My Blogs on Obama, Summarized

In 2008 I challenged attorney Phil Berg’s claim that candidate Obama was not a U.S. citizen. Berg responded in vigorous defense. That challenge is detailed in my first blog of Feb-2009.

I went on to research the concept of Article II’s Natural Born Citizen.

The arguments over ‘What is a Natural Born Citizen’ are extensive and sometimes complex. There are questions of dual nationality, jurisdiction, two schools of case law precedent, dicta versus judicial notice, conflicting definitions of ‘naturalization,’ the role of British common law, the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, Minor vs. Happerset, and the Jus Soli – Jus Sanguinis debate.

I have engaged Obama supporters in argument, but my final goal was to take all of that complexity and emotionally-charged bias and distill it into one pure drop of truth, or compress it into a perfect small diamond with clarity in all its facets.

Jefferson’s advice on reading constitutional law suggests we take the use of ‘natural born citizen’ in John Jay’s letter to George Washington, in a clause following the admonission not to allow “Foreigners” into the new government. The ‘natural born citizen’ clause extends the ban on ‘Foreigners’ to anyone having ‘alienage’ from birth; therefore the Natural Born Citizen is perfectly defined by comparing the two clauses.

The intent of the framers in Article II was to bar anyone with alienage from birth to the commander-in-chief. Obama admits he was born with British nationality through his father; his U.S. citizenship at birth was determined by his mother’s legal capacity to confer, not merely birth on U.S. soil. Neither qualify him as a natural born citizen.

In the proverbial nutshell, a Natural Born Citizen is Born Without Alienage.

Alienage at birth today is the result of a alien parent. Wong Kim Ark and the 1922 Cable Act inadvertently created the Dual National at birth, i.e., a conflict of nationality jurisdictions. That conflict must be resolved statutorily when the child reaches the age of decision, but it allows ‘nationality of convenience.’

English common law does not define Natural Born Citizen. While the jurists claim their interpretation through common law is superior to Parliamentary Act, jurisprudence states that statute must be followed by the courts and the 1722 British Nationality Act favored Jus Sanguinis citizenship of children of British subjects born outside the King’s dominion.

The American colonies followed Jus Soli as they were completely subject to the crown. However, once the United States was incorporated and the First Uniform Naturalization law passed in 1790, Jus Sanguinis was the sole manner of acquiring citizenship; it was through the free citizen father, not the domination of the King.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo has written briefs that are as complete a legal analysis as can be found out there. My blogs are pretty good too, but my intent was to simplify the complex and conflicting laws into the pure intent of the framers so that anyone could understand quickly, and without doubt.

I hope they help.


8 Responses to “My Blogs on Obama, Summarized”

  1. Steven Lee Craig Says:

    I doubt this post is meant as a solicitation for thanks and praise, but both are earned and deserved for your volume of work on this subject and the ancillary topics that in many ways are the result of the usurpation in the first place.

    Many of us have become aware that these things are NOT ‘politics as usual’ and recognize that the Constitutional slight of not respecting the needs of Article II serves the offenders as if proof that the Constitution is “dead”.

    I agree that you, along with ‘Mario’, ‘Leo’, and innumerable others have fought the good fight in keeping the issue and intellectual honesty as close to the front burner as possible.

    I am preparing a ‘work’ that will posit only a slightly different approach to the subject under the draft title of ;

    An Inquiry into the Constitutional Legal Status of Article II Section I Clause V and specifically the term of words made “idiom” by its Constitutional usage,“natural born Citizen” being a Subject of the Clause; Article 2 Section 1 Clause V……….

    The approach being to EXCLUDE all historical sources except those whose authorities are derived from the Constitution its-self. Interestingly the inquiry ends with the 1795 naturalization Act leaving the Minor v Opinion as the only Judiciary contribution to the considerations.

    I hope you will agree to parse the proposition for its correctness and completeness.

    Regardless, stay the course, stay engaged and stay in grace.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      My position with you has always been ‘term of art’ or ‘idiom?’

      Was John Jay’s usage idiomatic, or did his creation of a ‘term of art’ become idiomatic with the abuse of time and ignorance?

      An interesting distinction in the law.

      • JQ Says:

        It is a rule of English language that adjectives describe an attribute of a noun. For example:

        the red bird – not just any bird, only the red bird
        the green crayon – not any crayon, only the green crayon

        The noun is modified by the adjective such that only those nouns having the specific characteristic are included.

        “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…” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl 5.

        The noun “citizen” in the first clause is qualified by the adjective phrase “natural born”. By the rule of English grammar, therefore:

        1) “Natural born citizen” is more specific than “citizen”
        2) “Natural born citizen” is a subset of “citizen”
        3) “Natural born” is a specific characteristic appertaining to some citizens but not all

        Citizens are added to the United States by naturalization and by birth in the United States. The 14th Amendment defined “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

        Birth in the United States is a necessary element for “citizen” and is, on its own, sufficient for “citizen”.

        As previously established, “natural born citizens” are a subset of “citizens”. Therefore birth in the United States is a necessary element for “natural born citizen” but is, on its own, insufficient for “natural born citizen”.

        Another factor is required.

        Article II explicitly requires a difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”

        If the citizenship of the parents is not the determining factor between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”, I want to know what that factor is.

        People “born in the United States” are born to parents who are either citizens or aliens.

        Which citizens “born in the United States” are “natural born citizens”, the children of citizens or the children of aliens? Or both?

        It would be irrational to grant to the children of aliens, and deny to the children of citizens, the privilege of eligibility for the Office of President.

        If it is contended that the answer is “both the children of citizens as well as the children of aliens are natural born citizens”, then a plausible claim as to what factor other than the citizenship of the parents determines between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” is required.

        “Natural born citizen” must mean citizens born from citizen parents.

        I conclude that Jay’s usage was and continues to be ordinary English usage.

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        Your logic takes a long journey when a short one would do better.

        The natural born citizen clause had the intent of denying foreigners in our goverment, and any foreign influence in our president FROM BIRTH.

        Therefore, a dual national (unheard of prior to the error of the 1922 Cable Act) is automatically ineligible to the presidency . . . is that so hard to understand?

  2. Steven Lee Craig Says:

    You are using a ‘tense’ derived from the etymological root of the word idiom that suggest the ‘term of words’ was unknown but for the usage in the Constitution, whereas I assign the the term of words as the root source in ‘becoming’ an “idiom” by its usage within the Constitution for a specific purpose of ‘exclusion’ of certain ‘persons and the ‘intent’ of the attempt toward alleviating a national security concern.

    Two (2) distinct purposes imbued into a term of words that then is joined by the “transient Political aspect’ of being a significant “statutory Constitutional prerequisite imperative requirement provision’ in regards to the Executive Office; and all the while enjoying a common understanding on its own making for a total of four(4) ‘characteristics’ within a single set of ‘term of words’ does indeed an “idiom” make.

    I have suggested, with the above in mind, that it is a ‘wholly’ American “Idiom” when used in reference to its Constitutional usage, but get a little flack from those that are etymologically challenged.

  3. arnash Says:

    I seems we’ve both gone through a clarifying process which comes down to not being reliant on Supreme Court writings and rulings from many generations after the Constitution was written. Sticking with the original fundamental facts and the principles behind them is the only proper way to go to ascertain the simple truth. [emphasis by paraleaglenm]

    I think I’ve reached the end of this road after having written about natural citizenship from every conceivable angle, (today I undertook for the first time to see my writing in print after getting my idle printers finally working again, -a whole year has passed without seeing a single word in hard-copy until today)
    Yesterday I capped all of my written labors with a graphic diagram of the facts about citizenship. It’s a response to Dr. Conspiracy’s over-simplistic diagram from a few days ago. He and his kind have to religiously stick to the dichotomy of there only being two kinds of citizens, -natural born and naturalized while ignoring the fact that there are three kinds of naturalized citizens and three kinds of “native-born” persons.
    Anyway, the diagram explains it all and I hope it will receive wide distribution. I placed it in three sizes on the home page of my blog, -the largest being print size 8.5×11. Here’s the double screen-size version:

    I’ve also put together a fact-by-fact compilation of the simple facts about membership in general, along with a similar list about American citizenship A to Z -it has 26 facts that explain everything.
    It’s about a page & a half. It’s a highly distilled compendium of the “what is” and “what isn’t” true in the fewest words possible. It’s pretty devastating to the arguments in favor of Obama’s presidency.

    I’d also like to share this: “Why Legal Citizens Are Ineligible To Be President”

    from a valley in the Redwoods, Adrien Nash http://obama–

  4. JQ Says:

    I’d like to second SL Craig’s words of thanks. Your research and analysis has contributed to public understanding of Article II, and the law applicable to the particular issues accompanying Obama.

    Regarding the issue of parents of differing citizenship only one of which is US, in my opinion the following should apply.

    At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the citizenship of the wife followed that of the husband. The husband and wife were a single entity, politically, and legally. The parents had a unity of citizenship, and that citizenship was exclusively US (and their state). There was no foreign citizenship.

    It is no longer the case that the wife’s citizenship or suffrage follows that of the husband. This leads to circumstances of competing citizenship between the parents.

    The intent of the natural-born requirement is to provide a “strong check to the admission of foreigners”.

    At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the parents had a unity of citizenship. In my opinion we should continue to abide by that standard of unity. Just as it is accepted that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President, the same prohibition should apply to dual citizenship.

    John Quincy

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      To have a ‘strong check on the admission of foreigners’ to the administration of government, in particular ZERO foreign alienage, from birth, for the commander-in-chief.

      Somehow that straightforward and logical bit of advice, bordering on the obvious, was undermined with the creation of ‘constitutional law’ that a child of alien parents was a ‘citizen at birth.’ That ‘citizen at birth,’ admittedly a dual national, was conflated into a ‘natural born citizen.’

      The result has been a mass invasion of our borders from the south. Illegal immigration now outnumbers legal long-term visa holders by as much as 30-to-1, making our INS system for processing lawful immigrants inconsequential. In fact, one legal immigrant from Mexico was going through the tedious government hoops for becomming a citizen during the 1986 Reagan Amnesty. However, he was denied amnesty. Eventually, he became a citizen and worked decades as a contractor for NASA.

      A more recent and extreme example is the son of an non-immigrant alien, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., claiming presidential Article II eligibility merely for having a Hawaiian certification of live birth, unwitnessed by any doctor or licensed birthing facility. Even after it was made clear in SR511 challenging candidate John McCain’s foreign-birth establishing that have two U.S. citizens (and no dual nationality from place of birth) satisfied Article II’s natural born citizen clause, no politician had the guts to challenge Obama’s admission that he had British nationality at birth. Instead, they praised his ‘wordly’ perspective having been raised as a Muslim and in Indonesia.

      At the time of the writing of Article II’s natural born citizen clause, both British law (1772 British Nationality Act) and U.S. law (1790 Uniform Naturalization Act) would have determined Obama’s birth one of a British subject. There was no ‘dual national’ agreement with Britain in any treaty . . . a woman did not confer her maiden nationality except through administrative action (a form of naturalization) determining the alien father had abandoned the family, or the child was adopted as a bastard.

      Yet, no-one challenged Obama’s obvious foreign origins, nationality, and political philosophies . . . because they feared Black retribution and riots.

      When a small, ignorant, immoral and violent segment of the population has that much influence over law enforcement, even oversight of our constitution, then we have lost our society out of cowardice. Emmerich de Vattel warned that a society that did not raise its voice in protest over the undermining of its sovereignty deserved to lose that sovereignty.

      In Florida, a licensed and trained concealed gun permit holder disobeyed the advice (not police order) of a 911 dispatcher and followed a suspicious lone character walking between the buildings, not on the street. The advice was to prevent Zimmerman from danger in case the lone walker was, indeed, a criminal. It was not to stop Zimmerman from being a vigilante, or ‘stalking’ the lone figure in the dark, with gun in hand as so many try to describe the incident. Indeed, if Zimmerman said, “I’m going to go after this ‘puke, asshole,’ (words recorded Zimmerman using prior to the dispatcher asking what the lone walker was, ‘white, hispanic . . .’ “I think he’s black,” said Zimmerman in reply.)

      Yet, the state special prosecutor has set aside the original special investigation, a nine-hour CSI assessment of the crime scene and interrogation of Zimmerman until 3 AM, and called this ‘Profiling.’ In addition, the prosecutor has insinuated that the very fact that Zimmerman followed the lone walker (Martin) and had a gun was a sufficient test of ‘depraved mind, and evil intentions’ against Martin, thus invoking the 2nd Degree Murder charge.

      Contrary to the prosecutor’s fiction, real eye-witness testimony and thorough (‘police were stupid’ Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.) police investigation proved, with a preponderance of evidence, that Zimmerman was being pummeled and his head traumatized by Martin, who had Zimmerman trapped. Zimmerman yelled for ‘help,’ but when this witness hid inside their condo, Zimmerman pulled his Kel-Tec 9mm (a very compact and thin gun) from his INSIDE THE WAISTBAND HOLSTER, i.e., concealed from view, especially at night and with a jacket on, and shot Martin once in the chest at point-blank range.

      The evidence of self-defense is so clear, e.g., physical injuries and condition of clothing supporting Zimmerman’s story, that the Sanford Police Department had no choice, under Florida law, but to release him.

      Yet, a mob, an ignorant mob backed by radical race-mongers (Rev. Sharpton, Jackson, and Obama) demanded ‘justice’ through protests, random beatings of white people, and shooting of police cars.

      If the judge hearing the preliminary ‘not guilty’ plea for reason of self-defense supports the special prosecutor ‘fiction,’ and weak fiction at that, then we have to fear that the ‘powers that be’ from Washington, DC have put Federal pressure on state law enforcement and the judiciary to find Zimmerman guilty; Zimmerman being a sacrificial ‘goat’ to the black mob.

      Why do I include this story? Because if we, and by ‘we’ I mean the media, the judiciary, and our own 2008 presidential candidate, cannot stand up to a group of violent and ignorant protestors, then our constitution is lost.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: