The Way of the Jedi

Transitioning to a new website

2011-01-22T18:50:00.001-08:00

Please follow my newer articles at my website,
http://www.jedipauly.com

Legal Proof of the Meaning of 'natural born Citizen'

2010-10-02T06:38:00.000-07:00

Here is an excerpt of a correspondence I had with a representative of one of the many attorneys who have cases pending in the Courts who are trying to expose and remove the fraud Obama. This correspondence is useful to teach anyone the true self-evident meaning of 'natural born Citizen'. I have redacted the parts that indicate to whom the correspondence was sent, in order to protect the ignorant. I have sent this to all of the attorneys involved with Obama fraud.

Let me respectfully show you your error.

You say "Since the courts do not agree with you,..."

In fact, that is a false statement. I am in total agreement with all of the case law and they are all in total agreement with me. There is no conflict. Everything fits together perfectly and makes perfect sense. The problem is with your legal reasonings and interpretations, not mine. Curious that you just assert without any reasoned explanation as to what in particular in case law is at odds with me. I see no disagreement in the case law with my correct objective legal interpretation.

You seem to be of the mind that you must look to the courts for precedent in order to make sense out of what you believe to be an undefined legal term in Article II. This seems to be the basis of your bogus legal theory that is very easy to shoot down as a gross error in logical reason and Law. You can see how absurd this is with simple logic. If 'natural born Citizen' was not already well defined in Article II, then that would mean that the Framers crafted the requirements for the highest political office in the country (President) with nebulous undefined legal phrases that were intended to be interpreted at a later date in the future by judges, and subject to change by stare decisis, when in fact only a Constitutional Amendment can change the Constitution. Therefore, the term must already be well-defined. Your error is that you do not realize that the legal precedent that defines it has already been established outside of the jurisdiction of the Courts and future Congresses by the CONTEXT of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (Article II) itself, as well as the historical reality of the war of 1776 which created a Sovereign Republic of Sovereign citizens, and not a Monarchy of citizen 'subjects' of the Positive Law jurisdiction of the King, which was the situation in the Colonies under English Common Law. Also, you need the context of the legal jurisdictions of Natural Law and Positive Law and the definition of Sovereign and the rules of English grammar. That is all you need to see the self-evident meaning that was intended for the average person to understand, not for just lawyers and judges!

The obvious meaning and interpretation of 'natural born Citizen' is in the nature of what the framers called a SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH. It is a logical construct and natural extension of the Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are Created equal,..."), and the results of the war of 1776, and the legal realities of those consequences and the CONTEXT of the Constitution and Article II.

The problem with a self-evident truth is that it can only be realized as a reality and fact of life by looking within yourself and accepting that the objective facts of Nature are real. Self-evident means that each person must realize and accept the objective fact of Nature for themselves and no one else can convince you. I cannot convince you that "...all men are Created equal etc.." is a self-evident truth and a factual reality of life, if you do not want to believe it or accept it. The Framers realized for themselves that it was a self-evident truth because it is an objective fact of Nature and Law (means both Natural Law and Positive Law) that they themselves discovered and realized. That means that everyone must realize the self-evident objective truth of Nature for themselves, or else for you it is just an opinion of those that wrote the Declaration of Independence, and not a scientific objective reality that is independent of mankind's opinion and is realized by you to be objective truth. In the same fashion, I cannot convince you that the meaning of 'natural born Citizen' is a self-evident truth in the context of Article II, and just obviously means one who is created by his father at birth to inherit a sovereign political authority as a sovereign U.S. citizen from his sovereign U.S. citizen father, and that your mom and place of birth are irrelevant because you do not inherit sovereign political authority as a function of Natural Law from females or soil jurisdictions, and that is all it means. It's totally true and objectively provable. It happens to be an objective and factual self-evident truth of Nature and Law that is just a consequence of logic and reason and fact that I myself realize, that is a direct consequence of History, the Declaration of Independence, Article II and the fact that "natural born Citizen' is spelled with a capitol 'C' as a PROPER NOUN which is referring to a special TYPE of citizen known as a Sovereign citizen. However, I cannot make you believe and accept this truth of logic and reason if you don't want to, or will not accept it. As a self-evident truth, by definition, you must convince yourself, the same way I did, by applying logic, and reason, and fact, and Law (all Law, not just stare decisis), until you see the light. All I can do is provide you the proof firmly grounded in Law and logical argument and fact that proves my case, but I cannot make you accept the proof or the logical consequences as reality if you wish to live in your own subjective universe. Realizing the true nature of reality is only within you, and that is the problem with why you cannot see how correct and right I am.

PROOF

ASSERTED FACTS OF HISTORY AND LOGIC AND LAW

1) In the context of the Declaration of Independence and the War of 1776, the U.S. Constitution establishes a Sovereign Republic of Sovereign citizens which implies that sovereign U.S. citizens must exist and are real. Furthermore, no sovereign U.S. citizens could possibly be born (created) prior to the adoption of the Constitution because the political entity know as the U.S. only legally existed after the Constitution was adopted. That is not to say that Sovereign citizens of the States did not exist, just not any Sovereign U.S. citizens until after the Constitution was adopted.

2) A Sovereign is the author and source of the law. (law dictionary definitions)

3) The Sovereign citizens wrote the Constitution by themselves for themselves after winning their independence from England, allowing them to claim their sovereign political authority equal to that of the king, to be inherited from nature from fathers to sons, that had been denied them by King George, and denied under English Common Law. Proof of the people's sovereign political authority can be found in the Constitution itself where it says, "We the People..." are the ones who are writing the Constitution, which makes the people writing it to be the author and source of the law which, by definition, makes them the sovereign political authority and that is why People is capitalized as a proper noun to indicate a special type of people, ones who are Sovereign and Free, which are synonymous terms, and also synonymous with the word Liberty.

4) The States, prior to the adoption of the Constitution but after the war of 1776 was won, were considered to be Sovereign states and they were even called the Sovereign states.

5) A king is a sovereign authority.

6) A Sovereign authority carries his jurisdiction with him wherever he goes.

7) Sovereignty is an INHERITED LEGAL POLITICAL CONDITION. It is the legal opposite of slavery which is also an INHERITED legal political condition.

8) The Declaration of Independence declares that it is an objective fact of Nature (self-evident truth) that all MEN (means MEN, not mankind or women, just MEN) are created the same and that they inherit from Nature as an inalienable right (means NATURAL RIGHT), the natural right of Liberty which is a NATURAL POLITICAL RIGHT to claim and possess a SOVEREIGN POLITICAL AUTHORITY equal to that of a king. Liberty, in the context of the Declaration of Independence, just means that men possess natural sovereign political authority inherited as a Natural Right. Natural Rights are inalienable but their use and enjoyment can be denied to you by the positive law jurisdiction.

9) The Declaration of Independence is not talking about women's political rights and to make that abundantly clear it is stated that governments are instituted among MEN.

10) Women's political rights must be spelled out in statutes of the positive law jurisdiction, even for queens who get their political authority from men (fathers) who write statutes that extend the political rights to them.

11) Women are not created the same as men politically under Natural Law Jurisdiction. They are not created with natural sovereign political rights because we inherit our last names from our fathers, not mothers, and also because men are physically stronger than women. Which is why the Declaration of Independence is only talking about men and their political rights of inherited Liberty (synonymous with Sovereignty). Proof of the inequity can be seen by the fact that we have a 19th Amendment to our Constitution which extends the positive law legal privilege of political rights to women, and that was given to them by MEN. Women are exchanged between clans and have always assumed the political allegiance of their husbands.

12) It is physically impossible to inherit the natural political right of sovereignty from women because they do not naturally possess this right as a matter of Natural Law, so they can not pass it on to their children, therefore, no political allegiance is owed to your mom for natural political rights that are not received from her. This eliminates your mom from any political loyalty issues from Article II consideration.

13) It is physically impossible to inherit natural sovereign political rights from soil jurisdictions because natural rights are inherited from living organisms (mom or dad) not legal fictions. Since you cannot possibly inherit any natural political rights from soil jurisdictions, it is physically impossible to owe any political allegiance due to soil jurisdictions for rights that are not even received! This eliminates soil jurisdictions as a consideration in determining who can qualify under Article II, and is why the courts have said that those born on foreign shores to American parents can still qualify under Article II. You only get legal privileges from soil jurisdictions, not natural inherited rights. Legal privileges are voluntary, not mandatory, and if you choose not to receive the legal privilege then you do not owe anything to anyone for privileges that you do not receive. A sovereign citizen takes his jurisdiction with him wherever he goes and can create sovereign citizens all by himself.

14) Since it is physically impossible to inherit political loyalties under a Natural Law jurisdiction from either your mom or from soil jurisdictions, and so no political allegiances are owed to them, it is only your father that matters and who can possibly create any political allegiances that are owed by his offspring. This is why Vattel says that children naturally follow the political conditions of their FATHERS. Again, the political allegiance is inherited along with the clan name, from the father.

15) The Founders clearly did not intend "natural born Citizen" or a "Citizen of the United States" to include women who were obviously citizens, or why else did it take almost 150 years and a Constitutional Amendment (19th) to extend political liberties to women if they were sovereign political entities in their own right and meant to be included as 'citizens' within the scope and definition of "natural born Citizen"? It is humorous to think that the Framers of Article II ever envisioned a women President or Congressman or that one could inherit a sovereign political authority from females in light of the Declaration of Independence and the political realities of the traditional monarchy systems of governance where sovereign authority is inherited by blood through males. The notion of women as equal sovereign political entities to men was beyond their comprehension and outside of the scope of Article II, which clearly indicates they are talking about a male Sovereign political entity, a free-born Sovereign male. What is freedom other than the possession of a sovereign political authority the same as a king? Wasn't that the entire point of the Declaration of Independence and the War of 1776? Sovereign political authority is inherited from fathers by sons under a Natural Law jurisdiction. Isn't that what is stated in the Declaration of Independence as a self-evident truth of Nature, that all MEN are created equal and are endowed by Nature with Liberty, which legally translates to having and enjoying a sovereign political authority the same as a king, to be recognized? Doesn't this statement mean inherited from Natural Laws, which means a Natural Law jurisdiction? Doesn't that imply you must have a U.S. citizen father to inherit your sovereign political authority from in order to be President? It is obvious to any layman that that is what is being conveyed.

16) It is very clear, and I maintain, that it is a self-evident truth as a matter of logic and fact and law, that Article II "...natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption." is obviously referring to Sovereign political entities. A Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption did not mean slaves or Indians or WOMEN but it did mean a free-born male from one of the Sovereign States or one created by natural birth inheritance from a father (all men created equal) after the adoption. A free-born male, under the political conditions that were the natural result of our 1776 War of Independence and the context of the Declaration of Independence, was considered to be a sovereign political authority (entity). The term 'natural born' means created by natural laws or under a natural law jurisdiction, the legal opposite of statutory privileges or positive law jurisdiction, to be CREATED by natural birth which implies inheritance. Further logical proof of the meaning of 'Citizen', and the phrase 'natural born Citizen', is provided by the Sunset clause of Article II which shows that an exception had to be made for the Sovereign citizens (also spelled as a proper noun 'Citizen' in Article II) of the Sovereign states (also a proper noun spelled 'States' in Article II meaning sovereign states) at the time of the adoption of the Constitution because those citizens at the time of the adoption had not been created at birth to be Sovereign U.S. citizens. They were in fact created at birth to be British 'subjects' of the English Common Law and their King, and they did not have their natural political sovereign authority (freedom) recognized by their system of government. The logical construct of Article II, the subject mater of Sovereignty and the political consequences of the War of 1776 proves without a doubt that what is being referred to in Article II are politically sovereign (Free) entities.

17) The legal term 'natural born citizen' spelled with a lower case 'c' and removed from the context of Article II, conveys no indication of the political condition of the citizen in question without further context being supplied and means many different things under different legal jurisdictions. This is opposite to the construct 'natural born Citizen' from Article II which IS meant to provide its own context to indicate a political condition of the citizen, that of Sovereignty, and is further reinforced by the rest of the context of Article II and the context of History and the Declaration of Independence, Natural Law, etc.

18) By logical construct, if the sovereign citizenry are created by sovereign fathers who make up the sovereign population of the sovereign country, then it stands to reason that if the office of President is to be from one of the sovereign citizens of the sovereign country, then the President must be a sovereign authority since he is just one of the sovereign people of the country who themselves are sovereign.

19) There exists a Natural Law legal jurisdiction.

20) There exists a Positive Law legal jurisdiction.

21) Natural Law legal jurisdiction is defined in law dictionaries to be the OPPOSITE and/or opposed to the Positive Law legal jurisdiction.

22) The Law of Nations by Vattel makes it clear that children follow the POLITICAL CONDITION OF THEIR FATHERS and that the soil jurisdiction of your birth is only where you are born and not necessarily your country or where you are from. This is the relevant controlling part of Law of Nations and 'natural born citizen' that applies to sovereign citizens and Article II and further shows that soil and mom are irrelevant.

23) The purpose and intent of Article II is to insure political loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and the Sovereign Republic it creates so that our government will not become a monarchy ruled over by foreign entities. It is obvious that the purpose and intent of Article II is to preserve national sovereignty and prevent a monarchy, by preventing foreign royal influence from attaining the office of President through the privileges of soil jurisdictions or by foreign royal males impregnating U.S. citizen females who could then produce inherited royalty that might also become President causing political allegiance issues. This is prevented by requiring "natural born Citizen" status, which just means born inheriting a sovereign political authority from a U.S. citizen father, the only place one can inherit a sovereign U.S. political status, since women are excluded from passing on sovereign political status via inheritance, as a function of Natural Law. This eliminates soil and your mom from being a factor. Furthermore, even if a U.S. male citizen would marry a foreign royal woman, so what? The offspring would not inherit foreign political allegiances because political allegiances are only inherited through the father. See how simple and brilliant this is? It just does not get any simpler than this. Because your U.S. father is a sovereign political authority, he can deny the jurisdiction of other sovereign authorities which is why soil jurisdiction is also irrelevant. Soil and mom are irrelevant.

24) The only way to eliminate foreign jurisdictions and foreign political loyalties is to eliminate the soil jurisdiction and women from consideration, and require a citizen father to create the Citizens who can qualify for President.

25) There have been many Presidents in modern times that were born with foreign moms when they were born and their Presidencies were never deemed to violate Article II. Legal theories that require both parents to be citizens when you are born fail to explain this historical reality. My correct legal theory explains why those Presidents were legitimate.

26) Legal theories that attempt to explain the meaning of Article II 'natural born Citizen' by requiring BOTH parents to be citizens and also include being born within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. in order to insure political loyalty to the Constitution, are at odds with U.S. case law that clearly indicates that those that are born on foreign shores to U.S. citizen fathers still qualify under Article II as 'natural born Citizens' due to inheritance of a sovereign political status. Furthermore, Article II does not take this approach of "inclusion" of mom and soil to insure political loyalty. Instead, Article II uses "exclusion" of mom and soil to insure political loyalty to the Constitution by using the Natural Law jurisdiction and the legal facts of the subject matter of Inherited Political Sovereignty from males, which takes cognizance of where political allegiances come from because they are not formed from soil jurisdictions or from females.

CONCLUSION

Article II 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entirely created under a Natural Law jurisdiction and it is only the Natural Law jurisdiction that is controlling. The term 'natural born Citizen' in Article II means one who is created by a father who is a U.S. citizen, as such a citizen naturally inherits a sovereign political authority from his father and therefore inherits a political allegiance to his father and his father's country and laws as a function of Nature.

END OF PROOF

It is very easy for you to just dismiss my correct legal theory as being 'crackpot' without any proof or law to back you up, simply because the objective truth does not fit into your subjective legal opinion. If my objective legal theory is 'crackpot' as you say, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it with logical reason, fact, and Law, which you have not done; not just some off point irrelevant case law that I have already shown you is irrelevant and cannot possibly be controlling. If any point above is not factual and solidly based in Law and History etc., then prove it. You cannot because all the case law makes my case, when properly interpreted, they don't make your case. I invite you to find one shred of evidence in Law that you believe refutes my proof and I will show you how easy it is to use it against you and make my case even stronger. The entire weight of Law, and precedent, and history, is on my side. You have nothing but irrelevant off-point stare decisis precedents that you have misinterpreted and that have nothing to do with inherited political sovereign rights, and can't possibly be controlling over that of Article II itself. As far as I am concerned, until you prove otherwise, I am the authority on the meaning and interpretation of Article II 'natural born Citizen' and not you. Perhaps you will put down your ego long enough to discover for yourself what I have discovered and did not invent, which is the self-evident truth that I have just described to you. You must discover it for yourself. You must convince yourself or you will never convince a judge or anyone else that Obama does not qualify.

Jedi Pauly

The Self-Evident Meaning of 'natural born Citizen'

2010-09-30T10:04:00.000-07:00

THE MEANING OF 'natural born Citizen' IS SELF-EVIDENT!

by Jedi Pauly

The term ''natural born Citizen' in Article II is not a legal term subject to change via interpretation by Judges or Congress because its meaning is self-evident and is etched in time and nature in Article II to mean what it means, unchangeable for all time. In fact, 'natural born Citizen is not even a legal term per se. Actually, 'natural born Citizen' is just an adjective phrase and proper noun that is describing a self-evident meaning. It simply means CREATED by natural laws (natural birth, Nature) to be a SOVEREIGN U.S. CITIZEN. That is all it means and it is seen to be obvious by the rules of English Grammar, the CONTEXT of the Declaration of Independence, and by the difference between Natural Law and Positive Law, and by the definition of SOVEREIGNTY, and the meaning of LIBERTY and the fact that it is a self-evident truth that all MEN are created equal (means that men inherit a sovereign political authority from their DADS who CREATE them). When one examines the legal details surrounding the implication of what it means to be created by Nature to be a Sovereign U.S. citizen, then one can easily see that it means that you must be born to a U.S. citizen father in order to qualify for the office of President, and your mom and soil jurisdictions are IRRELEVANT!

Let me show everyone where all the attorneys and so called "legal experts" are going wrong and becoming confused. They are confusing the English Common Law term 'natural born citizen' spelled with a lower case 'c' and removed from the CONTEXT of Article II, with the phrase 'natural born Citizen' in Article II which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the English Common Law, and means exactly the opposite of the English Common Law interpretation.

Set the way back machine in your mind to the time before 1776, when the colonies that would become the United States were ruled over by King George and a MONARCHY form of government from England. In a monarchy, the king is a SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. He is the author and source of the law. (law dictionary definition of Sovereign, look it up!) The king is the person with the maximum freedom or liberty because he is the source and author of the law. (simple logic and observation) The king GRANTS citizenship as a PRIVILEGE (definition of POSITIVE LAW, look it up!) to those who are born within the king's jurisdiction, which is the soil territory that the king controls or owns. The citizens thus created by privilege of the king are called citizen 'subjects' of the king's positive law jurisdiction. As subjects of the king, those citizens cannot claim to be sovereign or else they will be in direct conflict of authority with the king, who is the only person or family that has the 'privilege' of claiming a sovereign political authority to be the author and source of the laws and political leader of the country. Every citizen thus created by the king, owes a duty to the king and the king grants whatever privileges and rights the citizen subjects may receive, and the people are beholden to the king for their rights and privileges which is where their duty to the king comes from. The duty to the king is MANDATORY and the people are not free.

Now comes the Declaration of Independence and the war of 1776. Now contrast our system of government with that of king George and a monarchy. In our system of government, the People are the Sovereigns and THEY are the author and source of the Law. It is they who wrote their own Constitutional government into existence to be a Sovereign Republic, under a Natural Law jurisdiction, that also uses the old Positive Law jurisdiction in its day-to-day operations to hand out privileges that one VOLUNTARILY must accept before any duty is owed. Under our system the People have the maximum freedom, just like the old king himself had, because it is the people who are the Sovereigns and authors of the law and the people are free to VOLUNTARILY determine what duty is owed to government by deciding for themselves what privileges of government will be created and voluntarily received.

You cannot have a Sovereign Constitutional Republic without a sovereign authority to create the Constitution. In our Republic that authority is the People who are born (CREATED by DAD via natural birth to MOM) as the sovereign U.S. citizens. You cannot have a Sovereign Republic under our Constitution, if there are none who are created to be sovereign to make up a sovereign population. Also, you cannot create sovereign citizens with a statute because by definition, if it requires a statute then a citizen created by a statute cannot be sovereign (a sovereign being the author and source of the law, instead you are receiving a privilege), to say nothing of the fact that natural inalienable rights that are inherited, like a sovereign political authority (Liberty) inherited from dad for example, cannot possibly come from a statute because Congress and Judges are not the Laws of Nature (natural law jurisdiction) or God. This is where Article II and 'natural born Citizen' comes in, because a Sovereign nation must have sovereign citizens and must be headed by a sovereign authority. In order to prevent a foreign monarchy (foreign sovereign authority) from taking over America, the founders intended that the Chief sovereign and leader of the military and political system would have to be a sovereign authority derived from the sovereign people who make up the sovereign citizens of the country, and not sovereign foreigners. This can only be done by Nature and Nature's Laws (inheritance from dad), like it says in the Declaration of Independence, and it cannot be done by Congress or the Courts with statutory privileges of positive law, which is the legal opposite of Nature and her laws. It is Naturally IMPOSSIBLE. Since you can only get the statutory privilege of citizenship from mom or the soil, they are both eliminated from consideration.

Now look at Obama. His situation is that he was not CREATED by NATURE to be a SOVEREIGN U.S. citizen as MANDATED by Article II, the Supreme Law of the land ('natural born Citizen' means CREATED by NATURE to be a Sovereign U.S. citizen). Instead, he was created by nature to be a Sovereign Kenyan citizen who just happens to be entitled to the positive law 'privilege' of U.S. citizenship (created by statute, not Nature) via mom or the soil. Just like a king in a monarchy who is the only one to have the 'privilege' of claiming a sovereign political authority, Congress and the Courts have illegally overthrown the Constitutional mandate that only Nature should produce a sovereign political U.S. authority to be President, and they have usurped authority that is forbidden to them, and they have bestowed the PRIVILEGE upon Obama that he can be President and unlawfully claim a Natural Sovereign U.S. political authority that he was not born with, and can't possible obtain by privilege. The U.S. is now a monarchy and your government has DESTROYED the Constitution and robbed every male U.S. citizen of their natural inalienable birth-rights to inherit a sovereign political authority from their U.S. citizen fathers, and to be guaranteed a Republic form of government headed by Sovereign U.S. Citizens. We are all now citizen 'subjects' of the Congress and Courts, just like in old England. You have lost your sovereignty and you have been ENSLAVED! Score a big one for Congress and the Courts and the Corporations of the New World Order! Now you can clearly see who Congress and the Courts serve, and it is not the People. Wake up, it's REVOLUTION TIME.

Jedi Pauly

The True Meaning of 'natural born Citizen'

2010-09-28T08:41:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to teach everyone the true meaning of 'natural born Citizen' because I am astounded at the level of incompetence and ignorance that exists surrounding this issue.

First, let me say that the term 'natural born Citizen' from Article II is NOT an undefined legal term. It is perfectly self-evident and defined within the context of Article II and the Declaration of Independence, Natural Law, and the opposite which is Positive Law, and the term just means exactly what it says. Article II 'natural born Citizen' which means CREATED to be a SOVEREIGN U.S. citizen is exactly OPPOSITE in meaning to the English common law term 'natural born citizen' (spelled with a lower case 'c') which means a citizens 'subject' of the king who is not a sovereign citizen and must get all of his or her rights as legal privileges of the king or government and who then owes a duty to the king or government for the privileges that are doled out.

Second, it most definitely DOES NOT require both parents to be citizens, or for the person to be born on U.S. soil, because 'natural born Citizen' has absolutely nothing to do with your mom or soil jurisdiction.

Third, the purpose and intent of Article II 'natural born Citizen' is to preserve our Constitutional Republic form of government to be under NATURAL LAW by protecting our sovereignty from foreign royalty so that we will not become a MONARCHY form of government like England or Europe, which is what the founders feared most and were trying to separate themselves from.

It is declared in the Declaration of Independence that it is a SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH that all MEN are CREATED equal and that governments are instituted among MEN. The Declaration of Independence is not talking about women's political rights! Women are not the source of sovereign political authority, MEN are. What is being declared is that in nature, under Natural Law, that all men INHERIT a SOVEREIGN POLITICAL AUTHORITY EQUAL TO A KING as a natural inalienable right and it is not just for the privileged few families of royalty that existed in Europe at the time, and still exists today. The Declaration specifically lists LIBERTY as one of the inherited inalienable natural rights. Liberty is just a fancy way of saying that one possesses a sovereign political authority. The person with the most liberty (freedom) is the king who is a sovereign authority. Under Natural Law, sovereign political authority is inherited from males, not females or soil. Women do not have natural political sovereignty. That is why we have to have a 19th Amendment to the Constitution in order to extend the legal PRIVILEGE of Positive Law to extend political rights (voting rights) to women. Men and women's political rights are not equal under natural law due to a man's natural superiority in physical strength. It is a self-evident truth that men fight the wars and defend the tribe and negotiate the peace and institute governments and make and enforce the rules. Men do this as a function of nature, not women. The political authority of any clan is passed on with the surname inherited from the father. Even a queen can not be queen without a statutory law (privilege) put in place from the males from whom her authority comes from (her father because there are no male heirs).

Natural Law gives one Natural Rights which are an endowment from Nature or the Creator depending on your religious point of view. Even an atheist can accept Natural Law because the Laws of Nature (Declaration of Independence) are a scientific objective subject that one can just observe and realize independent of a Creator or God concept. The legal opposite of Natural Law is called Positive Law. The term Positive Law comes from the Latin root 'posit' which means that which is declared and agreed to. Positive Law is statutory man made law that gives you 'Legal Rights' which are PRIVILEGES of government and they are the opposite of Natural Rights which are NOT privileges.

Now, let us examine the self-evident meaning of Article II 'natural born Citizen' and prove that it is not an undefined legal term. First, just look at the part 'natural born'. This is meant to convey that we are talking about being CREATED under Natural Law and not the opposite which is Positive Law legal privileges. This eliminates soil jurisdiction from any consideration because you only get legal privileges from soil jurisdiction. Soil does not give you natural inherited inalienable rights. Soil does not get pregnant and give birth to human beings. Next, and here is what everyone is missing, let us apply the simple rules of English grammar to 'Citizen' and notice that 'Citizen' is capitalized. The word citizen is a noun, and when you capitalize a noun in a sentence that makes the noun a PROPER noun. A proper noun means a specific instance or special TYPE of citizen. What special TYPE is being referred to? The answer is they are referring to a SOVEREIGN U.S. Citizen. You can not have a sovereign nation if there are no sovereign citizens. Furthermore, you can not have any sovereign citizens without sovereign fathers to create them! A sovereign citizen is one who inherits a sovereign political authority as a natural inalienable right as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Since you only inherit a sovereign political authority from males under natural law, this eliminates your mom from consideration since she is a female and you only get 'legal privileges' from positive law due to your mom, not the natural inherited political sovereign authority which only comes from males. Simply put, 'natural born Citizen' just means that one must INHERIT their right to be President from their citizen father as a natural right and not a legal privilege, and we have just proven that your mom and soil jurisdiction are irrelevant and that 'natural born Citizen' is perfectly defined within the context of Article II, Natural Law, Positive Law and the Declaration of Independence.

Now lets examine from the point of view of the purpose and intent of Article II 'natural born Citizen', which is to prevent a monarchy form of government and protect U.S. sovereignty from foreign royalty, in order that we may further prove that soil jurisdiction and your mom are totally irrelevant. Lets suppose for a moment that you could somehow inherit a sovereign political authority from just the soil or your mom. Then any foreign king could impregnate an American woman or have his child born on U.S. soil and that child could qualify for President due to an inherited sovereign political authority from mom or the soil, and at the same time would be a prince or king of a foreign country inherited as a sovereign political right from his foreign royal father. Oops! There goes the Republic! Now you have foreign royalty in power and you have a monarchy again. Clearly the founders prevented this by realizing that you only get legal privileges of positive law from your mom or soil jurisdiction and if you are created (natural born) by a citizen father from whom you inherit a sovereign political authority from (all MEN are created equal) then this would protect American sovereignty from foreign royal influence. I have settled the issue. The term 'natural born Citizen' just means inherited from a citizen father. Mom and soil are irrelevant. Obama is not qualified because he was not created by a U.S. citizen father.

Here endeth the lesson!

Jedi Pauly

2009-11-16T15:32:00.000-08:00

SOVEREIGN CITIZENS AND BLACKMAIL

WHY DOES OBAMA BOW TO FOREIGN LEADERS?

They all have Obama BLACKMAILED because they all know what he knows, that he is not a "natural born Citizen" of America and so he is just an ordinary citizen/criminal fraud. The phrase "natural born Citizen" in Article II does not mean a person who is created at birth to be a citizen by a "privilege" of a soil statute of POSITIVE LAW. It means the OPPOSITE! It means NATURAL LAW and NATURAL RIGHTS, not "legal rights” which are PRIVILEGES. You were not meant to be born with the "privilege" of being qualified to be president one day, you are supposed to be born with the "natural right" to one day qualify for president!

"Citizen" in Article II is capitalized because it is a PROPER NOUN referring to a SPECIFIC TYPE of citizen. They are talking about a SOVEREIGN American/U.S. citizen, not just any citizen in general. SOVEREIGNTY is a subject of Natural Law because it is an INHERITED Natural Right to be born free and SOVEREIGN (Declaration of Independence), with naturally inherited political rights to be separate and equal to any other sovereign authority (all men created equal). This is a SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH from nature and her laws (NATURAL LAW). It was declared to be so in the Declaration of Independence, and it is just a fact of life for anyone to discover now and forever. The phrase "natural born" in Article II, indicates a person who is created by natural law not positive law, by natural birth from parents (not soil, or a statute, as babies come from their parents, not soil or statutes!). You first must be born before you can be a citizen of anything. When you are born you INHERIT via nature and natural laws, from your parents, "inalienable" natural rights, like sovereignty, freedom, liberty, and natural political rights like citizenship, which is the natural right to membership in your father's clan/nation (paternity based legal systems based on sovereign states-- Judaism is a little different, more on that later), etc.

Sovereignty is solely defined by natural law and inheritance, not by man-made statutes of positive law privilege. You cannot create sovereign people with statutes of positive law. Nature and reality do not work that way. Article II was meant to create and establish a SOVEREIGN REPUBLIC of SOVEREIGN CITIZENS by ensuring natural law and inheritance of SOVEREIGN STATUS from sovereign parents (father) was recognized as the highest law in the land, because nature already makes it the highest natural law. You can't have a Sovereign Republic if the laws can’t even recognize there to be any sovereign inherited citizens! You must INHERIT your SOVEREIGNTY or sovereign status from your father. That is why the Constitution is often referred to as the written expression of the "organic law”, because nature deposits her laws into organisms (man) and they find their expression in life as natural rights that belong to natural people that are inherited from parents via Natural Law, and do not come from legal privileges of positive law statutes. Therefore, "natural born Citizen" in article II means only those persons who are born only under the jurisdiction of natural law jurisdiction and U.S. legal jurisdiction, such that, only those jurisdictions are the controlling or authorizing jurisdictions to determine your political status (citizenship) and full political rights at birth. This is why the father is the most important, because both the natural law and the positive law jurisdictions are inherited through him, to not be naturally of mixed jurisdictions, in order to be considered to be a sovereign citizen of a particular sovereign nation, from where he is born being from. This is usually done through males because females are often naturally married to males of other nations for political reasons, and so by nature, females are born with the possibility to have split political loyalties, whereas nature makes a male to naturally be born only capable of natural political loyal to his fathers people.

Obama claims he is a "natural born Citizen" of America/U.S. under Article II because he was born in Hawaii (soil privilege of a statute jurisdiction), but you can only inherit the positive law "privilege" of soil citizenship statutes from soil, not the "natural right" of citizenship which can only come from your parents via inheritance. The claim Obama makes is the English common law "privilege" of citizenship, which is also called a natural born citizen, but ONLY UNDER ENGLISH COMMON LAW and U.S. case law under the 14th amendment and Title 8 U.S. code governing citizenship regardless of parents' nationality. It is not the same as "nbC' in Article II, which is actually OPPOSITE to the English common law interpretation and meaning, and has nothing to do with the English common law or who qualifies “as” a citizen in general. The Eng com law meaning is the "privilege" of the king to grant citizenship and political rights to anyone born on the king’s jurisdiction, which is the soil. However, such positive law privilege does not include the right of the citizen to claim natural sovereignty or natural political rights to represent a sovereign people as a sovereign member that comes from those same sovereign people. That is what a President is supposed to be. The English citizen “subjects” were not even permitted to claim natural sovereignty or political rulership of their nation! That is what the war of 1776 was all about!

Under English common law, a natural born citizen, as such term is used in U.S. case law defining citizenship only, is one who is "subject" to the jurisdiction of the soil, and was not born with sovereign status because only the king and his heirs had that "privilege" of positive law. Also, a citizen of soil privilege in England did not have the political right to ever claim to be the sovereign representative or ruler of the sovereign nation, like a king, or even a President of a sovereign republic of sovereign people. Only the king and his family could ever make such claims. Obviously Obama's claim is the English common law privilege of soil jurisdiction of positive law interpretation, because that is what he has always argued, is soil privilege status, for his citizenship, since his mother was too young to transfer citizenship by statute, and his dad was a foreigner. The English common law interpretation DISQUALIFIES HIM from the meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II, which IS NOT THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW INTERPRETATION that is used in U.S. case law to grant the statutory “privilege” of citizenship with limited political rights, the same rights as citizens of England, which do not include the right to a claim to the natural rights of inherited sovereignty or to be the chief political ruler/representative of a nation, rather only to be a citizen “subject” to the soil jurisdiction or statutory jurisdiction, and therefore subject to the “privilege” of positive law from the king or government statutes who define your political rights as legal privilages only, and to be subordinate to the king or government, and limited.

You cannot claim to be "natural born", which means created under the laws of nature, to be a Sovereign Citizen of America/U.S. ("Citizen" proper noun), if you are born "subject" to the laws of Kenya and England. Sovereign Americans are not born as British "subjects" or "subjects" of other sovereign nations' jurisdictions over that of American/U.S. jurisdiction. That ended with the war of 1776. Obama is a fraud and criminal because he is using a trick of the law and language to fool people and usurp the office of President. He is using a HOMONYM that is also a legal ANTONYM, as a subterfuge. The Eng com law "natural born citizen" of U.S. case law, sounds the same as "natural born Citizen” of Article II U.S. law, but it is spelled the same except for the capitalization of a specific proper noun (HOMONYM) and it is defined by law to mean the OPPOSITE (ANTONYM) even though it sounds the same. Natural law and natural rights, which are endowments from nature/creator and are not made up, are the opposite of positive law and legal rights, which are privileges from statutes and invented by man.

2009-07-30T14:17:00.000-07:00

LEGAL PROOF OF OBAMA'S INELIGIBILITY

STRUCTURE OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
AND THE SOVEREIGN NATURE OF HER PEOPLE

In England and old Europe, before the American Revolution, when America broke free and became her own SOVEREIGN NATION OF SOVEREIGN PEOPLE, this is how things were viewed by people to be organized, in a TOP DOWN HIERARCHY of SOVEREIGN POWERS AND AUTHORITIES. Each level derives its power and authority from the next level up. Like this:

GOD -- If you did not believe, and made your views known, you would most likely be tortured to death. Atheists were not welcome much in feudal European society, for centuries.

NATURE -- God creates Nature and Natural Laws. Nature comes from God, which is the source of Nature, and Natural Law, that governs human behavior and customs, and statutory constructs, or man made laws.

KING -- Sovereign authority over the people who derives his power from the Laws of Nature (force of arms, and might makes right, which is just the application of natural physical laws of physics, and the application of positive and negative natural laws that govern human motives and behavior, which determines what the king is fighting for. The King derives his authority, from GOD, by his claim of DEVINE RIGHT to rule over government and people. This claim is the source of historic power struggles between KINGS and RELIGION, throughout history! A king’s lawful jurisdiction is by the soil that he controls under his SOVEREIGN authority, and by any agreements he enters into with, with other SOVEREIGN powers, like other kings or countries. The king must give his permission for a Parliament or Government to be created, and so it is the King who creates the Government for his people, who are his SUBJECTS, basically his "property", including their LABOR, and the goods they produce. All land, actually belongs to the king, unless he sells and transfers sovereignty to you, for any land he sells you, usually so the king can gain an agreement for allegiance, and soldiers, and taxes. This is the type of governance called FEUDALISM, which is basically what you had in Europe and England for centuries, and America fought a war and was supposed to have freed herself from.

GOVERNMENT -- Basically, acts as a go between, serving the KINGS INTERESTS. It serves to protect the KING and serve the people, by dealing with the day to day troubles of the people and implementing the King's decrees and Will, while at the same time, listening to the peoples desire for their natural rights and needs and complaints to be met, and so the government brings the peoples voice to the kings attention, for the kings input on crafting legislation to deal with these matters.

PEOPLE -- basically the lowest form of life in a FEUDALISTIC society ruled by KINGS and PARLIAMENTS. People are just slaves who can't really own any property, and all their labor, and goods, and freedoms, and protections, come from the King, or one of his direct or indirect vassals. The Common People, are viewed by the ruling elite, as nothing more than ignorant brutish work animals, good for dying in the kings wars, and taxing for the kings profits, kind of like life in America today under King Obama, and the Federal Reserve system of PRIVATE FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC BANKS who create fiat currency out of thin air with a statute and enslave mankind and future generations into tax debt service to the FEUDAL GLOBAL MATERS of the NEW WORLD ORDER.

THEN THERE WAS A WAR IN 1776 AND A NEW ORDER AND STRUCTURE IN AMERICA LIKE THIS

GOD -- Does not matter if you believe or not, because GOVERNMENT and the PEOPLE are bound down under NATURAL LAW by the U.S. Constitution, and by natural reality, (self evident truth, see DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, people being created equal by laws of nature, and inherit natural rights, for example), and NOT BY RELIGION (GOD), thus creating a SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE (eliminating the age old European struggle between these two entities), that brings Law into the realm of science, and not religious opinion, by recognizing that NATURE is real and exists, and has OBJECTIVE DISCOVERABLE LAWS, that are the basis of morality and statutory governance, even if you do not believe the hypothesis (that which is not yet proven to be true), of God's existence. Christians can now live, side by side with atheists in peace, because both recognize nature and her superiority, and authority, to govern human behavior and norms.

NATURE -- Now, same as before, but now viewed from the lens of a natural scientists, who see nature as the ONLY KNOWABLE TRUTH regarding matters of law, and Justice, and Government, and that which explains and morally guides human behavior, and morality, regardless of whether you believe in the big G in the sky, or not. This is the highest achievement of the AGE of ENLIGHTENMENT and AGE OF REASON, coming to full fruition in the expression of the American revolutionary war, and the creation of America with the Constitution.

PEOPLE -- The people have replaced the KING. Now the PEOPLE are the SOVEREIGN authority, deriving their just powers and authority from nature and her laws. The People, just now recognize, the natural right for people to be free to believe in whatever big G in the sky, or Religion, they want. The People are the ones that now give permission to themselves to create a government for themselves, and the government is to serve the PEOPLES interests, and be loyal to the PEOPLE, just like they are the Kings in the old arrangement of things, because in actually reality, they ARE NOW THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY over the government, and they ARE NOW THE KINGS, plural, and not just one king or family. It is now all American families/citizens, who are OF THIS COUNTRY(inherited from citizens or immigrants that are here as U.S. citizens for a long enough period, defined in the statutes that govern such matters, and not just born here), that are the Kings descendants, (inherited from their American king/queen parents). That is why you must INHERIT your right to be President and rule over the political party, and Executive branch, and Military, (but not the people which is why Congress can override the President, so our President is not a total king, which is what the founders were purposely trying to avoid), from your American citizen parents, just like a PRINCE inherits from his SOVEREIGN authority, his dad, the King.

GOVERNMENT -- Government is now under the PEOPLE who are SOVEREIGN and who create and govern OVER IT (like a creature or baby), to serve the PEOPLES interests, and make IT be loyal to the American PEOPLE and THEIR interests. All sovereign powers that the U.S. government has, comes from the sovereignty that it was given by the PEOPLE, like for example, the concept of territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. government to enforce its statutes, comes from the Common Laws of England and the RIGHT OF KINGS to rule over their soil jurisdiction, because that is a kings natural authority, and where it ends, (soil borders of his kingdom). That is why the Federal Government can only apply its laws on its soil, like the 14th amendment only applies on U.S. soil, because WE the PEOPLE, gave that right of soil of the rule of Kings, to the Government. This proves also, who the real Kings and sovereign authority is in America, and it is the PEOPLE, or where else could, or would, the power to enforce U.S. code, come from? This is also how and why American citizens take their jurisdiction with them wherever they go, and can create American citizens by natural birth inheritance, and soil is irrelevant! These are the NBC's that are being referred to in Article II.

This is the way government is SUPPOSED TO BE structured in America.

WHAT ABOUT THE 14th AMENDMENT?
DOESN'T THAT MAKE OBAMA A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
AND THEREFORE, QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT? NO!

The fourteenth Amendment is only about citizenship and NBC(soil), or the privilege of U.S. citizenship, that is granted to foreign birth parents on U.S. soil (that is one type of NBC), and the EMANCIPATION of former SLAVES. The 14th Amendment, forces the States to recognize and grant State citizenship to former slaves, due to the natural reality of NATURAL INHERITANCE, and that blacks in the south that were freed from being slaves, by the 13th Amendment, were entitled to INHERIT from their fathers, who were from the States, State citizenship and legal protection of the laws, the same as other state citizens. This was called EMANCIPATION. The 14th does this by a careful declaratory statement, that grants U.S. citizenship to anyone that is born on U.S. territorial jurisdiction, regardless of parents citizenship, and who has no other foreign jurisdiction controlling their citizenship. This is called the "fully subject clause", and it ensnares the former slaves that were denied having their inherited state citizenships recognized, since they were born to parents on the soil jurisdiction, and they were long removed form Africa, and so there was no foreign jurisdiction to claim them, so they are "fully subject" to the jurisdiction of the U.S., like it says in the 14th Amend, so they are U.S. citizens. Then the 14th Amendment states that these U.S. citizens, are also citizens of the States wherein they reside, this forces the States to view the freed black slaves as State citizens, and entitled to equal protection of State and Federal laws, (Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment). This brought EMANCIPATION to the freed slaves, and opened the door to FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION, that could be applied as a lawful federal authority over STATES RIGHTS ISSUES, that had been a problem in the Dred Scott case. Also, since government can't grant natural rights, but can only protect them in statutes, and because the Southern states still could not be forced to pass laws for the benefit of black equality in society, Federal Civil Rights had to be crafted in order to force protection of the natural rights of people, blacks or anyone, in the former slave States (or generally anywhere in the U.S.), because the former slave States decided to write laws to segregate blacks from society, if they were going to be forced to write laws for, and recognize blacks and former slaves as citizens, because of the 14th Amendment.

American citizens that are born to American citizen parents, do not get their citizenship via the 14th Amendment, unless they want to. They get it the way they always have, by NATURAL INHERITANCE from citizen parents. This has always existed, for whites anyway, for 100 years before there was even a fourteenth amendment! The 14th Amendment did not change or eliminate that, which it can not do anyway, because the subject matter jurisdiction of natural inheritance is under the laws of nature, and not under the statutory authority of government, to eliminate it. Only GOD has that power! Congress can only PRESERVE AND PROTECT natural rights, not ELIMINATE THEM! We still get our citizenships by natural inheritance from our citizen parents. In fact, now since the 14th Amendment, you have two ways to be an American citizen, by the 14th Amendment if you are on U.S./State soil when born, AND by natural Inheritance from citizen parents. Each avenue of citizenship actually has different legal ramifications, depending on which way you choose to be a citizen, and the privileges that you wish to receive as a result of the type of citizenship you claim and exercise. A 14th Amendment citizen, even if born to U.S. citizen parents, might have more "privileges", and more duties, and obligations, and responsibilities, to the Federal Government, than a citizen born, on U.S. soil, who only claims citizenship by inheritance due to parents. But, that is another subject for discussion which is outside of the scope of the Obama situation.

Finally, the 14th is not even about Article II and the qualifications for president, which is about LOYALTY TO AMERICA, and who your parents are, and THEIR citizenship, not who qualifies as a U.S. and/or State citizen. The 14th is not even about Natural Inheritance from citizen parents, which is the qualifications for President, except only indirectly, with regard to former slaves. It is just about the "PRIVILEGE" of soil birth citizenship and former slave Emancipation. It has no bearing on the Obama issue at all, and can be dispensed with as TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!

WHAT ABOUT THOSE THAT SAY NBC IN ARTICLE II IS UNDEFINED?

Many Obamanite supporters try and argue that NBC in Article II is undefined and not in any statutes anywhere. This is NOT TRUE, as NBC in Article II is defined by the laws of Natural Inheritance, and English grammar, and logical construct for loyalty test, and Protection and Empowerment of Official Duties of the President. Obamanite supporters attempt to apply judges opinions like, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), or Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), or my favorite, Lynch v Clark, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs 236,1 Sand Ch 583 (1844), in an UNLAWFUL APPLICATION OF PROCESS, to try and REDEFINE the meaning and intent of NBC in Article II, to mean NBC(soil), instead of NBC(parents). This requires a Constitutional Amendment, and can not be achieved by statute, or judges opinion. Besides, all of these cases are about citizenship, and not the qualifications for President, and are not controlling anyway, because their opinions can not alter or change the meaning of NBC in Article II of the Constitution, which is the Supreme Authority, and so IT is controlling, and already just means what it means, and must just be applied as a loyalty test. It means INHERITED citizenships due to citizen parents, for purposes of loyalty to America, and protection from foreign blackmail, and for Empowerment in Treaty Negotiations by the President, and soil has very little to do with it. Inherited citizenships from citizen parents, are also called natural born citizens (NBC), regardless of what soil one is born on.

TYPES OF NATURAL LOYALTY

The SUBJECT MATTER of "LOYALTY", is BOTH an INHERITED NATURAL POLITICAL RIGHT, and a function of human interactions, and the natural laws that govern those actions, and interactions, as they play out over time. Time is a big factor in the law, and can not be ignored in matters of inheritance and citizenship, because factors (facts) of life, that play out over time, after you are born, can affect your citizenship status after birth. It is helpful to think in terms of two types of natural loyalty. Type 1 and type 2. One is POLITICAL, and one is SOCIAL.

TYPE 1, is a NATURAL POLITICAL RIGHT, inherited at birth, as a natural birth-right, from your parents. You inherit type one loyalty from dad mostly, as far as political rights go, due to the Natural Law of Inherited Loyalties, (see the section, where I define that, in the proof definitions). Type 1 loyalty is automatic at birth, and must just be LEARNED about, as you grow up and experience your dad, and learn about his membership in his, and your, society (citizenship, country). Type 1 loyalty is forever, and can not be changed or affected by others, unless an effort is made by you to break with your fathers political allegiances to his, and your, country of birth. Type one loyalty is the type that causes you to be faithful to American interests, because of inherited loyalty to your dad and his people, who are Americans. (Again, see the definition of, "Natural Law of Inherited Loyalties", in proof section.) This is just learned about as you grow up, and can only be NOT true, if you immigrate someplace, or disabuse yourself of your citizenship for some other reason of your own.

IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE. Of course there is a natural birth loyalty to mom as well, however, I wish to limit the discussion to just political rights, since we are talking about the qualifications for President. Soil can be a factor in determining loyalty, and for the office of President, but it requires a person to make it an issue, by taking advantage of the fact that they were born on foreign soil, to culture and develop foreign ties and/or loyalties, then, soil would be an issue. It is not the same for parent’s citizenship, which has a very high probability of automatically coming with foreign ties and loyalties, that you can not do anything about at birth, or that you yourself had to culture, or develop, over time. Therefore, for purposes of ease in grasping the important issues that makes our case against Obama, without soil, assume loyalty by soil is removed as a topic of controlling interest, due to it being irrelevant to making our case against Obama, and because it is highly likely to be, the least important and most unlikely factor in determining loyalty. I wish to present my case against Obama strictly on the evidence of parental citizenship at birth, without the need to even consider the soil, which is not at all even needed to prove he is not qualified under the law, and removes the relevancy of where he was born, and any issues of his real, long form birth certificate.

TYPE 2 loyalty is the SOCIAL type of loyalty, that must be EARNED over time, as a function of human interaction between natural individual people, or agents, (governments, corporations, etc.). This is where TRUST, and CHARISMA, and FRIENDSHIP, and LEADERSHIP etc, skills must be developed and employed, to earn the trust and respect that engenders type 2 "loyalty". This type of loyalty is fleeting, and may not be permanent at all. Type II loyalty is very subject to forces (other people) outside of your control, to maintain and posses this type of loyalty between agents. (people, associates, etc). You must constantly reinforce this type of loyalty between agents, over time. Our discussions about Obama, focuses on type one loyalty.

IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE ABOUT MILITARY AND THEIR LOYALTIES

The military takes an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and Country from all threats, foreign and domestic. Their allegiance and loyalties are supposed to be with the LAW, and the PEOPLE, and NOT TO THE PRESIDENT. The military has the Uniform Code of Justice, and Chain of Command rules, to regulate and control the military from within itself. Loyalty to officers, or the president, must be earned by the officers or president over time, through human interaction, just like every one must do, under natural laws that function over time and govern these human interactions. The Military Code, and Chain of Command, just requires one in the military, to obey LAWFUL orders, so loyalty is irrelevant. It also requires a soldier to hold every other soldier, including the President, to loyalty to the Constitution, and laws, and people, so it REQUIRES military personnel to QUESTION, SUE, and REMOVE, an imposter President, who is not legally qualified to hold the position. It is the PATRIOTIC DUTY of military personnel to do this. They CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE, and ARE NOT being, disloyal to the President, because they DO NOT OWE ANY LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT. Instead, they ARE BEING, LOYAL TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, and the Laws and Constitution, which is exactly where their loyalties are supposed to be, and is exactly the oath they took to protect and defend. They did not make this pledge to the President for his benefit, and so their loyalties do not belong to the President, if he has not earned their loyalty! A soldier is not expected, or required, to give "blind" loyalty, only to obey lawful orders.

NOTE ABOUT OBAMAS MOM

The statutes say, that Barack's Mom, was to young when Barack was born, to transfer natural born inherited citizenship, due to parental inheritance, when he was born. According to the statutes, a woman by herself must be sufficiently of the country, and of legal political age of 19, and living in the U.S. for 10 years as a citizen, and five years after the age of 14, before she is able to transfer full inherited citizenship to her offspring. This does not affect Barack's ability to claim a U.S. citizenship from soil birth, or by his Mom from some other statutes, she was just too young to transfer INHERITED citizenship to him. This could only be a factor, if we did not know who baby Barack's dad was, then Barack would have to inherit loyalty, his last name, and political rights, from his Mom, but he would not be able to inherit full rights, because she was too young to have full legal status herself, and so she can't transfer them to her baby by herself. This would mean that Barack would be an immigrant U.S. citizen, which is what he actually is because of his dad that we know about, and only his kids could possibly inherit loyalty to America, and grow up to qualify for President. Since we know who Barack's dad is, Mom's age at Barack's birth, does not matter, and so, this is purely academic. All that matters, as far as usurper Obama is concerned, is that Barack's Mom was a full U.S., INHERITED citizen herself, by the time Barack was at the age of eligibility for President (35yrs old). She was, so Obama passes the Mom part of the American Loyalty Test for President, he just fails the DAD part, which is arguably, THE most important part of the loyalty test for qualification for President.

CONCLUSIONS

So Obama is a usurper, and NBC in Article II is defined by THE LAWS of NATURE (natural inheritance), and English grammar, and proper subject matter jurisdiction of Naturally Inherited Rights, and context of qualifications for president(LOYALTY TEST & PRESIDENTIAL PROTECTION AND EMPOWERMENT IN TREATY NEGOTIATIONS), to mean NBC(parents)! It is NOT UNDEFINED, as so many people think. It is not defined in any statutes, ON PURPOSE! NATURE AND NATURAL LAWS DEFINE NBC in Article II, to keep it's definition outside of the jurisdiction of CONGRESS, in order to PREVENT Congress from creating Presidents with a statute! I can't help but marvel at those that are guilty of such ignorance, who could think otherwise, but at the same time, is Justice Roberts REALLY THIS CLUELESS, the CIA, Military, Judges, Attorneys, DoJ, etc? Give me a break! We are in BIG TROUBLE!

I get a kick out of people who argue that NBC in Article II is UNDEFINED, and then they proceed to look for a statute to define and give meaning to it when the answer is so obvious. They have things ass backwards, and are ignorant of nature’s legal jurisdiction and natural rights, that do not come from government or statutes, but are just recognized and protected by government, in statutes. You do not apply statutory definitions to imply meaning in the Constitution, HA! HA! HA! The Constitution is supreme statutory authority, it is controlling and just means what it means and just must be applied. It defines the statutes, not the other way round! The very fact that people who defend Obama with these arguments, in the way they are attempting, makes it an unlawful violation of process, attempting to REDEFINE NBC(parent) in Article II, to mean NBC(soil), by statute, instead of by Constitutional Amendment. This process alone is enough to invalidate their assertions that NBC(soil) is what is meant by NBC in Article II, and thus qualifies for President! It is easy to make anyone arguing NBC(soil) look stupid and ignorant of law. I mean, what the hell did those poor writers, that were writing the Constitution, think they were writing, if they had to write in an undefined term that had to be filled in with a judge’s opinion of its definition and meaning some time later in the future? HA! HA! HA! The insanity of such a notion makes it difficult not to laugh at the source of such an obvious lunacy!

Obviously, we are talking about natural born, as an adjective that describes the type of Citizen, in Article II. Since Citizen is capitalized, it is a PROPER NOUN, and is referring to AMERICAN citizens, in the LOYALTY CLAUSE of Article II section 1. This just means the people who are born by the laws of nature, fully subject to the natural authorizing authority from nature, not government that grants natural inheritance. This would be your parents, and not government, which is NOT A NATURAL AUTHORITY, but is an artificially created jurisdiction of "privilege" of authority, that grants citizenship, by the rule of the English Common Law Right of Kings, the right of SOIL, that was granted to the government by the People (American citizen parents). This means that NBC in Article II, PROHIBITS citizenships that are obtained by statutory "privilege" from qualifying for President, which PROHIBITS NBC(soil), like Obama. This prevents Congress from writing a PRESIDENTIAL PRIVILEGE STATUTE for their buddies, and disenfranchising the American citizen dads and kids from owning their own government, the way we don't own it now, under KING OBAMA.

The SUNSET CLAUSE of Article II section 1, (the part after the OR that makes exceptions for the citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is talking about naturally born BRITISH citizens, and is further proof that Obama is PROHIBITED BY THE SUNSET CLAUSE ALSO, SINCE IT HAS EXPIRED, because Obama inherited BRITISH loyalties at birth, from his dad.

American citizens, just like most others in the world, carry their jurisdiction with them wherever they go, even outside limited U.S. soil jurisdiction, just like a King does. If a Prince is born while the King is on vacation in some other kings jurisdiction, the Prince still inherits dads name, and citizenship, and right to rule over his dads government and demand loyalty from the people and government. American kids, born outside of U.S. jurisdiction, still inherit their father’s last name and political rights (citizenship) directly from dad, and are American citizens. These are the FULLY SOVEREIGN citizens, like the ones that were created when the Constitution was adopted, and who were then born to American citizen parents. These are the citizens being referred to in Article II, and the only ones that can qualify for President! You just naturally inherit this right as a birth right, obtainable only from fully American citizen parents (dad mostly). U only inherit germs, and the privilege from government of soil citizenship, from soil, not the naturally inherited right, from dad, to politically rule over your dads government. The very notion that Nature, U.S. Law, or natural reality, can be any other way, is preposterous and absurd!

I hope this is useful.

God Bless and loving wishes,

General Jedi Pauly

RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!

2009-06-10T16:29:00.000-07:00

MY ALL-TIME FAVORITE #1 OBAMANITE LIE : "The Constitution does not define natural born Citizen".

"natural born Citizen", in Article II section 1of the United States Constitution, has a self-evident meaning, and is thus self-defining and needs no statutory interpretation, or definition, which is why there are none.

The proof is of the nature of what is called a "self-evident" truth, which I will state and explain a bit further on. The reason people argue that Chairman O qualifies for the office of President of the U.S., under Article II section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, is their fundamental lack of understanding of the nature and form of Law and Government in America, and the absolute significance that this misunderstanding plays in understanding the meaning of natural born Citizen, in Article II. Also, people do not understand where Citizens come from and what produces them. People believe that only governments produce Citizens, and that is very wrong.

People seem to forget that America fought a revolutionary war and threw off the shackles of monarchy government. What was so revolutionary about the Revolutionary War between America and King George? The War was the culmination in history of a long struggle between the sovereign rights of the individual and the sovereignty of a King that rules over the People, people who longed to be equally sovereign themselves. The long struggle against kings is what gave rise to the English Common Law, which is of course based upon Natural Law and the Natural Rights of natural persons (see Blackstone). In fact, this is why America's legal system is also based upon the Laws of Nature and Natural Rights (see Declaration of Independence) where all LAW comes from, as American law is based upon (but not identical to) the English common law, which itself is based upon Natural Law and Natural Rights which come from Nature and is not a 'privilege' of a statute from government. The people's Individual Sovereignty was declared in the Declaration of Independence, where it clearly states that the People of America are Equal, no one having sovereignty over anyone else, but all equally Sovereigns themselves. And the Source of our Sovereignty and INHERENT RIGHTS, including legal rights, is NATURE AND HER LAWS, NOT GOVERNMENT.

"...When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them...." (U.S. Declaration of Independence)

This meant that we became and are free, under no controlling authority, and governed only by the Laws of Nature. We then use the Laws of Nature to claim our Inalienable Right to self-governance, and formed for ourselves a Constitutional Republic. This did not come about as any Privilege from any government, but came about from the natural exercise of our Natural Rights. This proves that our government is based upon Laws of Nature, which were then written down by natural persons into STATUTES, like the U.S. Constitution for example. Therefore, the Constitution is not LAW, but just the expression of the natural Will of a FREE People, that is based upon LAW that comes from NATURE. Likewise, all statutes created under the authority of the Constitution are not law either. This proves that the U.S. government does not make, and cannot make, LAWS. The government only make Statutes of Specific Performance, or statutes that define public wrongs (see Blackstone), that you must give your consent to, since we don't live under a KING where consent of the People is not required before they can even apply the statutes to you. It only becomes a law when a natural person, fully in possession of their natural rights from Nature, voluntarily grants the statute any authority of a law. You must be subject to the jurisdiction of the statute, before it applies-- and whether or not you are subject depends on you, the natural person, NOT GOVERNMENT. This proves that all Law comes from Nature, because the statute has no application without a NATURAL PERSON giving it any weight or authority by virtue of his voluntary consent. That is why our American government is not supposed to be a KING, but is supposed to be subservient to ITS master, the SOVEREIGN People who created the Constitutional Republic who are themselves like KINGS, who are all equally sovereign. This also proves by logical reason, that the government does not create Citizens, natural human people do. A government has no inherent power to create a Citizen until a natural person decides to write a statute that defines and authorizes the recognition of a (statutory) Citizen. So it is the natural person, who actually creates any Citizen, the government is just forced to obey the statute or will of the natural person(s) who created the class of Citizen in the statute, in order that these Citizens can be recognized, not be created by, government, and so the Citizen can have his rights as a Citizen recognized by government. The government does not even have the power to even apply the statute until a natural person makes a CLAIM to the government for the privilege of having his rights as a Citizen recognized, if such a claim must be made as a privilege and not a natural right, because Citizenship was not automatically naturally inherited from the parents. This proves conclusively, that government does not create citizens, natural people do. But is that the only way a natural person can create a Citizen is by statute? No, to be a Citizen just means to inherit membership into the tribe of your father. Inherited Citizenship is a naturally-occurring way that natural persons obtain Citizenship, that has been going on for all of mankind's history, and it requires no statutes or authority to grant other than nature and natural circumstances, and no statutes exist defining natural born Citizenship because none is needed. You are just born into it. These types of Citizens are called 'natural born Citizens', and by definition, are not defined in a statute. So in conclusion, we have proved that only natural human persons, and not governments, create Citizens, and they come in two varieties: naturally born ones created by natural persons, and the ones that natural persons create with statutes.

At least that is the way things are supposed to be. Unfortunately, the government has devolved from its Constitution and acts like a King outside of the constraints of the Constitution, going about ordering everyone around. This gives the illusion that the government is the LAW and can do anything it wants, anything that a natural person could do. That is why, for example, people erroneously believe that the government can create natural born Citizens-- or why people support torture in America, and America has now become a government that routinely tortures its prisoners, just like a king or immoral natural person would do. There was a time, not so long ago, when the government would not be permitted to torture prisoners under its control, because it was considered a 'crime against the laws of nature', but that was before the restraints of Natural Law and human reason were removed from our government and people stopped believing that statutes are not law but are only based upon law that comes from nature. This basis is the meaning of a Republic and what differentiates a Republic from a Monarchy ruled by a king. People have been programmed and conditioned to accept this RULE OVER THEM, because they are so used to being unwillingly subjugated to government agents of the king who misuse and abuse their powers, that it is just accepted as the norm.

You cannot inherit anything from government, because government is not a natural being, and you can only inherit things from nature, or natural beings, if you are a natural born person. Government cannot make law in America. ALL LAW comes from NATURE (Declaration of Independence). Government can only write STATUTES, which ARE NOT LAW, but merely the expression of the will of a natural person(s). STATUTES are only given the WEIGHT and FORCE of law, by natural sovereign people, through voluntary consent (ADMIRALTY and EQUITY jurisdiction), or by the common law application of force (you injured me, now pay compensation!). In America, the government GRANTS NOTHING, EVERY "LEGAL RIGHT" MUST BE CLAIMED BY YOU! The Constitution is not actually the supreme law of the land, that is a misnomer, it is actually just the supreme statutory authority.

It was your FATHER(S) who fought for your freedoms and who are the ones who actually posses your legal and citizenship rights to hand down to their children. The American government is not your KING/Sovereign over you, and you do not inherit anything from it, and it does not grant you anything, because it just does what the Sovereign People, and the People's statutes, orders it to do! Anything you get from government has to be CLAIMED by you and is not granted by government, but is the result of privileges granted from your fathers and their fathers who, as sovereign natural persons, GRANTED THEMSELVES AND THEIR PROGENY these privileges, and wrote them into statutes, and you INHERITED it all from them by the laws of nature, and not because some statute from government says so, as there are no such statutes and none are required. We rejected English common law Rule of Kings when we broke from England and became FREE SOVEREIGNS ourselves, thus removing the middle-man King and only sovereign. The common laws and history of America provides a very different definition and meaning to natural born Citizen in Article II, than the English common law definition, that most Americans and judges fail to realize.

As a result of Lynch v Clark, people are trying to apply the English common law definition of "natural born" under a SOVEREIGN KING, who has the power to grant or rescind your citizenship and rights at will, and substitute that meaning for what is meant by natural born Citizen in Article II, under the American Constitutional Republic that has no sovereign over the people, and where everyone is his own sovereign, who is created separate and equal, subject only to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, like it says in the Declaration of Independence, and then, subject only to the LIMITED jurisdiction of a Fed, State, or local government that GRANTS NOTHING, but is just supposed to protect your natural and legal rights that you are naturally born with, which you INHERIT from NATURE, and your FATHER, because there is no sovereign natural person over you to naturally INHERIT anything from in America and no statute authorizes it either!

Now that we have reviewed the basis of the American form of government, I would like to sum up what I see as the basic BOGUS LEGAL THEORY that says that anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural born Citizen as defined in Article II. It is basically a misapplication of the English common law meaning of natural born Citizen, combined with a totally wrong interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Under the RULE OF KINGS, there is only one sovereign, and if you are born under his jurisdiction (soil only), you are his subject, no matter what your parent's citizenship, because in the king's jurisdiction, soil is all that is important, because that is where the King exercises his SOLE jurisdictional sovereignty. 'Sole', as in total and complete and undisputed by other jurisdictions. If you are born of soil under one sovereign King, then you INHERIT your rights, including citizenship, from a grant from your sovereign King, and not just from nature directly or from your parents. The King is kind of a Middle-man that comes between father and offspring, and the only one allowed to grant things. Because he is a natural sovereign person, a king has the natural power to grant things. Artificial creatures, like a State or Government, lack the natural power to grant things, as they only operate by STATUTE and not by natural powers, which are required to grant things. The King can even take your natural inheritance and property away from you and banish you at will.

Those that argue for Chairman O's eligibility, see America like a KING over its subjects, granting what they believe to be natural born Citizenship to anyone born under its jurisdiction (soil only), irregardless of parent's Citizenship. They have this view because of their belief that the 14th Amendment grants the Government the natural power to create natural born Citizens, a power it does not, and cannot, grant, and because the English common law definition of "natural born" means soil jurisdiction only, not realizing that is only due to a natural consequence of being ruled by a KING or Monarchy form of government, because in a monarchy, that is how the one and only sovereign granting authority that is over everyone else, the King, exercises his jurisdiction, is by territory (soil). Thus, if you are born on the king's soil, you are a "natural" (born in his territory) subject of the King and thus he grants (allows to happen or permits) your natural born Citizenship (which comes from NATURE and not the STATE ), as the King is acting as the authorized natural authority and agent of nature (RULE BY DIVINE RIGHT, a claimed right from nature) to entitle/enable (as if you need his "by your leave"!), you to your birth inheritance from nature (life, liberty, property, legal rights, NB Citizenship, etc.), even though nature and your parents made you a natural born Citizen (of somewhere) even without the a King granting it!. Based on this concept outlined above, the Obamanites argue that the Change we can believe in is that the American Constitutional Republic has been transformed by Chairman O and his supporters, into a Monarchy form of government possessing the natural power to grant things, including the ability to create natural born Citizenships (which only Nature can create), with such natural powers being derived from the 14th Amendment, which they argue grants this natural power to the government to create natural born Citizens even though such natural powers can only be derived from nature and natural persons, and not statutes like the 14th Amendment. This is their authority to claim that any person born in America (soil only, irregardless of parent's citizenship at birth) is a natural born Citizen and thus qualifies to become President under Article II. This obviously wrong-headed view will easily show, by contrast, what the real meaning of natural born Citizen in Article II means. I will now state the self-evident truth and self-defining meaning of the term 'natural born Citizen' as it is in Article II qualifications for President.

A natural born Citizen, in Article II qualifications for President of U.S., means a Citizen that was created by the LAWS OF NATURE only, and subject to the complete and total jurisdiction of the enabling authority that permits Inheritance of all rights from nature, and not having them to be CLAIMED from Congress, or from statutes, or by the written laws of man! A natural born Citizen is a natural person, who inherits his or her Citizenship naturally from one's parents who are also Citizens, free from defining statutory constructs, or negotiated treaties. In short, it means your naturally-Inherited citizenship that you get from your father (mostly). It DOES NOT MEAN just a citizen created as a result of being born on U.S. soil.

This is totally consistent with the English common law meaning of 'natural born Citizen', and is actually what is at the heart of the issue. If we return for a moment to the monarchy example, the laws of nature progress a little different under a King than they do under a Constitutional Republic of Sovereign citizens. Under a king, the laws of nature are such that if you are born on the king's turf (soil) then you are naturally the king's subject (not by statutory construct, but by the NATURAL DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS, which is a claimed right of nature and therefore, you are a natural born Citizen-subject of the King because you are born totally under the laws of nature and natural circumstances, and you are subject totally and completely to the King's NATURAL jurisdiction, as opposed to an artificially-created government jurisdiction. Your citizenship is totally defined by natural laws and circumstances, and by a natural person, the King. There is no need for your citizenship to be defined in a statute or public law somewhere. That is why only soil matters in a monarchy, because to inherit all of your rights solely from nature, to qualify as a natural born Citizen, one need only be subject to the enabling authority that allows or grants natural inheritance from father to offspring, and that is the KING, and you become TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THE KING'S JURISDICTION, irregardless of your parent's citizenship at birth, simply by being born on his soil, which is just a natural circumstance. That is why, ONLY in Old England, it is ONLY SOIL that matters, to claim a natural born Citizenship solely from the laws of nature, because IT IS A MONARCHY with a King as a REQUIRED ENABLING AUTHORITY for your naturally-inherited rights to Citizenship. Things are quite different in our American Constitutional Republic, where there is no required enabling authority over you or between you and your natural right to inherit your natural-born Citizenship from nature through your parents.

Under the U.S. Constitutional Republic form of government, the government IS NOT A REQUIRED ENABLING AUTHORITY AND HAS NO JURISDICTION WHATSOEVER over the natural born persons under its territorial jurisdiction, with regards to a person's natural inheritance and the ability to inherit Citizenship and all other inheritable natural inalienable rights from the Laws of Nature only, through one's parents, AS LONG AS BOTH parents are of the SAME citizenship. This is not the same as under a KING, where the parents' citizenship does not matter as long as you are born on his soil. This is a result of FREEDOM from the rule of a King and the limited jurisdictional nature of our LIMITED form of government. Your inherited citizenship, and other inherited natural rights, come directly to a born person in America from nature and not government, without the need of permission from a King, or ruling authority, that has any territorial or statutory jurisdictional claims over you for purposes of your inherited Citizenship from your American parents on American soil. These natural rights, including your inherited citizenship, are your natural inheritance and you get them as a total result of the natural circumstances of your birth, inherited from your father and your mother, who are the only natural persons who are sovereign over you when you are born, for you to inherit anything from. The U.S. government may only be permitted jurisdiction over inherited Citizenships on its soil, when either one or both parents are not U.S. citizens, and some application of petition is made to the government, thus inviting jurisdiction. Even then, jurisdiction is only theoretically possible, and is by no means guaranteed or assured, because the foreign parent(s) may abscond with the children, thus denying U.S. jurisdiction in opposition to the 14th Amendment's requirement that those born in the U.S. be fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., in order to be Citizens of the U.S. That fact alone prohibits births on U.S.soil to a foreign parent(s) from being considered a natural born Citizen, which requires being totally and completely subject to only one jurisdictional enabling authority (not authorities plural) that recognizes (not grants!) your natural born Citizenship.

Right away, we are running into problems, and we can see how the English common law definition of natural born Citizen does not quite fit our form of government. Just being born within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., (soil only), is insufficient grounds to guarantee complete and total jurisdiction by the government over your Citizenship because the government has no jurisdiction as an enabling authority, for your natural right to inherit your Citizenship from your Citizen parents on U.S. soil, like a King does if you are born on his turf. And, OUR government only has the statutory authority to be an enabling authority for multi-jurisdictional natural inheritances or statutorily-created Citizenships (naturalized Citizens), not naturally inherited indigenous Citizenships on U.S. soil. Immediately then, it is apparent that the natural born Citizen definition of the English common Law, cannot be applied to what is meant in Article II by 'natural born Citizen', due to territorial jurisdiction issues that arise caused by the different forms of government, and thus, just being born on the soil in America is insufficient grounds to guarantee ANY JURISDICTION AT ALL over your Citizenship, let alone complete and total jurisdiction by the government over your Citizenship, like with a King if you are born on his turf. This proves conclusively, that just being born on U.S. soil is insufficient grounds for being considered a natural born Citizen as it is defined in English common law, because there is no guarantee of jurisdiction if one is born on the soil. Also, it shows that the English common law definition of natural born, does not apply in its entirety, to the term natural born Citizen as it is defined in Article II. The part of the English common law definition that does apply to Article II, is the concept that one must be born naturally subject, totally and completely, to the lawful jurisdiction of the natural enabling authority, that grants the natural inheritance of your natural born Citizenship, so that you will be considered a natural born Citizen, born only under the laws of natural inheritance and not born under a statutory defining authority. In old England, this was accomplished by merely being born on soil subject to the king's jurisdiction. In America, the territorial jurisdiction is irrelevant as a factor in determining an enabling authority for natural inheritance of Citizenship if both parents are already U.S. citizens, because their is no authority other than your parents. Since it is one's parents in America, that are the natural enabling authority for the inheritance of natural born Citizenship, one must avoid any and all statutory jurisdictions over Citizenship if one is to be considered a natural born Citizen in the U.S. The only way to guarantee freedom from statutory entanglements, is to be born on U.S. soil, to parents who are both U.S. Citizens. Then you Inherit your U.S. citizenship, and other rights, naturally by the Laws of Nature only, because you are subject totally and completely to the jurisdiction of the only existing sovereign enabling authority, your parents, who grant you your birth and natural inheritance of your U.S. Citizenship. This is what a natural born Citizen is in Article II, and the only type of Citizen that can qualify for President. At no time does a natural born Citizen receive his citizenship as a claim of a privilege from government, which has absolutely no jurisdiction at all in matters of natural born inheritance of Citizenship to children of U.S. parents! Your Citizenship is a natural birthright only from the Laws of Nature. It is an Inalienable Right that is not given to you by government, which has absolutely no power to bestow naturally-inherited inalienable Citizenships, and you do not owe government anything for your natural born Citizenship, as it comes from nature and your parents, and not government. And, because it is an Inalienable Right to inherit one's Citizenship from one's parents, the government in America has no right to take your natural born Citizenship away from you either. If your citizenship is statutory, then the government can take away your citizenship, and can potentially deport you to other previous jurisdictions that you were previously subjected to, because your citizenship is a privilege and not an inalienable birth right. Only naturally-inherited Citizenships are inalienable. In America, the Government has no power to take away your natural born Citizenship that is inherited as an inalienable birth right from nature. Where would they even deport you to, if it were even possible for them to take away your inalienable Inherited Citizenship? Under a King, the king can take your natural born citizenship away from you (in effect if not in reality) by banishment.

Now, things start to make a lot more sense. Only Nature (your parents, who are natural beings created from Natural Laws), can produce natural born Citizens. Governments cannot produce them. Governments can only produce statutory citizens. Statutorily-created citizens are by definition, not natural born Citizens. If you are born under competing jurisdictions, then your Citizenship has to be negotiated between the sovereign jurisdictional enabling authorities, and statutorily defined. Thus you can never be a natural born Citizen as defined by Article II because such citizens in Article II cannot, and may not, be defined by statutes, but instead are entirely defined by nature and natural circumstances at the time of birth. There is proof of this in the statute that governs the inheritance of a natural born U.S. Citizenship if only one parent is a U.S. citizen. If you do a little legal research, you will find a statute that specifies that in order to Inherit a natural born Citizenship in America, if only one parent is a Citizen, then it must be your mother, and she must meet certain age and residency requirements before her child is born, that make her a person of the country capable to pass on an inherited Citizenship. These requirements have very little to do with soil, or the whims of governmental statutory authority, and everything to do with time and the legal age required to be legally and politically a full member of society, as established by the requirements of nature. This is what makes her naturally capable to pass on her membership to her child through Inheritance. She must first be sufficiently a full member of her own society, as it is defined by the natural laws that govern her society, before she can be reasonably expected to be capable of passing on her membership in that society, to her child through inheritance. In other words, she has to be fully in possession of her own Citizenship in order to pass it on. The specific requirements of the statutes are determined by the laws of nature and natural circumstances at the time of birth. These statutes do not seek to define what a natural born Citizen is, but rather they seek to preserve the natural reality of what is required by and from nature to ensure membership in society according to natural laws and principles that govern the society which are not at all defined in statutes. The mere fact that such statutes exist, proves that natural born Citizens are the ones that the Laws of Nature produces and defines, and are not and cannot be produced or defined by statutes. Statutes can only place limitations on what NATURE defines to be a natural born Citizen. The purpose of such statutes is to preserve the natural requirements of membership in society that are defined by nature, not eliminating them or abrogating them! This also proves the meaning of natural born Citizen in Article II, that it is the Citizens that the Laws of Nature produces and defines, not that statutes produces or defines, meaning the ones that are inherited from one's parents and defined by natural circumstances at birth. This prohibits dual citizenship births on American soil, and births on American soil to foreign parent(s), from ever being considered as natural born Citizens. If your citizenship must be negotiated among sovereigns, like your parents, or is received as a result of an Act of Congress, due to negotiations between competing jurisdictions, then your Citizenship is a Privilege from government and you are not a natural born Citizen, which is a GRANT FROM NATURE ONLY and not a government privilege-- and therefore, you cannot be President. Those that are naturally born into competing jurisdictions are only born inheriting the statutory legal right to a Citizenship, and are not naturally born inheriting membership of one society from both parents, free of the need of a statute, as is meant by natural born Citizen. You can not be naturally born and be naturally a member of more that one society, nature does not operate that way. Nature only makes you a natural member of one society. You may only be naturally born a member of one society, but you may be naturally born with legal rights from other jurisdictions that permit Citizenship in other societies. Such situations imply that one is naturally born inheriting certain legal rights that cross jurisdictions that may permit citizenship in other jurisdictions, but that is not what is meant by 'natural born Citizen' which is a person who is naturally born inheriting membership in only one society at the time of birth.

Now perhaps you will understand why no one ever bothered to make a big deal out of defining 'natural born Citizen'. It is because at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, everyone understood what it meant to inherit things from your parents. Everyone just understood that natural born citizenship just means the citizenship that you are born inheriting from your parents. It is an obvious self-defining term. It does not just simply mean a person who is a U.S. citizen because he is born on U.S. soil. Since the Citizen that is referred to in Article II is an American Citizen, then a natural born Citizen in Article II means a natural born American Citizen. Just being born on American soil, while at the same time naturally inheriting a foreign citizenship through your father so that you are born a citizen of more than one country, is not what is meant by a Citizen in Article II. The framers did not intend that to mean that U.S. Citizens born with foreign citizenships, could qualify to be president of the U.S., as long as they were born on U.S. soil! They meant it as only citizens of the U.S. who inherited their U.S. citizenship from their parents, as their one and only citizenship, would be qualified!

Now you can understand, why the federal government left the actual definitions of who could be a Citizen, up to the States. The federal government had no power to say who was or was not a citizen of a State, only the States have that power themselves, through statutes, which means that really, only the natural Persons in the States can determine what is a Citizen. The Fed only had the power of authorizing naturalized U.S. citizenships to immigrants. The federal government did not care who was or was not a citizen in the States. The States could statutorily make anything a Citizen (with the exception of the natural born citizen that cannot be statutorily defined). The only citizens from the States that would qualify under Article II, were the children of State citizens (statutory citizens or otherwise), that grew up inheriting their State citizenship from their citizen parents, thus ensuring them to be qualified natural born U.S. citizens, as well as natural born State citizens. It is interesting to note, that you had Indians, and Blacks, that were naturally born in the U.S. to parents that had been here forever, but were still not permitted to have their natural birth Citizenship even recognized by the State, and so they were not even Citizens of the State they had been born into, and thus not Citizens of the U.S. either. At least, that is to say, that their natural born Citizenship was not recognized to exist, even though of course, by the Laws of Nature, the Citizenship does indeed exist. This self-evident fact that Citizenship and rights exist, from nature, even if governments refuse to recognize them, is the reason for the authorization of Civil Rights. Nature demands that we are entitled to equal treatment, subject only to the laws of nature, and not because some statute says so. It is Nature that say so. In the case of the Indians, at least they were naturally born Citizens of their tribes, who inherited their Citizenship to their tribes or nations from their fathers. At least they had their inherited tribal nation Citizenships. The Blacks did not even have that. That is why the fourteenth Amendment was created.

The fourteenth Amendment was crafted very carefully by its authors to ensure that it granted no new powers to the government that it did not already have. It most definitely DID NOT give government the power to create citizens, especially not natural-born ones, which can only be created by Nature! By its declaratory and defining nature, it forced the former slave States to recognize the natural born inalienable rights of former slaves, including the right of blacks to their naturally inherited, natural born, State Citizenships that come from nature, and not from the State, who just refused to recognize that fact. The fourteenth Amendment was declaratory only. It just stated the obvious, that was already the situation before there was a 14th Amendment. All the fourteenth amendment did was to define what a Citizen was, which was absolutely no different than the definition of a citizen before the 14th Amendment. It did, however, open for the federal government a door of jurisdiction to the Southern States, through which Federal Civil Rights legislation could be applied to the States, to give blacks realization of their rights as State and federal citizens. The 14th Amendment was also carefully crafted to be consistent with the meaning of natural born Citizen in Article II as I have shown it here. Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it say natural born Citizen. The 14th amendment only defines what a Citizen is, not what a 'natural born Citizen' is. The 14th Amendment cannot create natural born Citizens, only your parents can do that.

Finally, the way our crafty old founding fathers set thing up, under our Constitutional Republic form of government, where everyone is an equal Sovereign and the government is the People's SERVANT and not its KING or MASTER, it turns out that natural born U.S. Citizens are born under no jurisdictional authority at all except for their parents. Their parents create them as natural born Citizens at birth! The definition of natural born in Article II requires one to be born on U.S. soil. This protects the parents from foreign jurisdiction. And, the U.S. government has no jurisdiction over the parents, as an enabling authority, when it comes to passing on to their offspring, their natural rights of inheritance to life, liberty, natural born Citizenship, etc. Therefore, absent foreign or U.S. jurisdiction, natural born U.S. citizens are born only subject to the natural jurisdiction of their sovereign natural parents, who grant them their natural rights at birth, including their natural right to be a U.S. Citizen, as a natural right of inheritance that comes from Nature, and is not a statutory citizenship that is a privilege from government. There is no statute anywhere that says if you are born on U.S. soil to parents who are both U.S. citizens, then you are a 'natural born Citizen', as defined in Article II. It is just already understood that is the way it is, by the logical Construction of the Constitution and our laws, and no such statute is necessary. It is essential that one realizes that there are two sources of where citizens come from. Nature and government. There exists a natural inalienable right to inherit from your father, the membership in your father's clan. That is what it means to be a natural born citizen. This occurs entirely under the laws of nature, even without a government or statutes. Since you receive this right from nature, you do not owe anything to your government for this type of Citizenship because the government does not give it to you, you inherit it from your father. In fact, the government is forced to recognize your natural born Citizenship, and it has no power to deny or revoke your Citizenship since it did not grant it either. Your father is the one who grants you membership in his clan as a matter of natural birthright, not a privilege doled out by government. Then there is every other type of citizenship under the sun. Those are all governmental statute-created, citizenships that are themselves, created by natural persons who are the only ones capable of creating Citizens either naturally or by statute. By definition, natural born citizenships are not defined in statutes, which is why people find no definitions of 'natural born Citizenship'. They fail to realize that nature defines them, not government! Government only defines every other type of citizenship besides natural born ones! Things then get really confusing when case law judges call any birth on U.S. soil, "natural born", because then people think that means that those Citizens created from statutes due to soil birth, means the same thing as natural born Citizen in Article II, which it doesn't. Instead, in Article II, it means INHERITED from your parents. Obviously, they are not the same thing.