No Bast*rd Daughter of an Alien Can Be President!

(Reality Check Circa 1789)

No Bastard Daughter of a Catholic African Alien Can Be President of the Unites States!

   Do I have your attention? Good, because there’s a very important question you need to think about.  Few others are thinking about it or an answer to it, so you’ll find yourself quite alone when you find one.
The question is this: “What qualifies a person to be to the the President of the United States?  The answer turns out to be based on the vicissitudes of life, -one of those things over which one has no control.  Namely, the circumstances of one’s birth.  The title reflects the limitations of those circumstances, including gender, race, religion, culture, and nationality.
There are basically eight birth circumstances related to the United States and the presidency, and they are:

1. Domestic birth to American parents. 2. Foreign birth to foreign parents.
3. Foreign birth to one U.S. Citizen if (a): legitimate, b: not legitimate, c: male, d: or female.
4. Domestic birth to a U.S. Citizen and: a  non-immigrant foreigner;  an immigrant; a U.S. National; or an illegal alien.  Further distinction is drawn between legitimate & illegitimate birth, and the gender of the parents.
5. Domestic birth to naturalized foreigners.
6. Domestic birth to  non-immigrant foreigners.
7. Domestic birth to non-citizen U.S. Nationals.
8. Domestic birth to legal permanent resident aliens (un-naturalized immigrants).
Those born into the first circumstance (historically about 98% of us) are Americans by nature, but those born into the last circumstance are foreigners by nature, but naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment.
There are three kinds of truth.  There’s the truth that can be spoken openly, and is.  There’s the truth that can only be spoken in private.  And there’s the truth that can’t be spoken at all because it’s of a nature that’s too sensitive.
Half a century ago when many of us were growing up, one might have avoided using the word “pregnant” in polite company.  One might have instead said “expecting”.  One was conscious of the need to not offend the sensibilities of others.   Such a concern has been a part of all civilizations, and part of what made them civil.  So it was in 1789 when the Constitution was the new foundation of a new nation.
The founding fathers had agreed that, unlike the Articles of Confederation which treated each State as a mostly separate nation, (-though united in needed ways) the Constitution and the government it would create would provided a single leader of the nation, and that leader, it was decided, would also have another important role, and that was to be the ultimate commander of all military forces of the nation.
They wanted the loyalty of the Commander-in-Chief to be unquestionably grounded in the United States and it alone.  Thus they set a limit on who could be President in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which reads:  “No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President, “.
That told us that he could not be a foreigner, -nor born of a foreigner because the child of a foreigner was a natural born U.S. citizen only if fathered by a naturalized foreigner who had become an American.  Otherwise the federal government saw only his foreign citizenship inherited from his foreign father, even though some States granted citizenship from birth to children of their immigrants.
What it didn’t tell us is a truth that was not stated because it didn’t need to be, -and should not have been stated if merely for the purpose of civility.  It didn’t say that those persons who were natural born citizens, but also of the female persuasion, were excluded by the unwritten traditional, scripture-based rule of their purely patriarchal world.
It also didn’t tell us that no natural born citizen who was non-white could run for nor be elected to the office.  Nor any Jew, nor any Catholic since Catholicism was subject to the dictatorship of Rome, and was the enemy of Protestantism which was the father of the concept of individualism and a direct relationship and responsibility to God.
Peoples from countries that were deprived  of the liberties and rights of free Englishmen, -rights secured over centuries of conflict with the Crown, were “dangerous” embodiments of “alien concepts” of the acceptable power of rulers, and lacking the consciousness of the unalienable rights of Man, -which constitute the foundation of a free society.
(Unfortunately for the harassed and victimized colonists, the King of England and his Parliament didn’t view the Americans as being fellow Englishmen because they were not a part of England, and therefore he could treat them any way he chose because they were like his property, -born on his private external unincorporated lands and therefore his to do with as he desired.  His arrogance of power was unrestrained toward them by the laws of England.  But I digress.)
Just as it was unwritten that no natural born American daughter of parents united in holy matrimony could be President, so also no son of an unholy union outside of the sanctity of marriage could represent the nation as its leader.  The son of a mother who conceived in sin and gave birth outside of the blessing of God & the Church and the vows of fidelity for life would be viewed in the light of his conception and never accepted as a candidate by people who looked at the world through clear concepts of right and wrong, sin and righteousness, moral and immoral behavior.
Men tainted by such parental behavior, and men with low moral character and criminal backgrounds would not be conceivable as the nation’s leader.  The sins that one could be guilty of and would reflect poor character were well understood.
The office of the President must be one that is beyond reproach, and so the President must not be one unworthy of the office.  Therefore, in conformity with moral & social standards, male chauvinism & patriarchal tradition, along with racial bias; no bastard son (or daughter) of a foreign non-Protestant, non-northern European, non-white, non-property owning father could ever be viewed as acceptable as President by the descendants of the religious freedom-seeking refugees of northern Europe, -those Protestant immigrant ancestors who founded the American colonies.
What’s the point of relating all that unwritten blatant discrimination that was part of the fabric of their being?  It’s to make it clear that although the American mind set was open to all kinds of immigrants, without limitations other than known criminality, and citizenship was available to most men through the naturalization law, -and that such openness even extended to essentially every office of the federal government, there was nevertheless one exception, and that was the position of the Commander-in-Chief.
Since the Commander-in-Chief was also the President, -combining two positions into one, it was necessary to set a limitation on that office since it was subject to public election   The discrimination instituted on behalf of national security was that no foreigner could be entrusted with the power of the Commander-in-Chief.
That meant that sons of a foreigner could not be President either because, on the national level, they didn’t qualify as natural born American citizens unless the immigrant father first became naturalized in the State in which he lived.
If he never did up until they became adults, then they would have to become naturalized themselves in order for the national government to view them as U.S. citizens even if born in one of the States that granted alien-born children citizenship from birth.
But only those born to American fathers could become President.
How does that relate to today?  Nothing has changed except two significant things, -now American women are viewed as legally and constitutionally equal to men in almost all ways.  They can be elected, or appointed, to every office in the land, including the presidency.  The same goes for all races.  Even those “conceived in sin” are eligible as long as they themselves have not shown poor moral character.  And while religion is still a core issue with tens of millions of Americans, it doesn’t prevent anyone from running for the presidency.
In fact, almost nothing prevents anyone from running for the presidency, -including the Constitution of the United States, even though it still stubbornly requires that the President be a natural born citizen.  While most of the unwritten, unspoken prohibitions or roadblocks are eliminated in the America of today, and that’s a good thing, the problem is that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.
The Constitution has been tossed out by blindly or deliberately ignoring it, or striving to keep voters from being aware of its still-intact prohibition against off-spring of foreigners serving as President & Commander-in-Chief, -which at one time included command over 30,000 nuclear bombs.
But discrimination still exists and it’s written in stone in the Constitution itself.  The prohibition against anyone who is not born to American parents still stands.  The presidential eligibility clause is entirely prohibitive and exclusionary in nature.  It first prohibits anyone from election to the presidency (No person…) and then makes two exceptions, -natural born citizens, and those who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted.  The founders weren’t born as citizens of the United States because it didn’t exist when they were born, but they were born as natural citizens of the colony of their birth because their parents were citizens of it (with two exceptions, Alexander Hamilton being one).
They were mass converted from subjects of the King of England to citizens of America by the Declaration of Independence which ended their connection to Great Britain.   They then became citizens of the individual, separate-but-united States of America, -but children born to them after the Declaration (the oldest of which were only 11 years old when the Constitution was written) were born as natural citizens of the State of their birth, and the new nation as well, as long as they weren’t born to foreigners.
If they were, then the only limitation that existed in regard to their citizenship, (-if their State granted citizenship automatically to native-born children of immigrants) was that they would not be allowed to wield the power of the Commander-in-Chief.  That unwritten prohibition meant constitutionally that they could not serve as President since he wielded that power as part of the office.
By the written and unwritten laws & rules that governed the States and the nation at the time that the United States government came into being,  one can state the following:

The facts regarding citizenship in 1789:

1.  Foreigners were not Americans and  could not be President.
2.  Foreign-born children of immigrants could not be President.
3.  Foreign-born children of naturalized immigrants could not be President.
4.  Native-born children of foreigners could not be President.
5.  Native-born children of immigrants could not be born citizens unless the law of the State in which they were born allowed it.  If it did not, then they wouldn’t be citizens of the United States either.  They’d be citizens of their father’s nation only.
6.  Native-born children of naturalized immigrants were natural U.S. citizens and could be President if they were born after their father became a naturalized American citizen.
7.  Children born before naturalization were natural born citizens of the foreign father’s homeland and therefore dual citizens if their State granted them citizenship also.
8.  Children born with dual citizenship, -with membership in two nations and allegiance required from both, were not acceptable to be Commander-in-Chief because they lacked the foremost quality required for wielding the power of that position, and that was undivided loyalty, allegiance and attachment to the United States and it alone.
9.  Children of naturalized citizens, even though still living in their native land, would enter the United States as citizens due to acquiring “derivative citizenship through their father’s naturalization.

10.  American immigrants were not rightfully subject to the authority of their own nation’s government because they were subject to the United States government since they were members of American society and bore the responsibilities of the citizens of the United States even though they didn’t possess the full rights and responsibilities of State citizens.  The nation with the fullest jurisdiction is the one in which a person lives.

11. Foreigners, and their wives, who were present in any of the States on a temporary basis, -visitors, tourists, businessmen, scholars, students, statesmen, and representatives of foreign governments were subject to the authority of their own government and not that of the American federal government, and therefore a child born to them while within U.S. borders had no natural right to citizenship in the United States, -a nation to which their parents had no political connection whatsoever.

12.  A child fathered by a citizen of a foreign nation (-a nation to which his ties were still un-severed), was not eligible to be President.
Barack Obama was born to such a father, but since he had an American mother, he was part American by nature.  In 1789 he would have been 100% British because his mother’s citizenship would have had no bearing on that of her child since it was inherited from the father alone.
One hundred years ago his mother would not have even been a United States citizen because she would have lost her citizenship due to the Nationality Act of 1907 because she married a foreigner.  That may not have been the law in 1789 but it may have been the policy of many or most of the States, and it was the States and local judicial magistrates that dictated who was allowed to obtain naturalized citizenship.
The take-away of these facts is the question: “How could someone whose American citizenship would not have existed when the Constitution was written, or during particular times in U.S. history, be considered to be a “natural born citizen” today?”  Have things changed that much?  Constitutionally speaking, all that’s changed is the end of racial and gender bias in regard to citizenship & the presidency.
But nothing has changed in regard to the type of citizenship which is legally eligible.  That type of citizenship is still natural citizenship, -the type with which one is conceived and born as their natural birthright, -their blood-connection inheritance from parents who are both members of the nation, and Barack Obama was not born with that type of citizenship.
Instead he was born with only British citizenship through his father and supposedly legal citizenship resulting from supposed native-birth.  He supposedly had two of everything related to national origin.  Two nationalities, -two allegiances, -two heritages, -two cultures, -two government jurisdictions.

His political nature from birth was half & half, 50-50, this & that, apples & oranges, dual and bifurcated, -not 100% organic natural-born American, -but foreigner-born, 50-50 citizenship is not considered natural citizenship by the laws and traditions of any nation on earth, including the United States.
Barack Obama’s citizenship is as much normal natural American citizenship as transgender sexuality is normal natural sexuality, -as normal as con-jointed twins are normal natural twins, -as bigamists are normal natural married spouses, -as centaurs are normal natural humans.  A two-headed snake is definitely a snake, just as Obama is definitely a citizen, but that fact doesn’t make it or him conform to the  natural pattern.  And being native-born doesn’t change that fact in the least.
But in fact, he was not native born, and thus the nationality situation I described above regarding him is false.  He was not half British and half American because he was in fact neither.  Neither government knew of his legitimate and proven connection to it.  His father would have had no reason to ever register his birth with a British consulate, and in fact didn’t even know when he was born.  He never lived with his son’s mother, and had no intention of them living with him in Kenya whenever he got around to returning there.
His mother, on the other hand, gave birth in a situation that produced no birth certificate because it was either at home in Honolulu with no witnesses besides parents, or it was in Vancouver, B.C. where she didn’t remain long enough for a birth certificate to be produced.  Either way, he was a child with no proven place of birth and thus with no U.S. citizenship since his mother was too young to be allowed to pass her citizenship to her child if born abroad.  So he was a stateless child up until he was adopted by his Indonesian father Lolo Soetoro.  He then was naturalized as an Indonesian citizen.  But I digress…
Natural Citizenship:
It’s all about nature, -not geography.
It’s all about natural inheritance, not artificial borders.
It’s all about a natural right to citizenship, -not government granted citizenship.
It’s about a singular, uniform origin, -not a dual, conflicted origin.
It’s about the universal law of natural membership, -not artificial membership by permission of a man-made statute which provides an outsider adoption into the American family.
It’s about picking sides in time of war, -not straddling the fence because one belongs to both sides.
Barack Obama’s citizenship is wholly derived from permission of the government via its naturalization statutes.  If he had been born in 1789 to an American father and a foreign mother then things would have been quite different because his mother would have obtained American citizenship as soon as the wedding took place.
But a foreign male has never gained U.S. citizenship by marrying an American woman, and that fact was true in 1961 when he was born to a Kenyan father who was unable to beget a child that was not considered British by birth and a citizen of the British Commonwealth.   Being foreigner-born, (-not foreign-born), is what disqualifies him from being constitutionally eligible to be the Commander-in Chief and the President of the United States.

by a.r. nash  april 2012

Congressional law and constitutional law are like a vast arctic ice sheet that’s dozens of miles square. You can’t even see the edge of it it’s so huge, and yet it’s not permanent. It’s meltable, driftable, changeable , as it floats on something permanent, immutable, unchanging, and that is its mother ocean, -the source of its existence.
Laws made by men either float on something or else they float on nothing, and have no tether or connection to anything permanent, -floating in the ether with no up or down, no East or West, North or South -nothing but the capacious wishes of those who passed them. But the only type of government so constituted is a dictatorship without mercy, reason, fairness, or justice.
Such governments have never existed except as criminal gangs because they would crumble under the rebellion of those they oppress.
Governments must be grounded on everlasting principles in order to be all the things that gangs are not. Those principles begin with nature, and are joined by spiritual law, religious law, and practical law. In some cases, that which is natural is also that which is practical, and therefore doubly strong as a fundamental principle on which the law and government can be founded.
The law of natural membership is such a principle. It binds people together in a natural, and many cases, national way. Being a member of the group results in one’s children being members also. Being a natural member of the group, -one born to members and not outsiders, comes with privileges that outsiders and their children have no right to.
One of those is the right to be the Chief. He’s the one to lead the tribe in battle, and so he must be one who is a member in his bones. It must be what he is, not what he’s become by permission, even if permission was obtained from birth.
He must be a member organically, naturally. He must be a member by his nature, -his identity must be in his blood. He can lead the tribe in war without any distraction such as having a mother or father who’s a member of the opposing side.
War is the greatest challenge to any nation and its members, and the seriousness of war must be taught to every generation or else they will lose touch with the most fundamental reality of human existence and human history. But not all are required to share the burden to defend one’s own people in war. The women of the group are an exempted and protected class, but the men are not. The reality that faces them on the most primal level is that of the possible requirement to sacrifice their life to defend the group. That fact is a consequence of a responsibility with which they are born and cannot escape.
In American history that fact was evident by the commands that military officers could rightfully give to their men. They could order them to march into a wall of bullets that would surely kill them. The reality of war was the reason that the name of our department of the military was not called the Department of Defense but the Department of War.

~There’s no defense nor offense without engaging in the realities of War, and those realities are the reason that American women will never be required to face cannon and machine gun fire. They, and non-immigrant foreigners, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government when it comes to the most fundamental responsibility of citizenship, and that’s why citizenship was not passed to children from them.

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”.

2 Responses to No Bast*rd Daughter of an Alien Can Be President!

  1. starbeau says:

    Mr. Nash,

    I appreciate your work but I believe it is a little too complex for the average person to understand.

    We have too many words defining immigrants, natives, natural, born native, illegal immigrant, jurisdiction, etc.

    There are only two types of people in the United States:
    1. Citizens
    2. Aliens

    If we keep it simple, it is not hard to understand.

    There are only two types of citizens:
    1. Natural born citizens
    2. Naturalized citizens

    Both citizen types have equal citizenship rights, but our constitution has specified three (3) requirements to be eligible to the Office of President:
    1. No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President,
    2. neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years,
    3. been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

    The 14th Amendment defines who is a citizen:
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    Jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment is the correct word inserted by Congress in the amendment. It is not a “limited” jurisdiction but complete and total jurisdiction. It means that a child born to alien parents is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as the child is also subject to the jurisdiction of the country of citizenship of the alien parents and is not a US citizen at birth. The only child that is a citizen at birth is a child born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States at birth.

    The 14th Amendment does not tread on the constitution. The constitution uses the words “natural born citizen” as an eligibility requirement to be President. The meaning understood at the time of the writing of the constitution and confirmed by Minor v. Happersett (and other cases), is that a natural born citizen is a child born on US soil to parents who are citizens at the time of birth.
    Putative President Obama does not meet the eligibility requirements to be President of the United States.

    An immigrant is an alien until he/she becomes a citizen. No immigrant is eligibile to be president. Immigrants who become citizens can produce a natural born citizen after they become citizens.
    Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are naturalized citizens because they were born before their parents became citizens.

    • arnash says:

      Your preference for simplicity has led you astray somewhat. There are not two type of persons in the U.S., there are three, the third being U.S. Nationals who are not citizens. But the issue regarding presidential eligibility is about the nature of the citizenship of a candidate, is his citizenship natural or legal citizenship? No mere legal citizen is eligible to be President because his citizenship is obtained by law and not by the nature of his birth. The 14th Amendment is not a definition of American citizenship. It only deals with the citizenship of those born domestically, while those born to American parents abroad are natural citizens by the same principle as their domestically born brethren.

      No SCOTUS decision, including Minor, has ever defined what a natural born citizen is, -though they have described one type of natural citizen, -that being one domestically born. You used the word “confirmed” to characterize the Minor finding on NBC citizenship but that is the incorrect word to attribute to what they wrote. They didn’t confirm anything because the issue was not in contention. One can’t confirm something that is not contested. They merely noted the fact, -the reality, that had always been understood.

      The mistake that many make is to leap to the conclusion that what the normal fact of natural citizenship is -is the only fact of what natural citizenship is, but it doesn’t include the rare cases of citizens born outside U.S. borders. Natural citizenship is not dependent on national borders, but on the nationality of the parents. Birth location is irrelevant, although it’s a problem from an administrative perspective since State birth certificates are relied upon by the State evidence of US citizenship. Foreign birth certificates fall outside the usual method of confirming citizenship and are thus a complication that is addressed by the INS code, but citizenship is not “granted” by that code, -merely acknowledged.

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: