The Unknown Citizenship Fact that Changes Everything

the Fallacy of the Unrecognized Inconsistency

It’s settled!  It’s a known fact!  The truth about who is eligible to serve as President has been ascertained by really, really, really smart lawyers from both parties to such a definite extent that even God himself swears that their “opinion” must be the God’s honest truth!

But damn it!  There’s a pesky fly in that otherwise perfect soup.  Don’t look at it!  Ignore it. Pay it no mind.  Tell yourself that their soup is perfect.  Repeat it over and over and it will thereby be the truth. Right?  Right?  What’s wrong with that?  It’s not factual?  Well why should we be concerned by pesky things like facts, after all, we’re only talking about the power to destroy most of the life on Earth?

Let’s pretend that we care about that and that facts somehow matter.  In that case getting them wrong, while thinking we’re right, is a bad thing, even potentially a very devastating thing.  So we don’t want to think we’re right if we are in fact wrong when it comes to who is eligible to wield the power of the position of Command-in-Chief of all of the American military and nuclear forces.

Today, people see the world and the law through the filter of their own present-day experience and understanding about what is true, but they have failed, utterly, to recognize the fact that “the truth” has changed in a significant way, a huge way, and it is no longer what it was when the Constitution was written.

The result of that change, which has not been acknowledged or addressed, can be described as the Fallacy of the Unrecognized Inconsistency.  The fallacy is the belief that what is true today was also true when the authors of the Constitution wrote it.  The fact that something very important is not true comprises the inconsistency.  That fallacy has a twin sister, and she is the Fallacy of the Unrecognized Ambiguity.

The first fallacy is inseparable from the second.  The inconsistency is unrecognized because of ignorance of history as well as applying simple but erroneous common sense  to an unrecognized ambiguity.

That all means that people, including lawyers and lawyers who are serving as judges, are not cognizant of a major change in American law which had an unrecognized impact on understanding presidential eligibility.  That change in law was the about-face reversal of the treatment of American women and their citizenship.

Today they have a right that was not recognized in law until after 1922.  So for over one and a quarter centuries, as well as during the colonial period, what was once true was different from what was true afterward.  But no one in law is acknowledging the connection between that well recognized change and presidential eligibility.  And that is because of ignorance and the ambiguity which results in two possibilities where before there was only one.

It can be explained thusly:  When the Constitution was written, and up to 1922, women, perhaps universally, were, in essence, the property of their husband, as is the situation in Islamic societies still today.  That was the way life and culture functioned in a very paternalistic male-oriented conservative world.

The bride took her groom’s name, and his headship over her.  That was the situation expressed in the laws and political customs of the times.  The effect of that was that when a foreign bride married a citizen, she because a citizen also through him.  And even more unifying, she lost her previous nationality and became the same as him.  That was custom and legal tradition or policy up until it was made actual law in 1907 in the United States.  It was law decades earlier in Britain, and an element of mutual treaties, so we followed suit, as did most other similar western nations.

What does that have to do with presidential eligibility?  Simple, the belief expressed by the really, really smart ignorant lawyers is that a person born of an American citizen is a citizen at birth and that somehow, someway, makes them qualified for the label of what the Constitution requires that the President be, namely; a natural born citizen.

They base their assumption that any child of an American citizen can be President on the historical fact that it has always been true that any son of an American could be President. But the fallacy is seen in the fact that “an American” is undefined and ambiguous because gender difference was a maximally huge factor in that equation up until after the 1907 Naturalization Act was repealed in 1922.

That means that for all of American history up until then, “an American” in fact meant only one possible thing, (-not two!); -it meant “an American father”.  It did not include the possibility of an American mother.  That is because there was no such thing as an American mother who did not have her husband’s nationality.  All wives of all American men were U.S. citizens just like & because of their American husband.

The result of that fact is that there was no ambiguity when saying that the son, or child, of “an American citizen” was eligible to be President.  The ambiguity only arose after American women acquired in the Twentieth century a citizenship of their own.  Then it was possible for a married couple to have two nationalities instead of just one.  And hence the modern ambiguity when stating the uninformed opinion, as in legal opinion, that the child of “an American citizen” (singular) has always been eligible to be President.

The only accurate response to such a claim is to parse the facts from the ambiguity and eliminate the ambiguity by pointing out that such an opinion is only true when speaking of a male American citizen.

Contemplate the rift or division between the two eras of history.  On one side all American couples were American and American only.  On the other side, they might be both American and foreign.  In that situation, in regard to parents, to use the term “an American citizen” or “a United States citizen” is inherently ambiguous because it does not detail which parent is the American and which is the foreigner.

What if one parent is a male foreigner?  Is that situation consistent with the situation when the Constitution was written & passed requiring that “No person except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of the President,”?

The answer is obviously: HELL NO!  The citizen mentioned is inescapably male because only males were allowed to hold office.  In that earlier era, if an American women married a foreigner, then she herself became a foreigner also.  If a foreign woman married an American, she was thereby an American also.  So there was no such thing as one parent being an American and the other being an alien.  They were BOTH AMERICANS if one was an American!  If one was a foreigner then both were foreigners.  That legal tradition supported the unity of the family and its nationality.

That rather changes everything when it comes to pontificating that any child of any American citizen has historically been eligible to be President.  In order for that view to be accurate one must boot out the asinine ambiguity that allows the child of a foreign father to be considered to have historically been eligible.

It is freakin’ BRAIN-DEAD to fail to grasp that no foreign father had an American wife!!!  She was automatically a foreigner like him.  No foreign father could father a natural America citizen.  Only American fathers were capable of doing that.

Now do you see just how far afield our “intellectual elite” have drifted?  How blind they have unwittingly become?  How oblivious to history they ignorantly or willfully are?

It’s worse than pathetic because it allowed the candidacy and presidency of one who the founding fathers and framers intentionally meant to exclude from the presidency.  And we have seen the results from the beginning; the most non-American mind-set of any President in history,  -raised in a stolen kingdom in the middle of the Pacific ocean, after years of indoctrination as a foreign muslim student in Indonesia, followed by years of Marxist indoctrination at the feet of Frank Marshall Davis, a registered member of and publisher for the Communist Party.

Obama even mentioned him over twenty times in his  “autobiography” Dreams from My Father, -but then redacted them all in the revision of the spoken version which came out after his presidential candidacy was announced.  But I digress….

So we find ourselves in a sort of Twilight Zone of unreal legal “interpretation” which fails to recognize both history and ambiguity.  What was once an unambiguous statement is in today’s world an inherently ambiguous statement but with no one acknowledging that fact, and even worse, choosing the wrong possibility as the supposed constitutional truth.

And even worse, everyone is believing them without doing any research of their own,  -just relying on the accuracy, wisdom, intelligence, and honestly of strangers who are not intellectually honest at all, and certainly are not wise since they ignore the historical facts.

The situation can be made manifestly clear by presentation of an analogous case, -the case of “The Gay-born Director”.  You see, once upon a time, the word “gay” had an unambiguous meaning.  It meant happy and light-hearted.  In Happy Land, a law was written that “No person, except a gay person, shall be appointed Director of the Department of Happiness.”

Everyone understood what that meant.  Only a happy person could command the resources meant to ensure the happiness of Happy Land.  But then something changed in the culture, and the word “gay” began to take on a new and very different meaning.

That difference didn’t make any difference in who was appointed to be Director because all of them were innately happy.  But then one year something odd happened, something unintended by the authors of the law regarding the directorship.

So many people had come to associate the word “gay” with “flamboyant” that a flamboyant person was viewed as eligible based simply on his flamboyance alone, with no thought of the original intent that the director be a happy person, which the newly elected Director was not.

Instead, he was morose and melancholy.  But the people and the lawyers of the time all agreed that the election had been correct and proper because they all “knew” what “gay” meant, -which was what it meant in their own day & age.

They had all failed to understand that the word was ambiguous and had changed in meaning even before they were born, and so the intent of the authors of the law went frustrated and bastardized in execution but with no one the wiser.  That is what has happened in regard to the meaning of “natural” in “natural born citizen”, “person” in “No person…”, “citizen of the United States” in Supreme Court citizenship cases, “subject” in natural-born subject”, and “right” in “right of descent”.

Here’s some brass tacks facts: any language in any writing by pundits, “experts”, “authorities”, academics, judges, or government explanations of American law, which uses the expression: “the children born abroad of American citizens” is innately ambiguous and almost guaranteed to be interpreted incorrectly because of that ambiguity.  That is a fact because of how stupid and presumptuous the human mind is when encountering ambiguity.

That phrase, and any like it, fails to delineate whether or not it means to indicate American parents (plural within marriage) as apposed to meaning either plural or singular, as in “an American parent”; in other words: “an American couple” versus “a single American parent”.  [But to be accurate about the actual language used, the word “American” is never used, being replaced by “United States citizens”, or “United States citizen”.]

That ambiguity allows the distortion and perversion of the original and historical meaning of the mandate in the first Uniform Rule of Naturalization in 1790:

“and the children of United States citizens born abroad beyond sea or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”. 

That wording is the basis, the bedrock, of an unholy bastardization of the meaning of the text as written.  What is unwritten and can be distorted in today’s world?  The fact that the “citizens” mentioned were all married couples having the husband’s U.S. citizenship.

No American couple had dual citizenship because that was impossible legally and literally since if the husband had foreign citizenship, -was a foreign subject, then the two of them would not be describable as “American” or as “United States citizens” since the husband, and thus his wife, was foreign.

Recall that from 1907 to 1922, any American women who married a foreigner became a foreigner just like her husband.  That was not a custom that came out of left field and was suddenly incorporated into national law.  It had continually been the policy of the U.S. government, although all administrations may not have adhered to it since it was after all, a socio-political policy which many might have, and did, disagreed with.

Nationality Insanity

So what is the bottom line of all of this info?  It is that persons having an American mother, -but fathered by a foreigner who was [at the time of their child’s birth] a citizen of a foreign nation), – were at that time and ever after, NOT natural born citizens of the Union of the States of America, nor, as originally implied, natural born citizens of the State of their birth because they would have been born to a foreign couple since the American mother would not have been viewed as an American nor as being capable of producing a natural member of the nation since nationality flowed from the head of the family to the members, and the family did not have two heads!

In other words, no foreign father could possibly father a natural American citizen.  But he could have then and now fathered a common law citizen.  But no common law citizen is a natural born citizen because common law citizens are born of aliens, or alien-&-American mixed-nationality couples who produce children with the historically federally-rejected alien-born “dual citizenship”.

Dual citizenship was viewed as national membership bigamy; like having two husbands, or two kings, or two governments and two countries.  It was rejected as nationality insanity.  But the advent of women’s rights changed all of that.

Nevertheless, it did NOT change history. The original meaning of the language used has not changed, but the modern misinterpretation of it has altered the understanding of its original meaning.

Lastly, notice the gender implications of the 1790 act’s words: ”

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”.

Rights did not descend from the matriarch of the family but from the patriarch. One of those rights was and is the right of citizenship.  It was and is passed from parents to children, and in the first half of our history, that meant from the father to the children. And regarding presidential eligibility, that meant from the father to his sons.

No daughter of even a President, nor any wife of even a President, was socially and politically acceptable as a candidate for political office, much less that of Command-in-Chief.  The same was true of anyone of African descent.

The right of citizenship by descent was limited by this naturalization language which preceded the paragraph quoted:

“any alien being a free white person,”

We see that the naturalization act limited naturalization to freemen, not slaves or indentured white servants, barring anyone with African and Asian descent from citizenship.

The office of the President had even greater restrictions.  It had a few unwritten companions to the citizenship limitation, namely Catholics, Native Americans, females, homosexuals, and Muslims.

The office of the President was not distinguishable by how open it was to all citizens, nor was United States citizenship.  They were both distinguished by limitations, and one of the most important limitations protecting the nation from a President with foreign allegiance was the requirement that he be born of an American father, thereby assuring that he would be 100% American.

Consider this reality which existed for over half of American history: If an American husband produced a son, he would inevitably be a natural born citizen, but if a foreign mother produced a son, he would inevitably be a foreigner because no American husband was capable of having a foreign wife since she adopted his citizenship upon marriage.  A foreign husband meant a foreign wife, even if the wife had been American prior to marriage. So there was no such thing as an American wife & mother having a foreign husband.

Many people despise that fact because they are loyal socialist Obama supporters who dream of making utopia on Earth.  They need to seriously ask themselves why the founders and framers allowed common law and naturalized citizens to be President only if they were already citizens when the Constitution was adopted.

Why not later?  What was different in the future?  The difference was something wonderful and desirable, namely Peace.  But being raised in a time of peace by a foreign father meant not knowing the struggle, danger, hardship, pain, and sacrifice of a war fought for Freedom.

In a time of peace, the focus of the culture would not be on fundamental things such as liberty and individual rights, but on everyday society and culture.  And the foreign culture with which a common law citizen might be raised by his foreign parents could instill in him affection (and eventually loyalty) to a foreign power.

No person with such affection, allegiance or alliance could be allowed to occupy the seat of American power.  It would be like giving him the Tolkien “ring of Power”.

That had to be avoided.  Only the hobbits of the natural born citizenship Shire could be allowed to handle that ring because the strength, the resolve, the wisdom, and the loyalty of foreign-bonded men could fail when they were needed most, turning instead, like the wizard Saruman, to the dark side of foreign obedience and/or alliance.

As a rule, those native-born of foreigners are just as loyal to the country of their birth and up-bringing as are those born of citizens, but because that is not a fact that could be depended on to be true in every case, especially that of the presidency, they had to rule it out as an allowance for presidential eligibility.

Just ask yourself; if you were in charge of selecting the crew of a submarine with the capacity to destroy multiple nations with its nuclear weapons, and you had a choice between a descendant of George Washington, or General Patton, or General/President Eisenhower, or President Kennedy versus a descendant of Joseph Stalin, or Adolph Hitler, or Mao, which would you select with all things being equal?  The framers of the Constitution had to decide a similar matter, and they did it not by embracing inclusion but by mandating exclusion. They excluded all from the office of President by requiring that he not only be a citizen from birth but that he be a natural citizen by birth, i.e., by blood.

No Person, NO person, NO PERSON, -EXCEPT….  A NATURAL CITIZEN BY BIRTH…. -Not by common law, not by royal law, not by State law, not by congressional law, not by court opinion, but by NATURAL LAW.  That means by blood lineage. By Right of descent.  By political inheritance. By Jus Sanguinis.
Only the free, white, Protestant, male, heterosexual, educated, mature, morally upright son of an American father was to be allowed to possess the ultimate power of The State.
You want the truth?  Can you handle that truth?

by Adrien Nash  March 2015  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”.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: