAL

WHO IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN?

THE OBAMA LIST OF FACTS

IS OBAMA A CAUCASIAN KENYAN?

NATIVE-BORN TADPOLE CITIZENSHIP

CITIZENSHIP BY LIFE & CITIZENSHIP BY LAW

PRINCIPLE vs POLICY; OBEDIENCE vs SUBJECTION

NATIVES, TRIBES, AND FORGOTTEN CITIZENSHIP TRUTHS

OFFICIAL STATE ERROR & A NON-CITIZEN PRESIDENT

   OBAMA vs The TRUTH ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT

PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY CITIZENSHIP PRIMER

NATIONS, CITIZENS, RESPONSIBILITY & NATURAL LAW

THE BASTARDIZATION OF CITIZENSHIP LAW & PRINCIPLES

THE IRON GATE THAT NO LONGER PROTECTS THE PRESIDENCY

VARIOUS REJECTED PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

FESTERING CITIZENSHIP QUESTIONS THE PRESS WILL NEVER ASK

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS

CITIZENSHIP BEYOND ALL LAWS

OBAMA: AN UNNATURAL HYBRID NATIVE

THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP

A BRIEF HISTORY OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

WHAT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN MEANS  & WHY

THE SIMPLE FACTS OF CITIZENSHIP -from A to  Z

HYPOTHETICAL OBAMA CITIZENSHIP SCENARIOS

 DANGEROUS QUESTIONS  &  EXPLOSIVE ANSWERS

QUESTIONS THAT WILL NEVER BE ASKED OF OBAMA

A  CITIZENSHIP PRIMER FOR THE  SUPREME COURT

AMERICA’S PROGRESSIVE GANGRENE

A NEW CITIZENSHIP PRIMER

~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~

FACTS VERSUS CERTAINTY

YOU ARE NOT A “LEGAL” AMERICAN!

OBAMA’S  QUESTIONABLE & COVERT CITIZENSHIP

DELUSION, CORRUPTION, & A CHARLATAN PRESIDENT

NATIONAL IGNORANCE & A CONSTITUTIONAL TRAVESTY

(THE QUESTIONS NEVER ANSWERED NOR EVER EVEN ASKED)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

US LAW vs OBAMA’S  UNNATURAL CITIZENSHIP

THE SOURCE OF OBAMA’S PRESIDENTIAL INELIGIBILITY

NATURAL vs ARTIFICIAL CITIZENSHIP/ the Gorilla Analogy

REALITY CHECK :  1789

~No Bastard Daughter of a Catholic African Alien Can Be President

THE VANCOUVER BIRTH SCENARIO

AN OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE SLUG-FEST

THE QUESTION REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS FEAR

THE THIEF-in-CHIEF WHO STOLE THE PRESIDENCY

THE WISDOM & INSIGHTS OF BHO’s  SPEECH WRITER

LARRY, MOE  and BARRY O.

OBAMA NEEDS TO BE OUTED

THE UNITED NATIONS OF AMERICA

OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE SHOOTOUT

A BLIND SHEPHERD & A NATION THAT’S LOST

THE  VAMPIRE PRESIDENCY Of  COUNT B. OBAMA

IS SURI CRUISE A NATURAL BORN SCIENTOLOGIST?

OBAMA: AN ADOPTED CITIZEN & ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT

BARRY’S BURIED PAST & COUNTERFEIT BIRTH CERTIFICATE

AN UNVETTED COUNTERFEIT PRESIDENT

ONE  IN 315  MILLION, -BUT THE WRONG ONE!

THE UNMASKING OF A COUNTERFEIT PRESIDENT

WHEN EXPERTS ARE IDIOTS & AUTHORITIES ARE FOOLS

OBAMA’S HALF-AMERICAN,  HALF-FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP

THE TRUTH ABOUT VATTEL’S DESCRIPTION OF SOCIETIES

SPOCK, OBAMA, JOHN THE BAPTIST & HEROD THE GREAT

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS & FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS

OBAMA:  CITIZEN BY GRACE and PRESIDENT BY FRAUD

“NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS” CAN’T BE  PRESIDENT

NATURAL LAW AND UNNATURAL DUALITY

THE NATURE OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

WHEN BRILLIANT MINDS ARE MORONS

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

MINOR Vs HAPPERSETT  by LEO DONOFRIO

VERTICAL      HORIZONTAL     ONE PAGE

~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

ANGELS, VIRGINS, NUNS,  & NATURAL CITIZENS

 THE PRINCIPLES of UNALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS

THE THINGS OF NATURE & THE NATURE OF THINGS

THE IMMUTABLE NATURE of NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

THE UNWRITTEN LAW of NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

NATURAL CITIZENSHIP:  BEYOND ALL LAWS

UNLIMITED & UNTOUCHABLE CITIZENSHIP

~ ~ ~

The BEAUTIFUL, BLISSFUL BLINDNESS Of OBAMA’S TRUE BELIEVERS

~ ~ ~

FROM SUBJECTS OF THE KING TO CITIZENS OF THE NATION

 A ZOMBIE PRESS, LOBOTOMIZED CONGRESS, & A NATURALIZED PRESIDENT

THE FOUNDATION of NATIONS/ NATURAL RIGHTS  & Unnatural Citizenship

The UNCONSTITUTIONAL  CARPETBAGGER PRESIDENCY of BARRY OBAMA

THE CONSTITUTIONAL TRUTH About An UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT

NIXON’S PARDON, A NATIONAL DELUSION,  & OBAMA’S ELECTION

WHY AMERICAN’S BORN ABROAD ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

“NATIVE-BORN” CITIZENS ARE NOT   CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

*

NATIVE BORN VS  NATURAL BORN   *   WHERE INMATES RUN THE ASYLUM

OBLIVIOUS TO THE ABSURDITY -14th AMENDMENT DELUSIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS & UNCONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD

CONSTITUTIONAL TREASON & AN AVATAR PRESIDENT

*

OBAMA:  A CITIZEN BY GRACE,  -THE PRESIDENT BY FRAUD

THE BAMBOOZLING of AMERICA At The HIGHEST LEVEL

THE ELIGIBILITY CREDIBILITY  Of ONE BARRY OBAMA

The LIBERAL LIE THAT ELECTED A PRESIDENT

THE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRESIDENT

INCOMPETENCE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL

*

THE DNC & THE HALF-BLOOD PRESIDENT

 EVERY TOM, DICK, & HARRY BUT NOT MY SON?

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP via STATE CITIZENSHIP

FROM CERTAINTY TO CONFUSION, TO IGNORANCE, TO TREASON

*

CITIZEN ZERO & THE CONSTITUTION’S BAN AGAINST OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY

NATURAL CITIZENSHIP vs CITIZENSHIP BY SUBSTITUTION

NATIVE-BORN FOREIGNERS & FOREIGN-BORN NATIVES

THE NATURE OF VATTEL’S CITIZENSHIP DEFINITION

*

NATURAL CITIZENSHIP versus LEGAL CITIZENSHIP

WHO IS A NATURAL AMERICAN and WHO IS NOT?

THE AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP CONUNDRUM

WHEN NATIVE-BIRTH CONVEYS NOTHING

NATURAL NATIVE Versus HYBRID NATIVE

YOUR ARE NOT A “LEGAL” U.S. CITIZEN

*

How “LADY & The TRAMP” DEBUNKS OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY

A MAN CALLED “HORSE” & A MAN CALLED “PRESIDENT”

SITTING BULL & OBAMA: A TALE Of TWO CHIEFS

JESUS & OBAMA: TWO UNNATURAL HYBRIDS

MOSES And THE HALF-BLOOD PRESIDENT

*

THE AUDACITY OF FRAUD; -AN UNNATURAL AMERICAN PRESIDENT

TALE Of A DEAD PRESIDENT‘ & HIS TWINS BROTHER’S CHARADE

AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PATH TO THE PRESIDENCY

WHERE’S THE BEEF? – OBAMA’S TVP CITIZENSHIP

THE END OF EDEN & THE RISE OF OBAMA

*

CAN CHILDREN of MASS MURDERERS BE PRESIDENT?

HOW MARCO RUBIO COULD DESTROY The APPLE CART

US AMBASSADORS & An UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT

THE AMERICAN HISTORY OF NATURALIZATION By MARRIAGE

AMERICA vs The CONSTITUTION -WHAT’S RIGHT vs WHAT’S BEST

*

THE TYRANNY OF GOOD INTENTIONS  WHEN THE EXPERTS ARE IMBECILES

FROM A NATION Of LAWS TO A NATION Of LAW-BREAKERS

MISSING THE POINT & IGNORING THE FACTS

THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN AMERICA

 THE PROBLEM THAT CAN’T BE SOLVED

MY MAJOR RANDOM THOUGHTS

  ~EQUAL RIGHTS & EQUAL LIBERTY

State seal appears as if by Magic!                                           all  essays except the last one are by A. R. Nash  arnash1@gmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEW WEBSITE:  All images of  CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH pdf -layers revealed

NEW WEBSITEAMERICAN S.O.D.   sowing the SEEDS Of DESTRUCTION         

About Mr. Obama’s Birth Certificate  by Paul Murphy

When Is A Citizen Not A Citizen?  by Cindy Simpson

Alexander Hamilton & John Jay’s Letter to Washington   by John Woodman

Link to the original WH 9-layer PDF -376 Kb

There are several pertinent questions that people fail to ask, such as: By what principle is John McCain a natural born citizen even though not a native-born citizen?
By what principle could Obama be a U.S. citizen, and is it the same principle as that by which McCain is a natural born citizen?
Would Obama be a U.S. citizen if he had been born in a foreign location like John McCain?
Is Obama’s presidential eligibility not affected by his parentage while McCain’s was?
Can birth as a subject of a foreign sovereign nation make one a natural American citizen?

No person whose U.S. citizenship is derived from any legal source is a natural born American.  Any legal citizenship, including constitutional citizenship, is artificial citizenship because it is not the product of natural law, but of human law,  it’s membership-by-permission.  No one whose citizenship is by permission of the government is eligible to be the President of the United States.  The citizenship of natural citizens is beyond the authority of the government.  It cannot bestow it, nor rescind it, nor regulate it, nor infringe upon it.  The unalienable nature of natural citizenship supersedes the legitimate authority of all human forms of legitimate government because the right of the government to exist is granted by the will and choice of natural citizens, -not the other way around.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama was a provisional Commonwealth subject via birth in wedlock (?) to a named British subject father.  By not renouncing his American citizenship as an adult, his connection to Kenya thereby expired, along with his Commonwealth membership.  His Indonesian citizenship via adoption also was provisional if he did not live in Indonesia, requiring that he renew his Indonesian passport every two years following the first renewal at four years.  That was something that he would have done because it was his only form of official government identification since he had no birth certificate from any nation.

NEW: Feb. 2014:  It is a mistake to assume the Lolo Soetoro adopted Barry Obama under Hawaiian law even though he had a year to do so before returning to Indonesia.  It is also a mistake to think that the “original” birth certificate reveals it was amended to show a legal change of parentage which would have named Lolo as Barry’s father.  Such a secret is NOT what Obama has been hiding because no such alteration of the original Certificate of Live Birth would have been made because of Barry’s age at adoption (not an infant).  Adoption is only secret if the birth mother wants to keep her identity secret, which is only the case soon after birth, -not 6 years or 16 years.
The reasons that these three presumptions (birth in Hawaii, existence of a Hawaiian birth certificate, and adoption in Hawaii under its laws) are false is due to the fact that Barry’s mother was not able to acquire a Hawaiian birth certificate for him since the home-birth claim she made in an affidavit to the Dept. of Health could not be corroborated by evidence, as required, that she had lived for one year in Hawaii, nor by eye-witnesses willing to swear under oath in writing and in a personal investigative interview that they witnessed the birth at the home of the Dunhams.

  That would be totally impossible if she spent the last couple months of her pregnancy in Seattle (seeking an adoptive couple) where she registered for college just two weeks after giving birth .
Without such proof, no birth certificate could be legally issued.  But assuming that a birth certificate was issued, Lolo would have no motive or need to adopt him under Hawaiian law since he was going to live in and grow up in Indonesia as his son.
Why not just adopt him in Indonesia since he could do that after returning there, even in the absence of Barry?  Or, better still, adopt him in Hawaii but through correspondence?
Who knows any reason why he could not and would not have done that?  That would have given little identity-less Barry official ID, which he lacked due to having no birth certificate.
He would have simply sent a copy of their marriage certificate and Ann could have filled out an affidavit as evidence that she was his mother and guardian.  No problem.  Prompt Indonesian adoption and eventual citizenship, -the passport to his future identity being, literally, a passport from a foreign country which he obtained in order to return to Hawaii at age 7 or 8 for a Christmas visit, and later at 10 for good.

He then would have obtained a permanent resident Green Card, for which proof would still exist if it hasn’t  been purged from the archive.  Plus, his grandparents would have obtained legal custody in order to be his legal guardians.   ~   ~   ~

Obama’s narrative is that he was not born abroad but born in Honolulu of an alien father.  That fact, like the 14th Amendment, comes with additional baggage besides native-birth and it concerns those who were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the U.S. government that rules over all citizens and immigrants.  His father, like foreign diplomats, tourists, and all forms of guests of the U.S. government (i.e. transient Visa Card holders, -not Green Card holders) was not subject to that authority and could not be drafted as can citizens and immigrants, thus his son was born also not subject to it through him as a British subject under the jurisdiction of British law, as well as international laws and treaties.

Thus, with foreign birth not acknowledged, provisional U.S. citizenship was not a possibility since it does not pertain to anyone born on U.S. soil, and… was also not possible because U.S. nationality law at that time required that his mother be 19 years of age and she was only 18 when he was born.

 Barack Obama admited he was born a British citizen on his “paid for by Barack Obama” fightthesmears.com website (now shutdown):    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on the 4th of August, 1961,  Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

Obama-is-only-a-Usurper said…
You know if you read the Civil Rights Act of 1866 it makes amply clear that someone who was born “not subject to any foreign power” was a US Citizen.
Now Obama admits he was subject to a foreign power at birth.

 1866 Civil Rights Act   14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.   CHAP. XXXI.
“An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;…”

It’s crystal clear that if in 1866 a person of dual citizenship was not a US Citizen, then by all means in 1776 the founders would not consider a person who was not even a citizen to be a natural born citizen!!

Obama Agrees That Natural Citizenship Requires both Parents Be Citizens:  Senate Resolution 511 2008
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”–Barack Obama, co-sponsor

At the peak of the Rev, Wright flare-up, Obama played his Michelle trump card. “I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners,” he boasted in his bellwether speech on race, “an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.”

What if Barry O.  had married a Kenyan woman?  Would he have been viewed as presidential candidate material then?  What kind of citizen would he have been viewed as, natural? or something else?  What if he had married a white woman? Would he have been viewed as presidential candidate material then?  How many black women would have voted for him?

What if his mother had been the Kenyan wife of his father?  What kind of citizen would he have been viewed as then?  Natural? or something else?  But what difference would it have really made?  Well, he wouldn’t have been seen as being a citizen at all through his mother nor able to pull off the greatest deception since traitors in the upper management levels of the FBI and CIA were discovered.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense.” –Thomas Jefferson

In Dec. 2011 I discovered that NATURALIZED, NATIVE-BORN, and NATURAL BORN ARE DISTINCT in the official Immigration Service website which includes Attorney General Interpretations of Supreme Court decisions and Congressional Naturalization law.

I shared what I discovered with attorney Leo Donofrio .  Read his response on his blog NaturalBornCitizen  (Since Leo Donofrio no longer publishes comments to his site, I’ll publish my own comments in reply here. )      It states the following:

UPDATE: THE PAGE HAS BEEN MOVED ON THE CIS WEBSITE! The page displayed  now states:

404 – Requested Page Not Found on Site

This was the url perhaps for many years, possible a decade:  http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.htm

But the puppet-masters changed its address so the link that I’d found would no longer lead to it.  But by using the site’s search function I was able to relocate it.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

   Also, even though the CONSPIRATORS in Obama’s inner circle  altered the CIS website, the internet archive site “the WayBack Machine” has it recorded.  Here’s its copy of the moved page: http://web.archive.org/web/20110711184242/http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html  (the rats are on the run)

The pertinent sentence is the second-to-last stand-alone sentence.

Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.
Repatriation
(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it. [“paragraph 6″] but to restore the person to the status if NATURALIZED, NATIVE, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss. [plus two more instances]

~NOTE: UPDATE: Check-out Found: The Toxic Terms Scrubbed from the Web~

Natural citizens can be born anywhere in the world because their parents are Americans, but “native-born” citizens, with immigrant parents, must be born in the U.S. or else the 14th Amendment does not apply to them.  They are constitutional citizens by the grace of the American people who passed the 14th Amendment, whereas natural citizens are citizens by nature, and no law grants, governs, regulates, restricts or defines their citizenship.  It doesn’t come from government.  It precedes government.  Government can’t exist without naturally connected members to create it.

Natural citizenship is bestowed as an unalienable natural right just like Life, Liberty and and many others, including the right to marry & divorce, and own and inherit property. The Bill of Rights was written to protect and declare rights undeclared in the body of the Constitution, and one of those undeclared rights is the inherited citizenship of children born to Americans without regard to where they are born.

“There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen. Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951) “

There are actually five classes of citizens:  1. the natural born citizens, -who are one type of “born citizen”,  2. the native-born citizens who are born to foreign immigrants, also describe by me as constitutional citizens via the 14th Amendment) 3. the naturalized citizens, and 4. the derivative citizens who are automatically naturalized (children and wives of newly naturalized fathers, -or foreign brides marrying American husbands, -no longer the policy in the U.S.)  5. Provisional citizens; children born abroad to only one U.S. parent.  Their citizenship will become permanent but with the provision that they live x number of years in the U.S. during their youth.

There are eight  types of people in America; natural American citizens, naturalized American citizens, American Nationals, Native Americans without US citizenship, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants,  foreign guests and diplomats, and children of unions of various combinations of the preceding groups,

There are seven  types of children born in America; children born to natural citizens, children born to naturalized citizens, children born to legal immigrants, children born to illegal immigrants, children born to American nationals, and children born to foreign guests and diplomats, and those with mixed parentage combining the preceding groups.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.S. CONSTITUTION Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

  “No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,…”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The TEN RULES of Natural & Naturalized Citizenship

1.  No American is a natural American unless born to American parents.
2.  Only children of American couples are eligible to be President.
3.  American couples produce natural American children regardless of where they’re born.
4.  No American can father a child that’s a natural citizen of a foreign nation -even if born within that foreign nation, nor can a foreigner beget a natural citizen of a nation foreign to him, (such as the United States) even though his child may be born within its borders.

5.  No one born to a foreign Diplomat, Ambassador, Consul, soldier, visitor, tourist, worker, professor, or student is constitutionally an American citizen because he is what his father is, and his father is a foreigner who lives in a foreign nation and remains subject to its foreign jurisdiction, -not that of the United States.   As such, his child is not covered by the 14th Amendment.

6.  A foreigner, whether immigrant or non-immigrant, cannot father a natural American because his children will either be foreign citizens only or be both foreign and native-born naturalized-at-birth U.S. citizens. They won’t be native-born natural American citizens free of any alien nationality by blood.

7.  Anyone “native born” but with legal immigrant parents is a citizen by 14th Amendment automatic naturalization, having their foreign citizenship overlaid with naturalized American citizenship. They are dual citizens.

8.  Citizenship acquired by naturalization, (whether automatically or via process) is not natural citizenship because it was not naturally acquired.  Rather, it’s acquired via legal mean through the laws & policies of the nation.

9.  No foreigner who’s subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government, (nor one who is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government), can father a constitutionally eligible candidate for President because his children come into the world with foreign alienage attached to them.

10. No one born with foreign alienage is eligible to be President because they are/were dual citizens, not natural citizens, and are “tainted” with non-American foreignness.

Obama’s father was a foreigner who was not an American immigrant, but even if he had been, his son still would not be a natural born American because his father would be an un-naturalized  foreigner, -not an American father, making him only a constitutional naturalized citizen and not a natural citizen.  Any person with such citizenship is constitutionally ineligible to hold the Office of the President. Barack Obama, if such a citizen, would consequently be an unconstitutional President.

The Ten Rules of Natural Law Membership & Citizenship

1.  Everyone possess a natural right to be accepted as an equal member of the group into which they are born.
2.  No one possesses a natural right to be accepted as an equal member of any group into which he or she is not born.
3.  No natural group has a right to decide that the children of its natural members are not members.
4.  All natural groups have the right to decide when, how and why non-members are allowed to join their group
5.  All natural groups have a right to decide that the children of non-members are not members, even if born within the group’s territory.
6.  The location of one’s birth conveys no natural right whatsoever.
7.  No non-member who inhabits the land of a group other than his own and does so without the permission of the group, possesses any natural right to the full protection of the group in regard to defense against enemies or the violation of rights possessed by the members.
8.  Only non-members who have the official permission of the group to live among them are covered by the protections of the group’s rules, with the exception of constitutional protections for everyone.
9.  Children born to non-members are not natural native members of the group because they come from a mixed-blood or a foreign-blood origin.
10. Children who are not natural native members of the group, but are given permission to be members, possess no natural right to be equally eligible to be the Chief of the group.  Only natural members possess that right which they inherit from their member parents.

No one who is not a natural citizen of the United States, -who was not born to American parents, -who was born with mixed-blood or fully-foreign blood connections to a foreign power and is considered one of that foreign nations natural members through the father, is eligible to be entrusted with the knowledge of, access to, keys to and codes to nuclear weapons.  No nuclear nation on earth allows dual-citizens such access and permissions.

If immigrant parents from the former Soviet Union (or Iran) had received legal residence in the U.S. and produced children here who were constitutional citizens via the 14th Amendment, those children would never be allowed into the inner circle of Americans entrusted with the keys and launch codes for American nuclear-armed ICBMs, nor allowed to be a member of a nuclear submarine, nor a nuclear bomber squadron.  They would fail the test of possessing the necessary background criteria of full American parentage and American roots.  They would never be trusted like natural American citizens are trusted.

Yet the people of America placed into the position of Commander-in-Chief of all American military and nuclear might someone who could never be qualified to be a commander, nor even a crewmen, of any of our nuclear forces.  He wouldn’t even be trusted to serve to protect the President with a loaded weapon.  Thus, Barack Obama could never pass the requirements of natural US citizenship via birth to American parents which is required to guard himself as President.

Obama’s citizenship is not via the 14th Amendment as written because when it was written his citizenship would have been viewed as being solely that of his British-subject father.  His father could not produce a child that was not subject to the same jurisdiction as himself,  which, not being an immigrant, was British, not American.    Since he was only a transient alien here on a Visa and not a legally sanctioned immigrant, his son was born as a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies (UKC subject).
Obama appeared with a highly questionable and almost mysterious citizenship, with a mysterious past, with a mysterious fake non-physical birth certificate, with mysterious hidden collegiate records and accomplishments, with a private, guarded law practice, law student/ law professor records, with mysterious friends with subversive backgrounds yet wants us all to just trust him and give him another chance to wreck the country further for another four years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SEVEN LIES THAT ELECTED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT

Ignorance is everywhere, -the deception universal.
The delusion infects all minds that are not seeking the truth.
SEVEN LIES that perpetuate Obama’s illegitimacy.

Lie #1. Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen from birth.
Lie #2  Anyone who’s a citizen from birth and can prove it is a natural born citizen.
Lie #3. Anyone with a State birth certificate is “officially” eligible to be President.
Lie #4. Only naturalized citizens are ineligible to be President.
Lie#5.  All “born citizens” are alike, whether born to foreigners or Americans.
Lie#6.  Constitutional citizenship, and natural citizenship are indistinguishable.
Lie#7.  Foreigners can be President if they’re born in the United States.

Ignorance?  Stupidity?  Group-think?  A combination of the three?  These delusions are so wide-spread that it’s unrealistic to assume that a great teacher will appear to make the American public aware of the truth.

Consolidated Fake COLB

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Delegates at the Constitutional Convention who were concerned with:

  “admitting strangers into our public Councils,” and feared that
foreigners without a long residency in the country …
bring with them, not only attachments to other countries,

but ideas of Govt. so distinct from ours that in every point of view they are dangerous.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Presidential Eligibility Primer Regarding Citizenship

~Guidelines for Presidential Candidates~
~Seven Truths About Eligibility

1.  The Constitution bars anyone with only foreign citizenship from being the President.

2.  The Constitution bars anyone not born with American citizenship from being President.

3.  The Constitution bars anyone with a father who is/was a foreigner from being President.

4.  The Constitution bars all immigrant naturalized citizens from being the President.

5.  The Constitution bars any mere  “native-born citizen” from being President.

6.  The Constitution bars all but a “natural born citizen” from being President.

7. The Constitution requires age discrimination & residency discrimination.

These facts demolish the legitimacy of Barack Obama as an eligible President.

He inherited only a British nationality from his father, he wasn’t “a born citizen” by being born in the U.S. because he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States through his father (as required by the 14th Amendment) but instead was subject to the jurisdiction of Britain.  Only American citizens and legal “Green Card” permanent residents are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, -not foreign tourists, diplomats, visitors, or students.

In summation: no citizenship from his father, no citizenship from his mother, no citizenship from the 14th Amendment, and no natural citizenship via any of the above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The truth is what determines the legitimacy of the presidency of Barack Obama,  and it is not on his side.  He has not even attempted to provide any authentic authoritative and truthful refutation regarding the nature of his citizenship at birth, nor the authenticity of the birth document images that have been concocted on his behalf, which were not the product of the State of Hawaii, since no state in America releases digital image files as authentic birth evidence because digital files can be manipulated and counterfeited with ease on any computer, just like printing counterfeit money is now so easy to do (except for the extraordinary anti-counterfeiting measures that are now employed). Instead he has declared that he was born subject to British jurisdiction.  Therefore he would not have even been a U.S. citizen of any type for most of American history.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.   No person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President.

ONLY NATURAL BORN CITIZENS ARE ELIGIBLE

Emmerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations Bk 1 Sec. 212, states the following:

“Citizens and natives:  The natural [members] or natives, [Les naturels ou les indigenes] are those born in the country of parents who are its citizens. As a society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.  The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.  In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is a misunderstanding and misapplication of the word “natural” to ascribe place-of-birth to its meaning.  In the Natural realm the pro-creation of a natural off-spring does not depend on place of birth, but only on two things, which are:  two parents of the same species.

It’s the same in the political realm.  A natural citizen only needs two things; namely, a mother and father of the same nationality.

Is Barack Obama Constitutionally eligible to be President?   Is he a natural American citizen?  Or something else?

Natural  Natives  only come from Natives.

 Natural Citizens only come from Citizens

  What do we know about the circumstances of  Barack Obama’s origins?  The nature of his nationality is rooted in the circumstances of his birth and parentage.  His eligibility for the office of President hinges on whether or not he can be described as a natural born citizen.

While that phrase, as used in the Constitution’s Presidential requirements, could be claimed to have a general meaning as well as a Constitutional meaning,  no Supreme Court has ever ruled on the issue regarding any President’s eligibility, but if one did, they would have to decide whether or not to ascribed a broader general meaning or the limited meaning which the framers had in mind.

They had in mind only one thing, and that is a citizen with no connection of attachment to any foreign power, -no loyalty-allegiance to, nor inherited citizenship with a foreign potentate, nation or geo-political group.  Citizens with foreign fathers and dual-citizenship, with the resultant dual allegiance and duties of nationality, were not to be entrusted with the most powerful office in the land.

Hence, only those born to American citizens, in particular an American father (from whom citizenship was inherited by birthright) -having no connection to a foreign power, were allowed to hold the office of the President (and later, by Constitutional amendment, the Vice-President as well).

No other form of citizenship was sufficient.  No son of a loyal subject of a foreign King, whose wife happened to deliver on U.S. soil, was to be allowed to hold the office of President, especially one raised in his father’s country to be a proud subject and supporter of His Royal Highness and a believer in his infallibility and Divine appointment to power.

Hence, without an American father one cannot be considered to be a natural  American citizen because the only citizenship that could be viewed as natural was the citizenship passed naturally from the parents to the children.   To learn more read my treatise on Birthright Citizenship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama was born as a British subject by descent from a father born in a land governed by Great Britain.
Applying the British Nationality Act of 1948 to the accepted claim that Barack Obama Jr. was fathered by Barack Obama Sr. the deduction is that Jr. was born as a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (-a type of British subject which later became by The British Nationality Act of 1981 a “British Overseas Citizen” or a citizen of the Commonwealth).

Who is a British “citizen by descent”?  The British Consular Registry determines that which defines one by this section: Section 5-1
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

Then in 1963, Obama became a Kenyan citizen according to The Constitution of Kenya, Section 87, by virtue of the fact that his father was born in the Kenya colony. “Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on llth December, 1963, as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person, shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”
Thus, Obama Jr. became a citizen of Kenya, Dec. 12, 1963, when his father became a citizen.  While the Kenyan constitution prohibits dual citizenship for those 21 years old or older, it does not do so for minors.  But without taking steps to renounce his Indonesian citizenship in a formal manner before Kenyan authorities, his Kenyan citizenship expired two years after he turned 21.  He therefore was no more a Kenyan citizen via birth to a Kenyan father overseas, nor through his Kenyan expired citizenship was he any longer connected to the British Commonwealth and therefore was solely an Indonesian citizen by adoption.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When the Constitution was written, it was universally understood that a child born to a living foreign father was not a natural born American.  But the Supreme Court of today might choose to impose its view of how “natural born citizen” should be understood and might expand its parameters to include not just birth-right citizenship being passed from the father, but also from the mother, meaning from the mother in the absence of a father.  If they so chose, then they would also have to present some guidelines for finding a father to be absent and irrelevant.

If the parents of a Presidential candidate weren’t married, nor living together when he was born, then the American mother and her child were not under the jurisdiction of a foreign father, nor that of a foreign power.  In that case, even though the child was not born to an American father, does the MIA foreign father’s nationality have any impact on whether or not his off-spring is a natural born citizen?  No one can say for certain.  The question has never been considered nor adjudicated,  -nor even arisen.

The Constitution gives Congress no power to legislate regarding natural citizens, only immigrants and foreigners.

If he were born  to married parents, -with an American mother,  and the foreign father was a naturalized citizen, the son would be deemed a natural born citizen via birth to citizen parents.

The nature of his citizenship is not determined solely by his place of birth but by his parentage and the jurisdiction his parents were, or were not, under.  But being deemed to be a U.S. citizen is quite different from being born a natural  citizen.
If a child was under British jurisdiction through the connection with the father, that would deny him birth as a natural  American citizen, even though he would be entitled to US citizenship due to his blood connection to  his American mother -if he were not born in the US.

Foreign citizens are under the protection of their own nation’s sovereignty over its own so not being citizens of the U.S., they are not subject to its political jurisdiction. Thus, if one is born on US soil to foreign tourists, he/she is not a US citizen by native-birth. But if foreign parents are no longer fully under foreign jurisdiction due to legal residence here, then their off-spring would rightly be considered US citizens at birth, but not natural born citizens because they lacked American parents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are (“natural born” citizens”  and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth.  They were not “granted” citizenship via that US statute, -rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by possibly ignorant immigration authorities, and the nature of their citizenship had to be recognized by voting officials who might ignorantly deem them unqualified to be President.  They were not citizens by any other means than Natural Law, and statutory law was written solely to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized and protected from disenfranchisement if they choose to run for the presidency one day.

If it were certain that everyone in the State Department would always get it right, then the statute would not need to have been written nor included in an immigration statute.  But confusion and ignorance are unavoidable in the people who administer the regulatory power of the nation.

Therefore for unusual circumstances (birth abroad), codifying natural law eliminated confusion and misunderstanding.    Consequently, they could be described as both natural citizens and statutory citizens since the statue did not explain the principle by which they were recognized as citizens.  It’s left as an unanswered question, a question answerable only by the principle of natural law.

The next Congress repealed that Act and re-wrote it, dropping the reference to natural born citizen because the Act was unrelated to the issue of Presidential eligibility.  The phrase “nature born citizens” has never since been included in any United States statute.  It remains as it was in the beginning, -a term defined by its common language meaning and has never yet been defined by the Supreme Court.  If they can avoid it, it never will be.  And it doesn’t need to be if one realizes that neither “citizen” “born” nor “natural” need to be defined by anyone because they are plainly defined by the English language.  Stringing them together does not change their meaning in any way, but it eliminates two ambiguities.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP

The conduct of a foreign person and his compliance with U.S. policy, tradition, and law.
The circumstances of one’s birth, i.e. its location and the nationality of the parents.
The actions and guidelines of the INS officers who administer immigration policy.
The directives of their superiors who head the CIS.
The opinions, written and spoken, of the Attorney General -the head of the Justice Dept.
The policy stance of the White House.
The force of Congressional legislation.
The force of constitutional law, in particular the 1st section of the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution is not underlying the above factors because it doesn’t deal with citizenship issues.
Underlying all of the above is unwritten fundamental natural law and the principle of natural membership.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While it can’t be proven that Obama is not a U.S. citizen, it can’t be proven that he was one at birth since it can’t be proven that he was even born within the United States.  The digital images that his office has posted online are rife with signs of manipulation that can’t be explained as legitimate and are not backed-up by any hard-copy that has ever been shown to the public or to experts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If he was born in Vancouver…

(https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/the-vancouver-scenario/  and  https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/reverse-engineering-dunham-obama/  and… https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/born-in-vancouver-the-seattle-scenario-pt-ii/)

-or Kenya, then he definitely was not an American citizen at birth because his mother was too young to convey American citizenship to him under U.S. law in effect at that time.  So he’s not natural born via natural law, nor “native-born” via the 14th Amendment since his father was not a legal registered immigrant and therefore was not “subject to (U.S.) jurisdiction” a la the 14th Amendment.

But the ignoramuses who administer immigration law view him, and every Tom-Dick-&-Harry illegal immigrant born here, as being a citizen, leading his bamboozled supporters to make the gigantic leap of proclaiming all domestically born citizens to be natural born citizens.  To them the word “natural” has no meaning whatsoever because if it does, then it means he is illegitimately serving as President.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that records of INS cards filled out by passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama’s birth.

The Meaning of Natural Born

The legitimacy of the presidency of Barack Obama rests on the meaning of the words “natural born citizen”.  Those words were not invented by a King, a Pope, a Lord, a Judge, a Parliamentarian, a Governor, or a legal scholar.  It is not an invented phrase with a meaning assigned by its inventor.  It is nothing more than simple English words used in conjunction for emphasis of what they were intended to describe.  They were intended to describe Americans who are the off-spring of American parents and no others.
The words “natural” and “born” are closely connected and related in a semi-redundant way that reinforces the purpose and meaning of both of them.

Natural relates to natural law, and how in nature things are what they are due to natural processes, such as pro-creation, as opposed to unnatural or artificial processes that do not follow a natural pattern.

Born refers to the natural pattern of conception, gestation, and birth.  That process produces a natural entity, -such as a cub, a kitten, a puppy, a pony, or a child.  Born does not have any connection to geography, nor man-made boundaries, nor made-made rules.  It has no connection to location.  In the natural realm, the location where a birth takes place has no connection to the origin of that which is born.
Born only refers to the conclusion of the organic process of the reproduction & transmission of life and nature from parents to child.  It is not dependent on boundaries, soil, gravity, or even the earth itself.  It can occur in outer-space.  The product of birth is a replication of the nature of the parents, whether it be their species, breed, race, or group affiliation.

By the process leading to birth, the one born is endowed with the same nature as the parents.  And group membership, along with that nature, is also transmitted to them.  That membership can be in a clan, a tribe, a colony/state, or a nation.   They are born into it, -not adopted nor granted membership as is required for outsiders .  Membership is theirs by birth.   Their membership is natural membership because it is by natural reproduction.

Natural reproduction does not include reproduction via a union with one who is not a member.  Such a union only produces a hybrid, -half member, half outsider.  That membership is not describable as natural because its origin is not via the pattern of natural-birth membership because hybrids of all kinds are unnatural, whether they be in botany, animal husbandry, wild nature, human society, or politics.
Any type or source of membership that is other than that produced by the natural pattern fails the test of being natural.  The source of its legitimacy is not natural inheritance but human choice, human permission, human law.

No one whose membership is via human permission is a natural member of any group.  No one whose citizenship is via human law is a natural member of any nation.
In America, there is no law by which natural citizens possess citizenship.  It is an unwritten law.  It never needed to be written because it was an unalienable right and an element of Natural Rights that humans are endowed with by their Creator.

With a visiting student foreigner (non-immigrant, non-permanent resident), as a father whose membership in the British Empire was the natural inheritance transmitted to his child, Barack Obama possessed no unalienable right to American citizenship because he was not a natural born citizen, but was instead a hybrid with no natural citizenship in any nation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I ask;  “What is the nature of Panamanian-born John McCain’s citizenship?  Is it natural citizenship or statutory citizenship?”  Congress has proclaimed him to be a natural born citizen by a vote of 99-0. Those who claim that native-birth creates natural citizens will avoid attempting to answer it because they know that the answer undermines the entire basis of their fallacious notion about why Obama should be accepted as legitimate.  McCain’s natural citizenship came from his American parents, not where he was born.

Failure to answer my question shows that all of the Titanic captains (which they worship as infallible experts) have made the same grave error by doing what they’ve been doing, namely, relying on  opinions of previous “experts” who relied on earlier “experts” who made erroneous assumptions based on the unnatural institution of monarchical rule legitimized by “the Divine Right of Kings” during the one & a half centuries of colonial rule, and not on the natural law of Natural Rights endowed to man by the Nature’s God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An inescapable fact is that even Republicans are mentally bound by group-think, and thinking that the President of the United States is illegitimate is beyond where their minds are capable of going.  They are a part of the process and power structure and thus were complicit in allowing his election.

That guaranteed them that no objection would be raised to John McCain’s eligibility.  They thought he might win so they were silent and unthinking.  Now they are painted into a corner in which it is unacceptable to question the legitimacy of the President of the United States, -as if that would be an affront to the Office of the President and the dignity of the first mixed-race victor in the battle for the White House, when in fact, not doing so is an affront to the Constitution.

Even so, speaking the truth may be calling for the dispensing of medicine that is worse than the disease, -the disease that’s part of the gangrene of the body politic which is rotting from within with each new unconstitutional mandate passed by Congress or the Supreme Court or Executive Order.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The loyalty of only the President is an issue addressed in the Constitution because of the power he wields.  The holders of no other federal offices are required to be natural born citizens, only the President.

Here’s the United States Oath of Allegiance for Naturalization  (it shows the length to which foreigners with dual allegiance must go to strip themselves of it and the doubt as to their loyalty to America and the Constitution that a second allegiance raises:

( The first officially recorded Oaths of Allegiance were made on May 30th, 1778 at Valley Forge)

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;… so help me God.”

compiled by a.r. nash

continued on Page 2   Click Here

The Obama File -dark suspicions

Natural Born Citizenship blog

Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer

The Patriot Post

American Thinker -Conspiracy to Hide a Supreme Court Holding

Constitutionally Speaking -Conspiracy to Alter the Constitution

Liberty Legal Foundation -Government Proclaims “No Limits on Congressional Power”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/media-cover-up-of-obama-impeachment-exposed/

PriklyPetesays:

This is not just about “BO”, it’s about the entire White House and the pigs now feeding from the public trough. They’ve trashed our Constitution, opened our borders, stole our social security, and all tax dollars the American Public have paid, borrowed more money than god could have ever imagined and continue their smoke screen while making this country a third world nation. Our war should not be with third world nations but with Washington, [Republicrats included] these pigs need to be removed physically before this nation is gone. DO NOT SIT FAT, DUMB, AND HAPPY, GET UP AND DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

Patriot1776 says:

The man who calls himself the President of the United States should not only be removed from that position but tried for his crimes against the United States. His co-conspirator, Nancy Pelosi should also share his demise. She knew when she sent his nomination papers to the Democrat National Committee that he was not eligible to be President. She removed from that document the words :”natural born citizen” before submitting it. However, the Democrat Committee in charge of the nomination did not challenge the removal of that passage, therefore, they, as well as she, have committed Treason long before the imposter did and should suffer the same consequences, whether they are re-elected or not. The sooner we rid our nation of these traitors, the sooner we can bring this nation back to what is was meant to be.

flag

Old Glory

On the Real Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

Harvard Law Review Forum

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

[note: while their view is correct, their approach of total spurious dismissal is repugnant to anyone seeking to know the truth, such as America citizens to whom the truth matters but who have not yet found satisfactory explanations of what exactly it is.

They have a right to have their misconceptions dissolved by presentation of fact, but these two lawyers are too damn lazy or busy with their high-rate billing law practices that they can’t be bothered with explaining things to the little people who don’t matter.  But that’s okay because I’ve done it in place of them, -a couple hundred times over.

At least they were correct in their view that birth location is irrelevant, but it is inexcusable to not explain why. They can’t do that because they have not put words to the principle involved. That is because they do not deal in the realm of principles, which is why their comprehension of the founding era is so lacking.]

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” 1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution [note: there are no sources that “routinely interpret” the meaning of “natural born citizen”] confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: [note: they confirm nothing because they have no authority to confirm the real meaning since they did not live when they were written, and no one who did wrote about it] namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.

[That doctrine has never been “confirmed” by any federal court in American history. They have all side-stepped it when it came before them.]

And Congress has made equally clear [that] from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

[THAT IS IRRELEVANT!! First they bastardized the context totally and then they punted with the weasel word “generally”, and even worse (if possible!) they side-railed the discussion from “natural born citizen” to the irrelevant subject of “citizen”.
It does not matter who “becomes” a citizen. Natural born citizens do not “become” citizens.  They are born of and as citizens or they don’t exist.

And even more worse, they failed utterly to share the fact that State citizenship was in conflict with federal citizenship, and State law, which allowed dual-citizenship resulting from native-birth common law, was NOT the policy or position of federal law which did not allow dual-citizenship via common law.
So they set up a false scenario and then put a straw man into it and then they knock down their straw man. Isn’t that great? So intellectually honest and logical. Mr. Spock would put them in a painful Vulcan grip as punishment for their bastardization of fact and logic.

Let me illuminate, as I’ve already done yesterday in the exposition titled:

The Unknown Citizenship Fact that Changes Everything https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/the-unknown-citizenship-fact-that-changes-everything/

The only context that existed when the Constitution was written, -and long thereafter, was the one in which all such legal statements referred to American men only. Nationality was passed from husband to wife, and from father to children.
Every wife of every American husband was an American through her husband. And yet what deceitful thing did they write? “Someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen…”

MORONS! They bastardized the context by changing “a U.S. citizen father” by dropping the word “father” and substituting the inherently ambiguous word “parent“, as if gender significance did not even exist.
That is an intellectual falsehood and deliberately so because it allows them to cruise to their bastard destination based on the pretense that anyone born of an American mother “generally becomes a U.S. citizen [i.e., “natural born citizen”] without regard to whether the birth takes place…”

Understand this: no American mother was an American unless her husband was an American because her nationality couldn’t be different his; from the head of the family. Google the phase: “A Citizenship of Her Own” (title of a book and essay) and be amazed at the long and laborious history of American women trying to finally obtain their own citizenship.

It took well over a century to achieve. In fact in 1907 Congress passed a revision of the naturalization law and in it women actually lost their citizenship by marrying a foreigner.
Why?
Because by mutual agreement between nations, she took on her husband’s nationality. In a patriarchal era, she belonged to her husband due to the continuing vestige of an earlier and more traditional male-dominated society. British & American women were to a large extent similar to wives of Muslim men today.
The question therefore must be asked: How the hell did these two geniuses not know that??? If they could get something so plain and historical wrong, what the heck can’t they get wrong?]

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means…

[MORONS!!! In the “framing-era” there were NO SOURCES!  They too were “nonexistent”. If no “relevant materials” existed, how could they indicate anything? They couldn’t because they didn’t exist!
And that is why they cited none. Does that not seem odd?? They are supposedly deep investigators and yet can’t say what they found because they in fact found NOTHING! FRAUDS!]

…a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.

[1888??? Does that date, one hundred years after the “framing-era” of the Constitution, seem like a contemporary source for explaining what was in the framers’ minds? Idiots! Pure obfuscation.

4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888). Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

[Again with the fraudulent misappropriation of the word “confirm”. Pontificators who express a concept or misconception have not “confirmed” a damn thing! The Pope’s Bible scholars once “confirmed” that indeed the sun does revolve around the Earth. Both confirmations not worth spit.

But even worse, they repeat the fallacy of an ambiguous context by using the word “a parent” again instead of “the father”. Appreciate just how wickedly clever and Luciferian is their word choice. It could not be more clever because it can be both totally true as well as totally false depending on gender.]

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.

[“recognized” is properly used here but they failed to openly state that it was used because they were in fact natural-born subjects by Natural Law and not “made into” natural-born subjects by Parliamentary legal artifice.]

5. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72 (1898). These [British] statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to ALL Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.” 6. 7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708); see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.

The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries,

[“natural-born” was not “used” in any context other than when combined with “subject”. Natural-born cannot be found in Blackstone’s Commentaries or any legal dictionary of the times because it had no meaning. Only the full phrase “natural-born subject” had meaning.
The British never used the words “natural born citizen” because “citizen” only pertained to voting residents of cities, -not to national membership in the nation of England or the expanded United Kingdom.]

7. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63. a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.

No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790

8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed [and replaced] 1795). provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the Right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”9. Id. at 104 (emphasis added).

The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.

[Ta-da!! Bingo! “citizen parents” as in married citizen couples. But even that is deliberately deceitful obfuscation. Why? Because they deliberately changed the text or noun from “fathers” to “citizen parents” which they can then misconstrue on purpose to mean a single American women (who just might happen to be married to a total foreigner like foreign student Barack Obama from Kenya).

THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE because if she was an American it was because she was married to an American. There was no such thing as a mixed-nationality couple in the United States or in Britain. If an American women married a British gentleman, she became British because unity of nationality was preserved within the family based on that of the husband-father.]

The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings,…

What they are failing to reveal in that statement is what “descent” actually entails.  One’s ancestry or lineage was via descent through one’s….FATHER!  Descent was not through a mother.  No son inherited their mother’s name but their father’s, and his station in life, and one day his estate.  Wives did not inherit the family estate. The eldest son did. Anglo-American society was totally patrilineal. But they do not want to tell you that because it demolishes the falsehood that they will base on the erroneous assumption that nationality passed also from mother to child when that never happened and couldn’t happen unless the father was dead, unknown, or a stateless person.

…the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent [gender neutral] qualify as citizens from birth have changed. [no mention of citizens by birth, just “from” birth, conflating the two origins of born citizenship] The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth. [“sometimes” seems awfully specious since it was probably “always” except for exceptions like those noted above.]

The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point.

Try to understand just how mindless that statement is.  “Citizenship” did not exist under the British.  United States national citizenship did not exist until the union of the united STATES of AMERICA was formed following the adoption of the Constitution.  The sovereign States each had their own citizenship and undoubtedly recognized all children of their citizens as citizens also, regardless of birth location.

Consider the alternative: a respectable and important State citizen and pregnant wife are residing in Europe for negotiations of some important sort.  The wife gives birth during that period.  What would be the attitude of the leaders and citizens of such a family’s home State?
Would they take the attitude that they would surrender political sovereignty over their representative’s child to the British?  Allow the British to declare their child to be a British subject for life?  Or would they strenuously defend the child’s right to be an American like its parents?

If you view the latter option as realistic, and it applied to most or all of the individual States, then it is absurd to say that Congress “expanded the class of citizens at birth” by including those born abroad.  Why would they not already have been citizens at birth?

Even worse, since there was no congressional authority to bestow natural citizenship to any foreigner or to any natural citizen by birth, how the heck could that “class” have been “expanded” by Congress via the 1790 act?

That statement is rife with gigantic falsehoods that are easily overlooked, including:

1.  Congress had no authority to make citizens, -only to determine which foreigners (immigrants) would be allowed to become by their solemn oath a United States citizen.  That meant writing a uniform rule for nation-wide adoption by all of the individual States for use in their naturalization process.

2. It presupposes that even before Congress passed anything regarding citizenship, no American born abroad was considered to be an American but was considered to instead be a foreigner by the new national government that had never existed before.  How could it expand on a recognition of citizenship when no recognition could have previously existed?

” [expanded] to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States…” “But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers…”

3.  How deviously subtle.  Notice the use of “citizen mothers” but avoidance of “citizen fathers”, employing instead the nondescript “father” of no specific or relevant nationality.
That’s a set-up for the unspoken lie that a child’s nationality could be passed within marriage through its American mother by a means other than law, namely “by nature”, thereby classifying it as a natural born “citizen from birth“.
But they then immediately distract by claiming that Congress eliminated a “differential treatment” that required only the nondescript father to have lived in America.

So under modern day law a single, unmarried American woman can give birth to a child abroad which was fathered by anyone and it would magically qualify for the status stated in the first and only naturalization statute which declared that the children of United States citizens (meaning simply American fathers because all wives were under the umbrella of their nationality) were to be recognized as natural born citizens per the principle of the 1790 act?

[note that it has long been US policy that a child born out of wedlock has no right whatsoever to US citizenship except via the allowance of statutory naturalization regulations.]

What IDIOTS!  They have utterly changed the elements involved but attempt to equate the results.  No “citizen mother” could have been married to a foreigner and given birth to a natural American citizen because she herself would no longer be an American!  She would be a foreigner!  How can a foreign mother give birth by law or nature to a natural American citizen child?  What could be more absurd than that?  And yet clever and subtle sophistry serve to subvert the reader’s comprehension.

They invoke naturalization statutory law regarding mixed nationality couples who are allowed to have the American parent’s citizenship be imputed to their child by law, in conjunction with the foreign parent’s legal system doing the same regarding its citizenship, resulting in a child with split / dual allegiance due to dual inherited citizenship.

How exactly is an analogous off-spring of a dog and a cat a natural born dog or natural born cat?  THAT is the Kool-Aid they are offering you!  Don’t drink it!

Another angle of deception is in the mention of “differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers” regarding required residency, but residency in the later and modern naturalization acts is specifically related to the individual American parent with a foreign spouse and not, as is the case with their quoted first act of 1790, related instead to non-recognition of citizenship of a child born abroad to an American father who was also born and raised abroad and never lived in the United States, making his child effectually even more a foreigner than himself. It said that citizenship shall not DESCEND in such a case, -meaning from a citizen father and citizen mother, both of which would be essentially non-American.

Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”

The relevant time period refers to the era of the first act, during which citizenship emanated from father to wife and children .  But pronto they made a statement that is not relevant to that time period but to one that came over a century or more later, during which the acts eventually allowed an American mother to pass her citizenship directly to her foreign-born, alien-fathered child provided she had lived in the United States a requisite number of years and was thus Americanized by that experience even though foreign born.

That conflation of the founders’ era with our own modern era was made possible by  conflating the restriction “provided” in the naturalization acts then and after [to end transmission of US citizenship to children who are not really Americans and have no connection to America] with the similar residency requirements applicable to either gender U.S. parent before recognition of the U.S. citizenship of a mixed-nationality child.  Such a child is not an “American” child! It is a political Siamese twin. That is combining apples and oranges.  Yes, they are both fruit, but otherwise essentially different.

The only honest comment would have been to point out that not just the father had to have had residence in the U.S. but the mother as well. In the 1790 act, the mother’s history was irrelevant because she was an American only while married to one. I believe that if a foreign wife divorced her American husband, or vice versa, she because foreign again since her proof of citizenship was her marriage certificate and her husband’s birth certificate, neither of which would be in her possession after a divorce.

“~citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.””

If you know what a non-sequitur is, well, you are looking at a huge one of a logic sort. What is stated in the first section is unrelated to the second by any logic. In fact a major logic error is glaringly evident but most people have never taken a college course in logic and will fail to notice it. It is like saying that: If A = B, then B = C.(!)

They have not shown any logical link that reveals the two different terms to be synonymous, -nor showing that there is no difference between being a citizen at birth and being a natural born citizen.  They cannot show that because it is not true and they know it is not true.
They are just paid liars hiding behind distortions of legal facts.  Or they might instead be really stupid people who can’t see what is plain to anyone looking for legitimate untwisted truth.

A. = B (the 1790 act declares children born abroad of American couples = natural born citizens.)

B = C. (natural born citizens are both citizens at birth and by birth)

C = A  (all citizens at birth = natural born citizens.)

Missing facts:
1. Not all citizens at birth are citizens by birth because they are dependent on statutory law due to not being the off-spring of American couples but of mixed-nationality couples.
2. Mixed nationality couples can only produce political hybrid children, chimeras, cross-breeds, half-bloods having citizenship in two different nations.
3. No natural citizen has dual citizenship by parentage.
4. Dual citizenship by birth location is irrelevant to natural law and natural belonging.  One naturally belongs to their parents and to the groups of which they are members, whether family or clan or country or nation. Birth-place citizenship is a gift of human law, not a right of natural law.

The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:

[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

12. Letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 25, 1787), in 3 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).

As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”

13. 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1473, at 333 (1833). The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.

Exactly what I’ve argued a thousand times over.  They put logic to that foreign-born = alien-born nonsense.  It’s pathetic that so many people fail to distinguish between foreign-born and foreigner-born. One is about the irrelevant time and place of exit from the womb, while the other is about who brought you into the world and raised you.  They are completely unrelated in any way, with the former unrelated also to anything of nature.

A year ago I was hoping to learn and discover that John Jay had children abroad so I could mount the same argument, but it would have been a rather flat argument because, as I recall, his wife did not produce sons abroad but daughters, -neither of which were eligible for public office, much less the presidency.

But the point is that there is no way at all that the thinking of the founders was of such a rights-surrendering manner that they would have embraced a system or doctrine of citizenship which would have disenfranchised their own children from full and unlimited citizenship privilege. Instead, they chose to disenfranchise the children of immigrants, for life.

Citizenship by descent was the rule for that 98% of the population that was born of citizens, and citizenship “at birth” via native-birth common law (codified by many or most states) was the rule for the 2% born of foreign fathers.
One or the other was not to be defined by the words “natural born citizen”, (it could not be both because of the word “natural”), and there were perhaps a thousand to ten thousand American native-born sons of unnaturalized immigrants to each individual American son born abroad.  It is no wonder that the words “natural born” were removed by the third Congress five years later.
That was enough time to hear from their constituents who far out-numbered the probably non-existent foreign-born birthright-citizenship lobby.  So it was good-bye to their presidential eligibility protection written into the first Uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The uncertainty that resulted has never been resolved to this day, and never will be, for the same reasons. Truth must take a far back seat to equal treatment.  After all, don’t nearly all native-born persons grow up to be just as American as those born of citizens?
Heck, some who were foreign-born and foreigner-born but brought to the US as small children don’t know any other country. America is their only home, and American is their only identify, -and English may be their only language, and yet huge numbers of them are not United States citizens because their parents came here with them illegally. They are called “the dreamers” because their dream is to be citizens as well as Americans.

“Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.”

Wow!  Talk about unsupported leaps of “logic”!  Why didn’t they just skip the thought bridge about “citizen from birth” and just pole-vault straight to the other side with: “there is no doubt that Senator Cruz is a “natural born citizen’…?  Because that would be too blatant and thus unscholarly. They had to maintain a pretense of logic and fact when they are not able to present either for their baseless case.

“within the meaning of the Constitution.”  The reason that they have spent many hours and I spent an incalculable number of hours on this subject is because there is no “meaning” given in the Constitution.  It has to be construed, surmised, deduced and done so correctly.

They have done it incorrectly because they have committed a cardinal sin against constitutional interpretation, and that is to bastardized the meaning of common English language words so that they mean what they want them to mean.

Lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats commit that crime routinely and that is how they prosper and become far more powerful.  That was what has always happened, as it did with Prohibition.
The constitutional amendment barred “intoxicating liquors”.  Everyone knew what that meant; it meant hard liquor or spirits.  High alcohol content stuff.  But what did the totalitarians in government do to that clear meaning?  They bastardized the hell out of it by extending it illogically to include wine and beer.

Well, just ask yourself; when in the world did anyone ever call beer “liquor”?  Never.  But to the shock of the whole nation the totalitarians criminalized making and drinking even beer and did so by the fiat will of regulators, (the kind that will soon call all of the shots in Obamacare and internet freedom and energy production).

The did the same with the income tax amendment. As written and passed, income original meant earnings on investments or property. It had no connection to wages which are a barter of time & talent in exchange for cash. Wages are not income in the sense of the amendment. What happened to that original meaning? It was BASTARDIZED big time.So the People became the slaves and the GOVERNMENT became the Master.

Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.

For that statement they should be flogged and pilloried, -either for abject stupidity or Luciferian deceit.  They talk about citizenship by descent, and yet there was no descent from a father who was a stateless person, -not an American, so how could he have any influence on his son being a natural American citizen by birth?

That is a thought that occurred to neither of them.  But what must have occurred to them was that the U.S. residency of an alien father meant absolutely ZERO!!!  And worse still, having lived in the United States was only necessary if the son of an American father (his was ex-Cuban, not American) had been born and raised abroad, like in Canada, and had himself produced a child abroad which he raised abroad.  His child, by the 1790 act, would not have had a right of citizenship by descent unless his father (like Ted Cruz) had lived some period in the United States.

See there?  The 1790 act’s restriction (not allowance) was not about a father who emigrated (Cruz senior) as they dishonestly portrayed, but his grandson born and raised abroad, -whose father never lived in the grandfather’s country.  So how again did Cruz Sr., as an alien who lived in the US, serve to transmit natural born American citizenship to his child when neither residency in general, nor his residency, nor his nationality had any connection to natural American citizenship?

I would call that brain-dead intellectual incompetence but I can’t assume that anyone could be that incompetent without being a total failure. There must be some other reason, and it’s not an honest one.

First they put forth the cock-&-bull story that his mother’s residency qualified him to inherit her citizenship and PRESTO!  That makes him a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”!  Now they can’t resist piling another lie on top of that one by claiming that even his alien father’s residency determined his son’s presidential eligibility.  That is the maximum height of stupidity or Hitlerian nerve.  I really do not like either possibility.  Both stink to high heaven.

There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle.

Let’s not spend any serious time looking into our spurious deceptions folks, -nothing to see here, so just move along, -same thing that Obama and his helpers said when it came to releasing his fake long-form “Certificate of Live Birth” -almost verbatim.

The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.

Hey, Luciferian, how people choose to spend their time is none of your business. Every crook that ever served in government said the same thing when an investigation was called for by some alert citizen.

Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. [As clear as a black hole!] To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve.

Yes! Let’s go there! A person who is half old enough is not eligible. A person who is half-American is not eligible. See how that works? It is “refreshingly clear”!!

But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization.

Again with the damn “citizen parent” instead of citizen father. And note the retreat to using only the term “a citizen” instead of a natural born citizen.  Understand this: what Congress “recognized” is irrelevant to natural nationality inheritance, -to natural national membership via blood lineage, aka, right of descent.

Congress only had authority to write a uniform rule of naturalization which the State governments were obligated to adopt in order to make naturalization uniform nationwide. That is all Congress was empowered to do.
But it could do something that was not an exercise of authority, and that is to state facts that should not be misunderstood or unknown. The one that they stated for the benefit of all foreign-born Americans was that they are in fact natural born citizens and shall be considered as such by every State election official in charge of whose names were allowed to be placed on election ballots for the office of President.

That was the one and only purpose served by inserting the words “natural born” in front of “citizen”, -something that they chose to not do for children of naturalized foreigners.
Notice the entirely overlooked fact that in the nat. acts it is stated that the children of a person so naturalized if dwelling in the United States “shall be considered as citizens of the United States”!! It did not care where there were born, abroad or on US soil. They were not citizens in the eyes of Congress until their father was a citizen.]

“generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization.”

Notice the two insinuations that spring from that?  One is that “a U.S. citizen” is eligible to be President when citizenship is not the measuring stick, and the other is that “generally” most foreign-born children having one American parent does not need to be naturalized.  What that means is that some do need to be naturalized. But what the hell does that even mean?  How can you naturalized a baby?  Force it to recite the naturalization oath??

What they have inadvertently implied is that there is a form of naturalization other than by the oath, meaning by compliance with a statute.  But that is a two edged sword because it means that being a “citizen at birth” may be because of automatic statutory naturalization by conformity with requirements.

Oh-oh… you can’t be a statutory citizen or a naturalized citizen if you are a natural born citizen because natural citizens are not citizens by any law, while their counter-parts are not citizens at all except by law.  hmmmm… someone’s been lyin’ to the judge!

And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth [if “born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent”]. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose [PROVIDED THE SPOUSE IS ALSO A U.S. CITIZEN as was always the case from the very beginning. NO ALIENAGE FROM A FOREIGN-SUBJECT FATHER, CITIZEN-BORN ONLY].

* Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University.
** Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University; Partner, Bancroft PLLC.

[added “commentary” by self-appointed dragon slayer: Adrien Nash, -a thorn in the side of the wicked deceivers. see obama–nation.com]

9-page PDF version: On the Real Meaning of Natural Born Citizen

https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/on-the-real-meaning-of-natural-bornc2a0citizen2.pdf

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers