How a Hyphen and an Underline Rewrite Presidential Eligibility

There are multiple false doctrines regarding who is eligible to serve as President of the United States, -and who is not, with only the true explanation being without an accompanying bias, and that being because it serves no one’s fancy.
All who adhere to one of the false doctrines have a deep personal, political or ideological prejudice in favor of their embraced dogma. As a result, what they proclaim, assert, declare, and teach must be examined with a good deal of skepticism.
Only after having attacked the falsity of their belief does one discover just how strongly bonded they are to it, as well as strongly self-blinded to any facts which disprove it.
Objectivity is a facade they wear even as they ignore and reject truth that should dismantle their faith in their viewpoint. Facts are nonsense and logic is continually derailed even as they falsely profess to employ nothing other than facts and logic.

Some have a strong sentimental attachment to their dogma, while others have a strong financial attachment. Upton Sinclair wrote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it.”

Bias blindness has turned the presidential eligibility question into opinion gristle with adherents vigorously defending their ideological turf, dogma, faith, and “facts” just as if they are totally devoid of any element of personal opinion and instead are grounded on rock-solid unquestionable Truth.

That truth begins with the Constitution requiring that no one but a “natural born citizen” be eligible to be President, so the controversy is over what exactly that means and does not mean. Let’s now identify the doctrines that are religiously defended as the true catechismal faith in the canon of citizenship truth.

1. Native-birth alone is synonymous with “natural born citizen”. Foreign-born is therefore inconsistent and rejected.
2. Take native-birth and add citizen parents to it, with both being requirements.
3. Take either native-birth to any parents or its opposite of foreign-birth to American parents. Both are accurate.
4. Take # 3 but change foreign birth to require only one single American parent, -with the other being foreign.
5. Take British common law and insist that we are bound by what it once was in regard to subjects of the Crown because of the seminal writing and legal opinion of a British judge in one case. It is the basis of defending # 1, # 3 and # 4.
Native birth alone (# 1) was the original foundation of # 5 (and vice versa) and the case it’s based on, but it evolved into # 3 (but with British parents since the case was in England).

Since #s 1,3,4, and 5 are so closely connected, we need to parse the foundational language on which they are built. That language is “natural-born subject”. It is claimed to be the source of “natural born citizen”, yet if that claim is incorrect, then the entire presidency (including all appointments and actions) of Barack Hussein Obama is unconstitutional and illegitimate.

To find the truth requires parsing the British term and the only known relevant use of the American term. It was found in a letter of one of the American founders; John Jay, President of the Continental Congress and first Chief Justice of the nation.

He wrote to the President of the Constitutional Convention, General George Washington, urging that the chief magistracy of the nation, the position of Command-in-Chief, not be given “to any but a natural born citizen” in order to block the ascension of a creature of monarchist loyalty. (“born” underlined by him in his letter)

That underline, along with the requisite hyphen in the term “natural-born subject” blow the lid off of the whole debate over whether the Americans were followers of common law or natural law.

That fact has gone completely unnoticed even by those who have researched and shared the historical facts, and that is because their focus was on history and quotations from authorities and not on the rules of language itself.
Those rules cannot be simply swept under that carpet with the blind pretense that they do not exist. They in fact do exist, and change everything because they are irrefutable.

If John Jay had not underlined the word “born”, then the only comparison would be between “natural-born” and “natural born” (sans hyphen). But by underlining “born” he showed something monumental to our ignorant age, and that is the fact that it was not attached to the word “natural” but carried its own separate significance. It was a stand-alone adjective and was not an appendage of “natural” nor joined to it by any hyphen.

Could Jay have written “natural-born” and still underlined the word “born”? Not in any sane world. That is because a two-word combo joined by a hyphen is a unitary expression, not carrying a dual separate meaning for each word.
The joined words must be taken as a unit and its meaning derived from that unit. The individual words cannot be isolated by punctuation such as an underline. If you use a term such as “the rock-solid Truth”, you do not have a justification for underlining either “rock” nor “solid” because they are a single unit with “rock” defining “solid”.

“A solid Truth”. How solid? Rock-solid. You cannot say “a rock truth” because “rock” does not define “Truth” but instead defines “solid”
It’s the same with a term like Native-birth doctrine. You would not say “a birth doctrine” or “a native doctrine” because “native” defines “birth”, not “doctrine”. Native-birth is a unitary expression requiring both words in combination, -so to underline either of them would make no sense.

A woman without her man is nothing. When men punctuated that sentence they came up with this: A women without her man, is nothing. When women punctuated it, they came up with this: A woman: without her, man is nothing. Punctuation is important! It changes the whole meaning of sentences and phrases. An underline and a hyphen change the whole presidential eligibility picture.

A “native of the country” means one born as a natural member of the people that inhabit that country. If the country was the kingdom of Hawaii, and a child was born at sea, or on the mainland, it was still a native of Hawaii even though not native-born since it was born as a natural member of the Hawaiian People and homeland.

If a Martian is born on Earth, it is not an Earthling but is a native Martian, even though it is Earth-born or “native-born”. The word “born” can’t be emphasized separate from “native”.
To use an underline you must apply it to both words: native-born Martian, native-born citizen (-as apposed to foreign-born) -not “native-born citizen”.

Well, John Jay in fact did not do such a thing because he did NOT place a hyphen between the words “natural” and “born”, nor did the Constitution. That is proof of something very important. It shows that the two words were not connected to each other but to their noun; “citizen”, meaning he used a hybrid phraseology combining the natural realm with a concept from the common law legal realm, which was “born citizen”.

That means that the word “natural” is a detail-amplifier for the word “citizen”, as in “natural citizen”. A natural citizen is one born of citizens, i.e., -a citizen naturally by inheritance of the parents’ status or membership.
This truth is well illuminated by the phrase “wise old man”. There is no such phrase as “wise-old man” and thus “wise-old man” cannot exist either because “wise-old” does not exist.

But “natural-born” is equally devoid of meaning as a stand-alone term. It cannot be found in legal dictionaries of or before the founders’ era since it only exists as an element of the larger term “natural-born subject”. So there is no reason that the rules of language would allow underlining “born” as in “natural-born subject”. That would be the equivalent to “wise-old man” which does not exist since it was never concocted as a term of legal artifice.

But you can underline “old” in “wise old man” (the opposite of “wise young man) just as is similarly true of “wise old man”. The underline is simply a hand-writing version of employing italics.

So we see that not only did the founders not place a hyphen where it did not belong in the natural law term “natural born citizen”, but made its non-British origin unmistakable by placing an underline when it could not be placed in the British term of legal artifice due to the presence of the hyphen.

What you find when doing an internet search of those four words is that when the first two are attached to the word “subject” they almost always have a hyphen between them, and when they are attached to “citizen” they rarely do, -but sometimes do because of the ignorance of those who do not yet know the facts that you’ve just read.

You can write: “natural subject” and “natural citizen”, and “born subject” and “born citizen” but you cannot write “natural-subject” or “natural-citizen” or “born-subject” or “born-citizen” because the hyphen creates a unitary term where one does not in fact exist since the two words are comprised of an adjective and a separate noun, except in the abandoned British legal phrase: “natural-born subject” which involves an adjective phrase and a noun.
So not only is “natural born citizen” not equivalent to the British legal-realm fiction of law or  legal artifice “natural-born subject” (since “subject” is far removed from the meaning of “citizen”, and the rules & duties & rights of nationality were very different), but also the rules of language forbid ignoring the presence of punctuation which defines what each term is and is not.
I’ve written reams on what natural born citizen means so I won’t repeat it here except to restate that it is a hybrid term combining “natural citizen” with “born citizen”. A comma could even be placed between the two adjectives when used together. And they could also be reversed.
Number two is based on a brain-dead misinterpretation of a simple description written in about 1758 in French in “The Law of Nations”, -(by Emmerich de Vattel) almost two decades before anyone even dreamed of a revolution by the Americans and three decades before the employment of “natural born citizen”.

His misappropriated words were: “Les naturels (translated as “The natives” in 1795) “ou les indigenes” (translated as “or the natural born citizens) -“are those born in a country of parents who are its citizens.”

The non-synonymous mistranslation of “les indigenes” (as in “the indigenous population”) is huge error # 1, compounded by the illogical and incorrect restating of the reversal of the wording in the 1875 Supreme Court case of Minor V Happersett in which Justice Waite wrote that it was never doubted that those born in a country to parents who are its citizens are natives or natural born citizens.
The True Believers have taken and canonized their literally and illogically reversed version of his observation and magically made a golden calf out of it, proclaiming to the flock that The Supreme Court Ruled that “a natural born citizen is one born in a country to parents who are its citizens” and that that reversal must be accepted and embraced as a binding “definition” that is the only constitutionally legitimate “DEFINITION” of “natural born citizen”.
Of course it is logically impossible to get from a mere description to making it into a sainted, canonized “Definition”. The truth is that descriptions do not “define” even though definitions describe. In a biblical analogy, a description is like the outer court of the Temple of Solomon while a “definition” is like the Holy of Holies inner sanctum. It has a whole different magnitude of Holiness, just as a definition has a much greater comprehensiveness than does a mere description. [See the Wikipedia lengthy Definition of Definition and your thinking will greatly expand.]

But in addition there is the glaring logic error in the reversal of the words of Justice Waite. That reversal is equivalent to taking the statement: “All persons who give birth in the United States are female.” and stating that the Definition of Female therefore is: “All Females are defined as only persons who give birth in the United States, period.” Well what about females who do not give birth or give birth elsewhere? They aren’t female?

THAT is the brain-dead conclusion not only drawn but promulgated by its originator; Leo Donofrio, Esq., and subsequently championed by his ideological compatriot Mario Apuzzo, Esq, after Donofrio abandoned not only his connections to his doctrine and the illegitimacy of Barack Obama’s election, but law practice altogether.

Apuzzo has proven to be a die-hard, committed, adamant, unbending, Kool-Aid drinking adherent and promoter of that brain-dead theory which combines the opposite realms of common law & native birth, with Natural law & blood birthright political inheritance. Logic puts that dogma into the dustbin of insane thinking, as has every court that confronted it. It has probably been adopted by no nation that ever existed as a definer of its natural members.
So let’s focus again on the other doctrines and the central truth about their nature and origin. Their origin is not only not American, nor constitutional, nor congressional, nor natural, but is instead purely British common law, but worse still, written by a boot-licking sycophant of the British monarchy, judge Lord Coke who presided over the seminal case of “Calvin”, and worse still, that case was decided in 1608!
That means that the “legal justification” for the legitimacy of one such as Barack Obama rests entirely on one opinion issued on behalf of the King four centuries ago!

How can that be? It can be because the term that that judge invented is very similar to the term our founding fathers employed to narrow the field of those eligible to be President. That term was “natural-born subject“. The problem with that term is that it was ambiguous, encompassing both those who were English-born and those who were alien-born (the Scots)

Question: which one makes the alien-born eligible to be President: Jus sanguinis (by right of blood) or Jus soli (by right of soil)? Answer: Neither since the alien-born are not natural citizens by birth and thus can’t be President.
Also, -which one makes a Prince Royal eligible to the Throne; jus sanguinis (blood right) or jus soli (native-birth)?
Apuzzo says it must be both. What say you? Jus soli? What does native birth and British common law court opinions have to do with natural State & national American membership and the natural “right of citizenship by descent” which is the mechanism by which natural citizenship is conveyed? [see the 1790 Uniform Rule of Naturalization and its successors.]

Jus soli was concocted for the invasion and expansion that came with the conquest of England by the Norman king, -William the Conqueror. It was legal membership, not natural. It labeled everyone as a subject of the king regardless of their natural origin as long as they were born within the realm of his authority. That was jus soli. It ended national membership by blood but after native and foreign blood had mixed for several centuries all were English-by-blood again, -by right of descent.

Then at the dawn of the 1600s with the union of the Crowns of Scotland and England under King James, a similar situation arose along with the need to combine two unrelated nations under the pretext that in the distant unwritten past they were all one people. [Pure fantasy, whether true or false, no one really knew for sure.] That gave rise to the need for a term to describe the membership of the newly combined realm (the United Kingdom) and the label chosen by Lord Coke was “natural-born subject”.

It was not the jus sanguinis of natural law, but the jus soli of human contrivance. No one who is an American citizen by that contrivance is a natural born citizen, which is unfortunate because the native-born children of foreign immigrant parents who have escaped tyrannical nations know what freedom is more than almost all natural born citizens. They learned about harsh oppressive reality from their foreign parents who had to live in it all of their lives until escaping.

So with the doctrine that “natural-born subject” = “natural born citizen” well cemented into the minds of superficial thinkers with law degrees, professorships and judgeships, we need to examine the unexamined truth about the difference between them.

They feel no need to do such an examination because the equivalency of the two terms became entrenched in American nationality policy at the end of the 19th Century. It has been taught and accepted ever since even though it has never been actual law. Rather, it is actually nothing more than opinion, but an opinion issued by the Attorney General at the time, one John Griggs.

He took the Supreme Court’s 1898 holding that the son (Wong Kim Ark) of Chinese immigrants domiciled permanently in the United States was native-born not as an alien (as the government viewed him) but as a citizen per the 14th Amendment. [“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”]
They got their ruling correct but for the wrong reason. They based it on British common law (native-birth alone, although they did not say so) instead of on the natural law which was the basis of 14th Amendment citizenship. They did not explain their reasoning as being based on anything in particular, such as a natural principle or a common law custom. They simple announced that they agreed with the lower court’s decision. So…. we are left in the ambiguity of their unexplained decision to this day.

By natural law, one’s child cannot be judged to be a member of the society where the parents are located (and birth takes place) unless they are located there on a permanent basis, -making them members of the society and nation of their domicile, -with their previous foreign domicile and government no longer a governing part of the picture that is their life.

As new members of a different nation, their membership comes with an obligation that no government ignores, and it is the members’ duty to assist in national defense if and when needed and called. That duty is a part of the subjection they are under to the national jurisdiction, and Wong’s parents were members of American society as business owners/proprietors so they were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and their son was also through them.

Therefore the two factors of native birth and full subjection were present at his birth. If his parents had been mere foreign visitors, then only the first factor would have been present, and their son would have been foreign only, just like them.
But that Attorney General made it the American policy that mere birth alone was sufficient for declaring a native-born baby a citizen of the United States. That has been the policy followed and taught and canonized ever since as a permanent institutionalized error. It cannot be changed by simple reversal, -not because of legal reasons but because of political reasons.

Under the British system, that error was actually the rule of the common law custom imposed by the opinion of Lord Coke, but that custom was not adopted into the 14th Amendment because common law involved a foreign immigrant father owing only a local allegiance to the government while present within its borders as a guest or visitor, [-not owing a permanent allegiance involving domicile and membership in society].

Mere native-birth alone was mandated by the British nationality monarchist philosophers to be a sufficient criterion for being considered one of the King’s “natural-born subjects”. The Americans rejected such a self-serving dictatorial doctrine and accepted only natural law, including social belonging and social duty as mandatory elements of the subjection required in order for American citizenship to be given.

But following the Griggs “interpretation” of the Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th amendment, no one wants to acknowledge the duty that they have never been forced to respond to, and that is the call to war. That call has not been heard in the United States in forty years but is heard every year in nations like Israel and Mexico.

Foreign immigrants heard that call during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and were expected to serve their adopted nation by surrendering themselves for induction into the Army. If they refused they found themselves in a federal penitentiary (even though they were seemingly still subject to their own government), and that was because they were members of American society.

Foreign guest have no such membership. Foreign students are merely temporary guests of the US government. They are not subject to its authority over citizens and immigrants. For that reason, any child born subject to them is not subject through them to the American government because they both are under the jurisdiction and protection of their own government, and shielded by international law or the law of nations.

Why would sane law-makers extend the high gift of citizenship to the child of such people (foreign visitors and guests) when such parents will raise their child back in their own nation as a foreigner?

Nothing in any civilized nation could be more insane than that. And yet that is exactly what the brain-dead American government has been doing ever since A.G. Griggs bastardized the meaning of the Wong Kim Ark opinion back in 1898-99.

The status quo is not a situation involving the sane rule of law, but the insane rule of a baseless interpretation that has NEVER been codified as U.S. Law.
By that unwritten law, Obama is considered to be a US citizen at birth. But by the actual law he is merely a statutory citizen who gained his citizenship only after having lived in the US during his teen years as a Green Card permanent resident foreign-citizen child of an American mother, -as if he had been a foreign adoptee.

[The reason he was a non-citizen was due to lack of proof of place of birth. Presuming that he was born in Hawaii did not provide him with the needed birth certificate that could not be obtained since he was not born in any Hawaiian hospital. He was either born at home in Hawaii with no non-family witnesses, or he was born in Vancouver… or in Seattle, unattended by any licensed medical practitioner and thus no acceptable witnesses and thus no birth certificate.

Only sworn witnesses can validate a claim of place of birth, and Obama’s mother had none for him. Thus he was born as a stateless person without a country.
[my theory is that his mother, and possibly grandmother, left Vancouver, B.C. within a day or two of giving birth after failing to secure an adoptive couple, and thus never filled-out a birth certificate if birth was in a Vancouver hospital. See: “Why baby Obama Was Born in Vancouver; -the Seattle Scenario”.]

Counterfeit birth documents and your ideological twin brother’s alibi for you do not pass the smell test of certification. But then, as we’ve seen, nobody in government or the media is doing any sniffing, so….]

Obama’s “Fight the Smears” 2008 campaign website stated that Obama was a British subject at birth:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

Of course it only governed those that the government was informed of via registration at a British consulate, which probably did not include the son of Stanley Ann Dunham since he was never going to be a Kenyan. His life was to be lived as an American, or so she thought at the time.

But the point is that he could not be a natural born American citizen since he was (via his foreign father) the modern-day equivalent of a “natural-born subject” of her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth.  Clearly, it is impossible to be the natural born child of two different pairs of parents, -or nations.

by Adrien Nash  March 2015  obama–

in PDF 2-column format: How a Hyphen and an Underline Rewrite Presidential Eligibility



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: