“Citizens at birth” Are Ineligible to be President

The presumed eligibility of Barack Obama to be President is contingent on multiple fallacies which date back to erroneous assumptions wide-spread in English common law.  Obama’s eligibility is constructed of a mountain of false presumptions, one piled on top of another until the modern false portrait of what determines presidential eligibility is arrived at.

One can debunk not only Obama’s presidential eligibility but also his very U.S. citizenship itself, and do so by debunking the elements of that mountain of errors beginning either at the beginning or at the end.  I’ve done both many, many times over, but one error can be debunked in a few ways I’ve never previously thought of, and that is the issue of the nature of citizenship “at birth” as compared to that of citizenship by birth.

The words “at” and “by” are used either with distinctly different meanings or with almost the same meaning.  In the case of citizenship, they have a distinctly different meaning.  “At” principally relates to time or timing, whereas “by” principally relates to location, but they often have an overlapping kind of use.  Example:  one can say “There’s someone at the door”, -which also means there’s someone by the door.  Similarly, one can say “I leave for school at 7 o’clock”, -which also means that I leave for school  by 7 o’clock, -with both words relating to time and not location.

But if one asks the question: “How is a new human being brought into the world?”  The answer is “by birth”, -not “at birth”.  Similarly, if one asks: “When does a new human being enter the world?”, one cannot answer: “by birth”.
This comparison can also be further illustrated by referring to death instead of birth.  Suppose that a child of a race of immortals is getting a lesson about the subject of death.  The teacher might say: “Humans are relieved of all of their pains and problems at death.”  But the child doesn’t know what death is and so is forced to ask: “how?”.
The answer of course is “by death”.  Death is the means by which relief is obtained, and that relief occurs time-wise at death.  An event occurs in time, but it is not cause by time.  It is cause by a natural process.

Let’s also consider the opposite of dying: resurrection.  If Christ rose from the dead, did it happen by time, or by divine life?  The timing of his resurrection can’t be ascribed as the cause of his resurrection.  The cause has nothing to do with the timing since it would have been via a process, a power, a means, an event, -none of which are related to timing.  He would, in resurrection, possess life via life, not via time.  So being alive again at resurrection was not related why he was alive again.  He was alive again by something other than time.

So it is with citizenship by birth versus citizenship at birth.  While all who are citizens by birth are also citizens at birth, it can’t be said that all who are citizens at birth are also citizens by birth, because the citizenship of some of them, -a tiny fraction, is via a gift of the natural citizens of the United States who have allowed a deliberate misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court to stand as the law of the law, which made into “citizens at birth” all who are born in the United States to permanent domiciled Green Card foreigners.  You could also describe them as obtaining “citizenship upon birth” or “from birth”.

But the children of American parents never obtain citizenship.  They are instead born being Americans by natural inheritance of their parents’ national membership.  Their citizenship is an innate characteristic of their political nature.  Here’s some eye-opening examples:

If an American couple brought a child into the world in an area controlled by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, would the jihadis view it as an Afghan or as an American?  If Ambassador Stevens had a child of his with him in Benghazi, one that was born in Libya, would his murderers have viewed it as a Libyan or as an American?
His child would have been in everyone’s eyes an American, including the U.S. government, because the child is what the head of the family is since it is his heir. [in the 5,000 year old tradition of patriarchal leadership, -and continuing in the United States from its beginning, that head is the father if he is alive at the birth.  “Proles sequitur sortem paternam” (children follow the condition of the father)].

If two pregnant immigrant sisters were on the verge of delivery, and one of them decided to have her baby at her parents’ home in Mexico, before returning to her residence in the U.S., her child would not be a dual citizen because it would not be a naturalized-at-birth U.S. citizen, -being Mexican only.  It could be barred from entering the United States if papers were not obtained, and it would grow up as an American foreigner, similar to American Indians before they were made U.S. citizens.

Similarly, if a Mexican woman was pregnant with twins, and one was born in Mexico prematurely, it would be Mexican only while its twin would be a dual-citizen of Mexico and the U.S.,  -being a natural citizen of Mexico and a legal citizen of the U.S., i.e., a citizen by law -a “citizen at birth”, and not a citizen by birth because of parents who were not Americans.
In the same circumstance but with an American mother and father, both children would be Americans also, -regardless of where each entered the world.  Their citizenship is by right of natural inheritance, by the transmission of natural membership in the political group into which they were born, that being their parents’ nation.

equal, -but not identical

To avoid confusion and ambiguity, a citizen at birth needs to be distinguished from a citizen by birth unless one is focused on anything other than the presidency.  Aside from the presidency, they are essentially equal and identical in all legal respects, but the qualification for the office of the presidency is not a legal matter.  It’s a constitutional matter and must be followed.  No one is qualified if they haven’t lived in the U.S. for 14 years.  No one is qualified if they haven’t reached 35 years of age.  And no one is qualified if they are not a citizen by birth, aka; a natural born citizen.

Natural citizens are Americans in the absence of the law of nations, in the absence of the 14th Amendment; in the absence of the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling; in the absence of all Congressional naturalization statutes ever passed; in the absence of every Attorney General interpretation of law and Supreme Court holdings; in the absence of state law and colonial law and common law of England.  And even in the absence of the United States Constitution.  The natural citizens of the original States of the Union were citizens of their states by natural inheritance, by natural law, by patrilineal descent, by birthright, by jus sanguinis (Right of Blood), by natural membership,  but children of foreigners were not, -nor were children of loyalists who were finally forced to choose which nation they chose to belong to; -to their home State or to the King of England.

The sons of the 98% who were Americans could one day be President.  But the sons of foreigners could never be President, no matter where they were born or who their father was.  That way, the power of the Commander-in-Chief could never devolve on one who might be a secret loyal royalist.

Four of the original States / colonies granted their citizenship to the children born of their immigrants.  With immigration being highly encouraged in the new land of America, it was a fitting inducement for immigration, but those sons of foreigners were the source of confusion at the national level, if they ever had issue at that level, because the central government did not recognized dual-citizenship.  One was either an American and only an American, or one was a foreigner.  Dual citizenship was viewed as national bigamy.  A  man was either married to America or to a foreign power.  Two Lords, or two allegiances weren’t possible.

Since children of foreigners were born with the nationality of their foreign father, they were not viewed as being Americans from the perspective of the national government unless and until they naturalized in the State of their immigration and/or residence in adulthood.  That process includes the total renunciation of all allegiance and obedience to any foreign power, making them Americans and Americans only.

[That oath has never changed, but it has been bastardized by conflict of nationality resulting from the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Wong Kim Ark, 1898.  It declared a native-born son of immigrants to be an American via the 14th Amendment, but for that to make sense required the executive branch to make a 180 degree switch regarding immigrant men, -from viewing them as remaining mainly and fully subject to their own government, to instead being also fully subject to the U.S. Government, with their sons inheriting that subjection along with their foreign subjectship or citizenship, thereby producing dual-citizen sons.]

But regardless of their naturalization, they were not born being natural Americans because they were born being foreigners due to foreign parents.  As such, even though they were “citizens at birth” in those four states which granted “sons of the soil” citizenship (as opposed to sons of blood), they were not eligible to be the President of the United States since where their true allegiance lay was unknown and unknowable, unless that is, they fought alongside of natural Americans during the Revolutionary War.  Then they could qualify to be President also due to an exception made on their behalf in the Constitution’s eligibility clause:  “No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”

By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, all foreign veterans of the war had had plenty of time to become naturalized citizens and therefore were “citizens of the United States” and thereby eligible to serve as President.
But once the Constitution was adopted, no person would be eligible except those who were Americans by birth, -not Americans by law, by gift, by allowance, by permission, or national adoption, but by nature.

Natural citizenship is beyond all law because it is not bestowed by either law nor the Constitution.  It is a result of natural transmission from citizen parents.  Government does not give it and cannot take it away.  It is above all government authority.  It is one of our unalienable rights and as such is untouchable.
That can’t be said about the citizenship of the children of foreigners because they do not enter the world as natural members of our nation.  Since our fundamental national citizenship doctrine views all citizens to be equal as a fiction of American law, their citizenship is also untouchable.  But our laws and our Constitution can be changed.  Citizenship can’t be stripped from “citizens at birth” but that form of citizenship could be ended via constitutional amendment or Supreme Court correction.
By our grace, they are citizens at birth, but they can never be citizens by birth.  They can be appointed to or elected to every office in our entire country, except one, and that is the Presidency of the United States.

[Also, they cannot be allowed to guard the President and Vice-President, nor their families, nor have access to nuclear weapons, nor highly classified information or intelligence portals critical to national survival unless appointed by the President and approved by Congress.  Those positions are reserved for national security reasons to only children of Americans.]

by A.R. Nash  July 2013  http://obama–nation.com


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”.

3 Responses to “Citizens at birth” Are Ineligible to be President

  1. arnash says:

    A few questions that illustrate the bastardization of the English language and its effect on the correct interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause:

    Was Obama born a citizen of Hawaii?
    Was Obama a native-born citizen of Hawaii?
    Was Obama a native of Hawaii?
    Was Obama a native Hawaiian?
    Was Obama a natural Hawaiian native?

    Was Obama born a citizen of the United States?
    Was Obama a native-born citizen of the United States?
    Was Obama a native of America?
    Was Obama a natural American native?
    Was Obama a natural born American citizen?

    Was Obama born “Black”? If “yes”, then was Obama also born Negro? Was Obama born “White”? Was Obama born Caucasian? Was he born as a natural Caucasian or a natural Negro? Was Obama born as a Kenyan Negro or an American Caucasian? Was he born as a natural American or a natural Kenyan? Was Obama born as both or as neither? Can one be considered naturally both? Can one be a natural Negro AND a natural Caucasian? Can one be born as a natural American citizen and also as a natural Kenyan citizen? Reason supplies the answer.

    Being a citizen does not make one a native. Being native-born does not alone make one a citizen. One can be native-born without being a native. One can be foreign-born without being a foreigner. One can be a citizen and native-born and not be a natural American because natural born Americans are born of American parents, -not foreigners.
    One American parent does not a natural American make because hybrids are not natural in the animal realm nor the political realm. A child of two different nations is not a 100% natural member of either nation. Such children are 50-50 combo hybrid cross-breed dual citizens by law, and not natural citizens by nature.

    Only natural citizens are eligible to be the U.S. President. Obama is constitutionally an egregious violation of the Constitution. A walking, talking, living violation every day that he illegitimately holds power in defiance of the authority of Article II, Section 1: “NO PERSON -except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President,”.
    It doesn’t say: “No person except a hybrid-born citizens shall be eligible…”
    The word that can never apply to obama is the word ~Natural~, -not racially nor politically. Both natures are hybrid natures. Neither are natural.

    Two questions: Is obama a natural born Negro or a natural born Caucasian?
    Is obama a natural born American or a natural born Kenyan?

    The answer to both questions is “NEITHER”.

  2. Adrien Nash says:

    Only a natural born Caucasian can be President

    Now that I have your attention, I can demonstrate how the title is a perfect analogy for actual presidential eligibility. The founders and authors of the Constitution required a certain kind of citizenship for only one office in all of America. All of the other offices could be filled by any kind of citizen, but not that of the Commander-in-Chief. His power would be so great that his loyalty had to be as assured as possible, and that meant that he could not have any direct political or psychological foreign attachments to a foreign government, nation, or king. He would have to be 100% American for the sake of national security. And so they required that he be a natural American, which means by birth to Americans and not foreigners, nor foreigners who had become Americans, nor by native-birth to foreigners who had not become Americans.
    That makes perfect sense and isn’t disputable by anyone with a brain that can think clearly, but what perverts the ability of some to think clearly is the deep desire that all native-born citizens be allowed to be President. But that is precisely what the framers prohibited with this language: “NO PERSON except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”

    Those who hold as dear the wish and hope and dream and belief that that includes everyone born in America base that delusion on the assumption that the word “natural” has no literal meaning and is instead just a part of a three-word “term of art” transmogrified from the English system for determining who was a “natural born subject”. But the United States was not founded on the British model since it excluded the beliefs of Natural Law and the unalienable Natural Rights of Man that spring from it, and instead focused to a large extent on the rights of the government, the aristocracy, the Crown, and the Church.

    To demonstrate that the words the framers used are simply common language terms and not some archaic legal “term of art” all one has to do is replace the word “citizen” with the word “Caucasian”:
    “No person except a natural born Caucasian shall be eligible to the office of President,”

    It doesn’t take a genius to realize what that means and what it does not mean. It does not mean anyone with some Caucasian blood in his veins. It means one who is 100% Caucasian. A favorite similar example is that of the Chiefdom of the Sioux nation. No doubt they, like all tribes, had a rule that only a pure-blood member could be Chief. Would that include the son of George Custer if he were born on Sioux land? What about if his mother was a Sioux woman? Would that make him a 100% natural born Sioux? Not in a million years.

    Similarly, being half white and half black would not make one a natural born Caucasian. The exact same logic applies to what a natural born citizen is. He is not half this and half that. He is 100% American citizen. He must be a “full-blood” member of his nation just as the Chief of the Sioux must be the same.
    Merely being a legal member does not make one a natural member because one can become a legal member by adoption (natural-ization, including national adoption from birth. Being citizen-ized at birth by law does not make one a natural citizen because natural citizenship is not a gift of government. Government doesn’t create it and cannot withdraw it because it pre-dates the government. It is the foundation on which the government is created by natural citizens for their protection, and benefit.

    Obama, like all persons born of illegal and transient aliens, did not come into this world as a natural American any more than he came into this world as a natural Caucasian. His half-&-half nature makes him forever ineligible to be President of the United States. He was, in fact, born ineligible.

    Adrien Nash July 2013 http://obama–nation.com

  3. arnash says:

    “Question: Have you found any evidence in the historical records for someone pointing out/claiming that the 1797 English translated edition of Vattel’s Law of Nation was Not how the Founders & the English speaking world understood Vattel’s work? ”

    “His work”? His work is not what is debatable. It is only the meaning of “les naturels”. There’s no debate as to the meaning of “les indigenes” since it is synonymous with “natives”. No one is an authority on how to translate “les naturels” unless they are fluent in the French of the mid 18th century. But logic of language argues that it refers to the natural inhabitants of a country and has no logical connection to citizenship in a nation (which is something that only exists in advanced societies).

    Citizens of a nation can exist without a country, as when the nation of Kuwait fled the Iraqi Army, just as members of a country can exist without being citizens of a nation when no nation yet exists (as was the case after the Declaration of Independence) Citizens of the new States were Americans but were not citizens of the United States as that term is used since the adoption of the Constitution which created the new nation with a central government.
    Mario can’t let go of his ingrained dogma because he is mentally wedded to it, or infused with it. It controls his thinking like the presence of an alien mind. Today I read his latest tome and was just astonished at how many factual falsehoods (?) in contained.
    But “les naturels” does not mean “natural born citizen” because it does not refer to citizenship but solely to membership. “The Principle of Natural Membership” is seen in Vattel’s observation about who the natural members of a society are. It’s obvious to any one who can think clearly and without bias. But those gripped by bias come to contorted and distorted explanations that are inaccurate.

    If Vattel was undoubtedly writing about countries in the sentence using “les naturels ou les indigenes” then the correct translation is “the natural inhabitants or natives” .

    On the other hand, if he was referring to nations then “les naturels” refers to natural citizens because nations have citizens not inhabitants. Countries (land + natives) have inhabitants while Nations (natives + government) have citizens.
    I read the lawyer’s translation in parts about a year ago or so and it’s a valuable work.
    ~ ~ ~

    Hamilton’s version of the presidential eligibility clause says No person shall be eligible except one who is now a citizen of one of the states or hereafter shall be born a citizen of the United States. That covered the present and the future equally, so no grandfather “exception” idea applies. Same with the final version, -only the long-term rule of citizenship was put first and the status that would expire upon the adoption of the Constitution was placed second.

    The concept of a grandfather clause is predicated on the idea that without it the founders’ generation would not have been allowed to be President because they were not “natural born citizens of the United States” which the wording does NOT require. They only have to be what they all were; natural born citizens of their own sovereign State instead of being naturalized citizens or born citizens with alien fathers.
    If the word “natural” was omitted, then all alien-born children of un-naturalized immigrants would be eligible if the state in which they were born bestowed citizenship upon them at birth. But that would allow the sons of foreign nobles and royals if born in the U.S. to one day be President, and avoidance of such an influence is why the use of the word “natural” was imperative.

    The quote by James Madison regarding the idea that place of birth was the principle at work in the United States needs to be understood from a realistic viewpoint. Reality could accommodate that as a possibility while simultaneously recognizing that jus soli citizenship is not natural citizenship. One does not preclude the other.

    All that needs to be recognized is that jus soli citizenship is citizenship by a policy of convenience and ownership, -ownership passed down from royal ownership of a kingdom and its subjects, -aristocratic ownership of an estate and it’s native-born serfs, and plantation ownership with its native-born slaves, while natural jus sanguinis citizenship is national membership by blood connection. By birth to a citizen mother and father. That is identical in nature to membership in one’s own family. That membership is not dependent on location of birth, nor law, nor government. It is purely natural, and not a form of adoption.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: