Behind the Delusion that Native Birth = Presidential Eligibility

The framers of the Constitution mandated in its text that: “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,”, and by writing and accepting that language were not attempting to convey that once the Constitution was ratified any sort of citizen could be President except the naturalized.  Rather, they barred for life those who were born as foreigners and not as Americans regardless of their native-birth or subsequent naturalization.

The did not write that one must be a native-born citizen and did not intend that anyone assume that that was what they meant when employing the word “natural” in “natural born citizen”. Otherwise they would have written “native born citizen” instead.  But they carefully and thoughtfully avoided using the word “native”.

That much is clear and should be undisputed, but there was something else which was disputed and was very, very unclear because of the colonial connection to Britain and the British common law.  What the framers wrote regarding the type of citizen that was eligible was clouded in a mist of confusion due to almost two centuries of British bastardization of their own nationality principles.

That bastardization served the King and nation, increasing his power by extending his jurisdiction over babies that were not his natural subjects but were subjects of a foreign king, namely the king of Scotland. A confounding conundrum that Britain faced was due to the Queen leaving no male heir to ascend the throne, so they were leaderless.

They needed a king, and so they adopted the Scottish king as their own. One king, two kingdoms.  Two Parliaments, two crowns, two judicial systems, two ancient traditions, and two legal systems, -with one man as head of both.  (It was a full century before they combined the two (along with Ireland) into the United Kingdom.)

To bring the Scots under the advantages of British law regarding land and inheritance, they had to have a change of identity since British law forbade all but British subjects from inheriting property, so instead of leaving them as foreigners, which they were since they were Scottish born and not British born, their relationship to the British nation had to be redefined.

That was done by abandoning recognition of their foreign relationship to the British people and emphasizing instead their new relationship of subjection to the new King of Britain.  They were henceforth his subjects also, and in order to provide them equal treatment under the law in Britain they had to be equated to the sons of Britain.  That was accomplished by altering the language by which they were labeled.

A new term was created by Lord Coke, a chief judge charged with making the transition legal, and that term was “natural-born subject”.  The Scots were not natural subjects of the King of Great Britain because they were natural subjects of the Scottish king, only both kings were one and the same person.  So it was easy to blur the natural principle involved in natural national membership (subjectship in the case of the two monarchies) and blur it they did.

The new term to describe all subjects was “natural-born subject”.  It worked to combine two different concepts and realities: those “foreign” Scots born after King James VI of Scotland ascended the British throne and became King James I in Britain, were born as his subjects (although their fathers weren’t), while those who were born in Britain of British fathers were the British king’s natural subjects since their fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers going back centuries were British.  So it was rather natural to combine “natural subject” and “born subject” into one term which rendered them all equal and legally indistinguishable.

That was the term, and the only term that applied in the colonies which were settled in the decades following Lord Coke’s legal determination regarding British nationality.  It meant that if one was born within the King’s dominion, regardless of one’s ancestry and parentage, then one would be considered to be a “natural-born subject” of the King based purely on native-birth alone.

Everyone born within the reach of the King’s authority, meaning within his dominion and under his jurisdiction, was thereby deemed to be his subject for life regardless of having been born to foreigners who still owed allegiance to their own king and country.  But by abandoning their own homeland and becoming members of British society they were viewed as being under the king’s sovereign authority and thus their child was born under it as well, making him or her the king’s “natural-born subject”.

Other than naturalization by oath of allegiance, that was the only avenue of nationality assignment in the colonies from the first one to the last one.  That did not change during nor after the revolution except that native-born children were born as citizens (not subjects) of the former colony in which their birth took place.

Everyone born of colonial citizen parents was a citizen regardless of birth place, and anyone born within the republic was a citizen regardless of having a foreign father.  So you had the 98% who were natural citizens by being citizen-born and you had the 2% who were common law citizens by being foreigner-born (i.e., alien-born).

Were all of the foreigner-fathered sons eligible to serve as President?  That would depend on what “natural born citizen” meant.  To many of those born and raised in the British system, which was the only one they were familiar with, they leapt to the conclusion that a native-born citizen was indistinguishable from a natural-born subject, and they used the terms (along with natural born citizen) interchangeably since their British-trained lawyer minds were indoctrinated and habituated to thinking in terms of British law.

But the framers of the Constitution adopted a different perspective and way of thinking, a natural way rather than an unnatural British way.  They were the type of American that signed the treasonous Declaration of Independence, endorsing its natural law principles.

They held to separate and distinguishing differences between the two similar terms.  They rejected the King’s nationality assignment based solely on the location of the mother and her womb at the moment of birth, and returned to natural assignment as was the pattern throughout all of nature; -the off-spring having the same nature as the parents (i.e., the same national identity, membership and citizenship) -as had been the nationality policy going back to the foundation of all civilizations.

That fact was not made visibly manifest until the first uniform rule of naturalization was written by the first Congress in 1790.  That Congress, comprised of many founders and authors of the Constitution, corrected an omission in the Constitution regarding the nature of the citizenship of American children not native-born.  But before addressing them, the act mentions that the children of naturalized foreigners shall be considered to also be citizens of the United States if dwelling in the United States. (!!!)

That easily over-looked statement, and the one that followed it (mandating that foreign-born children of citizens were to be understood to be “natural born citizens”) were, in combination, a mini-revolution.  Why?  Because that was 100% opposite of British common law and that law was then the law of the States regarding native-birth citizenship. Thus a huge disconnect was established, and it lasted until 1898 when the 14th Amendment citizenship clause was finally ruled to provide native-birth nation-wide citizenship to children of immigrants.  That ruling was in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case.

But the conflict was partially ameliorated five years later (1795) when Congress rewrote the first act and labeled foreign-born American children as “citizens of the United States”, -avoiding the language that indicated that place of birth was irrelevant to presidential eligibility and that parentage was all that determined who is a natural citizen by birth and who is not.
But it retained the language that did not spell it out so overtly, and it was the mention of the right of citizenship by descent, which employs the word “right” to mean natural right and not a mere allowance of government.

Yet the native-born foreigner-fathered children remained an unsettled issue because the states made them common law citizens but the federal government of the United States considered them aliens since they had alien fathers at birth.  Once the father was naturalized, they became United States citizens also through him, but what kind of citizen?
They were already native-born State citizens from birth but were they also natural born citizens as though by fertilization, gestation, and birth to American parents and inheritance of the father’s nationality?

They did inherit their father’s nationality, his foreign nationality, and that is why Congress and the State Department refused to recognize them as being both American and foreign.  Citizens / subjects cannot serve two masters, two governments, two nations, two systems of law, and two militaries. Dual citizenship was not allowed, and was even despised as national bigamy. So state law was one thing but national law was another.  That led to confusion and conflict of law.  This is, I assume, a transcript of a speech given in Congress, and thus the punctuation and emphasis has to be assumed:

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, -who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” – Sen. Jacob Howard, -author of the 14th Amendment

That confusion was in regard to who was simply a citizen, but in our era it extends to who is a natural born citizen and who is born ineligible to ever serve as President.  To understand the natural meaning of the term it is necessary to view its language as used in another description, namely: natural born leader.

There are born leaders, and there are natural leaders.  There are born natural leaders and natural born leaders.  All of those labels means the same thing.  What one is born as is what one is by nature.  What one is by nature is what one will be born as.  Redundancy of language.  Unnecessary redundancy.

But in regard to citizenship, the redundancy is necessary.  That is because of the confusion resulting from common law citizenship and from naturalization.  The common law nationality tradition produced the 14th Amendment and citizenship at birth, -citizenship for freed slaves and their children, -and for native-born children of foreign immigrants.  The native-born were born blessed with US citizenship, making them born citizens. Did obtaining citizenship at birth make an American son eligible to be President?

No.  It made one ineligible to serve as President according to the language and intent of the founders and framers.  Here’s why.  Natural citizens do not “obtain” citizenship, -it is not something that they acquire, -not at birth nor after birth nor before birth.  Rather, they are born being Americans by nature because they were born of Americans. By nature they are nothing else other than Americans since they had no “foreign blood” (nationality) involved in producing them. Their natural national identity is that of those who produced them.

If born abroad, such as in Canada which follows common law also, one may acquire Canadian citizenship as a gift of the Canadian people but it is unnatural citizenship since it is a product of an artificial process known as law-making.  There is no arbitrary, manufactured, law-making process in nature.  Rather, nature follows eternal laws and the one of interest is the law of natural membership, -which could be labeled “blood membership”.
Only blood membership is natural.  All other forms of membership are artificial, or unnatural (although membership obtained by effort or sacrifice (Navy Seals) is neither natural nor unnatural but is earned, -and unrelated to natural belonging).

So to mandate that the President must be a “born citizen” would have been inherently ambiguous since it fails to distinguish which type of born citizen one must be; one, the other one, or either one?  A common law citizen from birth (or at birth) by permission of the 14th Amendment?  Or a natural citizen by birth via no law whatsoever?  Or either one?  Many uninformed persons falsely assume it is “either / or” rather than being willing to acknowledge the meaning of adding the word “natural” to “born citizen”.

“Born citizen” is no longer ambiguous with the addition of “natural” but “natural citizen” alone would also be ambiguous just as is “born citizen”.  The reason why is discovered in understanding what naturalization is.

All those born of citizens have all of the rights of their parents since they are naturally citizens through them, inheriting their membership in their nation and replacing them in time as those who constitute the backbone of the nation.

But those not born of citizens have no right to citizenship since their rights are tied to their own homeland, not the land into which they emigrated.  So to enjoy equality of citizenship, the founders sought to make all men equal and that could only be secured if all men were natural citizens and thus indistinguishable from each other. Hence the purpose of natural-ization; which is to make a foreigner into a new natural citizen, (or subject) -the equal of the 98% born of citizens.

Naturalization was a form of legal, social, and psychological transformation from what one was born and raised as into something entirely new and different. When one became an American one became a new natural member of the American family, -not an unequal, adopted or foster child-member.

Natural-ization was thus a necessary legal fiction, and a fundamental one at that.  The consequence of that fiction could be the fiction that all “natural citizens” are eligible to serve as President, which would mean every citizen.  But that is not what the founders and framers were willing to allow except in the case of their own fellow citizens who were born-abroad foreigners who embraced the revolution and its principles 100%, -just like natives.  They paid the price for their devotion and were thus worthy of eligibility to lead the American people if elected.  Their loyalty had been proven in every way so there was no concern about foreign loyalty.

So to avoid foreign loyalty in a President, he or she must be a real natural citizen, -which means one by birth, not by legal fiction.  One must be born as a natural citizen, being a natural born citizen, and not a legal-fiction born citizen via automatic natural-ization upon birth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE CONFUSION AND CONFLATION OF NATIVE-BORN AND NATURAL BORN
~a series of quotations by common-law-deluded legislators

 “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

“The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).

[note: ideally, he should have said: “natural citizens and naturalized citizens”.]

“Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” House Judiciary Chairmen Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

[note that there are no “rights and privileges” appertaining to natural born citizenship except the one privilege to seek the office of President or Vice-President.  All others apply to all citizens, with naturalized citizens Kissinger and Albrecht coming to mind.]

“Mr. HOWARD. I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who has been naturalized and then become a citizen of the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” Sen. Howard, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)

“The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. [NO! IT DOES NOT!!] Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment (!) all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency?” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).

“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. ”

[note: no one is born in the “allegiance” of the “United States” since neither “the nation” nor the government are the sovereign; We, the People are. But an accurate comparison is unrelated to place of birth since loyalty to one’s nation is not determined by it but by the identity with which one is born, and it comes from the parents and their national membership, i.e., their citizenship.]

“Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England.

[note that “birth” has no defined meaning, nor does “allegiance”.  Birth is not the same as “birth place” since birth is a natural event not dependent on location.  See how just a little sloppiness of language results in a pathetic introduction of confusing ambiguity?  Likewise, allegiance (or loyalty) is not inborn but the result of one’s upbringing and acculturation by parents and schooling.  Note that birth place and loyalty do not go together or else that would also be true of anyone born in a hellish dictatorship but smuggled out as an infant.  So how can such a falsity be “the rule of the common law”?  It couldn’t, but it could and was the false claim of the common law (which permeated his inherited manner of thinking even almost 100 years after the Revolution).]

“There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. [False. This was purely an unsupported claim resulting from ignorance.]  The children of ambassadors are, in theory, [IN THEORY! whose theory?  British theory.] born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

[Note that native-born children of foreign guests or visitors to the United States, along with children of Native Americans and Mexican marauders were not native-born citizens since their birth place was irrelevant to their national identity.  Gypsies, along with their children, were considered to also be foreign outsiders, regardless of birth place.]

“I told him that that I thought a man was eligible for the office of President or Vice President even if he was a citizen of the Territory of Tennessee if he was a native born citizen of the United States…If he is a citizen of the United States, born within the limits of the United States, he is eligible, no matter whether he was born in a territory that never became a state, or born in the District of Columbia, or inside some of the forts of the country.” Rep. Broomall, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.468 (1865)

[What if one was born 100,000 feet above US territory in a helium balloon? Or in the Space Station passing above the US? or born in Antarctica which no nation owns?]

“The Constitution requires that the President must be a native-born citizen of the United States.” Sen. Sherman, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1035 (1869)

“No one who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution, can be voted for.” Sen. Johnson, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.552 (1865)

“that the President and Vice President must be native born.” Rep. Clarke, Congressional Globe, 2nd session, 40th Congress. 1105 (1868).

“One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts; pg. 203 (1877).

“What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History, pg. 113 (1913)
[Note: Wrong!  He also must be a resident for at least 14 years.]

“-you shall be permitted to take a position equal in every respect, with the exception, perhaps, of not being eligible to the office of President of the United States, to that of the native-born citizen.” Mr. Schenck, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess., pg. 298 of Appendix (1866).

“The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States…. Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that Negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President…” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).

~~~~~

blog comments:

NatSovParty said:
Here is a link to the entire debate of the Senate, from the introduction of SB 61 [Civil Rights Act of 1866], to its approval by the full Senate. They debate every possible circumstance, including all the lies being used today to justify birthright citizenship, and they refused and denied all of them. But try telling a lawyer the truth, that is the last thing they want to hear.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

PogueMoran said:
Your problem still remains that Bingham wasn’t talking about the 14th amendment but rather the Civil rights act. There’s also your issue that he didn’t write the citizenship clause and was overruled by others on the committee.  Senate Bill 61 was introduced by Senator Trumbull.

PogueMoran said:
NatSovParty  The original provision modified what was in the civil rights act of 1866. Howard changed the wording from: all persons born in the of the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, -who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.:

NatSovParty said:
Tell me, Moran, have you ever gotten a jury verdict reversed, have you ever been tried twice for the same offense, ten years apart, when the first attempt resulted in a Dismissal with prejudice against the State, have you ever been up against a judge and prosecutor that denies you or your clients 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights, and won. I have, and never spent one day in law school, but because of a clear, and concise understanding and comprehension of the English language.

If “Foreigners and Aliens”, mean the exact same thing as “members of the families of”, you are the one who needs a re-education. if they have no separate meaning they would not be there, and you know that, but it is easier to deny and lie, than accept the truth.

[note: The presence of the conjunction “or” would have clearly delineated the “foreigners, aliens” from the children of ambassadors, but its absence may indicate that they are in fact one and the same. In fact, the reference to “every other class of persons” indicates a contrasting between one class and all others, -which meant that all children of foreign ambassadors are also foreigners or aliens, while all other native-born children were considered to be citizens regardless of being foreigner-fathered.]

~~~~~

http://oll.libertyfund.org/

NatSovParty said
The baby has the same allegiance as the father, as the framers of the 14th Amendment said, a child is born into the allegiance of the father at the time of birth, how stupid are you that you can not understand that simple, direct, and absolutely correct concept. Does the U.S. allow other nations to claim the children of its citizens, as their own, simply because the parents were on a visit and gave birth? NO, the child is born a U.S. citizen, because that is the nation their parents belong to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Trumbull continues,

“Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.”

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

Mr. HOWARD: “I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

[Note: Those elite upper-crust, insulated and isolated lawyers in Congress had no grasp at all of what full jurisdiction entails.  It entails the authority to conscript male civilians into the military, half kill them in combat training, and then literally kill them by sending them to their death in withering combat.
It also extends to the power to try them for treason and desertion.  No foreign guest or tourist can be tried for treason or desertion, or for refusal to submit to military conscription, but immigrants can be.

The difference between those under the full subjection to a nation’s authority and those not under it is the same difference that determines whether or not their native-born child is a foreigner or an American. That is the principle behind granting a man’s native-born children citizenship.

Is the man obligated to serve his adopted country or is his country still the place that he came from and will return to since it remains his home?  If it is then he is not subject to the full government jurisdiction that citizens and immigrants are subject to, and thus neither is his native-born child, making the 14th Amendment literally inapplicable to him.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never adjudicated a case regarding the citizenship of a native-born child of non-immigrants, so the issue of citizenship itself has never been settled by the high court, much less the issue of whether or not one who may not even be a citizen might nevertheless be a “natural born citizen” and eligible to serve as President.

Such a child is under the foreign-government umbrella of his tourist/ temp-worker parents.  Such members of foreign societies and nations are not subject as citizens to two different nations and their sovereign laws.  They are subject only to one.

But, in the modern-era case of dual-citizenship, involving having a foreign parent, one is put into the situation of either being subject to two nations or having to choose one over the other.  Needless to say, that is an unnatural situation, produced by an unnatural union of two different national identities into one marriage and one family.

That is akin to a dog & cat union, producing puttens as off-spring.  Puttens would be neither natural born puppies nor natural born kittens since they would be hybrids, -as are all dual-nationality children of parents from two different nations.  Not being natural-born citizens leaves them from birth constitutionally barred from ever being eligible to serve as President.

That prohibition made perfect sense when it was written since the United States was the only non-monarchy / democratic republic in the world.  But today’s world is richly populated by similar nations so the threat is of a different nature today.  Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal were born and raised as native-born red-blooded patriotic sons of America regardless of birth to foreign immigrants so their election to the presidency would pose no hidden threat.

But what would pose one would be a native-born child of an extremist ideologue or dictator whose wife gave birth within US borders, then returned home where the child was raised and groomed to one day return and attempt to become the US President, -and the Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Military power, -and even worse, all U.S. nuclear weapons.]

So we see that today’s delusion that native-birth is sufficient for presidential eligibility has a long history going back perhaps to the founding of the nation.

People related or connected to patriotic native-born fellow American men who long ago (at the time of their birth) were the off-spring of patriotic immigrants who had not yet been allowed by the waiting period to become American citizens, those people saw no difference between such men and their younger brothers who happened to be born after their father took the oath of citizenship and became a full-fledged American citizen.

And indeed, there was no difference except that by the original meaning of “natural born citizen” only the citizen-born brothers were eligible to serve as President.  That of course seemed immensely unfair and so people were unwilling to accept a meaning, a truth, that was so discriminatory in such a seemingly unjustified way.  Native-born sons had always been viewed as equals to natural born sons as far as their rights of citizenship, so why make a distinction between them when doing so would disenfranchise millions of good, patriotic, competent fellow citizens from the lofty dream of presidential eligibility for all men born in America?

Bear in mind that such a conflict did not exist throughout all of colonial history under British governors, nor post-colonial history since States had governors, not Presidents, and few, if any, of them required that he be a natural born citizen of the land or of the colonies.

It was only after the creation of the office of President of the United States that the issue of natural citizenship and eligibility appeared, -and its only appearance was in the Constitution’s clause covering the qualifications of the President.

There you have it; -the reason that people today are unwilling to accept the truth about what a natural born citizen really is.  It is not a thought-out belief but one that we all were raised with by teachers and parents who were also raised with it, as were their teachers and parents.  It never matter before because every President (with the exception of the one who became President by assassination; -Chester Arthur) was born of American parents.

That’s why it was never raised as an issue, nor discussed, nor contemplated, -until that is, the rise of the unconstitutional, alien-fathered, foreign-born, world-citizen Barack Hussein Obama.  Since then it has been thought about a hell of a lot by those with their minds open.  That is seen in the fact that this is the 400th post to my blog, and that doesn’t include the earlier posts that were added as “pages”.

by Adrien Nash  Nov. 2015  http://obama–nation.com

~in Adobe PDF format; 9 pages, two columns: Behind the Delusion that Native Birth = Presidential Eligibility

~~~~~~~~

https://www.sss.gov/About/History-And-Records/Non-Citizens-and-Dual-Nationals

“U.S. non-citizens and dual nationals are required by law to register with the Selective Service System. Most are also liable for induction into the U.S. Armed Forces if there is a draft. They would also be eligible for any deferments, postponements, and exemptions available to all other registrants.

If There is a Military Draft Underway
However, some non-citizens and dual nationals would be exempt from induction into the military if there is a draft, depending on their country of origin and other factors. Some of these exemptions are shown below:

A non-citizen who has lived in the U.S. for less than one year is exempt from induction.

A dual national whose other country of nationality has an agreement with the U.S. which specifically provides for an exemption is exempt from induction

Some countries have agreements with the U.S. which exempt a non-citizen national who is a citizen of both that country and the U.S. from military service in the U.S. Armed Forces. A non-citizen who requests and is exempt under an agreement or bilateral treaty can never become a U.S. citizen, and may have trouble reentering the U.S. if he leaves.

A non-citizen who served at least a year in the military of a country with which the U.S. is involved in mutual defense activities will be exempt from military service if he is a national of a country that grants reciprocal privileges to citizens of the U.S.

During a draft, any claims for exemptions based on any of the above categories would be granted or denied by a man’s Local Board. Military examiners make the final decision about who will be accepted into the military.”
There are some exemptions but not all non-citizen residents are exempt.

And all of those non-citizen residents would be immigrants who came here legally and are seeking U.S. citizenship, not those stealing across the border to “Lay the Golden Egg”. Those people who no one knows who they are, are not subject to the draft, now are they? How can they be, and why the hell would they register?

Advertisements

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”.

13 Responses to Behind the Delusion that Native Birth = Presidential Eligibility

  1. slcraignbc says:

    An “Apologetic” on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen as construed under the Federal Laws
    of the Constitution of the United States of America http://goo.gl/qdfEHU

    The one essential Constitutional element of Article II Section I Clause V is the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision”, i.e.,

    ” … 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 President ; … ”

    The “definition”, or the means to identify a “natural born Citizen”, is currently ASSUMED to be “ambiguous”, and that ambiguity creates a “legal-loop-hole” that at once makes the provision unenforceable and indistinguishable from any and ALL other conditions of U.S. Citizenship.
    [FALSE. Naturalized citizens are universally known to be ineligible.]

    The intellectual dishonesty and incompetence of the assumption is astounding given that immediately following the Ratification of the COTUS the 1st Congress, in March of 1790, expressed the “attendant circumstances” required to be considered as a U.S. natural born Citizen.

    Unfortunately any discussion on the subject of “citizenship” requires a primer in order to establish certain FACTS in order to comprehend how the various distinguishing circumstances of acquisition of citizenship can be identified.

    ALL “citizens” are “made” in the 1st instant, without which there can be no “natural” perpetuation of citizenship giving rise to “natural born citizens”. (See Aristotle, Politics, Bk III, Pt II).

    In order for “natural perpetuation” to occur its acknowledgement must be provided for within the particular society, whether by “doctrine” or “private law decrees”, i.e., a provision of law codified as a statute.

    The “attendant circumstances” of the acquisition of citizenship must be identifiable for notable legal purposes such as Executive Office and other elected office’s eligibility, right to vote in national elections and other Constitutional rights and privileges reserved to “citizens”.

    [That is erroneously worded. The source of citizenship is irrelevant to everything except the Presidency and Vice-presidency. Only length of citizenship is relevant but only relevant to election to legislatures and Congress.]

    Now, let’s see how this plays out under the Constitution in regard to the acknowledgement of U.S. natural born Citizens.

    Within the COTUS, at A1S8C4 of the ENUMERATED POWERS sections, it says; … ” …. The Congress shall have power … To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, … throughout the United States; ”

    In March of 1790 the Congress did establish an uniform rule of citizenship as applied within the processes of naturalizing persons.

    That established “uniform Rule” can be characterized as producing the result that: Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world. That is construed from the three pertinent parts of the 276 word Act, numbered here for ease of analysis;

    (1) And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

    (2) And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:

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

    The MOST important of the three (3) provisions is the third which ESTABLISHES the “right of Citizenship” being attached to any and all persons who are U.S. Citizens at birth.

    The 1st provision makes the Right of Citizenship” effective at the moment that a person becomes a U.S. Citizenship and affects the minor children of that new U.S. Citizen, naturalizing them concurrent with the father.

    The citizenship acquired at birth is identified as that form of citizenship that fulfills the natural born Citizen requirement of A2S1C5.

    In the 1st provision above the existing “minor children present” are “naturalized” concurrent with the parent (father), regardless of their status at birth.

    In the 2nd provision a child born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father is born as a U.S. natural born Citizen anywhere in the world.

    Although many will say that the provision ONLY addresses those children born to U.S. Citizens when out of the limits of the U.S. I suggest that it takes a specious interpretation to say that while children born to U.S. Citizens when out of the limits of the U.S. that the children born within the limits of the U.S. are not also being born as natural born citizens.
    [they are natural citizens by birth because they are born as natural citizens.]

    Consider a moment the newly naturalized Father takes his wife’s hand, who is now also “considered as” a U.S. Citizen under the matrimonial doctrine of coverture, and walks directly to the midwife’s house where the wife immediately gives birth to a child. That child is born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents within the limits of the U.S.. Is that child NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen?

    The perpetuation of U.S. natural born Citizens continued uninterrupted under those attendant circumstances, being born to the legal wife of a U.S. Citizen father until the passage of the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship and Citizenship Retention Act.

    This Act abrogated the ancient matrimonial doctrine of coverture” completely under U.S. Law, insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned. (Any residual effects of the doctrine of coverture are confined to the concerns of probate and or “parental rights”)

    The effect of the Act was to establish a new form of U.S. Citizenship that could not previously exist, that is, “dual-citizenship at birth”.

    Prior to the Act a woman was considered as the SAME Citizenship as the husband from the moment that the marriage became “legal”, regardless of her previous citizenship status.

    After the Act the woman RETAINS her own Citizenship regardless of what her new husbands Citizenship is,

    Under the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation AND Judicial reconciliation of conflicting laws, it is required to preserve the desired effects of each law and to impose the least destructive reconciliation in the process.

    In light of the intents of the 1922 Cable Act it is to required that BOTH parents be U.S. Citizens INDEPENDENT of each other’s citizenship in order to produce the effect of giving birth to a U.S. natural born Citizen.

    ~edited by A.Nash for accuracy

  2. slcraignbc says:

    I do NOT appreciate your “editing” my post with indistinguishable text format, especially given that your “edits” only emphasize your inability understand statutory interpretations and poor comprehension skills.

    [FALSE. Naturalized citizens are universally known to be ineligible.]

    SO YOU SAY AND WOULD IT WERE SO, BUT, A CHILD WHO ACQUIRES U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY ANY MEANS OTHER THAN BEING BORN TO TWO (2) U.S. CITIZEN PARENTS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE U.S. IS “NATURALIZED AT BIRTH” SINCE 1795.

    [That is erroneously worded. The source of citizenship is irrelevant to everything except the Presidency and Vice-presidency. Only length of citizenship is relevant but only relevant to election to legislatures and Congress.]

    THE SENTENCE CLEARLY IS MEANT TO ENCOMPASS ALL FORMS OF CITIZENSHIP AS “ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES” ARE “PRESENT” REGARDLESS OF HOW,WHEN, WHERE, WHY A PERSON ACQUIRES U.S. CITIZENSHIP.

    [they are natural citizens by birth because they are born as natural citizens.]

    THEY ARE U.S. NATURAL BORN CITIZENS BECAUSE THE 1790 ACT PROVIDED FOR THEM BY ATTACHING THE “RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP’ TO THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP OF THE FATHER, (WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE MOTHER, MADE U.S. CITIZEN BY THE MARRIAGE).

    But, if those are the only errors and concerns of your comprehension I’m left to regard you as on the verge of “getting it”.

    • A “Natural Born Citizen” of the US is one born IN the United States to parents who were both citizens at the time said person was born. That’s immutable and affirmed. See. Minor v Happersett,USSCt. (1875) The NA of 1790 changed in 1795. Read it.

  3. arnash says:

    [they are natural citizens by birth because they are born as natural citizens.]

    “THEY ARE U.S. NATURAL BORN CITIZENS BECAUSE THE 1790 ACT PROVIDED FOR THEM BY ATTACHING THE “RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP’ TO THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP OF THE FATHER, (WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE MOTHER, MADE U.S. CITIZEN BY THE MARRIAGE).” [Fool! Daughters of American fathers are not “made citizens” by their husbands because they were born as citizens.]

    As I’ve said before, you are a traitor to fundamental natural rights possessed by all American citizens and that is because you ascribe the power of nationality assignment to Big Brother rather than to Nature and Nature’s God.
    Your treasonous mind sees government as the source of the sovereign rights of free men and women, free parents and free children and without the Big Daddy permission of Big Government you think that no one has any rights at all, in particular the right of natural membership by descent, by blood right.

    You blindly think that we get that right not from nature but from god-government. You are blinded by your own legalistic thinking.
    The right of citizenship by descent is NOT given by Congress nor can it be rescinded by Congress, as you insist that it can, because Congress is god in your eyes thanks to your horribly wrong misunderstanding of the principle of enumerated powers, -powers that Congress was NOT given in the Constitution regarding natural citizenship passed from parents to children by natural inheritance.
    RIGHTS, as in RIGHT OF DESCENT, are not given nor are they rightfully taken by the American government. Any taking of a natural right is unconstitutional. You huge problem is that you do not believe in natural citizenship nor any natural right to citizenship. You only believe in legal citizenship as determined by almighty-government. That is why you are a traitor to the fundamental organic law of the United States.

    Being a natural citizen is not up to any law or legislature or court. It is up solely to the blood relationship between citizen parents and their children. All government can do is to protect that relationship and the membership that AUTOMATICALLY comes with it.

    You problem is that you have a fixation with native-birth, like a fetish that you can’t let go of, imagining that it is the source of one’s wonderful membership in an exclusive club. You are unwilling to recognize that that club is irrelevant to presidential eligibility, regardless of your sentiment that it must be connected and necessary. IT IS NOT NECESSARY! IT IS IRRELEVANT, YESTERDAY AND FOREVER!
    IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NATURE, NATURAL MEMBERSHIP AND NATURAL CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH.

    • slcraignbc says:

      You are a TRAITOR to VATTEL and the COTUS moron …. there is NO SUCH THING as a “NATURAL CITIZEN” of ANY NATURE a LAW providing for it.

      VATTEL, as well as Aristotle, were CONTEMPLATING political structures NOT laying down LAW for any specific country.

      Even THEY acknowledged that it was up to those people forming a country to accept or reject the various formulations that they were contemplating.

      MORON, look at the third (3rd) pertinent provision of the 1790 Act and understand what the “RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP” is for crying out loud. It means that your children will be born a U.S. Citizen no matter where in the world they were born, at birth or otherwise.

      THERE IS NO “NATURAL RIGHT” TO U.S. Citizenship at birth without THAT PROVISION, get it…(?) rhetorical because it’s obvious you are a contrarian for contradictions sake alone and FACTS and TRUTH have no appeal to you whatsoever.

      • The 1790 provision considering as “Natural Born Citizens” persons born abroad to two American parents was repealed in 1795. It was changed to considered a “citizen” which is NOT tantamount to “Natural Born Citizen”. You get an “F-“

      • arnash says:

        I see I was right, you are a traitor. You have made the argument that all RIGHTS come from government and nothing comes from NATURE or Nature’s God. That is treasonous.

        That means that no person is endowed with certain unalienable rights, among which is the RIGHT OF FAMILY MEMBERSHIP AND NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP BY DESCENT, -BY BLOOD.
        It is all about blood. If you were to read the requirements for proving natural citizenship of one’s foreign-born child, you would see that it is 100% based on proving a BLOOD RELATIONSHIP!
        WHY? Because natural national membership is INHERITED AUTOMATICALLY! IT IS NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT!
        If you had any brains you would know what the previous exposition shares, and would understand that the government’s own website expressly declares that children (of American couples) born abroad ARE NOT NATURALIZED!!!
        Only the children of hybrid couples are considered to be citizens by statute, by law, by naturalization because they are not natural citizens and possess no RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP BY DESCENT.
        In your bent, distorted, delusional mind, NO ONE has any RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP because no one has any unalienable rights at all.
        You have mentally constructed a complex and reasonable legal structure regarding American citizenship but it is built on a false foundation of presumptions that are erroneous and treasonous. If the foundational presumptions are false, then the whole structure is false no matter how much sense the logic makes within the false paradigm.

        But being a dogmatic, doctrinaire native-birth acolyte, you are unwilling to ever reexamine your fundamental assumptions for logic error. Like fundamental religionists are unable to examine their foundational beliefs. You can’t be fixed no matter how clear the facts are that are shared, and that is in part because you are unwilling to even read the sharing of the truth.
        That unwillingness to read the expositions that you “respond” to indicates that your ideas are locked in your head like in a vault, and nothing can rearrange them to set them straight.

        Well, here’s my final response to your non-response to the posts that you “respond” to: Anything that you write that is not in response to what I’ve written in my posted expositions will be deleted.

      • slcraignbc says:

        You are a TOTAL and unreachable MORON…………… GOD and NATURE gave MEN the RIGHT to bind themselves together in civil societies and to formulate a form of government so as to facilitate a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

        Ring a bell…???

        The COTUS CONFORMS to NATURAL LAW as does A2S1C5 and A1S8C4.

        I feel bad for your inability to GET IT, but until you buckle down and apply some actual thought to what you’re reading you will remain a MORON.

  4. arnash says:

    Laity; Your logic is extremely defective. All natural citizens are citizens!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It does not say “considered as ONLY a mere citizen but not a natural one.” It implies NOTHING! It simply removes the issue of presidential eligibility from the naturalization act by not mandating that all government officials involved in presidential elections consider foreign-born Americans to be, or not to be, natural born citizens.

    The politics of the issue was too hot to leave it as the founding Congress wrote it because for every American son born abroad there were tens of thousands of foreigner-fathered sons born in the U.S. -and all of those fathers eventually became citizens and VOTERS! They would not accept that their native-born sons born before they could become Americans were never going to be eligible to serve as President.
    Go ahead and attempt to explain how that is false.

    False logic exposed: version 1: “Those brave men are Sea-Earth-Air-and Land warriors known as SEALS.
    Version 2: Those brave men are members of the U.S. Navy.
    False logic: Version 2 redefines them as no longer members of the SEAL teams.

    False logic manufactured regarding the Nat Act of 1795: Those foreign-born citizens cannot possibly be natural born citizens since they are nothing more than mere citizens of the United States without definition. They are barred from being anything beyond the label of US citizen, just as the SEALS are barred by label 2. from being anything more than US Navy-men or Sailors.

    Version 1: “Those people are white male adults.”
    Version 2: “Those people are human beings.”
    Conclusion? Those people cannot be white male adults because they are only humans.

    Defend your logic that comes to that conclusion. You see? It’s impossible because it is defective logic. You need to think hard about what a set and subset are.

  5. arnash says:

    The RIGHT of CITIZENSHIP by DESCENT is inviolable, untouchable, unalienable, and immutable as far as legitimacy is concerned. It cannot be abrogated or abridged by Washington because it came before Washington D.C. and the federal government even existed. At the founding of the nation, it was, first of all, membership in the State of one’s birth and residence, with all States agreeing to recognize the citizenship of citizens of other states.
    But from almost the beginning, as statist and autocrat John Adams took the presidency, he got Congress to pass the Alien Act and the Sedition Act, -both treasonous to the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. No one cared about the Constitution in Washington DC just a decade after the Constitution was adopted, -but future President Thomas Jefferson did.

    He knew that “the system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground.” If the people were to sit still, we would lose everything, he warned.

    Who did Jefferson believe had the right and the responsibility to protect citizens from federal abuse of power? The States. “It is of immense consequence that the States retain as complete authority as possible over their own citizens,” he wrote.

    Within a month of Congress’s passage of the Sedition Act, Jefferson had written the first draft of the Kentucky Resolution, declaring in its first paragraph:

    “That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

    Then, as he did in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson lays out the manifold violations of the Constitution committed by the federal government.

    Next, he proposed a sound solution to the tyranny:

    “Therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy;
    -but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.”

    Kentucky’s state lawmakers and governor agreed. In fact, on November 7, 1798, Governor Garrard spoke to the members of the Kentucky Legislature, rehearsing to them the strident opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts already enacted by many of the commonwealth’s counties.

    Garrard warned the representatives that Kentuckians were “utterly disaffected to the federal government.” He said that Kentucky and all states retain the power to “applaud or to censure that government, when applause or censure becomes its due.” He concluded his remarks by encouraging the state legislators to reaffirm their commitment to the union and to the Constitution by firmly renouncing “all unconstitutional laws and impolitic proceedings” of the federal government.

    [So…the supposed authority of Congress to strip all foreign-born natural citizens of their right to serve as President, which Congress did not do, was non-existent authority and unconstitutional since it was absent from the Constitution. The only authority of Congress was to author uniform general rules for all of the States to adopt in their naturalization process.
    Only foreign men could be naturalized, not native-born sons nor citizen-born sons. Only foreigners could be naturalized, not Americans who were born being Americans by right of descent.

  6. slcraignbc says:

    You say;

    ” … The RIGHT of CITIZENSHIP by DESCENT is inviolable, untouchable, unalienable, and immutable as far as legitimacy is concerned. … ”

    I say, read the actual LAW; ” … (3) Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: … ”

    The MOST important of the three (3) provisions is the third (3rd) which ESTABLISHES the “right of Citizenship” as a “doctrine” being attached to any and all persons who ARE U.S. Citizens, at birth or otherwise.

    • slcraignbc says:

      § 212. Citizens and natives.

      The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.

    • arnash says:

      You’ve been carried away by your doctrinaire imagination. The law establishes no such thing, nor does it imply it.
      You are truly and badly self-deluded to the point of not even being able to acknowledge that RIGHTS cannot be ‘ESTABLISHED” by government, -they can only be protected or limited. Everything else is a privilege, -NOT a Right because rights to do not come from almighty-god-government.

      The are inherent in man, innate, an inseparable element of our construction. The right to breath, to live, to survive, to self-defend, to own, to BELONG! To belong to parents, clan, tribe, country, and nation due to a blood connection.
      You are an intellectual coward who will not address any of the things that I’ve pointed out to you.
      You refuse to recognize what a RIGHT even is. It is not reflected by this: “provided that the PRIVILEGE of citizenship shall not descend…”.

      The right to belong is just as much a fundamental right as is the right to live and be free. No nation on earth questions that fact, even atheist nations, but YOU dare to do so because you are a traitor to fundamental principles of Liberty and individual sovereignty.

      In your totalitarian mind, the STATE is SOVEREIGN, and the citizenry is subject, dependent on the magnanimity of the government lawmakers. Well here’s a news flash for you: The Government is NOT the Sovereign; The People are! The State is NOT supreme; the Citizenry is!

      The citizenry is made up not of lucky people who won the cosmic lottery of being born in the best country, but of the descendants of the founders of the nation. As such, their membership is automatic. AUTOMATIC!!!

      Suppose a group of very wealthy men decided to form an exclusive club. Would the officers that they appoint to run it be given authority to tell any or all of them that they are not members of their own club?
      You say “Yes!” because the officers are GODS in your warped view.
      But the more pertinent question is this: Would the officers be given the authority to declared that the members’ first-born sons were not members and could never become members (after all, they weren’t born on club property)?

      You say “YES!” -because they mysteriously have the POWER to establish all of the rules for all of the members. You can’t imagine that there are any natural members (the children) nor any founding members; there are only manufactured members made members by the rules made-up by the appointed officers.

      I don’t need to point out how brain-dead that is, -everyone can see it, except you! That is because you are clinging to a fetish belief in which you are subservient to almighty-Big Brother and individual RIGHTS are only imaginary.

      The RIGHT of CITIZENSHIP cannot be given by government nor rescinded. That is why you have never heard of a case of any American citizen being stripped of his citizenship. There is no basis to attempt that unless he or she has demonstrated treasonous behavior, but even then, the government will not even attempt to strip such a person of their citizenship.
      Why not?? Because there is no means established, EVER! to do so, so no one has a clue as to how to strip one of something so innate as their national identity.
      The government does not give natural citizenship and it cannot take it away because it is OWNED by the citizen, not by the government. The citizen is born owning their own inherited national membership and their right of ownership is almost absolute.

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 )

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: