Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
2019
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.


Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.










Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Obama supporters have called George Washington a defacto "Natural Born Citizen". Can the case be made?

Can a case be made for NBC as applying to Presidents born before the ratification of the US Constitution, instead of simply just labeling these Presidents as 'Original Citizens"?

My answer is prefaced on the conditions of the Law of Nature, the Law of Nations, US Founders Originalist views, and US Supreme Court cases, etc., unlike the irrationality of Obama supporters who haven't the reasoning to get the Law right. But in order to keep on point, I will have to summarize and generalize for the reader.

Again: Can a case be made for NBC as applying to Presidents born before the ratification of the US Constitution, instead of simply just labeling these Presidents as 'Original Citizens"?

Yes, if the NBC status is a transmutation by being born on the very same geographical soil as jus soli, and is by parents who were citizens of the land and that citizenship status is attached to the succeeding Government by themselves directly or by their child indirectly (who thereby directly as the natural-born citizen child attaches them-self to the succeeding Government...in that case, jus sanguinis via the citizen father can be established and transmuted to the successive Governance.

In the Declaration of Independence, this transmutation reads as:
"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."

"...to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html


Thus, a natural born citizen of the colony of Virginia in the Old Governance, remains and is transmuted as a natural born citizen of the State of Virginia (and its Government attachments; i.e., Federal) in the New Governance.

Hence, even though George Washington was born a British Natural born citizen, by being a natural born citizen of a specific and geographic colony state that was transmuted into the Government of the United States, the direct attachments can be made both jus soli and jus sanguinis for George Washington as well.

Problem is, Barack still would NOT qualify to the Presidency of the United States because of his alien national father.

Barack's father was attached to the land of Kenya as a citizen of Kenya (and Great Britain) on the Continent of Africa, when Kenya was a British colony or "Commonwealth". There is no citizen father attachment (jus sanguinis) to the United States. By marriage, Barack's mother has temporarily given up her primary US Citizen status to that of her husband at the time of the child's birth, and fell under the primary nationhood of her husband (becoming a dual national). She regained her primary US  citizen status when she divorced years after Barack's birth. Therefore, the nation of Great Britain and the Commonwealth of Kenya had 75% preeminence upon Barack, no matter where he was born. Barack was born a natural-born citizen of Kenya, and was born a British citizen/subject. He has never renounced that British citizenship formally (even if we include his allowing his Kenyan Citizenship to lapse in 1984).

We do not even know if Barack is legally a United States citizen yet, or if he is an immigrant, as former Clinton official Bill Richardson said that he is. And naturalized or illegal as an immigrant, immigration of citizenship is an automatic dis-qualifier to the US Presidency.

In any case and in every case, even if Barack was born in the US, by the marriage of his mother to a Kenyan National as his biological father, it is impossible for Barack to to be a US Natural Born Citizen.


In regard to the Colonial and pre-Constitution born US Presidents:

The TRANSMUTATION of natural-born citizenship to the United States was relegated to those who were born in the 13 State colonies before July 4, 1776, as well as those born before the writing and ratification of the US Constitution. It applies only to those in that period of history that were citizens by jus soli and jus sanguinis before the Revolution, and made a transitional allegiance to the New Government that would be the United States AFTER the war was over.

Those who were Tories and loyal to the Crown and chose NOT to attach themselves to the allegiance of the State in which they lived, chose NOT to attach themselves to the Confederacy of United States, nor the Federalization of the United States as a Republic with the ratification of the Constitution...these became as aliens and foreign citizens, even if aliens in the lands of their birth because their allegiance was to a foreign crown or foreign sovereign power.

The Original Citizenship being transmuted as a duality of being Natural-Born under the conditions of a Citizen Father attached to the soil by location and blood lineage (inheritance) and Governance of that same soil as a citizen is impossible to be allowed to be brought down or interpreted in our own day, and outside the context of the American Colonies - the American Revolution - and the formation of the Republic of the United States of America.

Why is it impossible to take an 18th Century exception and apply it in the 20th or 21st? Because anyone who is a US Citizen and loyal to foreign powers or foreign authorities, be they Roman Catholic or Muslim Terrorists, in such an instance can be stripped of their US Citizenship by mere transmutation of allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. In order for transmutation to work, a living natural born citizen of 2 US parents would have to transmute his same geographic soil and parentage into a New Government by which he chooses to participate in. Hence, a United States of Socialist Communist America, or USSCA new governance could transmute any United States Republic Natural Born Citizen that wishes to join the USSCA that overthrows the US Constitution, and accept these as transmutedNatural Born Citizens...while those like me, who are current NBC under the Republic of the United States, would become aliens in our own land, and subject to execution or liquidation by the New Government (if such is allowed to come about).

Those who were NBC colonials and Tories before, during, and after the War of Independence in the late 1700s, found themselves also as aliens in the land of their parents, their birth, and their prior citizenship after the Revolution was over, and many obviously chose to leave rather than join the New Nation.

In the 19th Century we have what we might better label as a condition of "Reversible Temporary or Transitional Transmutation". There were those born in the Southern States between 1861 and 1865, even though born to a breakaway Confederacy, and as if under an authority foreign to the US, because they were born on US soil to recognized States and citizen parents of those same States who were its citizens before - during - after the War for the Southern Confederacy, even those children were transmuted into a "natural born" US Citizenship.

Had the South successfully broken away, the natural born citizenship allowance in the Southern Confederacy Constitution was so stated for those born in Southern States that were once natural born citizens of the United States and to a citizen father attached to both the United States and its lands by legience...they could transmute their US citizenship status into the new Confederate Government by legience, and run for the Presidency of the Confederacy. But since the South lost the war, the transmutation of citizenship back to the original Governance made this political action as if it never was.

An excellent foreign scenario (by historic example) might be those Jews attached to lands in Galilee since the time of Christ whose transmutations of natural born status (through the fathers) occurred over many generations, many occupations, and many Governments.

But lest I digress...
There is no way, none (ever) that Barack Obama's father can ever claim any attachment to the US as its citizen and confer such a transmutation of any kind of US Citizenship upon his son. His British Citizenship allows only for the transmutation of that soil and colony to which Barack Sr. was attached to be transferred to Barack Jr....that of Kenya. And if Kenya so recognized, a British Commonwealth citizenship to the age of 23...not of Kenya proper, according to its Minister of Lands and parliament members (in their view). They apparently view the British Commonwealth citizenship as if it were a separate issue, and still view Barack Jr. as an "active" Kenyan Citizen overseas.


Hence, be it with the Colonies to the Republic, the Confederacy of the 19th Century, or the Colonies of foreign powers, it appears that we also can use entail either to its greater or lesser degree -- (the lesser simply being the rights granted by lineage, even though not seized upon to be actively exercised) -- to validate the act of transmutation of allegiance while being attached to the same land.

Entail in regard to 18th Century America, is that lineage of estates to a specific line of heirs, and relevant to many (but not all) the pre-Constitution birthed US Presidents.

Only in the case of Andrew Jackson (though some may argue Van Buren also), is there a question as to parental citizen status. In the case of Jackson, it is because of the death of his Scottish immigrant father (and his unknown citizen status), and the unknown length of immigration attachments to the Carolinas, and whether his parents had even established the required citizenship attachments in the Carolinas prior to Andrew Jackson's birth (even though his father died prior to his birth).

That distinction would likely label Andrew Jackson as the ONLY "Born Citizen" via "jus soli", and under specified exemption listed in Article 2.1 of the US Constitution.

"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...."

We know Andrew fought as a boy in the Revolution, and attached himself as a citizen to the State of North Carolina, though is believed to have been born in the Colony of South Carolina...the citizen status of his parents (their citizen attachment to South Carolina before his birth) is in question.

“Andrew Jackson was born on March 15, 1767, in the Waxhaw settlement, a community of Scotch-Irish immigrants along the border between North and South Carolina. Though his birthplace is in dispute, he considered himself a South Carolina native. His father died before his birth and Andrew's mother and her three small boys moved in with her Crawford relatives.”
http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/jackson/essays/biography/2


Therefore, it appears that Andrew Jackson only, and no one else born before the Adoption of the US Constitution, was able to avail himself of the clause: "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".   Jackson had become a 21 year old recognized citizen of the United States prior to the full ratification and adoption of the US Constitution.

ALL THE OTHERS WERE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS OF TRANSMUTED STATUS.

The Entail multi-generational "jus soli" attachment verifies the facts of what I say. A citizen born in Nazi occupied France of two French national parents is still a French natural born citizen when the land is liberated by the Americans in WW2. The land is the same, the parents are the same, and the transmutation into the citizenship of the New Government establishes this. Barack's father, born in Kenya to two Kenyan Citizen parents, when Kenya was transmuted from being a British Colony, and Barack Sr. stayed on to be a Kenyan national in the same lands he was previously adjoined to, was still called a Kenyan Natural Born Citizen, even though birthed in a British Colony (Kenya).

Thus, to be attached to the land their natural born Colonial status that was thereby merely transmuted into natural-born US Citizenship at the time the United States came into being. And in the case of James Madison, if I am not mistaken, Primogeniture (first-born rights to land inheritance) assists in aiding that veracity as well.


1) George Washington - A Natural Born citizen of the American Colony of Virginia.
“The ancestors of George Washington were among the first settlers of the oldest British colony in America. He was the third in descent from John Washington, an English gentleman, who about the middle of the 17th century emigrated from the north of England, and settled in Westmoreland county, Virginia. In the place where he had fixed himself, his great grandson, the subject of the following history, was born on the 22d of February, 1732. His immediate ancestor was Augustine Washington, who died when his son George was only ten years old.”The Life of George Washington, By David Ramsay, 1807, Chapter One

George Washington was a Natural Born Citizen of the American Colonies, and a son of a natural born American Colony father.


2) John Adams was a natural-born citizen of the Colony of Massachusetts via his father, who was a farmer, a tax collector, a Lt. in the local militia, and a Church Deacon.

3) Thomas Jefferson was a natural-born citizen of the colony of Virginia through both his father and mother.

“His father Peter Jefferson was a successful planter and surveyor and his mother Jane Randolph a member of one of Virginia's most distinguished families.”
http://www.monticello.org/jefferson/biography.html



4) James Madison was a natural-born citizen of the colony of Virginia.
Raised on a plantation in sight of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, James Madison, born on March 16, 1751, was a sickly child who never strayed far from his mother's side. His father, James Madison Sr., acquired substantial wealth by inheritance and also by his marriage to Nelly Conway, the daughter of a rich tobacco merchant.
http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/madison/essays/biography/2



5) James Monroe was a third-generation natural-born citizen of the Colony of Virginia
"Born on April 28, 1758, in Westmoreland County, Virginia, James Monroe enjoyed all the advantages accruing to the son of a prosperous planter. His father, Spence Monroe, traced his ancestry back to relative who had fought at the side of Charles I in the English civil wars before being captured and exiled to Virginia in 1649."http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/monroe/essays/biography/2


6) John Quincy Adams , born on July 11, 1767, was the son of John Adams , and like his father, was both a natural-born citizen of the colony of Massachusetts who went on to serve as President of the United States of America.


7) William Harrison was born on February 9, 1773, and was a natural-born citizen of the colony of Virginia.

8) Martin Van Buren was born on December 5, 1782 in liberated New York State, to two Dutch naturalized parents who attached their citizenship to Kinderhook, New York and to the tentative State of New York; and hence, most likely a natural born citizen of the tentative State of New York, though this is not 100% absolute that his parents were full Kinderhook, New York citizens at the time of his birth. They were certainly a year to at most two years afterwards.

Thus, he may be the only other President born before the US Constitution who would have to avail himself of the same clause as Andrew Jackson, now expired and non extant.


9) Zachary Taylor was born on November 24, 1784 to the tentative State of Virginia as a natural-born citizen of the tentative State of Virginia.


I use the term "tentative" in the sense of "trial" to describe the pre-State Constitution era of law. Hence, a "tentative State" was a pre-Federal State, that was inclusive of the individual pre-State Constitutional condition. Such times as when the State had not ratified its own Statehood and Constitution, and specifically had not Federally joined itself to other States via the US Constitution (even though it had joined other states by means of the tentative Confederacy as United States, or to that effect).

This NBC possibility of George Washington and other pre-Constitution issue is a hot button topic that I believe I have easily resolved, and would be accepted by the majority of the US Supreme Court if we are ever able to be given the opportunity to even present and argue the ineligibility of Barack Obama the Usurper before the Court.

3 comments:

  1. www.HamlinForCongress.com Robyn Hamlin is a candidate in Missouri's first congressional district that I think you agree with.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Part 1 reply:

    I hesitate on her position that:
    "our military and our tax dollars should only be used to defend our country on foreign soil when Congress has declared a war."

    If as President, I wanted to send an air strike or cruise missile to take out a terrorist nest of those who have attacked and declared war on America, though on foreign soil, I would give the green light to take them out as soon as I had the confirmed intelligence, and would notify Congress that I acted immediately and utilized the US Taxpayer dollars to this effect in regard to exigency, hitting their lair ASAP (before they had a chance to move).

    I am not some appeaser who takes a back seat to the defense of the United States of America, but I take the Cold War position of the US needing to be willing to take the fight to the enemy, and more harshly than any President of the United States has ever done previously. For example, I advocate and endorse the US in using the Neutron Bomb in the remote mountain canyons of Afghanistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda, and can justify that position.

    If an enemy strikes here, and Congress will not act...we need the freedom to strike back to specific targets for cases of exigency and surgical actions or in cases of self defense of the military. We also need the freedom for our civilian intelligences services to operate with a free hand (within reason) without divulging those specific activities to Congress, where Congress or their staffers intentionally leak the data, and that leakage is directly responsible in getting our agents killed.

    Her wording leaves open even the obvious concerns, that if China fires missiles from a frigate at a US Carrier, that the Carrier must wait for Congress before engaging a hostile enemy or even defending itself without prior Congressional approval.

    My orders as President would be, that if you are clearly and unmistakeably fired upon, wipe the enemy battery firing on you out and pull back, and call it in.

    The prohibition of retaliatory action is commonly uncceptable, such as with even Somali pirates. My Executive Actions, if I were President (and hence I would thus require the allowance to any true US NBC President -- which Obama isn't), would be to send in airstrikes that would flatten their known villages and sink all vessels of the location(s) of origin, as well as dealing directly to annihilate the immediate assault by the pirates themselves. I would not be using taxpayer dollars to send in a St. Louis Pizza Restaurant staff and party on (as Obama did), and make excuses for terrorists every time there is a Muslim attacking the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Part 2 reply, cont'd from part 1:


    If a Saudi King personally sent in 9/11 hijackers or a next wave, and we had specific proof of this in real-time, exigency may or may not require his liquidation or vaporization removal (depending upon advisement and circumstances), and Congress could declare a war on that nation after any exigent action taken (if they were of a mind to).

    I suggest that Robyn Hamlin would please modify her position to the specificity that does NOT take the ACLU concept of Congress being the Deity in which life and death decisions that will require inaction until actions by Congress are made. That is the role of the Executive, who is then accountable to Congress.

    Such a position is a clear RED Flag of either a Communist Subversive or someone who simply has not thought their ideological position through.

    Unless some past to present loyalty to the Communists, Socialists, or radical members of the DNC can be established, we must give Robyn the benefit of the doubt that she simply and innocently has not fully thought through her position in regard to the fatal flaw as quoted from her at her website (above, opening sentence).

    The very notion of depending on the right of self-defense and the right of surgical strikes to be made alone through Congress granting war rights, and dragging its feet to do so while the military is then hampered from even firing back, is a fatal flaw that she needs to amend.

    To top-heavy even a smaller Congress with Executive branch consultation powers beyond its scope will invite terrorism, war, and cost countless lives.

    She needs to not only amend her position, but must truly ideologically believe such is the correct view, and follow through on that.

    Thanks for the reference, though. Peace.

    ReplyDelete