The Constitutional Truth About An Unconstitutional President
September 6, 2012 Leave a comment
~you were born a citizen; -but by law? or by nature?
The man elected President of the United States is supposedly qualified for that office by somehow fitting the requirement of the U.S. Constitution which states in Article 2, Section 1 : No person except a natural born Citizen,… shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”.
Those words were not invented by a King, a Lord, a Parliamentarian, a Governor, a Judge, or a legal scholar. It is not an invented phrase with a meaning assigned by its inventor. It is nothing more than simple English words used in conjunction for emphasis of what they were intended to describe. They were intended to describe the children of American parents and no others.
The words “natural” and “born” are closely connected and related in a semi-redundant way that reinforces the purpose and meaning of both of them. The were strung together as a combination of two related descriptions, namely; a natural citizen, and a born citizen.
The word “natural” relates to the natural realm, and how in nature things are what they are due to natural processes, such as pro-creation following a natural pattern.
A natural citizen is a citizen through the union of two members of a single nation. The result of the union of two members of two different nations or groups is unnatural. A horse is a natural animal, likewise a donkey. But a mule (a cross-breed of the two) is a natural nothing. It is unnatural. It’s a mongrel and is sterile. There’s no mule group that produces new natural members.
No form of mongrel is ever a natural member of the group to which the parents belong because the parents do not belong to a group, but belong instead to two dissimilar groups. And dissimilar groups can only produce mongrels, cross-breeds, -hybrids.
Everyone born as a citizen is either a citizen by law or a citizen by birth, (by nature,) -never both. Anyone born as a citizen by law was not a citizen by nature, and vice versa. One is either a
natural citizen by birth, or a naturalized citizen at birth, -being naturalized by law, -born with
citizenship, but not born as a citizen by nature.
One who was born to foreigners was a foreigner by birth and could only manage to become a citizen by means of naturalization, i.e. by law.
If the father became a naturalized citizen of one of the States, then his foreign-born children and wife automatically obtained naturalized State & national citizenship through him. But for his U.S. born children, -born when he was still an alien, 14th Amendment naturalization would provide them citizenship if born after 1898. That kind of naturalization could, by the law in some Colonies/ States, occur automatically at birth if the father was an immigrant but as yet not a naturalized citizen.
Such a child was born a citizen also but its citizenship was not natural citizenship. It was instead naturalized citizenship. It was the result of State law which granted citizenship to one with foreign or politically mongrel parentage, i.e. one with an American mother and a foreign father.
The word “born” relates to the natural pattern of conception, gestation, and birth. That process produces a natural progeny. Birth has no connection to man-made boundaries, -no connection to location. In the natural realm, where a birth takes place is unrelated to the nature of that which is born.
Born only refers to the conclusion of the organic process of the reproduction and transmission of life & nature from parents to child. The product of birth is a replication of the nature of the parents, whether it be their species, breed, race, or group membership. The principle is the same in the political realm in regard to citizenship. The one born is endowed with the same nature as the parents. And group membership, including national membership, is a part of that nature.
That membership can be in a clan, a tribe, a colony, a state, or a nation. They are born into it, -not adopted nor granted membership as is required for outsiders. Membership is theirs as their natural political inheritance by birth.
Their membership is natural membership and can’t result from a union with one who is not a member. Such a union only produces a hybrid; -a half member…half outsider. That membership is not natural because its origin is not via the natural pattern since hybrids are not natural, whether they be in botany, animal husbandry, the wild, human society, or the political construct of national membership.
Any type of membership that is other than that produced by the natural pattern is artificial membership, just as adoption creates artificial family membership. The source of its legitimacy is not natural inheritance but human choice, human permission, human law.
No one whose membership is via human permission is a natural member of his group. No one whose citizenship is only solely via human law is a natural citizen in any nation. Instead he’s an unnatural aberration, -a dual-citizen possessing a second citizenship through a parent who’s a national of a foreign nation. From a standpoint of national obligation, he is in effect, a two-headed citizen.
In America, there is no law by which natural citizens possess citizenship. Such a law was never written and never will be. It never needed to be written because it was always a fundamental unalienable Natural Right that humans are born with. But no one is born with a right of membership connected to nothing but borders. Borders are artificial constructs of human machination and are unrelated to the natural realm.
With a father who was a non-immigrant foreign student whose membership in the British Empire was shared by his child, Barack Obama Jr. possessed no unalienable right to American citizenship because he was not a natural American, but was instead a hybrid with no natural citizenship in any nation.
This is all plain and clear, but what is not so clear is the issue of whether a person such as Barack Obama Jr. is even a U.S. citizen at all. According to an accurate reading of U.S. law, the 14th Amendment is inapplicable to him because it doesn’t apply through a non-immigrant father who’s merely a Visa Card foreigner still subject to the jurisdiction of Britain, exempt International Law, rather than being (as required by the 14th Amendment) fully subject to American jurisdiction.
Could it be argued that the 14th Amendment applied to him through his American mother? To find the answer one must travel back in time to an era in which women did not possess civil rights equal to men. That was in part due to a historical tradition dating back to the beginnings of human societies and was manifested in that era by the fact that women did not shoulder the responsibility of men for the defense of the nation. They could not be required to bear arms and serve in the Military and thereby be equally responsible as men in that most fundamental way.
Single immigrant women could not apply for naturalization because they were not men, nor heads of families, nor potential defenders of the nation, and thus were not members of the group that was required to swear to be willing to bear arms to defend the nation. [Immigrant mothers (of foreign-born children) who were widows and thus head of their household might be permitted to naturalize, but if they could not be naturalized or weren’t permitted to, then their children could not be citizens except by completing the naturalization process individually as adults.]
So children were not subject to federal authority through their non-subject mothers, but were through their fully subject fathers. So mothers were not a part of the language of the 14th Amendment, as was also the case with the naturalization oath. Their foreigner-fathered children could not obtain citizenship through them.
No such child would ever have been considered to be a natural American citizen even though native-born, in fact it was exactly such children that the Constitution barred from ever becoming President because their loyalty to America had to be assumed to be unknowable, -possibly limited and divided or even attached to a foreign government or the King of a nation where they might be raised.
If his citizenship is not derived from the 14th Amendment as written, then from what is it derived? In the zillion words that I’ve read about citizenship, I’ve yet to learn of any statute that addresses the the type of situation in which he was born, that’s because the legal assumption has been for over 100 years that the 14th Amendment applies to essentially everyone born in America. But, in fact, it doesn’t apply to children of fathers such as his. Statutes that impute U.S. citizenship to children of non-immigrant foreign fathers are written only for birth outside the U.S. Consequently, nothing in U.S. law provides one such as Barack Obama Jr. United States citizenship. And yet he was elected President anyway.
Besides the nature of his citizenship being improper for the presidency, there’s the issue of the nature of his birth record. It’s shrouded in mystery and unanswered questions. The head Obama supporter in Hawaii, the governor, confirmed that no original hospital birth certificate could be found, -only something like a half hand-written–half typed statement or affidavit by his mother or grandparent attesting to the details of his birth.
Thanks to that affidavit, whether totally true or not, and the impression it gave that he was born in Hawaii, Obama came to be viewed to be a U.S. citizen by the U.S. government. But it does not follow that that was the view at his birth.
No one knows how the INS in 1961 would have viewed his nationality if they had known the specifics of his reported birth facts in the possession of the Hawaiian Dept. of Health. But as a state, Hawaii had the authority to set its own vital records policy, and that policy included registering foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents (American or not) in order to be able to provide them with a birth certificate.
That policy would have been fine if all such births didn’t involve foreign fathers, nor one who would one day have to constitutionally qualify, (supposedly based on place of birth) for the office of the President
The fact is that the nature of his citizenship leaves him ineligible to be the President, which he knew long before he opened the door to running for the presidency. From the first moment that he read the presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution, he knew that he couldn’t qualify.
He would have realized that it excluded him due to his foreign father, and the foreign alienage with which no natural citizen is born. But his desire to achieve some great socialist utopian good was not accompanied by an equally strong desire to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, including deliberate violators of the Constitution such as himself.
When he clumsily and insincerely took the oath of office, he did not swear to defend America, nor the American government, nor the American people, nor American Commerce. He swore to defend one thing and one thing only, and that was the Constitution. Everything else is secondary because without it, nothing else would exist as we know it.
Everything once rested on it, -like an upside-down pyramid. But not anymore. Now it rests on the federal bureaucracy, the authority of Congress, the power of the chief executive, and the influence of lobbyists. But a corrupted, self-serving government is a ship without a compass. It certainly won’t end up where it should be headed.
But those who are doing the steering believe they are heading toward the greater good. Their intentions are well meaning, even though unfair, dishonest and even unconstitutional. As the saying goes, “The path to perdition is paved with good intentions.”
When the pavers are using really nice paving stones, all they’re focused on is how nice the path is, not where it’s leading. They’re not concerned that it’s leading to socialistic, bureaucratic, and regulatory excess, rampant unsupervised corruption, and deficit spending that will cause the entire system to collapse of its own colossal weight. Who will there be then to praise the magnificent path that they’ve paved? (-the path that begins at idealism and ends at oblivion.)
by a.r. nash april/nov. 2012