The Obama – Rubio – Jindal Violation of the Constitution

The Washington District of Corruption is principally comprised of moneyed compromisers and their compromised servants. The corruption that transpires is either in the arena of rules, regulations, and laws, or in the arena of how money is appropriated, distributed, and spent.
Some of that corruption is constitutional, and some of it is unconstitutional. None of the corrupted could care less about which it is because the compromised and corrupted do not care about fidelity to the spirit or letter of the law, nor even to the rule of law itself, -as apposed to the rule of men.

To do fundamental things there is almost always a constitutional way along with a way that violates the Constitution. Being qualified to be President is one of those fundamental things because it is determined by a mandate written in the Constitution. It reads:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President;
-neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years and been fourteen years a resident of the United States.

In the post-Constitution era, that mandate imposes four requirements.
` 1. The President must have been born as a citizen.
2. The President must have been born as a citizen by natural law, by blood connection, (jus sanguinis or right of blood) , having been born as a natural citizen as apposed to a legal citizen by jus soli (by right of soil), aka; native birth.
3. He must have reached 35 years of age, and
4. Lived in one or more of the States of America for 14 years.
Those are the requirements but only two of the four are known to Americans of today, -and yesterday. American statesmen have been confidently pontificating in ignorance about the presidential eligibility requirements for some 150 years. They did so because of their ignorance of the Constitution and the meaning of its words.
The reason for their confidence has always been common misconceptions held by almost everyone that everyone knew. When a common misconception is never correct or challenged by anyone then one’s mind assumes that it must be correct and factual or else it would be corrected. But that is not the case. Just consider the term “Indian” as used in America and by the US government. Indians are from India and nowhere else, and yet the mistake of Columbus remains as an institutionalized error to this day. Some things are never challenged and corrected, and so it has been in regard to the requirements of presidential eligibility.

The common misconception is that the Constitution only requires this:
“All persons who are native-born citizens and thirty-five years of age shall be eligible to be the President.”

That is what people have thought for a century and a half, but it is wrong. Almost daily one might hear someone say that so-and-so is or is not eligible to be President because they were or were not born in the United States. That view is based on the handed-down misconception that has become almost unquestionable in the minds of most people, but that “understanding” is wrong.
The Constitution does not require that the President be a native-born citizen but that he be a natural born citizen. Anyone who is considered to be a citizen because of native-birth is not a natural born citizen because natural citizens can be born anywhere in the universe.
Their national membership is not determined by arbitrary, artificial, man-made constructs such as political boundaries nor geographical boundaries but by blood-line inheritance. Citizens give birth to citizens, naturally, automatically, not legally since no law was ever needed to state the obvious; a child is identified as being a part of whatever group the parents belong to, having inherited their membership by right of descent.
But those who are not natural citizens but instead are merely legal, jus soli, common law, 14th Amendment citizens…
[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.”]

must be born within US sovereign jurisdiction, -or if a stricter, realistic criterion is insisted upon, they must be born within any one of the States of the Union; the united STATES of America. Puerto Rico and Guam are not States of America so those born there are not citizens via the 14th Amendment but instead via a congressional statute which Congress had no constitutional authority to pass.
The faint echo of the truth of these facts is seen in the
fact that the Constitution did not state this: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution who has been fourteen years a resident of the United States., shall be eligible to the office of the President;
-neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years.”

Almost no one that you might ask will know that the President is required to have lived in the U.S. for 14 years. To be a representative one must have been a citizen for seven years, and nine years for a Senator but the President must have been a citizen for life, yet the residency requirement was not attached solely to the statement including naturalized foreigners (who may have fought in the war as equals with the natives).

That implies two possibilities, including that all Presidents who had been citizens for life might not have been born in the U.S. Not all American children who were born of Americans in America remained in America but migrated overseas either for their father’s business purposes, family necessity, or his position of representing the U.S. government as a foreign minister or ambassador;
Or they were born of American parents while living or stationed abroad, and grew up there.
Either way, a child might not be raised in the U.S. and yet still be a loyal American instilled with love and respect and admiration for his inherited national homeland, its history and its unique political philosophy of liberty and equality.
A foreign-born son of a highly capable and patriotic ambassador who might one day be President would also have an open path to the presidency himself because the Constitution did not require anything other than maturity, natural citizenship, (not native-birth citizenship) and 14 years residency.

A son who migrated to his natural homeland at 21 years of age (adulthood) would be 35 years old 14 years later, and eligible to be President.
He would not be a citizen of the foreign land of his birth because he, under his father, would be solely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Like father, like son; both Americans. The nation of his birth would not have viewed him as one of its subjects and its monarch could not claim him because nothing could reach across the barrier of U.S. sovereign jurisdiction handed-down from father to son. But if he were not considered to naturally be an American then he would have to be considered to be a stateless person.
Congress possessed no authority to declare American children to be Americans or United States citizens because the only authority that the Constitution gave to Congress was to write a uniform rule of naturalization for the States of the union to adopt so that all of them would be employing the same requirements with the same qualifications (white and free) and residency (five years).
Under the Constitution, the States did not cede their immigration and naturalization authority to a new central government. They continued to control their own immigration from abroad, and the naturalization process in their courts of record just as they had done since the revolution and before.

So the congressional naturalization rule specified the conditions for naturalization of foreign male immigrants who wished to become Americans and renounce all allegiance and obedience to their foreign monarch and/or government. But the uniform naturalization rule did not include any authority to, in effect, declare that natural citizens born abroad were in fact foreigners, aliens, and in need of congressional permission via statute to be allowed to be U.S. citizens.

Natural-ization is a process of political transformation via legal fiction to convert a person from being 100% a foreigner into being 100% a natural American. Those born of Americans cannot be converted into that which they were born as, and conceived as, as well. Americans can only conceive and give birth to Americans. They cannot give birth to aliens.
To believe that they can is a fundamental betrayal and treason to the most elementary right of all sovereign citizens of the United States. That is the right of natural belonging, of natural inheritance, of property rights with children being property of parents and being included in the groups to which they belong.

If a man had a family that included an adopted Negro or Mexican, or Native American child, could some political jurisdiction into which he was moving announced to him that he and his natural family were welcome but he could not bring in the foreign-race child because it was an alien and they would accept no alien-race children.
That could never happen because children were property and a man’s property rights were unchallengeable. He could bring his own property with him wherever he wished to live. No government officer or regulation could declare otherwise or else America would be a dictatorship.

With that being the case, how then could Congress supposedly declare the child of an American Ambassador, or General, or Private, or businessman, or academic, or traveler to be an alien that has no permission to enter the United States unless almighty Congress deigned to grant it permission by bestowing citizenship upon such an alien child? It’s absurd and anti-American, not to mention patently false.

Americans were once sovereign over their government, having created it and controlling it via the ballot box, and that sovereignty did not cede to government any power to determine or reject the national identity of their American children. It was because of the sovereign authority of American citizens over their own children that the first Congress (comprised of many founding fathers and framers of the Constitution) declared in the very first uniform naturalization rule that such children shall be considered (considered by all government officers and departments) to be “natural born citizens”.

That language was intended to erase any doubt that the children of all American fathers were all automatically and naturally American citizens just like their father who gave them life, AND… (the implication is inescapable) therefore eligible to be President one day since they fulfilled the constitutional requirement of being born as a natural citizen.
That was meant to definitely protect the right of sons of all Americans who happened to have been born abroad from the brain-dead assertion that they were not qualified to be President because they were not native-born.
But the numbers of children born to Americans abroad was almost zero, compared to the tens or hundreds of thousands of sons born to immigrants who were not yet naturalized due to the residency requirement which forced them to wait between two and fourteen years.

In the tug-of-war between those two factions, one side had a huge number pulling for it while the other had no one. Guess which side won? Yep, the “native-born is eligible” side won, and the statement that foreign-born Americans were “natural born citizens” was removed five years later, labeling them by the general title of “citizens of the United States”, -and not  to be viewed as foreigners.

Well, the alien-born, foreigner-born, immigrant-born sons were deemed to be U.S. citizens because the States of the union allowed that in their laws, (which was retained British common law practice) but being “a citizen of the United States” did not make one “a natural born citizen”, and yet the issue was so cloudy, undefined, contentious, unsettled and sentimental that no one wanted to touch it because the losing side would suffer great injustice.
One side would lose logically, factually, and linguistically, while either could lose socially and politically. Imagine the life-long stigma if one brother of twins was born on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls while the other was born on the American side, and one was told he could one day be President while the other was told he could never be President?
Or imagine one brother of twins born the day before his father took the oath of Renunciation & Allegiance and became an American citizen while the other was born after? One of the twins would be informed that he absolutely could be President anytime in his life after 35 years of age, while his twin absolutely could never be President because he was born to an alien father.

Where natural philosophy and political reality intersected there was a collision and nature lost, reason lost, and language lost, but it was not a danger to America until the election of one who was anti-American, anti-imperialism, anti-nationalism, anti-American exceptionalism, and anti-Christianity while having a covert affinity for all things foreign, Muslim, Marxist, and homosexual.
The community-organizing citizen of the world sought to fundamentally transform the America given to us by our founding fathers by wrecking what it had always been perceived to be. Not that he was the first to do that.

FDR was far worse, and so the America that evolved following him was kept unaware of what was constitutional government and what was not. We today continue on in that imposed ignorance, but thanks to the internet and certain conservative pundits and analysts, the veils have been lifted and we can see the wreckage that Liberalism has wrought on the nation and its people.

That wreckage includes the audacity of the very patriotic and conservative candidates for the presidency; Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal to run for the office in spite of the clear mandate of the Constitution which they seek to preserve and protect.
How are we to respond to such a development? How has the nation and its governments responded? With total silence and acceptance. Such acquiescence indicates that without our knowing it and without our permission, the rules of presidential eligibility have changed, and native-born now is accepted as meaning natural born regardless of them being unrelated.
Well, if that is the only hand that we’ve been dealt, then that is the how we must now play the game. Rubio and Jindal are eligible!! Who dares dispute that fact? Only crack-pots and crazies. After all, everyone knows that any native-born citizen is eligible to be President


by Adrien Nash Sept. 22, 2015 obama–

In two column PDF format:  The Obama – Rubio – Jindal Violation of the Constitution


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”.

9 Responses to The Obama – Rubio – Jindal Violation of the Constitution

  1. davidfarrar says:

    I still say an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen is a person born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty.

  2. arnash says:

    You view is treasonous to the citizens of the United States. You assign the national sovereignty to the STATE but our nation’s founders assigned it to We, The People, to the citizens who secured it and not to the Plutocrats who run the government like a rider who has strapped a saddle on a horse that was born free and born to BE free.
    Birth under the authority of the US government is irrelevant to the principle of natural membership. Either membership in our nation, and every nation, is natural or it is artificial. Natural citizens are those who naturally constitute the nation and their membership is the result of natural inheritance of their parents’ membership via right of descent, via natural political transmission, via socio-political inheritance.
    This is not rocket science but you want to make NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY into a damn religion and toss Nature and Nature’s God into the dustbin of ignored truth.

    As soon as your mind develops a crack wide enough for the light of reality to shine into it, you might contemplate just what the hell a natural citizen is. You do not want to do that because you are a damn statist who ascribes all ultimate authority to government and not to the governed. They still exist as a people even without the government, and their membership in their own society is something with which they were born, or is something that they had no right to but were given as a gift of the natural citizens who allow such adopted citizens to join their society.

    That magnanimity is not universal in this world. The third generation of Koreans in Japan are STILL Korean and NOT Japanese. The Japanese people and government to not give them anything. They must personally seek and strive to obtain Japanese citizenship. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT SOVEREIGNTY THEY WERE BORN UNDER! And it does not matter what sovereignty a Japanese child is born under. They are Japanese no matter where they are born because they are born as natural members of their parents’ nation.

    So in place of defending your defenseless doctrine, why don’t you instead simply try to understand what natural membership is? Are you a natural member of your own nation or were you adopted into membership?
    Citizenship is either a natural or is an artificial thing, NOT a merely legal thing. Natural Citizenship is not ascribed based on laws but on a blood relationship just as family membership is ascribed or determined based on a blood relationship.

    Why can’t your blocked mind grasp such an elementary truth? Why are you against natural membership and natural relationships determining such membership? I could understand your mindset if you were a robot. That would justify your view, but not if you are a human being who has family members.
    In your universe there are no natural relationship, there are no family members because there are no natural families. There are only *legal* families with children assigned to them by the State. All membership is determined by it and not by the parents and their role in nature. You can’t imagine how pathetic defending such a view appears.

    • A “Natural-Born Citizen” is one BORN IN a country of Parents who are both citizens themselves”-Minor v Happersett, US Supreme Court, (1875). Pure and simple.
      [Nash notes: Yes, that is simple but it is very impure due to the fact that it is a fantasy, a religious-like dogma based on nothing natural. It is in fact totally UNNATURAL.
      But worse than that, it is treasonous to fundamental American Natural Rights, Right passed down from father to son, from parents to children, passed down by blood relationship. It is the natural right of BELONGING, of MEMBERSHIP, of INCLUSION by blood connection, of INHERITANCE, of BIRTHRIGHT, of the Right of Descent.
      To understand the truth, you need to read “The David Ramsey Dissertation Revelation” that explains the fundamental truths about American citizenship.
      Ramsey was a historian and founding father of the nation. Without knowing what he revealed one will fall blindly right into the pit of presumption created by false logic, false assumption, and false understanding of the English language.]

      An NBC is one with US Jus Soli AND 100% US Jus Sanquinis. That makes Obama,McCain,Rubio,Jindal,Santorum,Cruz and Swarzenegger INELIGIBLE to be President under current Law.

      [Nash notes: Jus soli is the system of nationality assignment imposed by the British monarchical supporting government, and is antithetical to American values. Were it constitutionally required, the Constitution would say something other than what it says; it would say: “No person except a native-born natural citizen shall be eligible…” but it does NOT say that, and never will no matter how hard one’s imagination strives to alter that fact. One must simply be born as a natural citizen.
      No discrimination is imposed based on birth place. The only discrimination is based on age, residency, and origin of citizenship. Any belief that adds to that fact is in fact a sociological religion.]
      Obama and Biden usurped their respective offices.
      [Biden usurped nothing. To say that he did reveals that you know nothing.]
      Obama is our second usurper. Chester Arthur was our first. Cruz,Rubio,Santorum and Jindal are illegally attempting to do the same.
      [Santorum was born of an American father who was born of a naturalized father. You are uninformed of the facts that have been uncovered regarding his father’s and grandfather’s history. His grandfather was a US citizen when his father was born.
      The constitutional eligibility of Cruz is still unknown because it is unknown whether his stateless father had become a Canadian citizen before or after he was born.]

  3. arnash says:

    Regarding Marco Rudio, and his common law, 14th Amendment citizenship. He was born as a naturalized alien-born foreigner having no natural nationality since his parents were both stateless persons at the time of his birth. Citizenship was legally bestowed upon him thanks to the status quo interpretation of the 14 amendment language.
    But understand this: no person who is a legal citizen is eligible to be President because they are an artificial/ adopted-citizen and not a natural citizen by birth. Only American couples can produce a natural citizen.
    Birth location is totally irrelevant to natural membership just as it is for all animals, families, tribes, clans, peoples, and countries on the planet. No child of a citizen or a king is devoid of his natural right of membership because of the irrelevant location of his entry to the world. Otherwise every child born in a hospital and not under their parents’ roof would need to be adopted since their birth would be outside of the parents’ jurisdiction and authority.

    Would their birth location really make their child an alien to their family? The same question applies just as directly at the national level since it is a reflection of the natural family situation.

    Natural citizens are born of citizens. Legal citizens are born of aliens, or alien-citizen combos. If one’s citizenship is dependent on permission of government then one is not a natural citizen by right of descent but merely by the gift of a nation. Natural Citizen vs Legal Citizen. Only the former can be President constitutionally.

  4. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen to remain valid. [Nash notes: imprecise sentence structure; it is not the Constitution that remains valid but the President, and in his case, it is not a matter of remaining valid but of being valid from birth.]
    Anyone of any age can be elected President. [not constitutionally…meaning according to the rule of law]
    If the People elect an ineligible President, the Constitution is invalidated and the ineligible President must begin negotiating with the People to establish documented authority to govern the People by their consent.
    [Nash notes: both claims are erroneous. The Constitution cannot be rendered invalid except by its constitutional repeal, and an unconstitutional President is under no constitutional obligation whatsoever to negotiate with anyone regarding his legitimacy. If elected illegitimately, most people don’t care or know whether or not he is legitimate.]

    The People are sovereign and may elect a candidate in violation of the Eligibility Clause to withdraw the consent to be governed under the delegated authority granted to the US federal government through the Constitution.
    [Nash notes: the election of the President is NOT an “authority granted” by the Constitution. Neither Congress, nor the executive, nor the courts have a say in the election of the President. It is regulated by the requirements of the Constitution and is NOT delegated to the Federal government.]
    Electing an ineligible candidate is a mechanism used by the sovereign to separate from the US federal government in times of unhappiness. See The Federalist No. 78.
    [Nash notes: Now THAT is an original thought that I’ve never had nor heard, and it can’t be refuted by any argument that readily comes to mind.
    It is from the highest philosophical plane of human social existence, and derives from the ultimate authority being the will of The People and their unalienable right to be governed by the person of their choice, which may be outside of the dictate of the Constitution but still within the natural rights adopted as fundamental American Organic Law.
    The Constitution is only one element of that law but not the supreme element. The supreme element is the Right of the People to self-governance via the means that they deem best for themselves and the nation.]

    The Declaration of Independence, 1776, declared the unalienable right of the People to separate from any government, not just the British Empire. The sovereignty of the People is perpetual regardless of who is elected President.
    The delegated authority and sovereign immunity granted by the People to the US federal government is subject to termination in times of unhappiness.
    [Nash notes: That statement leaves a very incorrect implication, which is that The People decide democratically, meaning, in essence, by a majority vote. But that is an incorrect impression because the Constitution controls the delegated authority, not a mere majority vote of the People.
    For the People to alter the delegated authority requires a super-majority vote of The People; three-quaters of the States, not 51% of the electorate.]

    The federal officers of the US federal government are not authorized to prevent the People from ending their careers when the People are unhappy.
    [Nash notes: there is only one empowered federal officer that is chosen by the People, and that is the President. All other officers except the Vice-President are in turn chosen by him.
    The People cannot end their appointed careers, just as we could not end Eric Holder’s bastardized tenure as Attorney General. He was not chosen by us and could not be discharged by us regardless of how unhappy he made us.]

    • Read The Federalist No. 78 carefully. The Judicial branch and the Legislative branch of the US federal government must continue support of the US Constitution in times of unhappiness. The People are sovereign and use the ballot box to withdraw consent of delegated authority in times of unhappiness. The People are endowed with an unalienable right to separate themselves from any government in times of unhappiness, not just the British Empire. See the Declaration of Independence.

      Only the POTUS and VP are voted on by the People on with a common question presented to the People on a national basis. Neither the Courts nor the Congress are authorized to prevent the will of the People. The People are omnipotent and answer only to the Creator. The sovereignty of the People is perpetual. The sovereign immunity delegated to the US government by the People through the US Constitution is fleeting.

      The People withdraw the consent of the governed with a nationwide conspiracy by the majority to violate Article II with the election of an ineligible President. The Electors of the Electoral College serve as a check on the will of the majority. See Federalist No. 10. US federal officers are not authorized to support a President holding office in violation of Article II. Pursuant to Article VI, US federal officers must vacate their offices after an ineligible President is sworn in. Without the support of US federal officers, the ineligible President is forced to negotiate with the People to re-establish a republican form of government.

      • arnash says:

        Self-governing people have no right to attack or delegitimize the government of their own determination via the ballot box unless it can be shown and known that the whole process is rigged. If the process is not rigged, then they are bound by mutual agreement to obey the supreme law of the land and to obey all laws not in conflict with it. Their unhappiness is irrelevant to the process of change that is of their own choice and is binding upon them to follow in order to maintain law and order.

        “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.” A. Hamilton; Federalist 78

        Your term “separate themselves” has no meaning in a constitutional representative democracy. It DOES have great meaning under a monarchical dictatorship. And that is in part because there is no such thing as “the People” unless ALL of the people are of one universal view, kind of like under Hitler, and probably Napoleon. Otherwise, the People are likely to be of TWO minds, as during the revolution.

        “Neither the Courts nor the Congress are authorized to prevent the will of the People.” That is incorrect. Congress is constitutionally qualified to determine the qualification of the Pres. and VP for office, as are the members of the Electoral College. Read the 20th Amendment, Section III. It gives the full story of the power of Congress over the presidency.

        “The People are omnipotent and answer only to the Creator.” The sovereignty of the People is philosophically unlimited until they limit it themselves by their freely-agreed to national compact. After that they are bound by their own word and agreement. They are limited to the manner of change that they have agreed to since their have surrendered any right to use force as a substitute for the rule of law.

        “a nationwide conspiracy by the majority to violate Article II”
        When the People are ignorant and in the dark they may participate in such a conspiracy but unwittingly. That doesn’t mean that they would not have done so knowingly. They have that right, but Congress and the electoral college have the constitutional duty to vet the Pres. and VP and disqualify them if they are found to be unqualified.

        “Pursuant to Article VI, US federal officers must vacate their offices after an ineligible President is sworn in.”
        That is incorrect as worded since that obligation is not pursuant to Article VI but to their oath of office requiring that they defend the Constitution. willingly serving an unconstitutional President would violate their oath.

        ” the ineligible President is forced to negotiate with the People to re-establish a republican form of government.”
        That statement has no meaning since there is no mechanism by which it can happen. He must resign willingly or by force after the high court has agreed that his is ineligible or else a constitutional stalemate would result.

  5. arnash says:


    Peter Lettkeman says:
    Adrien’s statement: “those words are totally true only regarding a child born abroad having a foreign parent, but are totally false regarding an American child born abroad of American parents.” is actually not correct.
    Not just one or two but ALL of the justices agreed that those born outside the United States who acquire citizenship via Art 1 Sec 8 powers regardless of the citizenship of the parents are naturalized.
    Rogers v Bellei (1971) SCOTUS ~ ~ ~

    Peter, you need to mature to the point of not looking up to authority for authoritative truth. Truth is what is true, not what justices assume to be true. They can be, and all too often are, wrong! So please don’t throw their opinions in anyone’s face. That being said, your statement as written can be seen as factual because what it really says is that those who acquire citizenship via naturalization are naturalized.

    Well, of course that is a fact. What is NOT a fact is that the children of American couples are among those hybrid couples who produce children abroad, one of which happens to be an America. Such couples are totally incapable of ever producing a natural citizen of either nation as long as both of them are citizens of two different nations. Their children will need to be made into natural citizens via the legal fiction of natural-ization. That fiction is necessary to those who are not born of couples who are members of the nation. They have no natural right to national membership and so it must be provided to them by law, by statute.

    The statutes are written solely for those who have no natural right to citizenship, and that right is not related in any way to the geographical-political location of the mother’s womb when her child exits it. That right is in relation to only one thing, and that is the unalienable right of descent which follows the law of natural membership.

    Everyone needs to understand that Congress has no authority to grant citizenship to those who have a natural right to it. That right is not based on native-birth within national borders but on parental blood. If it is uniformly American, then the child produced by it is naturally, innately, inescapably American also. Americans produce Americans. Citizens produce citizens. Foreigners produce foreigners. Immigrants produce naturalized alien-born children who the government classifies with their parents as “Foreign stock”, not “American stock” even though they legally are citizens.

    But their citizenship is artificial because it is by permission and not by blood. They can never be natural citizens because you cannot change that which you are by birth. You were either born as a natural citizen or as a legal citizen, -or as an alien. The children of Americans are not born as aliens, nor as legal citizens. They need no law to make them that which they are naturally. The 14th Amendment is irrelevant to them, and not written for them.
    All of the confusion would have been totally avoided if only the framers had switched the position of the two adjectives and written instead: “No person, except a born natural citizen, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”

    Does it make a big difference in meaning if one writes: He was a wise old man.” ; or “He was an old wise man.”? The focus is different but not the meaning that is conveyed. There is no such term as “wise-old”, just as there is no such term in America as “natural-born”. There is only “born citizen”, “natural citizen”, “born natural citizen”, and “natural born citizen”.
    “Natural” defines which type of born citizen is allow to be President. Some citizens at birth are citizens by statute, some by amendment, while all others are citizens by nature, by natural inclusion. Only they are constitutionally eligible to serve.

    But that is now a detriment to the nation, not a protection. Treasonous natural born citizens seek to be our next socialist king following Obama. We can’t allow that to happen, even if it means playing by their rules, which is “no rules”. Bring a gun to their knife fight. Our alien-born citizens are such guns. We might lose the future without them and their passion and commitment to individual rights.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: