Impaling the Citizenship Lies of Obama’s Ringwraiths

“Every child born on US soil is a born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats,” [and… foreign tourists, foreign guests, foreign attaches, foreign athletes, foreign entertainers all in the US on VISA CARDS!!!!

When was the last time you had over-night house guests and informed them that it was their job to clean the toilets and wash the laundry? Why not? Because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the shared house responsibilities just as a nation’s guests are not subject to the duty of national defense.

Without any legal right to remain in the country, they are NOT SUBJECT to Federal JURISDICTION, nor is ANY CHILD BORN TO THEM. They cannot be DRAFTED, tried for TREASON, ordered to NOT TRADE with IRAN, etc….

The US Supreme Court has declared otherwise. Anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is not merely a US citizen, they are native born US citizens.

This is because except for the two exceptions mentioned above, anybody on US soil is absolutely, 100% subject to federal jurisdiction regardless of their citizenship. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in the majority decision in The Schooner Exchange v. McFadden:

“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.”

It appears that every time you put fingers to keyboard you actually subtract from the sum total of all human knowledge.

You are an educated ignoramus who thinks he knows things which he does not even comprehend. The Supreme Court is NOT the determiner of what is true; only of what the majority believes to be true, or doesn’t believe but wishes to make true.

Your quote shoots you in the head as it refers to limitation of sovereignty by a foreign–external entity.  And… “It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself.”  “By itself”?  IDIOT!
American governmental sovereignty is limited by an internal force NOT imposed by itself, namely: the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, -along with the principles of Individual Liberty and unalienable Rights, -basic elements of American Organic Law.

Congress and the high court only have the lawful authority that they have been delegated, and no more. Neither have ANY AUTHORITY over the national membership of existing US citizens. You don’t quote any such authority because it does not exist.

Even worse, you have zero support from American Law for your baseless claim that only the child of a foreign ambassador or alien enemy born on US soil is not a US citizen,
Please, oh all-knowing HistorianDuffus, tell us what LAW states that? NONE! It is not a fact of Law. It is merely an ancient erroneous British philosophical over-simplified impression and nothing more.

It is contrary to American organic law because, unlike your baseless claim, US jurisdiction does NOT extend to those who are “born subject to a foreign power”, and that includes EVERYBODY born of non-Americans and non-immigrants, which once included all Native Americans.  Where are they in the revered “common law”?  Non-existent.

Your fantasy sucked from ancient British custom has no place in the American principles of citizenship acquisition. Aliens with no connection to America, and even some with a connection, do not give birth to citizens unless the parents are subject to the obligations of citizenship.

THAT is American organic law and nothing will ever change it including ignorance such as yours and the entire ignorant legal establishment of the nation. THAT is the truth but it does not matter at all because all that matters is policy, consensus opinion, and case law. Truth is a stranger to that cabal.

In THIS country, the US Supreme Court (note the word “Supreme”) is absolutely the ultimate arbiter of legal truth.

Deal with it.

There is no such thing as “American organic law.” We do, on the other hand, have “common law.” And you ask where in US law it states “only the child of a foreign ambassador or alien enemy born on US soil is not a US citizen,” the answer is 500 years of Anglo-American common law, most recently the 24 courts that have cited this principle from US v. Wong Kim Ark as precedent.
By now most people would have figured that out. But not you. You are, after all, a goddamn prodigy of nature.

US Jurisdiction is absolute over every person on US soil… except foreign ambassadors and alien armies in hostile occupation. This explicitly includes even the children of aliens.

“Organic” law. Is that like “organic” apples? Because they’re generally really ugly.

I’m glad that you asked, because by doing so you revealed the extent of your ignorance. American Organic Law is elucidated in the US Code as American ORGANIC LAW!
Admittedly, as a non-attorney, I did not know that until I heard about it just a few weeks ago. So,…-so much for your high horse. I won’t wait with bated breath for your response.

You revealed your true Luciferian nature again by warping what I had written. I said the high court is not the determiner of TRUTH, (not “legal truth” as you distorted).

And again, I challenged you to show exactly where in American LAW the principle of British common law subject-ship could be found, and your lame response was non-responsive to my challenge.

Historical common law is not American LAW nor America organic law no matter how many pontificators opine on what “should” be considered a part of American law and once actually was under British rule.

You willfully lie with the false claim that ALL FOREIGNERS are subject to the full sovereign authority of Washington DC. That is False because DC is not sovereign. The American People are the sovereigns of our nation.

The central government is highly limited by the Constitution and its amendments, although Big Brother Statists like you want to pretend that its power is unlimited. You are all traitors to the union and to the Constitution. Why do you hate the Constitution so much??



Now, what part of “NOT SUBJECT” does your bonehead fail to comprehend?

Baby Obama was born subject to a foreign guest, and the both of them were NOT SUBJECT to the jurisdiction that citizens and immigrants are subject to, so the 14th Amendment did not apply to Obama Jr. He was therefore NOT born as a U.S. citizen [but was born as a provisional citizen of the British Commonwealth].


You are mistaken. There is no such thing as “organic law.” No idea what SovCit goofball you’ve been listening to, but the phrase is unrefined gibberish. We have in this country four sources of law, none of them “organic.” They are:

1. “Constitutional law” as reflected in that founding document and its subsequent amendments.

2. “Statutory law” as created by the legislative branch under Article 1 of the US Constitution.

3. “Regulatory” or “administrative law” as created by the executive branch under Article 2 of the US Constitution.

4) And “common law” as created by the judicial branch under Article 3 of the US Constitution.

This is the system created by our Framers and Founders. There is no 5th source of law.

I have pointed you directly to where in US law the definition of natural born citizenship is contained. It is in our common law and found in the decision of the Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark, and subsequently by 24 lower courts all of whom have declared your definition wrong and Barack Obama to be a natural born US citizen.

Again, let us turn from your incompetent hand-waving to what SCOTUS has actually SAID jurisdiction means.

Writing for the majority in the decision I have repeatedly cited, US v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray said:

“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law) [see: Citizens by Law /the 14th Amendment and Indians: A Peculiar Relation To the National Government], the two classes of cases: — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.”

Ouch. That must sting.

Adrien Nash: HistorianDuffus is a willful ignoramus. He is an educated fool pretending to be an authority just because he sees himself as one in his own self-deluded mind. I already informed
him of the existence of US Organic Law and yet he shot back that it does not even exist. As Yoda would say: “An asinine claim that was!”

Time to school him, again, from:

Today, most people have never heard of the Articles of Confederation
or the Northwest Territorial Ordinance. Although virtually everyone has heard of the “Declaration of Independence,” virtually no one realizes it is not merely an interesting historical document but is, in fact, as
much the law as The Constitution of the United States.

Instead, virtually everyone presupposes that The Constitution of the United States is not only the “supreme law of the land” (as per Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution), but is the only “law of the land”. As a result, people presume that in order to understand the “law of the land,” we need go no further back in time than to the Constitution.

In fact, the issue of constitutional supremacy is more complicated since the “Declaration of Independence,” Articles of Confederation and Northwest Ordinance also carry legal authority comparable to that of the Constitution.
While it may be true that the Constitution is “supreme” among those four instruments, it’s not necessarily true that its supremacy can automatically overrule fundamental principles found in the previous three documents.

How do I know that the principles of the Declaration (as well as Articles of Confederation, NW Ordinance) have as much standing at law as the Constitution?

Congress said so. Where?

Volume 18 of the Revised Statutes of the United States as enacted by the 43rd Congress (A.D. 1873-1875) and published by the Government Printing Office in A.D. 1878. (Note that Volume 18 reflects the law as it was known to exist after the 14th Amendment was (allegedly) ratified in A.D. 1868.)

In that Volume 18, the Congress published a section entitled: “The
Organic Laws of The United States of America”. That section includes
four documents:

1) The “Declaration of Independence”;

2) The Articles of Confederation;

3) The Northwest Ordinance; and,

4) The Constitution of the United States.

There is nothing in that collection of documents to suggest that the Constitution is the only component of “The Organic Laws of The United States of America”. Instead, the four documents are presented as a cohesive collection, each of which are still every bit as much the Law as the Constitution.

We have legal authority to assert the principles in the “Declaration of Independence” as carrying the force of law. ~~~~

In the United States Code, Volume One, you will see the title, Organic Laws of the United States of America.

The founding documents of the United States of America, called the Organic Laws, were written to limit government.
The chief purpose of the four Organic Laws is to regulate and control government, not you.

They are the founding documents of this country, which means no statute or code should conflict with principles set forth in these documents.

Merriam-Webster defines “organic” as: “of, relating to, or constituting the law by which a government or organization exists”.


“…the Statutes at Large includes the text of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, amendments to the Constitution, treaties with Indians and foreign nations, and presidential proclamations.”


[Page 18 begins their posting, starting with the Dec. of Independence., Art. of Confederation, The Northwest Territorial Government -1787, and the Constitution.

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2004) (defining constitution as “[t]he fundamental and organic law of a nation or state that establishes the institutions and apparatus of government” and “[t]he written instrument embodying this fundamental law, together with any formal amendments” (emphases added)); BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979) (including in definition of constitution “[t]he fundamental and organic law of a nation or state”

On this page: is mentioned the organic laws with a hot link to….”Document not found”

The internet archive known as the Wayback Machine lists the missing page as having been crawled about 220 times since 1994, with it vanishing in August of 2013, replaced by “Document Not Found -Document does not exist.” Twenty years it was online but then someone seeking to hide something decided to make it disappear. Gee, nothing suspicious about that….


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 Impaling the Citizenship Lies of Obama’s Ringwraiths

  1. slcraignbc says:

    The Congress, lacking either Balls or Intelligence have allowed the SCOTUS, via the flawed WKA Opinion, to usurp their plenary power over ‘naturalization’, i.e., the “making of citizens, just as the States have allowed the Congress to usurp their INDIVIDUAL AUTHORITIES over the subject of Immigration.

    8 U.S. Code Chapter 12, Subchapter III – NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

    Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization (§§ 1401–1409)

    The LAW in the U.S. Code is correctly stated, however its POLICY application is flawed.

    The ONLY persons entitled to U.S. Citizenship under 1401 are persons who would otherwise be STATELESS without acquiring U.S. Citizenship at birth by the “collective naturalization provision” of the 14th Amd.

    COTUS Article I Section 9 Clause I

    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    The Congress is LIMITED to “prohibiting” the importation of immigrants AFTER 1808, and NOT the authority to say who, how, when where and why immigrants may enter any given State.

    • arnash says:

      It is inconceivable that your interpretation of that clause is what it meant when written. It seems to be a polite way of saying that slave “importation” may not be banned by Congress until 1808, -at which time it WAS banned as I recall.
      Immigrants were not described as “imported”, but indentured servants, not being freemen, were no doubt referred to as being imported, -or brought in by “migration” (and legally so until 1808) since following their servitude, they were given 40 acres of land and became permanent free settlers and members of society. So importing slaves and servant was to remain legal for a generation.

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: