The Fundamental Truth about Presidential Eligibility



Natural Born Citizenship

revised from April 2011

There’s a wide-spread lack of understanding of the meaning of the word “natural” (as used in Article II of the US Constitution).  Natural is not, and never has been, interchangeable with the word “native”.  Native refers to the land in which one is born, the land of ones ancestry, ones country, though not necessarily one’s nation because nations appear and disappear but the land is forever.

To be born in a certain country usually makes one a native of the nation that occupies that country, but being a native is not the same as being a citizen.  Moses was a native born Egyptian, as was the entire Hebrew nation, but while he was a citizen of Egypt, they were not because they were not natural born Egyptians, (while he was adopted).

He also was not a natural born Egyptian because he was a natural born Hebrew, born to a Hebrew mother and father and a natural part of the Hebrew people who remained a separate and distinct people even though Egypt was their only home and had been for many centuries.

But Egypt was the home of the Egyptians for many millennia (and all were conscious of that distinction).  So while the Hebrew people occupied Egyptian soil, within the Egyptian nation (political entity), which occupied the country of Egypt (geographical entity), the Hebrews were born into a society in which they were not natural born citizens even though they were native born subjects.

The distinction between the land of ones nativity and the nation of ones citizenship is of paramount importance.  The clearest evidence of that fact is the example of Kuwait.  When the Iraqi army conquered Kuwait, it did not conquer the nation of Kuwait, only the country of Kuwait, because the nation of Kuwait fled into exile where it still existed until it was able to return to the country of Kuwait and repossess the land.

Any child born to a Kuwaiti abroad was not a citizen of the land of its birth but was instead a natural born Kuwaiti and part of the Kuwaiti nation because it was born of parents who were Kuwaiti.  Kuwaiti citizenship was its natural inheritance by birth.  No law was needed to make it so, it was so by nature, by being born of Kuwaiti citizens.

German parents who delivered a child in Nazi occupied France didn’t give birth to a French citizen but a German citizen because the child was German by birth to German parents, and thus a German citizen.

So, (with more examples to follow), let’s examine the meaning of the word “natural”.

That which is Natural comes by nature.  The Nature that concerns human society is biological, not geographical.  You could draw geographical boundaries on the moon, or Mars, but there is nothing of nature on either because they are barren wastelands.  The only Nature that matters only exists where there is life.  For something to be natural it has to come from nature, not geography, nor politics.

Whatever is natural is beyond the power of any law-making or enforcing entity to change, just like inalienable rights with which humans are born.  So the association of the word “natural” with the word “born” refers to a biological association, not a geographical association.

The association of the word “native” with the word “born” refers to a geographical association, and not a biological association.  So it can be said that the land of one’s nativity is not always the same as the nation of one’s citizenship (and ancestry), -although it is almost universally so.  That has changed in the United States due to the general acceptance of the words of the 14th Amendment at their simplest interpretation.

The definition of a country as a delineated geographical entity is different from what constitutes the nation that occupies that geography, and both can change over time.  Germany, leading up to WWII felt that areas in other nations were a natural part of the country of Germany since they were populated by ethnic Germans, and so, by invasion, they took steps to make those areas in reality to be part of the nation of Germany.

But time proved that countries are one thing and nations are another and they don’t always and forever overlap perfectly.  So nativity, the country of ones birth, is not synonymous with the nation of ones citizenship.   What happened to Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia also demonstrates this point.  Having citizenship in either of those countries by reason of native birth or natural born citizenship eventually became void because both the countries and the nations ceased to exist.  Then citizenship was determined by geography or choice.  This split happened because natural born members of various groups didn’t mix into a new hybrid group with a new identity.  The split wasn’t because of where individuals were or were not born, but because of who they were born to.  One’s membership in a group came by the nature of their parentage, not their nativity.

Lastly, there’s the example of Native Americans, native Australians, and slaves.  The native Americas and Australians were truly both native born and natural born members of their nations/peoples and their country was the land that they belonged to by geography and parentage.  Whereas slaves were not native born citizens of any country since the soil that they were born on was irrelevant and immaterial to anything in a legal or cultural way.

They were natural born Africans and natural born slaves since those were the only things that they inherited from their parents.  When an American or Australian native couple was transported to Britain during the colonial era, and gave birth to a child there, that child would be a natural born member of their tribe-nation even though the land of their nativity was not the same as the land of their origin.  Was it the legal position of the British government that such a child was under the jurisdiction of the crown and not their parents, even though they were only visitors?  That’s not reasonable, fair, nor sane.

The Vikings traveled and settled far and wide.  Their off-spring were Vikings regardless of whether they were born in the native homeland, or in Greenland, or in Europe or Russia. They were natural born Vikings.  All their loyalty was to their own kind, not to the soil on which they happened to be born.

The framers of the Constitution required that the US President be a naturally born member of the group -which is: citizens of the U.S. They required that the President’s citizenship be citizenship transmitted to him at birth by parents who were US citizens.  In other words, his citizenship had to be citizenship that he inherited, citizenship that came naturally, not by law or statute, or geography.

But if the location of a man’s mother when he entered the world had been meant to be required to have been within U.S. territory, that would have been meant to be in addition to natural citizenship, not in place of it.  The Founders and Framers of the Constitution meant to insure that his loyalty was solely to the United States and that could be accomplished only due to his parents being loyal citizens of the United States.  That is the reason why they put that requirement (loyalty) ahead of the 2nd requirement (maturity) and the 3rd requirement (residency).  Loyalty comes by allegiance to common principles and beliefs (Natural Rights, racial superiority [in Slave States], and Religion, or it can come by devotion to one’s own people without regard for beliefs, but governments cannot read the minds of foreigners, even though they swear a solemn oath before God and Man, nor can they be assured of what values strangers will instill in their children.  [What values would the parents of a child born in Israel be instilled with if they were staunch members of Hamas or any radical Islamic group?]  So natural citizenship was the only way to assure that a native-born imperialism-embracing Loyalist citizen was not imbued with the command of the United States military, which he could use to the harm of the republic, its Constitution, its sovereignty, and its citizens.

The Nature of being Natural Born

Native birth refers to place of birth, land of birth, geography and borders.  Natural birth refers to biology, the biology of ones parentage and what that conveys to the off-spring in terms of culture, religion, personal values, political values, and loyalties.  It has absolutely nothing to do with geography.  The phrase “natural born citizen” is an adaptation from natural science.  Natural born citizenship is something conveyed in the legal realm that is the human-law equivalent of that which is conveyed in the biological realm.

A natural citizen is one born to citizens, as creatures are naturally born from like creatures.  Tigers give birth to tigers.  Baby tigers are natural born tigers.  But if a male lion mates with a female tiger it does not result in a natural born tiger, but in a liger.  Also,  if a male tiger mates with a female lion they do not produce a natural born lion, but a tigon.  If a horse mates with a donkey, it does not produce a natural born horse or donkey but a mule -which is not fully natural, and is sterile and unable to reproduce.  So it is with race and nationality.

A black father and Caucasian mother do not produce a natural born Caucasian, nor a natural born African or black, they produce a hybrid, because of the duality of their genetics. A Russian  father and Chinese mother do not produce a natural born Russian, nor Chinese, child.  Russians give birth to Russians, Germans give birth to Germans, Eskimos give birth to Eskimos, and Vikings gave birth to Vikings, regardless of where they found themselves.

Similarly, a native citizen and a foreign citizen do not produce a natural born native nor a natural born foreigner but a combination, resulting in dual citizenship (and divided loyalty) if the circumstances don’t counter it (such as abandonment or death of the father).  Natural born citizenship is automatically or naturally conveyed to the off-spring regardless of location, although, for almost everyone, their birth location is the land of their parents’ citizenship.

Those who are born to citizens are naturally citizens by birth.  Those who are born to foreigners are naturally foreigners by birth, and those who are off-spring of both are neither, but rather they’re both, (making them dual citizens)   But with humans loyalty can be ingrained not only from one’s parents and group, but also from the society that one is raised in and the nation which that society composes.

Dual-citizens are no more natural born citizens than ligers are natural born lions or tigers.   Therefore to doubly insure loyalty to the United States, the founders went with the conventional meaning of natural birth, -which was birth as the progeny of American parents.

There are at least 14 categories of Birth & Citizenship regarding the U.S.:

1.  Native-born to American parents.  2 . Foreign born to American parents  3. Foreign born to foreign parents but Naturalized  4. Native born to un-Naturalized parents  5. Native-born to immigrant parents.  6.  Native-born to illegal immigrants.  7.  Native-born to transient aliens, guests, visitors, meaning foreigners with only a U.S. Visa.  8  U.S. born to foreign diplomats, or foreign visitors. 9. Foreign-birth to American diplomats.  10.  Born abroad to Naturalized parents  11. Foreign birth to one U.S. citizen parent.  12.  Formerly, native-birth to Native Americans,  13. Birth to U.S. Nationals who are not citizens,  and  14. various combinations of the above.

The common conflation of “citizen”, and “native born citizen” with natural born citizen results from the fact that historically they both have described over 99.9% of US citizens, with the native-born of aliens constituting only about 2% of that total.  The only way to distinguish the two almost identical classes (not identical in principle but in location) is by understanding the full meaning behind the word “natural”.  Without that understanding people are going to make the common logic-error of thinking the terms are interchangeable.  But just because 99.9% of natural born citizens are also native born, it does not follow that there is no distinguishing between them.  The term natural born citizen exists because not all native born persons are born of American citizens, although before the illegal alien invasion nearly all were, percentage-wise.

By principle, natural born citizenship only requires birth to US citizens, but since essentially all were born within the country as well, some people erroneously assumed that as it had been before in Britain and the colonies, it continued onward in the new American national government, believing that natural citizenship meant; “one born in America to American citizens”.  By that description, if John McCain was not born on a US military base or in the US Embassy, then he would not be eligible to be President.

One must answer the question of what difference it would have made to men such as the founders of the nation whether or not a son of American’s left his mother’s womb in one place versus another; in a Panamanian hospital or in the Panama Canal Zone which the U.S. governed?  He is regardless, the same son and they were the same parents.  No difference.  Were they really too stupid to recognize that fact?  If they had been, then they would have required that the President be a native-born citizen.  If that was what they meant to convey, then nothing on Earth would have prevented them from saying it, but they did NOT want any son of a foreigner occupying the “chief magistracy” of the nation, i.e., the position of Command-in-Chief of the American Armies & Navy.

The devil is in the details, and McCain’s case, as well as Obama’s, is a stark example of how a common language description (native-born citizen) does not include an implied element of exceptions (the alien-born) that are not included in the general assumption (born of citizens) about the description.

Did the founders intend to exclude the native-born immigrant children from wielding the power of the presidency?  The language they adopted gives a strong hint about whether or not their thinking was exclusionary or inclusionary:  NO PERSON except… a natural born citizen shall be eligible…

That sounds pretty exclusionary, and was definitely so since it excluded over 95% of the population since they were not white, male, educated, Protestant, 35 years of age, or a naturalized citizen with 14 years residency.

There is no statutory allowance for women to be President, nor any constitutional provision defending such a privilege. There is only the fundamental principle of citizenship equality, and it was only finally embedded in the Constitution via the 14th Amendment.

Before the passage of the 19th Amendment, women could not vote, and certainly could not seek the presidency or any such high office.  Consequently, there was no real-world difference between a female native-born American common law citizen and a female natural born citizen, since neither had any right to serve as President, nor as anything else.  They had about as many civic rights as slaves.  That was because the head of the family represented the family to society.  And it could have only one head.

The nefariously dishonest Obama defenders would have everyone believe that when it came to national security, the framers were willing to allow sons of aliens to be President, when they would not allow their own mothers, wives, sisters and daughters to be President.
Just ask yourself, who would you trust more to babysit your small child, a female relative or a total stranger? Or to be a trustee of your parent’s will and estate?

If the framers would not allow their own flesh and blood to be President, how much more would they not allow the flesh and blood of strangers to rule over them?

by Adrien Nash  April, 2011, July, 2014  obama–


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

21 Responses to The Fundamental Truth about Presidential Eligibility

  1. arnash says:

    [ e-mail response from a relative ]
    There are a lot of legitimate questions. One question I have is why do
    > they obscure the question of whether he meets the “natural born citizen”
    > requirement by asking about his birth certificate. If his father was indeed
    > Obama Sr., then he does not meet the definition of “natural born citizen”.
    > He is disqualified by having had dual citizenship at birth. If he was
    > adopted by Soetoro, which he apparently was, he would have to be naturalized
    > to become a citizen again, in which case he doesn’t meet the definition.
    > By the end of his term (either one or two), it will be irrelevant whether
    > or not he met the definition of “natural born citizen”, because he would
    > have already destroyed the country. He wins by buying time to do more
    > damage.

  2. arnash says:

    “Frederick Van Dyne’s widely taught textbook treatise on Citizenship of the United States focused especially on the effects of the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.”
    ” This matter was elaborately considered in the case of Lynch v.Clarke,1Sandf.Ch.583, decided in 1844 in New York. In that case one Julia Lynch, born in New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the court said that it entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.
    The executive departments of our government have repeatedly affirmed this doctrine.”

    The magnitude of this delusional view is shocking (!). It’s an easy, simple, and wonderfully Pollyanna-ish approach to just assume that citizenship was basically meant for anyone in the world who happened to be delivered on US soil, but it has nothing to do with reason and common sense nor any sane governance over who is allowed to be a citizen. Just because everyone calls Native Americans “Indians”, doesn’t mean they are correct in doing so since they are not Indians, nor born in India. Misconceptions and misunderstanding is inherent is the thinking of people in all levels of society and achievement. So it is to common sense one must turn to ascertain what is true.
    The court in this case made two glaring errors, and they are that they ignored the meaning of “within the dominions and allegiance of the United States”. They would have been correct if the phrase had excluded the “and allegiance” part, which involves the volition and full loyalty of the parents of the person in question. To which sovereignty to they pay allegiance? Domestic? or Foreign? This is not some trifle of a thing than can be simply ignored and swept aside like it has no significance. That is what they did and that was very foolish.
    Secondly, they made the error of assuming that their determination of US citizenship by native birth was not merely equal to that of natural born citizens, but was in fact identical to it, indistinguishable, like identical twins who are really one person. It was totally wrong to use those words to describe a citizen that was not born to US citizens.

  3. arnash says:

    Posted by su359115 on Apr 03, 2011 18:23 on the WND forum (I think)

    Lynch, in 1844, reverted to a philosophical principle based on vague law. The judge was wrong, as was Gray . . .
    Fuller’s dissent was far superior to that of Rehnquist in Roe . . . a brief missive stunted by shock.

    The 1772 British Nationality law gained allegiance from those born within its dominion, as well as of its subjects. They wanted it both ways.

    The Liberal mind is so open that it makes no distinctions, and thus is lawless. In fact, the classic legal definition of ‘liberal’ is going outside the boundaries of existing law, and might I add outside of logic itself. The folly of liberalism reveals itself, eventually. You have citizens of New Mexico who have lost their state sovereignty to illegal aliens, based on issuance of drivers licenses to undocumented residents without birth certificates. The logic for giving out licenses was flawed, outside of existing law, . . . the Sec. of State just couldn’t say, ‘NO.’ Hospitals, health insurance, jobs, jails . . . all compromised by liberals’ desire not to say ‘NO;’ and by not saying ‘No’, passing the terrible costs on for others to pay. Those are the liberal judges, flawed in their persons and politics, liars.
    Watch as they destroy an entire society, unless we follow the advice of Vattel, and not remain silent. See § 199.

    How the right of the nation protected is lost by its silence.

  4. arnash says:

    Posted elsewhere by ch22240 on Apr 03, 2011 17:53

    What does Blackstone say about Vattel and the Law of Nations.
    Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England
    Book: the Fourth – Chapter: the Fifth

    ACCORDING to the method marked out in the preceding chapter, we are next to consider the offenses more immediately repugnant to that universal law of society, which regulates the mutual intercourse between one state and another ; those, I mean, which are particularly addressed, as such, by the English law.

    THE law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world a ; in order to decide all disputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities….between two or more independent states, and the individuals belonging to each,

    b. This general law is founded upon this principle; that different nations ought in time of peace to do one another all the good they can; and, in time of war, as little harm as possible, without prejudice to their own real interests,

    c. And, as none of these states will allow a superiority in the other, therefore neither can dictate or prescribe the rules of this law to the rest ; but such rules must necessarily result from those principles of natural justice, in which all the learned of every nation agree : or they depend upon mutual compacts or treaties between the respective communities; in the construction of which there is also no judge to resort to, but the law of nature and reason being the only one in which all the contracting parties are equally conversant, and to which they are equally subject.

    What does this mean;

    1. THE law of nations is a system of rules,

    2. deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world in order to decide all disputes, and to regulate all ceremonies and civilities,

    3. There are different types of jurisdiction: territorial, political, civil, local, temporary, permanent, etc

    What is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ per the Law of Nations?

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

  5. arnash says:

    post from another blog by unknown author

    My understanding is that if he was born here, he is “native born”, like the children of illegal aliens. To be a “natural born citizen”, which is a higher requirement, required only of the president, is that both of his parents have to be citizens; they can be native born or naturalized citizens, but they BOTH have to be citizens That’s what the founders who inserted the requirement into the Constitution expected. The “natural law” view of the phrase “natural born Citizen” at the time of America’s founding – going back to Emmerich de Vattel’s 1758 classic, “Law of Nations” – requires citizen parents at the time of the individual’s native birth. The historic view is
    not in doubt; but interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the U.S. Code’s variations for “citizenship” have clouded the “natural born” definition for some.

    The founding fathers were concerned with dual loyalty. His father is Kenyan, which was an English colony at the time of his birth, so he can’t confer “natural born” status. If he was born in Kenya, and there is evidence that he was, then his mother did not qualify to confer “natural born” status on him either. She had to have been physically present in the U.S. for 10 years prior to the birth of her child, five of
    those years had to have been after the age of 14. His mother was only 18. Here is Philip Berg’s Supreme Court brief on the case >

    Then there is the matter of his adoption. His adoption was a matter of record & his admission. When he was adopted, he acquired Indonesian
    citizenship. That would make him a dual-citizen, which the Constitution didn’t allow. So, what is his status now? Who knows?

    The ultimate question is whether the Supreme Court would define the natural born clause as requiring an unbroken chain of allegiance to the United
    States. That question remains unanswered because remarkably not one congressional or judicial hearing has been held on the substance of Obama’s
    constitutional eligibility.”
    Read more:Presidential eligibility: Why it matters

  6. arnash says:

    “Let’s take that one issue and analyze it into what was actually said and written by the folks who were there. You tell me what specific language suggests “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment had ANYTHING TO DO with the nationality of the Parents? I have an open mind.”
    Allow me to enlighten you. Your mind is reading the 14 Amendment with a word substitution taking place unconsciously. You read, “All persons born
    or naturalized in the United States, and under the jurisdiction thereof…” Is that correct? Or maybe you read; All persons born or naturalized in the
    United States, and within the jurisdiction thereof…” Both of these readings are WRONG!
    The correct word relating to jurisdiction is the word “SUBJECT” which carries the implied meaning of the word “subjection”, which is accompanied
    by the concept of volition, free will, CHOICE. One chooses to be subject or chooses to NOT be subject, it is not the choice of the government whether
    or not a person is “Subject” to the government. It is the choice of the individual. That ties in with the issue of loyalty, allegiance, lawfulness, obedience, SUBMISSION. If one does not submit oneself to the rules of a government, then they are not being subject to that government. PERIOD! Hence, the determination of who is subject and who is not has absolutely NOTHING to do with the authority of the government within its borders. It has solely to do with the attitude and willingness of foreigners to subject themselves to that authority. (That authority includes bans on travel to, and trading with or assisting certain foreign hostile nations.) So…as I’ve explained previously, foreigners who are permanent residents of the US are UNLIKE foreign VISITORS to the US, who are NOT under US jurisdiction. An alien domestic resident voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the US authority while the foreign visitor does not.
    Therefore, any off-spring of a visiting alien is NOT a US citizen regardless of birth in the US because children are under the jurisdiction of their parents, with the exception of the very young which are under NO jurisdiction whatsoever, other than natural urges. But aliens permanently residing
    here legally ARE US citizens because they meet the definition of being SUBJECT to the jurisdiction.

  7. arnash says:

    PhoxarRed wrote: “If you suggest NBC means LESS than that, (citizenship conferred by birth) you’re the first. If you can show me the statutory or Constitutional specification(s) explicitly spelling out more requirements than that, do so or admit they don’t exist (as I claim.)”
    You don’t get it. You’re right that they don’t exist, but neither does YOUR definition either. NO definition exists. And one might never exist in our lifetime, -unless the Supreme Court decides to CREATE one.

    PhoxarRed wrote:
    I repeat: “Date and place DO SUFFICE, because we have no more exclusive (excluding) definition of “Natural Born Citizen” than that it must mean citizenship conferred by birth.”
    Exactly! The problem is that you do not understand the concept or meaning of “birth” in a legal sense. You misconstrue it to mean the appearance of a new person within the borders of a nation which claims its citizenship upon ALL persons who enter the nation from within. You need to begin to realize that birth has absolutely nothing to do with government, borders, laws, or jurisdictions. It is an event of “Nature”, it involves genetics and blood, NOT geography and borders. You’re mind conflates the word “birth” with the word “native” as in “a natural native citizen” instead of “natural BORN-citizen. A “born citizen” is one who is born as a citizen because of natural inheritance from the parents. Not just inheritance of genes but also inheritance of citizenship. The only persons who are “born” of the soil are ORCs! Us humans are born of humans and while still in the womb it can be said that we possess a nascent citizenship due to our connection to our mothers, which becomes official once we are delivered.
    The monstrous medieval concept of jus soli is founded on a Baron’s ownership over his serfs and all their off-spring born on his land. This vile
    principle, not covering citizens, but rather subjects, was never embraced by the framers of the Constitution, nor the idea that loyalty springs solely or
    principally from one’s devotion to their land of birth. People like General Benedict Arnold disproved that idea. But I digress.
    I want to ask you how jus soli applies to an American woman who gives birth out at sea, or in Antarctica, or in outer space? He child does not inherit her citizenship naturally but rather, it is gained solely by statute? The statute does not establish what was already true in US common law, it merely codified what always existed because it was “natural” to inherit ones parent’s citizenship. That is how it is in every nation on earth and citizens of all free nation would reject the principle of jus soli because it is totally absurd.

    You added:”Constitutionally, jus soli birthright citizenship is the law of our land.” Show me where that is stated. You can’t because it is not. It is merely an inference that has latched itself onto your mind like a leech, and you seem to be unable to shack it because you think it’s now embedded in our law. If it actually is, isn’t that an awful travesty? -And in violate of all that is reasonable and accepted universally -except possibly in places like North Korea

  8. arnash says:

    Posted by su359115 on May 08, 2011 12:04
    Scholars and jurists relying on jus solis from English common law is inaccurate, short-sighted, and ignorant.
    Of course, that also describes many people’s ‘comfort zone.’
    Jus solis was the sole parameter of citizenship at birth in the colonies because, well, they were colonies. They couldn’t exercise Britain’s option of ‘citizen by descent’ because, as a colony, they had zero extra-territorial jurisdiction.
    Horace Gray, in Wong Kim Ark, could find no right of jus solis citizenship in U.S. naturalization law, so he created it out of a miasmic misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has polluted our naturalization law to this day, and to extremely ill-effect.

    This ‘constitutional’ interpretation was a way for Gray to work around the plenary power of congress over naturalization law (he cited Chirac vs Chirac, and then ignored it) and exercised Art III judiciary interpretation of the constitution . . . even though the Chief Justice argued cogently against the court plurality.

    Jus solis is a magnanimous gesture cloaking shear hubris and violation of international law . . . creating conflicts of law and our current problems of illegal immigration, and a president who claims Article II eligibility merely for the fact/claim of being born (not raised) on U.S. soil and with U.S. values.

  9. arnash says:

    Posted by su359115 on May 17, 2011 16:54

    Nowhere does the 14th Amendment define a natural born citizen, no matter what kindergarten math some judges have played around with in counting on their fingers the number of types of citizens.
    In truth, ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ is more than just being on U.S. soil, but subject to its laws and the laws of no other nation.

    Children of black slaves born on U.S. soil fit this description. Indeed, that was the purpose of the 14th Amendment, directly following and enforcing the 13th Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Children of aliens, however, had the nationality and inherited rights of the alien parents . . . yet, Gray’s interpretation ignored the principle established from 1790 that minor children of aliens only became citizens upon naturalization of the father.
    The Constitution defined citizens at birth, but the intent and understanding of the writers who composed the 14th Amendment was clear: Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, the chief author of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866 — “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill, the Civil Rights Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”
    Nothing can be clearer than that statement.
    In order to get around the Chinese Exclusionary Act, Horace Gray ignored that particular distinction and made a new ‘constitutionally’ defined citizen, outside of and superior, or so he said, to the plenary power of congress. Instead of declaring the Treaty and Act unconstitutional, he parsed the law to his purposes, i.e., legislated from the bench through judicial revision.

    The constitutionality of Gray’s holding will be determined in the future, but he is not defining a Natural Born Citizen. No Supreme Court justice will ignore the distinctions made by the authors and the legislative history creating the 14th Amendment.

    Can we rely on the 14th Amendment to define a Natural Born Citizen? No . . . that has to be gleaned from the intent of the writers of Article II, the only law written requiring a Natural Born Citizen. That Article was written to prevent foreign influence from the Commander in Chief, e.g., children of foreign and alien fathers.

  10. arnash says:

    Obama inherited his father’s nationality only if his parents had a legally recognized relationship beyond the fact of fertilization. If they were married then he is considered a US citizen -not by natural inheritance but by the fact that his mother was a citizen and mothers were legally recognized in 1920 to impart their US citizenship to their off-spring. But being born in the US to a foreign father does not fit the natural law general description of a natural born citizen, Being a native born citizen is not synonymous with being a natural born citizen but it’s a fact that being native born is part of the description of being natural born. But the reverse is not true, namely that being natural born is a part of being native born because alien children could be called “native born subjects” i.e. citizens, and yet not be natural born citizens since their parents are not citizens. If their parents are US permanent residents then children born to them within the US territories are native born Americans because the parents are no longer SUBJECT to foreign jurisdiction. But that does not make them fit the description of natural born citizens.
    All the talk about the law and who said what and what he meant is irrelevant when it comes down to the simple definition of the word “natural” and the simple description of citizenship of the natural-born variety. A baby born to a human is human by natural inheritance, and so a baby born to Americans is an American by inalienable political inheritance. It doesn’t depend of any statute to make it so because it is a rule of natural law which exists prior to any legislation regarding citizenship.
    The error of conflating natural with native is seen in the requirements for the presidency. Being native born is one of the elements that the framers understood to be part of being a natural citizen, the other being having US citizens as parents. Some think that the former is sufficient but that is foolishness. Both were what the framers required. Further assurance of allegiance to country was imposed by the residency requirement (14 years) since even natural born citizenship was not sufficient. That being so, it’s for damn sure that simple place of birth was grossly inadequate to be fit to be Commander in Chief.

  11. arnash says:

    While citing the erroneous presumptuous opinions of flawed and fallible men you make it seem that if all men believe the world is flat that must make it so, and calling Native Americans “Indians” makes them natives of India. Errors can be perpetuated for centuries by failure to realize what the fundamental truth is.
    You can rank forever about what the “settled law” is, and a thousand opinions and statutes regarding natural born citizenship, but if they don’t conform with the fundamental truth then they are in ERROR! You mistake “the law” for the truth, but they are not one and the same. But grasping tenaciously to your philosophy that anyone with a birth connection to US soil is qualified to be President, you wrap yourself in the Cape of Invulnerability of the “Settled law”, touting ITS SUPREME AUTHORITY while kissing the feet of mere men who happen to get appointed to the Supreme Court (even without any judicial or Constitutional scholarship background), or elected to Congress.
    In your perverse misinterpretation, the son of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or Osama Bin Laden can be trusted with the office of Commander in Chief as long as his mother gave birth within US borders while visiting.
    What you are unwilling to grasp is that there is a greater authority, and that is the authority of actual definitions of English words. You take it upon yourself to re-define an important word as it suits your childhood dream that
    anybody can grow up to be President. Well, that simply isn’t so and was never meant to be from the very beginning when the word “natural” was linked to the word “citizen”. Your brain does an Elastic Man contortion to distort and pervert the meaning of natural into native.
    It doesn’t matter what you or anyone says about the legal history of and opinions conflating/ confusing the two, nothing changes the fact that no one has any right to simple change the meaning of words to suit their own
    philosophy. That is why measure 8 in California was passed by the people, because they cannot trust judges to NOT pervert the English language by re-defining the word “marriage”. The measure simply stated that the law must recognize that the true meaning is what it has always been and only a Constitutional amendment can change that, NOT a judicial ruling. Same with the word “natural”. AN

  12. arnash says:

    Posted by PhoxarRed on May 21, 2011 14:54
    PhoxarRed wrote “‘Natural Born Citizen’ was meant to require native birth – not citizen parents.” That is a very dogmatic and unprovable assumption. The most one can assert is that native birth was A requirement of natural citizenship, NOT the sole requirement, and even that claim is tenuous without a deep historical knowledge about what the framers’ references were. If the meaning of natural born citizen was as simple as you believe then there would have been no need to even use the phrase since the simple phrase “citizen, -native born” would have sufficed, and would have been
    self-explanatory. Also, they deliberately did NOT use the phrase “native-born citizen” and that was not done without aforethought. In addition, at the time the Constitution was written, there were no native-born nor natural born citizens since all people born in the colonies were born as British subjects. So what they wrote was written for
    the future and written with the intent that the maximum assurance of loyalty be written into the POTUS eligibility requirements. Mere native birth alone is FAR from the maximum possible guarantee of allegiance solely to the US since it would make the office of the President accessible to a native-born citizen fathered by an alien and foreign raised. THAT would have been UNTHINKABLE to the framers.
    Hence it is reasonable to assume that they wanted it all…-native birth? Definitely. -US citizen parents?.. Definitely, -Long term residency?.. Definitely. -Maturity?.. Definitely. The POTUS eligibility is not characterized by how little was required but by how MUCH was required.
    There is a serious fallacy inherent is your assumption that: “It is practically unthinkable that the Framers, WITHOUT DISCUSSION, would have changed the birthright tradition basis of determining allegiance for a President, without saying so.” The error is in thinking that their thinking involved tradition AT ALL. You’re erroneously conflating “birthright citizenship” tradition with how THEY would have felt about guaranteeing allegiance not for just a simple citizen, nor for a federal officer or Congressman, but the the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces and all executive branch offices. The standard they set was higher than for anyone else so it is counter-intuitive to assume that they wanted to LIMIT the stringency of the POTUS eligibility requirements to mere native birth, which apart from a life lived growing up on ones native soil, imparts no loyalty at all.

  13. arnash says:

    paraleaglenm wrote:
    “Those arguing jus solis say ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ means not the child of a diplomat or occupying or active duty foreign soldier.
    Those arguing jus sanguinis refer to the legislated act immediately preceding the 14th Amendment, which reads, “all persons born in the United States and NOT SUBJECT to any foreign power…are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. The operation in the logical construction modifying those ‘born in the United States’ is both ‘not subject to ANY foreign power,’ and ‘under the jurisdiction thereof.’”
    One should note that there is a connecting similarity between the above two phrases and that similarity is in the idea of “being subject”, NOT “being A subject” of US authority. Being subject to any foreign power is the flip side of being subject to US power (jurisdiction), i.e. -it is a VOLUNTARY state of ones behavior and attitude, not an involuntary IMPOSED state which is accomplished by the marshal power of the federal government. One must be a voluntary “submitter” to US jurisdiction, just as a visiting alien must be a voluntary “submitter” to their domestic authority. Criminals are “under” US authority but often are not “subject” to it when they choose to refuse to obey it by violating the law.
    Understanding the true meaning behind the use of the word “subject” leads to understanding the true meaning of the phrase in which it was used in the 14th Amendment. That understanding concludes that US citizenship is not automatically ascribed to a baby born on US soil to an alien father since children (and especially babies) are not the persons being required to be “subject” to US authority, but rather, their fathers. If their father is a mere transient visitor, then he is NOT subject to the political jurisdiction of the US government and neither is his off-spring, and
    therefore his off-spring does not qualify to be considered a US citizen due to the 14th Amendment requirement.
    Babies are not “subject” to anything but the urge to eat and sleep so how could the 14th Amendment clause have been written about them?
    The jus soli logic contortion involves a “time distortion anomaly” in which one conflates the event of the emergence of a new person via birth with the adult responsibility of relating to a federal government’s authority and
    wraps the two together in a neat little uniform package. The 14th Amendment does not state: All persons born…and who eventually, as adults, are subject…” Minor children are not subjects of the United States (since the United States does not HAVE subjects,) so the reference “…AND subject to…” actually means “and BEING subject to…” and that requires being a legal adult. Children are not legal adults and therefore could not have been intended to be included in the requirement of the 14th Amendment regarding subjection to US jurisdiction. So they are excluded from coverage under the 14th Amendment unless their father is a legal US permanent resident, which would put him in a de facto state of having “adopted” the US as his new home and nation and thus voluntarily choosing to be subject to all US jurisdiction. (And the US government considers him to be completely under its jurisdiction and can draft him into the US military at will, -if a draft exists.)
    Bottom line? Children born to visiting aliens are NOT truly US citizens automatically just because of their birth within US borders since their citizenship is contingent upon their alien fathers’ residence status, i.e. visitor? or legal permanent resident? THAT is the correct application of the 14th Amendment, whether or not it is actually followed or even recognized by our present government and by society in general.

  14. arnash says:

    PhoxarRed wrote: “…John Jay and the Colonist Framers of the Constitution were thinking of their existing belief in jus soli allegiance as the source of the loyalty they wanted the commander-in-chief to have.”

    Place of birth imparts no sense of national loyalty to anyone at anytime. They “were thinking of their existing belief”. No, they were thinking of…FACTS! And the fact is that if one is born on the moon, do they feel a sense of loyalty to the Moon, or if born on Arctic ice do they feel loyal to it. What is lacking in this jus soli loyalty idea is the reality that loyalty spings from where one is raised, which is where one’s connections and bonds are formed. THAT is where loyalty comes from. Of course 99.999% of citizens are raised where they are born, so the place of birth erroneously got the focus in that equation and the other half got taken for granted as “a given”. But occasionally there is an exception, a black sheep among the vast herd of white. The description of a native-born person does not have to take such a phenomenon into account, but the law must. It does so by legal definitions based on the context of ones birth. To make clear: there are four classes of persons born on US soil.

    1. Children of US citizens -historically 99.99%
    2. Children of one Us citizen -.01 %
    3. Children of no US citizens (foreign visitors and diplomats or military) -.00001%
    4. Children of no US citizens (foreign permanent residents.) currently 2%
    (my own made-up statistics)

    The exceptions have historically made-up such a super-tiny fraction of the whole, that there was no cause to even contemplate them except when actually writing new law or an Amendment. Hence the interchangeable use of the terms “native-born” and “natural born citizen”, but such terms have NO legal definitions in US law being as they are mere descriptions of concepts based on circumstances, and as such, do not include any exeptions to the general rules. The question therefore becomes; “Did the framers actually intend that the word “natural” would have NO MEANING whatsoever in their use of if, but was simply used in a phrase they considered to be interchangeable with “native-born citizen”? That’s a question reasonable minds can debate, but if the answer is that they knew exactly what they meant and that they did not consider them to be interchangeable, then that changes everything. That would mean they intended that the US President was to be both native born-and-raised, AND the off-spring of US citizens. Who can logically argue with the logic of their wanting both circumstances in order to assure to the strongest degree possible, that the President would be loyal solely to the United States? AN

    PhoxarRed wrote: “”History leaves us an unbroken record of the the brightest, most well-educated legal minds and officials in our government, as well as the common people, educators and the general press endlessly using “NaturalBornCitizen” and “NativeBornCitizen” interchangeably…”

    If everyone is wrong, does that make it right? The “best and the brightest” gave us the financial meltdown that almost wrecked the world economy, gave us the Vietnam War that cost us over 100,000 lives, when you include suicides. I could go on. Erroneous ideas can get fixed in a persons head regardless of of their intellect. Einstein believed that the Milky Way was the entire universe.
    The fact that principles of jus solis and jus sanguinis citizenship would describe essentially ALL American citizens born after the Constitution was ratified (with the exception of about .001%) is obviously the reason that the terms could be used interchangeably. So no one ever had a reason to split the hair of the framers’ intent when whey used the term “natural born citizen” because no such reason ever existed until Chester Arthur ran, and again in the case of Barack Obama. Remember, it’s not about citizenship, it’s about Presidential eligibility. AN

  15. arnash says:

    PhozarRed challenged:
    “Cite the U.S. law that takes away a native-born U.S. citizen’s rights or privileges.”
    “No U.S. law addresses dual citizenship, let alone punishes anyone for it.”

    The magnitude of your abuse of the word “punish” and “rights or privileges” is amazing. You make it seem like the eligibility clause is about being INCLUSIVE (so every child can dream of being President), when in fact it is about being EXCLUSIVE, -excluding ALL citizens who lack any element of the fullest description of citizenship, which is; ” born in the United State, born of an American father, and born of an American mother.” Anything less does not meet the description of a natural born citizen. AN

    “…the resulting Naturalization Acts applied only to those “born across the sea” except for the few instances of children born overseas to U.S. parents for whom resort was had to jus sanguinis principles to allow them citizenship AT ALL since they were NOT entitled to their U.S. birthright citizenship.”
    You’ve misconstrued the meaning and purpose of the reference to citizens born abroad. That reference to them being citizens is not a part of the section that covers naturalization law, rather it is a piggy-back declaration to put into written law that which was already assumed to be true by reason of natural law, citizenship by birth. But it was so commonly accepted as indisputable that it had never been codified in any way. But that left the issue “unsettled” as far a the administration of law, so it needed to be added to something so it could be pointed to as “the Law”.
    You cannot name a single legal reference to them being “not entitled to their U.S. birthright citizenship” due to being born abroad. You’ve made that up out of thin air.

    “the 14th Amendment Constitutionalized U.S. jus soli birthright citizenship as reaffirmed as settled law by WongKimArk, holding that being born inside the UnitedStates even to alien parents created a U.S.Citizen child.”
    Again you’ve misconstrued both the 14th Amendment AND WKA by omission of the requirement that in order for a US born child to be a citizen required that its parents be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, which is only a de facto situation AFTER becoming permanent US residents. Mere birth alone was not the intent of the 14th Amendment, neither was an endorsement of absolute jus soli citizenship. It wasn’t until Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), that the SCOTUS made the asinine error of thinking “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and “within its jurisdiction” were essentially equivalent and that both referred primarily to physical presence rather than de facto voluntary subjection to US jurisdiction.. So your view of a jus soli “birthright” has a legal history dating back only to 1982, a whole thirty years. AN

    The devil is in the details, also, the confusion is in the details. The Wong Kim Ark decision was based on the 14th Amendment which described citizens as being those native born persons who were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The court interpreted that not as an endorsement of jus soli citizenship per se, but as an endorsement of the principle that a pregnant foreign couple with an established life in the US are in fact voluntarily subject to US jurisdiction. Therefore it follows that a child born to them is also subject to US jurisdiction and is therefore a citizen by birth within the United States.
    While the Chinese workers living in the US may have been perceived as having allegiance to the Emperor, that was something that only a mind-reader could know. And any presumption about it would be just as unreliable as that concerning the Japanese and Japanese-Americans living in the US after Pearl Harbor. Fear and caution are not always reality based. One could rationally presume that ones loyalty to ones adopted country would supersede that of ones home country. Sometimes that true, sometimes it’s not true, but the court couldn’t be in the business of legally splitting hairs, so the Chinese had to be included with the Europeans as being Americans by birth in America because they also were voluntary legal residents and thus subject to US jurisdiction.
    To claim that children of foreigners are not citizens by birth in the US, even though their parents are legal permanent residents, is flat out wrong, constitutionally.
    To claim that children of foreigners ARE citizens by birth in the US, even though their parents are only visitors, is flat out wrong, constitutionally. Plyler v. Doe does not supersede the 14th Amendment nor interpret it correctly.
    BOTH are wrong by exclusion of the pertinent context, namely, US residency. AN

  16. arnash says:

    PhoxarRed wrot:
    “In the official legal view of the U.S.,settled United States Law…ALONE determines the nationality status of United States Citizens.”

    Life is not this simple, nor is the reality of US citizenship. NO US law covers the principle of natural citizenship because there is no need to do so. US law only covers foreigners, their children, Native Americans, former slaves and their children, and children of mixed nationalities. It DOES NOT cover natural born citizens. There has never been a need to legislate that which has always been accepted and taken for granted, which is that citizens give birth to citizens. Or, put differently, Citizenship is inherited from citizen parents, and no law is needed to make that so because it is so by nature, by natural law. Just as humans give birth to humans, so Americans give birth to Americans, and their natural citizenship is inherent and unalienable.
    Jus Solis is NOT based on natural law but on the laws and philosophy of man. Without accepting the role of natural law in American independence one has to make the Declaration of Independence disappear because it is based on it.

    Consider this; you can say “The native-born children of an alien father are recognized as US citizens because the legal-resident parents (per 14th Amendment) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. But you would NOT say “Children born to legal-resident alien parents who are subject to US jurisdiction are recognized as US citizens because they are native-born.”
    That puts the cart before the horse. It can’t be demonstrated that citizenship springs from native-birth rather than subjection to US jurisdiction. Many have presumptuously and erroneously made the mistake of thinking that citizenship is contingent on only one and not the other. That is the position of a simple-minded fool. To put place-of-birth on a high sacred pedestal while pretending that presumed subjection to US jurisdiction is a pre-condition that doesn’t have any relevance is blind bone-headed stupidity. There is nothing in law nor logic that points at the fulfillment of one condition and not the other. No one has the right to pick just one and ignore the other anymore than one has the right to pick neither. One must accept BOTH! With BOTH being required, one can’t point at native-birth alone as determining citizenship. Therefore jus soli alone is not the governing principle. AN

  17. arnash says:

    You wrote: “in 1790…Congress grant[ed] U.S.Citizenship to foreign-born children of United States Citizens. They had to resort to jus sanguinis principles ONLY for THEM because they were not native-born U.S. citizens – nativity being what made birthright citizenship “natural” in the United States.”
    I have extensively expounded on the logic behind jus sanguinis natural citizenship but you have never yet offered a similar explanation of how “native” can possibly be construed to mean “natural”. You simply declare it as a fact backed by nothing .

    Congress did not “resort” to jus sanguinis for foreign born American children, they merely stated the obvious for the benefit of dense people who might misconstrue that which is essentially self-evident. The wanted to remove the possibility that someone like yourself might claim that a child born to Americans abroad is not an American. They weren’t making a special “exception” for them. They were simply stating that the same rules (jus sanguinis) applied to them also.

    PhoxarRed wrote:
    “In the early days, the native-born children of such persons “waiting on Naturalization” were citizens by nativity first and foremost.”

    That makes perfect sense since there was really no alternative that would make sense. Such native-born children had no other home country, and the chances of the family ever returning to the miserable place they left is practically nil. So jus soli citizenship was the most reasonable and practical principle to use to make them Americans.
    The error in your thinking is that because jus soli is employed in Situation A, it must therefore also be employed in Situation B. That’s false reasoning leading to an erroneous assumption that jus sanguinis can’t also be the principle employed regarding off-spring of citizens. It is not a case of “either-or” but of both. The basis for such pragmatism being “whatever works” i.e., whatever is the most practical, logical, and natural, and maybe even traditional. The framers of the Constitution were very reasonable and practical men, not die-hard adherents to any socio-political doctrine or dogma. It wasn’t reverence for any prior practice or belief that guided them in writing the Constitution nor the naturalization laws. It was a practical consideration of how to deal with all the factors of national and foreign jurisdiction, national loyalty, parental rights, native or foreign birth, and rights of citizens. It is unrealistic to think otherwise and to proclaim that one or the other principle is the only one ever employed in any and all situations. Such a belief is too simplistic and not supported by law or logic.

  18. arnash says:

    “Citizenship is assigned to nativity in any portion of the United States, and every person so born is a citizen.”

    This is a sweeping but incomplete legal statement which fails to include the qualifier of the parents not being subject to any foreign state. That means ALL non-resident visitors. So this form of jus soli is not a universal form but a limited form. While it is the law of the land, it is not the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is, it is only the definition of a type of citizen, a type of native born citizen, but not all citizens natively born are natural born American citizens. This subject can easily conflate the two type of citizens, i.e. native born, and native-AND-natural born. It’s a mistake to think that the American form of jus soli and the universal principle of jus sanguinis are not compatible and concurrent in 99.999 % of births. But one principle of birth does not de-legitimatize the other since they are both embraced and almost inseparable. But for the office of the President, BOTH are required, at least until there is a Supreme Court ruling regarding natural born Americans who are born abroad. Until they rule on the matter, Americans born to Americans outside the U.S. jurisdiction do not have an established right to run for President because it’s all in the interpretation.

  19. arnash says:

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

    Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” (Cf. Rogers vs Bellei)

    James F. Wilson of Iowa: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except … children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” (1866)

  20. arnash says:

    Posted by John Quincy on May 05, 2011 02:56
    A nation is the “aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common descent… as to form a distinct race or people” (OED).
    A nation consists of citizens born from citizen parents.
    “Natural born” describes the naturally occurring phenomenon of citizens born of citizens. The condition is unalienable, immutable, and is immune from statute; it is a law of nature.
    This is jus sanguinus citizenship. It is the natural course.

    Contrasted with the civil course of jus soli citizenship: a civil government’s control of territory is ephemeral. Such citizenship is alienable, defined by statute, and decidedly un-“natural”.

    Jus soli citizenship is subject to the changing rulers of a territory, whether successive conquering invaders or royal succession. Such a form of citizenship is wholly incompatible with a republic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: