Where — How — Who — What Determined A Natural Born Citizen?

In 1787 America where – how – who – what determined the citizenship of the child, and still determines the citizenship of the child in 2000s America.

Where? U.S. Soil = Place = natural law (law of nature)

In the 1787 Article II, in the 1790 Naturalization Act, in the 1795 Naturalization Act, the soil (place) of birth was one prerequisite which determined the citizenship of a child.

In 1787 if a child was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens the child was a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.

In 1790 if the child was born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married to each other the child was a “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) as written in the 1790 Naturalization Act, and the child was also eligible to be president.

In 1795 if the child was born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married to each other the child was a ‘citizen’ and not eligible to be president.

After the error of the 1790 Naturalization Act was recognized the “natural born citizen” language which implied eligibility to be president was repealed and a new implication became noticeable.

A 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ was not the same as a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) and also not eligible to be president.

So, if a person who was a “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) was considered by the U.S. Congress to be eligible to be president from 1790 until the language was changed in 1795, then a person who was only a ‘citizen’ after 1795 was also not eligible to be president then and is still not eligible today in the 2000s. That makes sense, right? And consider the fact that the U.S. Congress repealed the three 1790 “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) words and changed them to the single 1795 ‘citizen’ (lower case ‘c’) word. This obvious change is internal black text proof that the U.S. Congress did not because it can not change eligibility to be president contrary to singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone only on U.S. soil, the original genesis implicit intent of Article II. In other words, it requires an Article V constitutional amendment to change eligibility to be president from “natural born Citizen” to ‘citizen’ either ‘at birth’ by an Act of Congress (Texas Sen. Ted Cruz) or ‘at birth’ to only one or zero U. S citizens (Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Calif. Sen/VP Kamala Harris).

How? Soil + Birth = natural law (law of nature)

In 1787 and 1795, soil was one element that was required to determine the “natural born Citizen” status or the ‘citizen’ status of the child. Here are two contrasting examples: 1) In 1787 and 1795 birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other made, by birth alone (on U.S. soil), a child a “natural born Citizen” who was eligible to be president. 2) In 1787 and 1795 birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other made, by birth alone (on foreign soil), a child a ‘citizen’ who was not eligible to be president.

Who? Parents + married to each other = a positive law (law of people) ‘legal’ union

In 1787 the singular U.S. citizenship of two parents by ‘legal’ marriage only to each other before a child was born determined the singular U.S. citizenship of a “natural born Citizen” child and eligibility to be president.

What? Parents + both U.S. citizens = ‘union’ of U.S. citizenship = positive law (law of people)

In 1787 the U.S. citizenship of two parents determined the “natural born Citizen” status of a child who was eligible to be president. In 1787 the lack of U.S. citizenship of one or two parents determined the ‘citizen’ status of the child who was not eligible to be president.

1758 Emer de Vattel and 1875 U.S. Supreme Court Minor v Happersett

Emer de Vattel’s 1758 definition of “natural-born-citizens” is easy to understand: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”. The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law, 1758 Vol. 1, Chapter 19, Sec. 212. John Jay, in his July 25, 1787 suggestion to George Washington, understood that Vattel’s words “natural-born citizens” and ‘parents’ (plural) were intended to implicitly mean only singular citizenship by birth alone to two citizens married to each other, not dual citizenship. The qualifying word ‘or’ = ‘also called’, and the plural ‘parents … citizens’ = two parents who have the same citizenship according to prevailing common law in Europe and America in the 1700s when, by ‘legal’ marriage, the citizenship of the male automatically became the citizenship of the female, essentially naturalization by marriage.

- 201 -

Minor v Happersett Definition

There was at least one clear “natural born Citizen” statement by the Supreme Court in 1875.

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”.

The 1875 Minor v Happersett Supreme Court case was about a female citizen of a state and whether or not she was eligible to vote in state elections. The Court did not look at whether or not she was a “natural born Citizen” and eligibility, as a female, to be president. However, the words can be looked at as to whether or not the words can implicitly apply to eligibility to be president and the singular citizenship vs. dual citizenship debate. For example, these words ‘these’ (= children), ‘or’ = also called, ‘include’, ‘within’, ‘without’, ‘citizenship’, ‘parents’, ‘this class’, ‘doubts’, ‘never’, ‘first’, can not implicitly refer to both singular U.S. citizenship and dual citizenship with the implication for eligibility to be president that the ‘dual’ citizenship of parents was not important to ‘some authorities’. The obvious implication from the 1875 Minor v Happersett language is that, for eligibility to be president, by extrapolation, ‘some authorities’ definitely were for only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil to only two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before the child is born.

Clarity About “natural born Citizen” and Original Genesis

1787 Article II Section 1 Clause 5: “natural born Citizen”

A child is born on U.S. soil

A child is born to two U.S. citizens married only to each other

1790 Naturalization Act: “natural born citizen”

A child is born on foreign soil

A child is born to two U.S. citizens married only to each other

1795 Naturalization Act: “citizen”

A child is born on foreign soil

A child is born to two U.S. citizens married only to each other

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act: “citizen”

A child is born on foreign soil

A child is born with one U.S. citizen married to one foreign citizen

The 1787 Article II phrase “natural born Citizen” which John Jay suggested to George Washington, was obviously only a reference to birth on U.S. soil. Also, Jay’s original genesis implicit intent obviously could not include citizenship by naturalization with an oath in a ceremony before a judge. That is obvious, right?

The 1787 Article II phrase “natural born Citizen” was obviously only a reference to birth on U.S. soil as a way to protect the executive office from foreign influence. For that reason it is obvious that Jay's original genesis implicit intent could not include birth on foreign soil. Right?

The 1787 Article II phrase “natural born Citizen” was obviously only a reference to birth to two U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other before a child is born, and Jay's original intent obviously could not include birth with one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent, married or not married to each other before a child is born. Right?

- 202 -

The 1790 Naturalization Act in the first administration of President Washington said that a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other was a “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’). That being so, consider the implication of a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens. If that child was elected president at age 35, it would have been a legitimate presidency because the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born citizen” (singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens) would have trumped the eligibility mistake of assuming that birth on foreign soil was implicit in Article II.

The 1795 Naturalization Act says that a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens is a ‘citizen’, not a “natural born Citizen”, and so not eligible to be president.

Both the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts considered both parents to be U.S. citizens.

Both the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts implied that the parents are married only to each other.

Both the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts did not imply that the parents were not married to each other.

The 1790 Naturalization Act said that a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married to each other was a “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’).

The 1795 Naturalization Act said that a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married to each other was a ‘citizen’.

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (SEC. 301. (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) deals with the foreign birth of a child to one U.S. citizen and one foreign citizen.

The language of clause (g) in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act indicates that Texas federal Senator Ted Cruz is a ‘citizen’ and not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” or a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen”.

A Major Conflict About Original Genesis ‘Soil’ Is Resolved

There was an obvious conflict with the original genesis implicit intent of the three 1787 Article II words “natural born Citizen” (U.S. soil) and the three 1790 Naturalization Act words “natural born citizen” (foreign soil). The words ‘natural’ and ‘born’ in 1787 were understood by the original birthers at the constitutional convention to refer only to birth on U.S. soil, and the word ‘Citizen’ was understood to refer to the singular U.S. citizenship of the child as derived only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.. The ‘conflict’ was resolved with a return to the original genesis implicit intent of Article II. Birth only on U.S. soil for eligibility to be president was the reason the second Washington administration did not veto the repeal of the three 1790 Naturalization Act words “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) of the first Congress and replacement by the third Congress with the single 1795 Naturalization Act word ‘citizen’.

Now, consider these two obvious conclusions.

1) Is it obvious that if one child is a 1787 Article II child born on U.S. soil and another child is a 1790 Naturalization Act child born on foreign soil, then both the 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” and the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) could?, would?, should? be construed to implicitly mean either birth on U.S. soil or birth on foreign soil, and so both children could?, would?, should? be eligible to be president? Is that an obvious conclusion to be drawn if both U.S. soil and foreign soil were implied in the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president?

Yes? No? Well, consider obvious conclusion #2.

2) Is it obvious that if one child is a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” if born on U.S. soil and another child is a 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ if born on foreign soil, then only the 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” is the only ‘citizen’ who is (implicitly) still eligible to be president, and the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ and all naturalization acts by the Congress since 1795 is still not eligible to be president?

Birth only on U.S. soil for eligibility to be president is the only obvious conclusion, right?

In 1787 the soil of birth and the citizenship of married parents were both important in determining eligibility to be president. In 1787 a child born to a male U.S. citizen and a female U.S. citizen who were not married to each other, or born to a male U.S. citizen and a female U.S. citizen who were married to different spouses, or not married to anybody, was not eligible to be president because it was not possible in 1787 (and the 2000s) to pass on to the child ‘legal’ singular U.S. citizenship when the male U.S. citizen and the female U.S. citizen are not ‘legally’ married only to each other. That is obvious, right?

- 203 -

By repealing the ‘naturalization’ words “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) in the 1790 Naturalization Act, ‘naturalization’ as a ‘citizen’ for children born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents would not be confused with a born or naturalized ‘citizen’ and the original genesis implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” in Article II as meaning only singular U.S. citizenship, only by birth alone, only on U.S. soil, to only two U.S. citizens, only married, only to each other, only before the birth of a child. The natural law – positive law combination in “natural born Citizen” (‘natural born’ = law of nature, and ‘Citizen’ = law of people) produces only singular U.S. citizenship. That is obvious, right?

Since 1787 only children with singular U.S. citizenship derived by birth alone are ‘citizens’ who can say that they are a “natural born Citizen”, and, because they have resided within the United States for a minimum of 14 years and have attained to age 35, they are eligible to be president. The 1787 Article II presidential eligibility requirements of 1) U.S. soil and 2) birth are definitely primary and seminal. The soil must exist first before birth can happen second, and both soil and birth are definitely more important than 3) 14 years residence and 4) reaching age 35, because birth must happen before age 35 is attained. That is obvious, right?

Article II Section 1 clause 5: 2 Parts – Implicit and Explicit

Part 1a: Implicit is birth in the country

Part 1b: Implicit is birth to two U.S. citizens

Part 2a: Explicit is attain to the age of 35 years

Part 2b: Explicit is reside 14 years in the United States

If persons are born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other today in the 2000s they are still a 1787 Article II U.S. “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.

If persons in 1790 were born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other they were ‘considered’, a positive law word, to be a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’).

If persons were born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married to each other in 1795 they were ‘considered’ to be 1795 Naturalization Act U.S. ‘citizens’, and also ‘considered’ in all naturalization acts since then to only be U.S. ‘citizens’.

If persons are born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens (married or not) they are recognized since the 1898 U.S. v Wong Kim Ark fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court and by subsequent Immigration and Naturalization Acts to be U.S. ‘citizens’.

If persons are born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen (married or not) they are considered to be U.S. ‘citizens’ by amendment, immigration and naturalization acts, or Supreme Court ‘opinion’.

If persons are born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen married to a foreign citizen, they are considered to be immigration and naturalization act U.S. ‘citizens’.

It is obvious now that the original genesis implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” was understood by the original birthers at the 1787 constitutional convention who did not need the meaning of “natural born Citizen” to be clarified to them. Some of the 1787 Article II naturalized “... or a Citizen of ...” citizens who were elected and sitting in the 1795 third Congress changed the three 1790 Naturalization Act words, “natural born citizen”, to the one 1795 Naturalization Act word, ‘citizen’. Why did the 1795 third Congress repeal the 1790 Naturalization Act language? Well, because the Congress can not amend the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” with a naturalization act. Or, to put it another way, the Congress can not ‘naturalize’ a ‘citizen’ into eligibility to be president That is obvious now, right?

Explicit Soil and Birth Requirements to be Eligible to be President

Although there is really only one definition of “natural born Citizen” as original birther John Jay implied when he underlined the word ‘born’ in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, itemized next are 24 Article II Section 1 clause 5 possible scenarios, including some that living constitutionism new meaning neobirthers might promote: 1) birth on U.S. soil or birth on foreign soil, 2) parents married or not married only to each other, 3) the parents are U.S. citizens before or after a child’s birth, and 4) husbands with one wife or four (or more) wives.

- 204 -

This tabletalk style conversation is happening because I am not a constitutional scholar who thinks that the eligibility of a presidential aspirant is not a serious constitutional issue worth debating at this time (during Barack Hussein Obama’s presidency). Some constitutional scholars and non-scholars say, not now!!! — Do not!!! debate the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II and eligibility to be president while America is in the nascent stage of political, social, economic decline, and there are more serious issues threatening America, such as the harbingers of splitting into five (5) regions, and more serious constitutional amendments to consider, such as a balanced budget amendment, and, anyway, we can not deal with every constitutional issue at this time.

Not now is obviously what some constitutional scholars must be ‘feeling’ since they have not been ‘thinking’ and ‘writing’ and ‘talking’ about “natural born Citizen” in Article II and eligibility to be president.

Not now is the reason that I got past my ‘feelings’ that the “natural born Citizen” issue was confusing and I started ‘thinking’ and ‘analyzing’ the original genesis implicit meaning of the original words of the original birthers, the original framers of the original birther document of the ‘Union’, specifically the perpetual eligibility words “natural born Citizen” that are contrasted with “… or a Citizen of ...” and which are found in Article II, the one and only place in the four seminal founding documents of the ‘union / Union’. After it became obvious to me that the answer to the confusion was located in the same clause 5 in the same sentence separated with a comma and the word ‘or’, well, it became obvious to me that the constitution which was adopted on September 17, 1787 was related to July 4, 1776 with original genesis and original intent for a very sensible ‘citizen’ reason. What, you may be asking yourself right now, what was the ‘very sensible 'citizen' reason’? Well, the simple answer is that ‘born’ = birth and ‘or’ = naturalization. When the new constitution was adopted September 17, 1787 at the convention 11 years, 2 months, 13 days after July 4, 1776, the naturalization date for persons born before July 4, 1776, nobody was 35 years old; nobody was old enough to be elected president as a “natural born Citizen”.

Martin Van Buren, President #8, born December 5, 1782, six years and five months after July 4, 1776, was the first “... or a Citizen of …” president who was born after 1776 and before 1787. He was eligible to be president since he was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other who were British ‘subjects’ and who became naturalized ‘citizens’ of the ‘union’ before it became a ‘Union’ with a constitution. They naturalized as citizens on independence day, July 4, 1776 before the Article II words “natural born Citizen” and “... or a Citizen of ...” were adopted and codified in the Constitution on September 17, 1787. Only after the new constitution was ratified could an “... or a Citizen of ...” be eligible to be president.

After the Constitution was ratified by the ninth state, New Hampshire, on June 21, 1788, George Washington, previously a British subject by birth alone to two British subjects, became the first July 4, 1776 naturalized citizen of the ‘Union’ of states to become the first September 17, 1787 “... or a Citizen of ...” president of the ‘Union’ of states when he was inaugurated April 30, 1789 – President for 8 years (1789-1797). Born February 22, 1732, died December 14, 1799. Eligible to be president as an “... or a Citizen of …” by naturalization alone because he was born in British America to two British parents married only to each other who were British ‘subjects’ by birth alone who became citizens of the ‘union’ of states by naturalization alone.

Since the last 1776 naturalized ‘citizen’ who was the last 1787 “... or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s only a “natural born Citizen” will be the NEXT... and the NEXT... and the NEXT... and the NEXT... and the NEXT... and the NEXT, etc., ‘citizen’ who will be “… eligible to the Office of President” in the 2000s and as long as America is a free individualist republic, not a collectivist republic, uh, I mean, collectivist democracy.

Since eight of the 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” patriots were born before July 4, 1776 and two before 1787 and naturalized as “... or a Citizen of ...” on September 17, 1787, it is obvious that all ten of these 1787 ‘citizens’ could not be a 1787 “natural born Citizen” by birth alone. That is obvious, right? The conclusion is also obvious that since the last 1787 “… or a Citizen of …” patriots who could have been elected president died sometime in the middle to late 1800s, a U.S. ‘citizen’ who has been naturalized since 1787 / 1795 / 1952, etc., by an Act of Congress was not the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers in 1787 for eligibility to be president (e.g., my Texas federal Senator Ted Cruz who was born in Canada after 1952). That is obvious, right?

- 205 -

The conclusion is obvious that birth on U.S. or foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen was not the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers about who a “natural born Citizen” is. However, according to the error of the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ about the word ‘citizen’ in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, a child with zero U.S. citizen parents is a U.S. ‘citizen’. This is an ‘opinion’ by the Court about the 1868 amendment (‘law’) about who is a ‘citizen’ which is contrary to the 1787 original birthers who wrote the original genesis word ‘born’ in the ‘law’ about who is eligible to be president. The ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Court which resulted in ‘anchor babies’ with ‘birthright citizenship’ (and, some assert, eligibility to be president, e.g., Rubio, Haley, Jindal, Harris, etc.) is contrary to the original genesis implicit intent and the ‘opinion’ of the 1787 original birthers about what makes a person eligible to be president. The ‘opinion’ of the 1787 original birthers is easily articulated as 1) only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible 2) only by birth alone 3) only on U.S. soil 4) only to two U.S. citizens 5) only married 6) only to each other 7) only before a child is born.

This original genesis conversation is for members of We the Posterity of We the People with common sense who want to become informed about and understand the presidential “natural born Citizen” eligibility issue and then use their common sense to analyze the soil and birth requirements that might apply to a future favorite presidential aspirant with unique soil and birth circumstances similar to Senator / President Barack Hussein Obama, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Kamala Harris, Governors Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal. 1) Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama asserted that he was eligible to be president because he was born on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen, his mother, while his father was from Kenya; 2) Texas Senator Ted Cruz, born in Canada to one U.S. citizen mother and one Cuban citizen father, announced that he renounced his Canadian birth citizenship, implying that renouncing foreign citizenship would enhance his qualification to run for U.S. President by changing triple citizenship into dual citizenship with an implicit singular twist; 3) Florida Senator Marco Rubio said that he was born on U.S. soil to two Cuban parents who had not naturalized as U.S. citizens before his birth; 4) South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and 5) Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal were both born on U.S. soil to parents from India who had not naturalized as U.S. citizens before their children were born; 6) California Senator Kamala Harris was born on U.S. soil to parents (mother from India and father from Jamaica) who had not naturalized as U.S. citizens before her birth.

Born on U.S. Soil 1

1) A child is born on U.S. soil to two heterosexual U.S. citizens married only to each other who were U.S. citizens before their child was born.

Q1 For eligibility to be president, are the five words 1) soil, 2) two, 3) heterosexual, 4) married, and 5) before, the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of Article II?

A1 [x] Yes [ ] No – the five = perpetual original genesis intent for eligibility to be president.

2) A child is born on U.S. soil to one heterosexual or homosexual U.S. citizen married to one heterosexual or homosexual foreign citizen before their child was born and the foreign citizen became a naturalized U.S. citizen after their child was born.

Q2 For eligibility to be president, are 1) “one” U.S. and 2) ‘one’ foreign, the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A2 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘one’ and ‘one’ negate eligibility.

3) A child is born on U.S. soil to one heterosexual or homosexual U.S. citizen married to one heterosexual or homosexual foreign citizen after their child was born and the foreign citizen became a naturalized U.S. citizen after their child was born.

Q3 For eligibility to be president, are 1) ‘one’ U.S. and 2) ‘one’ foreign, the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A3 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘one’ and ‘one’ negate eligibility.

4) A child is born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens either married at the time or married later, and they naturalized later.

Q4 For eligibility to be president, are ‘zero’ and ‘naturalized later’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A4 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘zero’ negates eligibility.

- 206 -

Born on Foreign Soil 1

5) A child is born on foreign soil to two heterosexual or homosexual U.S. citizens married only to each other who were both U.S. citizens before their child was born.

Q5 For eligibility to be president, are ‘foreign soil’ and ‘two’ and ‘both’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A5 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign’ negates eligibility.

6) A child is born on foreign soil to one heterosexual or homosexual U.S. citizen married to one heterosexual or homosexual foreign citizen before their child was born and the foreign citizen became a naturalized U.S. Citizen after their child was born.

Q6 For eligibility to be president, are ‘foreign soil’, ‘one’ U.S. and ‘one’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A6 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign’ and ‘one’ negate eligibility.

7) A child is born on foreign soil to one heterosexual or homosexual U.S. citizen married to one heterosexual or homosexual foreign citizen after a child was born and the foreign citizen naturalized after a child was born.

Q7 For eligibility to be president, are ‘foreign soil’ and ‘one’ U.S. and ‘one’ foreign the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A7 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign’ and ‘one’ negate eligibility.

8) A child is born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizens married at the time of birth or married later and they naturalized later.

Q8 For eligibility to be president, are ‘foreign soil’ and ‘zero’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A8 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign’ and ‘zero’ negate eligibility.

Donor Fathers – Surrogate Mothers – Rape – Conception – Birth

Here are some 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” original genesis related possible future scenarios with known and unknown donor fathers, surrogate mothers, in vitro (in the glass) fertilization, in vivo (in the body) gestation, and rape, conception, and birth.

Born on U.S. Soil 2

9) A child is born on U.S. soil to a verified U.S. citizen who is not married who provides the egg which is carried to term by a surrogate, and born to a sperm donor father who is a verified U.S. citizen.

Q9 For eligibility to be president, are U.S. soil, unmarried, surrogate, and donor the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A9 [ ] Yes [x] No – the egg mother is ‘not married’ so the citizenship status of a sperm donor is not relevant.

[My comment about “surrogate mothers”]

The American Heritage Dictionary definition:

surrogate n. 1. One that takes the place of another; a substitute. 2a. A person or animal that functions as a substitute for another, as in a social or family role. 2b. A surrogate mother. 3. Psychology – A figure of authority who takes the place of a father or mother in a person’s unconscious or emotional life.

surrogate mother n. 1. A woman who bears a child for another person or for a couple, often for pay, as after surgical implantation of a fertilized egg. 2. One that acts, serves as, or is a mother substitute. [End of comment]

10) A child is born on U.S. soil to a verified U.S. citizen who is not married who provides the egg which is carried to term by a surrogate, and born to a sperm donor father who is not known so he cannot be verified.

Q10 For eligibility to be president, are ‘U.S. soil’, ‘unmarried’, ‘surrogate’, and ‘donor … not known’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen”?

A10 [ ] Yes [x] No – egg provider is ‘not married’ so the citizenship status of the sperm donor is not relevant.

11) A child is born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen (married or not married) after a rape conception, and the citizenship status of the rapist ‘father’ is not known because he is not known.

Q11 For eligibility to be president, is ‘soil’ and ‘rape’ and ‘citizenship status … rapist … not known’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A11 [ ] Yes [x] No – the male ‘donor’ rapist is not known so even if the female is a U.S. citizen married or not married to a male U.S. citizen, the marriage status of the mother is not relevant.

12) A child is born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen (married or unmarried) after a rape conception, and the rapist ‘father’ is known to be a U.S. citizen.

Q12 For eligibility to be president, are ‘soil’, ‘rape’, and ‘rapist … known’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A12 [ ] Yes [x] No – the rapist ‘father’ is not married to the mother.

- 207 -

Born on Foreign Soil 2

13) A child is born on foreign soil to a U.S. citizen who is not married who provides the egg which is carried to term by a surrogate, and the sperm donor is a verified U.S. citizen.

Q13 For eligibility to be president, are ‘soil’ and ‘unmarried’ and ‘surrogate’ and ‘donor’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A13 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign soil’ and ‘unmarried’ negate eligibility.

14) A child is born on foreign soil to a verified U.S. citizen who is not married who provides the egg which is carried to term by a surrogate, and the sperm donor is not known.

Q14 For eligibility to be president, are ‘foreign soil’ and ‘unmarried’ and ‘surrogate’ and ‘donor … not known’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A14 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign soil’ and ‘not married’ negate eligibility.

15) A child is born on foreign soil to a U.S. citizen (married or not married) after a rape conception and the citizenship status of the rapist ‘father’ is not known because he is not known.

Q15 For eligibility to be president, are ‘foreign soil’ and ‘rape’ and ‘citizenship … rapist … not known’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A15 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign soil’ negates eligibility.

16) A child is born on foreign soil to a U.S. citizen (married or not married) after a rape conception, and the rapist ‘father’ is known to be a U.S. citizen.

Q16 For eligibility to be president, are ‘foreign soil’, ‘rape’, and ‘rapist … known’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A16 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign soil’ negates eligibility.

One Muslim Male Married With Four Muslim Females

Next are some possible future scenarios about Muslims and their law (sharia) that allows sharia compliant Muslim men to be married with up to four Muslim wives at the same time. The scenarios represent the possibility of U.S. law being changed in the 2000s by either an act of Congress or by amendment so that children born to U.S. citizen fathers with multiple wives who are all U.S. citizens will be eligible to be president. An amendment will be necessary, however, because of the 1787 original genesis implicit meaning (intent) of ‘born’ to only one U.S. citizen male and one U.S. citizen female. That implicit intent is obvious common sense, right?

Concerning Article II and eligibility to be president, in 1787 America ‘born’ was a common law (i.e., the common understanding of the people of the community) reference to legal marriage to only one spouse. Article II and all naturalization and immigration statutes since 1787 have been written with language which implies only legal marriage of only one male to only one female spouse.

In the future the U.S. Congress may attempt to clarify the ‘implicit’ intent of ‘born’ with an Act of Congress which, since Article II does not have language which explicitly says that a male married to four females at the same time is not eligible to be president, well, that means that any person with four wives, Muslim or Jew or Christian or atheist, is eligible to be president. When people do not care what the Constitution says or does not say, it can say and mean whatever they want it to say and mean, and you will not be allowed to say that the Constitution says and means what you want it to say and mean. Think about that.

However, the silence of Article II concerning what ‘born’ meant (implied, intended) in 1787 America for eligibility to be president, according to the common law of the era, definitely implies only ‘legal’ marriage to only one heterosexual spouse. Right? The 1787 common law mindset of the community of only heterosexual ‘legal’ marriage is the ‘legal’ reason for why an amendment will be necessary to change the original genesis implicit intent of the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ in Article II for eligibility to be president. That need for an amendment is obvious, right? How does having multiple wives square with “natural born Citizen” in Article II and the implicit intent for eligibility to be president that a person must have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to only one male legally married to only one female?

- 208 -

How was singular U.S. citizenship understood by the 1787 American original genesis birthers who were married to only one spouse? That is such a simple question which reveals a significant implication about “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president. A male Muslim with more than one female Muslim wife (yes, an implicit reference to only heterosexual male and female Muslims in 1787, not homosexual Muslims) at the same time was not the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers who adopted, and the original birthers who ratified, the “natural born Citizen” words in Article II.

Muslim law does not allow a female Muslim to be married to more than one male Muslim. Why? Well, ‘cause, well, you know, uh, the “issue” is, uh, the issue. The question is who is the father of the ‘issue’ (yes, the ‘issue’ pun is intended). A Muslim male married with two, three, four females, well, you know, the father is known and the mother is known, so, of course, if the Muslim father is a U.S. citizen and at least the Muslim birth mother is also a U.S. citizen and they are ‘married’ to each other, right, well, Muslim neobirthers may say that ‘marriage’ means that their child is a “natural born Citizen”. Right?

However, does a Muslim male with two, three, or four Muslim female wives fulfill the original genesis implicit intent of John Jay when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington? Does multiple female wives fulfill the implicit intent of the convention delegates who adopted the term of art language on September 17, 1787? Does ‘marriage’ alone fulfill the implicit intent that to be eligible to be president a child must have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens?

Does a Muslim male married with up to four Muslim wives really fulfill what John Jay implied when he underlined the word “born” in 1787 when the common law mindset of the community in 1700s British America and then the United States of America was that ‘legal’ marriage was a reference to only one heterosexual male and only one heterosexual female?

In addition to four wives allowed to Muslim males, since the time of Muhammad in the 600s Muslim males have been encouraged to capture women who are not Muslims during ‘jihad’ activity and sexualize them to the heart’s content of the Muslim male. What a religion of peace, right? Maybe it should be called a religion of ‘piece’ instead, as in getting another ‘piece’ and another ‘piece’ and another ‘piece… of candy’, right?

Muslim and Born on U.S. Soil

17) A child is born on U.S. soil to a Muslim male U.S. citizen who married one Muslim female U.S. citizen before a child was born and then, while still married to the first wife, on foreign soil he later marries three more Muslim women for a total of four wives as allowed in a sharia compliant Muslim home.

Q17 For eligibility to be president, are ‘U.S. soil’ and ‘male ... one female’ and ‘later marries three more’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A17a [x] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe – Born on ‘U.S. soil’ to ‘two’ Muslim U.S. citizens who are married only to each other before the birth of a child.

A17b [ ] Yes [ ] No [x] Maybe – Marriage to multiple wives after the birth of a child does not negate the 1787 implicit ‘spirit or letter’ of only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens only married to each other before a child is born. Marriage to multiple wives after the birth of a child to the first U.S. citizen Muslim wife does not negate the 1787 implicit ‘spirit or letter’ of only singular even though multiple wives was not the community standard of 1787 America where the “natural born Citizen” Article II ‘law’ was written. Even though multiple wives does not represent the ‘spirit or letter’ of the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers in 1787, marriage on foreign soil to multiple wives after the birth of a “natural born Citizen” does not negate the ‘spirit or letter’ of the eligibility requirement of only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone for a child born on U.S. soil to the first Muslim wife who was a U.S. citizen married to a U.S. citizen Muslim male before the birth of a child.

18) A child is born on U.S. soil to a male Muslim U.S. citizen who married a female Muslim U.S. citizen before the child was born while also, at the time of marriage, having three other wives who may or may not be U.S. citizens, who may or may not have their own children, for a total of four wives as allowed in a sharia compliant Muslim home.

- 209 -

Q18 For eligibility to be president, is ‘U.S. soil’ and ‘also … three’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A18a [ ] Yes [ ] No [x] Maybe – according to the 1787 ‘letter’ of original genesis implicit intent of two U.S. citizens married to each other before a child is born, but not according to the 1787 ‘spirit’ of the original genesis implicit intent of only two U.S. married citizens.

A18b [ ] Yes [x] No [ ] Maybe – Although marriage to multiple wives before the birth of a child to a U.S. citizen birth mother was not John Jay's original genesis implicit intent for ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, multiple wives before a child is born does not negate the implicit ‘letter’ of the requirement of only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married to each other before the child is born. Multiple wives before the birth of a child to a U.S. citizen Muslim wife was not the ‘spirit’ of the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birthers.

19) A child is born on U.S. soil to a male Muslim U.S. citizen who married the child’s Muslim U.S. citizen mother after the child was born, and later he married on foreign soil up to three more wives.

Q19 For eligibility to be president, are ‘U.S. soil’, ‘after’, and ‘later’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A19 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘after’ negates eligibility.

20) A child is born on U.S. soil to a male Muslim U.S. citizen who married the child’s Muslim U.S. citizen mother after the child was born while also having three Muslim wives who are not U.S. citizens whom he had already married on foreign soil, for a total of four wives as allowed in a sharia compliant Muslim home.

Q20 For eligibility to be president, are ‘U.S. soil’ and ‘after’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A20 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘after’ negates eligibility

Muslim and Born on Foreign Soil

21) A child is born on foreign soil to a male Muslim U.S. citizen who married the child’s Muslim U.S. citizen mother before the child was born while also having three Muslim wives who are not U.S. citizens whom he had already married on foreign soil, for a total of four wives as allowed in a sharia compliant Muslim home.

Q21 For eligibility to be president, are ‘foreign soil’ and ‘before’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A21 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign soil’ negates eligibility

22) A child is born on foreign soil to a male Muslim U.S. citizen who married the child’s Muslim U.S. citizen mother before the child was born and then later he marries on foreign soil three more Muslim women for a total of four wives as allowed in a sharia compliant Muslim home.

Q22 For eligibility to be president, are ‘foreign soil’, ‘before’, and ‘later’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A22 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign soil’ negates eligibility

23) A child is born on foreign soil to a male Muslim U.S. citizen who married the child’s Muslim U.S. citizen mother after the child was born while also having three Muslim wives who are not U.S. citizens whom he had already married on foreign soil, for a total of four wives as allowed in a sharia compliant Muslim home.

Q23 For eligibility to be president, are ‘foreign soil’ and ‘after’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A23 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign soil’ negates eligibility.

24) A child is born on foreign soil to a male Muslim U.S. citizen who married the child’s Muslim U.S. citizen mother after the child was born and then later he marries on foreign soil three more Muslim women for a total of four wives as allowed in a sharia compliant Muslim home.

Q24 For eligibility to be president, are ‘foreign soil’, ‘after’, and ‘later’ the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

A24 [ ] Yes [x] No – ‘foreign soil’ negates eligibility

- 210 -

Implicit in 1787 America in the original genesis words “natural born Citizen” is only a union of two heterosexual U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born on U.S. soil. A scenario which was not implicit in 1787 America was a union of a Muslim U.S. citizen male with three Muslim wives whom he married on foreign soil before coming to the United States and naturalizing and then marrying the fourth Muslim wife on U.S. soil who became a U.S. citizen by marriage (essentially ‘naturalization by marriage’ in the 1700s era until the 1922 Cable Act). Having up to four Muslim wives was then and still is today an accepted practice in a sharia compliant Muslim home and the entire worldwide ummah (community). This scenario was not implicit in 1787 even if the Muslim male and the Muslim female were married before the child was born, and both were U.S. citizens before a child was born.

The 1787 original genesis implicit intent of the original framers of the words of the U.S. Constitution for only their posterity (not the posterity of the entire world), only their children, definitely included a more perfect Union, implying a perpetual Union – “We the People, in Order to form a more perfect Union, … ourselves and our Posterity ….” The 1787 Article II original genesis implicit intent of ‘natural born’ and a “more [‘perpetual’] perfect Union” means that children in 1787 America were expected to be born as the result of the natural union of only two heterosexual and married persons – “No Person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President ….”

Who Can Handle the Truth?

Who can handle the truth about who is “… eligible to the Office of President” before We the Posterity of We the People get sucker punched — uh, I mean, before we get “transformed” — uh, I mean, ‘stealthed’ — uh, I mean, well, you know, fooled again by another person who may manage to ‘occupy’ America?

Who can handle the truth about We the Posterity of We the People being transformed by an internationalist who has also revealed himself, along with his cohorts, as an international socialist who has been friendly with the 1930s Nazi collaborator organization called the Muslim Brotherhood, and also friendly with the incessant global effort to shariaize the ‘realm of war’ (dar al-harb) into the worldwide ‘ummah’, dar al-Islam?

• dar al-harb (abode, house, realm of war)

• dar al-Islam (abode, house, realm of Islam)

• ummah (collective, community, commune)

• ummat al-Islamiyah (nation of Islam — collective community of Islamic people)

• jihad (struggle, holy struggle against opposition)

• Islam (submit, submission)

• Muslim (Muslim Etymology: The Meaning of Muslim — The word muslim … participle of the same verb of which islām is the infinitive, based on the triliteral S-L-M, “to be whole, intact”.)

Fundamentalist and sharia (law) compliant political Islam, pursuing the agenda to expand the ummat al-Islamiyah (also called the dar al-Islam) by violent or stealth political jihad against the free world called the dar al-harb, this fundamentalist Islam could transform the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement into an Article II soil and birth Trojan Horse to conduct their political, religious, cultural, war on free U.S. soil.

Oh, wait! The 2009-2017 President #44 who said, a few days before his inauguration, “... we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America...”, in essence he really meant something like this, ‘I-I-I managed to occupy America to Community Organize, aka Collectivize, aka Communize, aka Ummah Organize, aka Ummahize, aka Collectivize, aka Shariaize the United States of America as Transformer-in-Chief’. What that means is that he has already made, as titular head of the Democratic Party, aka the ‘progressive’ movement in America, his progressive and ‘lean forward’ move on America. Right? [ ] Yes! [ ] No! [ ] Maybe? [ ] So?? [ ] So what??? [ ]

Huh? So what??? Well, that’s what living constitutionism proponents are really saying when they defend President Obama’s eligibility to be president when he had only one U.S. citizen parent

Muslim Influence

Muslim scholars have said for almost 1400 years that Muslims do not believe that any ‘god’ can have children so that is why Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the ‘son’ of a Jewish god and a human female. The Muslim presupposition that gods are not able to have children is simple to refute. If Allah is the God of Abraham-Hagar and Ishmael that means that the Muslim ‘god’ Allah is a different ‘god’ from the Hebrew God whose Hebrew name is YHWH/Yahawah (some prefer Yahweh or Jehovah), and who claims to be not ONLY the God of Abraham–Hagar and their son Ismael, but also the ONLY God of Abraham–Sarah and their son Isaac, Isaac–Rebekah and their son Jacob (renamed Israel), Jacob–Leah-Rachel (and 12 sons of Jacob with 2 wives and 2 concubines), and almost 1000 years later, the Spirit of the Most High and Mariam. Yes, by the agency of the Spirit of Yahawah (the Most High) who, by fiat, created (generated) the human sperm/seed which united with and fertilized the human ovum/egg of Mariam which, after nine months, produced ‘Emmanuel – God with us’, a human son, Yahawsha‘ son of Yahawah (He Is Savior son of He Is), also known as Jesus ‘son of God’, or, as Jesus identified himself most of the time, ‘son of man’. The testimony of Jesus after his arrest at night in the garden of Gethsemane was “I Am” when asked a few hours later by the High Priest if he was the “Son of the Blessed One” (Mark 14:62). His affirmative response was the reason which the Jewish defenders of Torah (law) used to have a fellow Jew executed by the state authority later that day on a wood cross which resulted in his death at the ninth hour, 3 pm.

- 211 -

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the name Allah (al = the, ’ilah = god), although it has been used as a name for fifteen centuries. Here are the American Heritage Dictionary definitions of Allah, the Muslim religion Islam (submission) and a Muslim believer (submitter).

• Allah: n. God, esp. in Islam [Ar. Allah : al-, the + ’ilah, god].

• Islam: n. 1. A monotheistic religion characterized by acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and of Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God. … [Ar. ’islam, submission < ’aslama, to surrender, resign oneself < Syriac ’aslem, to make peace, surrender, derived stem of slem, to be complete.].

• Muslim: n. 1. also Moslem A believer in or adherent of Islam. … [Ar. muslim, one who surrenders, active part. of ’aslama, to surrender. See Islam.]

Muslims are not informed about the obvious which diminishes their ‘god’ Allah: A ‘god’ who can ‘create’ a universe with billions of galaxies with multiple billions of suns/stars with multiple billions of big balls of dirt among which only one is called ‘earth’ but ‘the god’ cannot (?) ‘create’ a single human male sperm/seed cell with 23 chromosomes to unite with the human female ovum/egg cell with 23 chromosomes, well, Allah, the Muslim ‘god’ may be a Psalm 82:1-8 ‘god’, identified as “children of the Most High” (Lit. Heb. for ‘children’ = ‘sons’) but Allah the Muslim ‘god’ cannot be YHWH / Yahawah (some prefer Yahweh), the ‘God’ of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc., the only ‘God’ who is the only ‘creator’ of a very big ball of ‘dirt’ and one very small speck of ‘dirt’, a human ‘sperm/seed’, who knows what he has created – “you are dust – you will return to dust” (Gen. 3:19).

That is the kind of commentary about Muslims and Islam which is not written with malice but may be misconstrued as disagreeable to jihadi (struggle) fundamentalist Muslims. To “be misconstrued” is similar to what the nascent Jewish/Christian movement experienced 2000 years ago when challenged by Jewish leaders (e.g. Paul, a Jew, approved and was present when Stephen, a Jew, was stoned to death by fellow Jews for promoting Jesus as ‘the christ’, ‘the anointed’), and Jewish and Gentile Christians were food for lions (e.g. Polycarp and others with him) in the coliseum for being ‘atheist’ Christians because they revered a human who had died. Christians were considered to be atheists because they had a different ‘god’ and would not worship (not revere, not value) the Roman god(s), and would not even put a pinch of incense on an altar as a sign of respect for the gods of the Roman state. In the 2000s the entire world is experiencing a two steps forward, one step backward jihad (struggle) by religious/political Muslims to impose Islam (submission) with one religious and one political agenda, the union of church and state to assert hegemonic power with an agenda of total submission of and supremacy over all ‘gods’, all powers, theistic (church) and atheistic (secular state).

- 212 -

Five 1787 Article II ‘Original Genesis’ Implications

1) Heterosexual 2) Homosexual 3) In Vitro 4) In Vivo 5) Rape

#1 Implicit in ‘original genesis’ intent = Heterosexual

Implicit in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president is the natural law (law of nature). The only way to achieve a “… more perfect Union” of citizens is by the physical ‘union’ of two heterosexual U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other, not a physical union of two U.S. citizens who were not married only to each other. Without ‘legal’ marriage of two U.S. citizens married only to each other, what is the ‘legal’ basis for singular U.S. citizenship being passed to a child? That is an obvious question, right?

#2 Not Implicit ‘original genesis’ intent = Homosexual

Implicit in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president is the physical ‘union’ of two U.S. citizen heterosexual married persons, not a physical ‘union’ of two U.S. citizen homosexual persons, ‘married’ only to each other or not. In 1787 America only heterosexual marriage was the obvious common law, the obvious ‘implicit’ community standard by which the original “We the People …” (the original birthers) could produce their own “… Posterity, …” as explicitly mentioned in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.

For eligibility to be president in 1787 the word ‘posterity’ implied to the original birthers only heterosexual marriage and reproduction generation to generation, election to election, president to president. Right? Also, what was not implied for eligibility to be president by the word ‘posterity’ was homosexual marriage and adoption of children. Right? However, for eligibility to be president, the constitution does not need to be amended to permit homosexual ‘marriage’ and adoption of a child verified to be “natural born Citizen” by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

#3 and #4 Implicit ‘original genesis intent’

#3 In Vitro Fertilization (implicit natural law genesis in the glass conception)

#4 In Vivo Gestation (implicit natural law genesis in the body development)

It is obvious that since in vitro fertilization (genesis, conception) and in vivo gestation (assembly) for 9 months were not included in the 1787 vocabulary of the original birthers when they wrote “natural born Citizen” into Article II, in vitro and in vivo were not their original genesis implicit intent as a soil and birth possibility for eligibility to be president. However, what is implicit is that to be ‘natural born’ as the result of the natural law (law of nature) union of sperm and egg of two heterosexual persons was the 1787 original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers as implied in the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. That being so according to nature, in vitro fertilization (genesis, conception ‘“in the glass”) and in vivo gestation (assembly “in the body”) fulfills the ‘spirit’ (implicit intent) of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” while the ‘letter’ (explicit intent) of the word ‘born’ is fulfilled in a different way by modern medical science.

So, what is to be thought about in vitro fertilization (genesis, conception) of an egg of a U.S. citizen female with the sperm of an anonymous male donor whose U.S. citizenship status is not known, and then the in vivo gestation (assembly) for 9 months with a surrogate followed with birth and adoption? Since the citizenship status of the sperm donor is not known, that means that this scenario was not the original genesis implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” because original genesis citizenship lineage is broken at the source with the anonymous donor. Since the citizenship status of the sperm doner must be known for eligibility to be president, an amendment will be necessary for eligibility to be applied to a child born to a sperm doner whose citizenship is not known. An act of Congress would not be sufficient to amend, enhance, supplement the implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” as a reference to singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two heterosexual U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

- 213 -

As modern medical science continues to advance, and if We the Posterity want to continue to “… form a more [perpetual] perfect Union” with in vitro fertilization and in vivo gestation, both fulfill the spirit (implicit intent) and letter (explicit intent) of the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. Both in vitro fertilization of the egg of the U.S. citizen mother by the sperm of the U.S. citizen father and in vivo gestation by the natural mother or a surrogate fulfill the 1787 Article II requirement of being a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone after genesis and gestation.

Since both original genesis common sense and medical science common sense prevail here in the tabletalk conversation, and since both the in vitro fertilization natural father and natural mother are known, and their united continuity of citizenship lineage is verified and is not broken (both are U.S. citizens and married only to each other before a child is born), in vivo gestation with help for 9 months from a surrogate falls on the common sense side of the ‘letter’ and the ‘spirit’ of original genesis implicit intent since the ‘natural’ union was in vitro by both ‘natural’ parents. It is now obvious that in 1787 America there definitely was NO OTHER original genesis implicit intent for an Article II “natural born Citizen” other than only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two heterosexual U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born. That is now obvious, right?

#5 Implicit ‘original genesis intent’: Rape – Conception – Birth

What about birth of a child after conception by rape? Since original genesis common sense prevails here in this tabletalk conversation, rape obviously breaks the continuity of citizenship lineage because both the U.S. citizen rapist ‘natural’ father, who is definitely not a ‘parent’, and the U.S. citizen ‘natural’ mother were definitely not U.S. citizens married to each other before the child was born. This means that the child conceived from rape is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” even if the child is born on U.S. soil. That is obvious, right? Think this through.

If, and it’s a BIG ‘IF’, if it was the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birthers that a presidential aspirant is implicitly eligible to be president with only one U.S. citizen parent, then it might be said that it could have been the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birthers that a child born of rape is also eligible to be president because at least one person of the physical ‘union’ is a U.S. citizen, either the natural law female or the natural law rapist male in this example. So, is ‘one’ U.S. citizen (either the female or the rapist male) the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birthers who wrote “natural born Citizen” into Article II? No for two reasons. 1) Only one negates eligibility to be president. 2) Even if the natural law (law of nature) male, the rapist ‘sperm doner’, may also be a U.S. citizen does not make the ‘born’ child a “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligibility to be president. Why? Well, because of both natural law and positive law. The illegal physical union of the offensive male rapist ‘sperm doner’ and the offended female ‘egg provider’ is not recognized by either natural law or positive law.

Original Genesis Original Intent: “... a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of …”

Original Genesis · Natural Law (Law of Nature)

Original Intent · Positive Law (Law of People)

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787, U.S. natural born citizenship was determined by natural law (law of nature), singular U.S. citizenship was acquired by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child was born. The community standard in 1787 was that the child was born with two parents married only to each other, not unmarried parents, but with a citizenship twist. During the 1700s (and extending to the 1900s) U.S. citizenship status of a female was determined by marriage to the U.S. citizenship of the male, either by his birth or naturalization. Their marriage was the necessary ‘legal’ requirement that determined either the foreign citizenship status or the U.S. citizenship status of children.

The Cable Act of 1922, called the Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act (also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act), was named for Ohio Representative John Cable who proposed the legislation. The Nationality Act was U.S. federal law that reversed former immigration laws regarding naturalization by marriage. From 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted until 1922, a female lost her U. S citizenship (even if she was born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizens) since she acquired the foreign citizenship of her husband by marriage if they were married before he naturalized as a U.S. citizen. If a foreign citizen female married a U.S. citizen male she acquired his U.S. citizen status by marriage, not by oath in a naturalization ceremony. Either way, the unity of citizenship and allegiance of the two married parents was acquired by the child by birth alone according to the common law – either only singular foreign citizenship or only singular U.S. citizenship – definitely not dual citizenship.

- 214 -

In America, from the time before the 1700s era and specifically from 1787 until 1922, the common law understanding of the community which informed positive law (law of people) was that by ‘legal’ marriage the citizenship status of the male determined the citizenship status of the female, and their singular citizenship which resulted from their ‘legal’ marriage only to each other determined the singular citizenship status of the children born to them after their marriage.

In America, from 1787 until 1922 because of naturalization by marriage, the female did not need to be a U.S. citizen before marriage for both husband and wife to be considered U.S. citizens by ‘legal’ marriage when the male was already a U.S. citizen. The female also did not need to be a foreign citizen for both husband and wife to be considered foreign citizens by ‘legal’ marriage when the male was already a foreign citizen. Whether both were born on U.S. soil or both were naturalized citizens, in 1787 America the common law required that the parents were to be ‘legally’ married only to each other before the birth of a child for the child to be recognized as a “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone and so eligible to be president.

Four Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Requirements to be “eligible to the Office of President”

Part 1

No Person

except a natural born Citizen,

or a Citizen of the United States,

at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

shall be eligible to the Office of President;

Part 2

neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office

who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,

and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Part 1a

No Person except a natural born Citizen,

Part 1b

or a Citizen of the United States,

Part 1c

at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

Part 1d

shall be eligible to the Office of President;

Part 2a

neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office

who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,

Part 2b

and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Part 1 reveals the original genesis implicit intent of the words “... except a natural born Citizen”.

person = only a sentient living human (natural law).

except = only exclusive for a citizen by birth alone, not inclusive for a ‘citizen’ by statute.

born = only the union of two heterosexuals married only to each other.

born = only birth on U.S. soil, not foreign soil and then adoption by one or two U.S. citizens.

Citizen = only two U.S. citizens, not only one U.S. citizen.

Citizen = only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual or triple citizenship.

- 215 -

ONLY married in 1787 America?

ONLY heterosexual in 1787 America?

ONLY heterosexual marriage in 1787 America?

Well, what else was common law in 1787 America?

With the common law mindset about marriage versus adultery and fornication in 1787 America that was informed by the Christian biblical admonition against adultery, a mindset that was very familiar to the original authors of the U.S. Constitution, it is obvious that the original genesis implicit intent in 1787 America for eligibility to be president was obviously not ‘illegal’ fornication, not ‘illegal’ living together, not ‘illegal’ adultery, but only ‘legal’ marriage of heterosexual males with females. Of course, there is no such thing as ‘legal’ fornication or ‘legal’ adultery for eligibility to be president. That is obvious, right? Although there is also no such thing as ‘legal’ fornication and ‘legal’ living together for eligibility to be president, fornication and living together are not criminal activities in 2000s America. That being the community standard in 2000s America however, for a child produced by a couple living together, fornication does have ‘legal’ consequences related to the ‘legal’ rights of the child. It is obvious that, for eligibility to be president, ‘natural born’ is defined as only birth to two heterosexuals ‘legally’ living together because they are married only to each other, both of whom are U.S. citizens before a child is born to them on U.S. soil.

The original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers, was obviously only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship. Their original genesis implicit intent was obviously only singular U.S. citizenship as revealed by the 1787 common law understanding that by ‘legal’ marriage the citizenship status of males determined the citizenship status of females, and the unity of singular citizenship and allegiance status of both father and mother determined the continuity of singular citizenship and allegiance of children.

Notice the obvious. A ‘natural born’ = a natural birth. It is obvious that natural birth in 1787 America implied a physical union of a heterosexual male with a heterosexual female which results in birth on the soil that is the national soil of the two married parents. Obvious, right?

Attain to age 35 and reside 14 years on U.S. soil. Also, birth · living · residence require national soil.

To be eligible to be requires in Part 1, U.S. soil for birth place and two U.S. citizen married parents for birth day, and in Part 2, living from birth day at least 35 years and residing on the same U.S. birth soil for 14 years.

Part 1

Birth ‘place’ on U.S. soil and birth ‘day’ to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. That is the natural law order — birth on soil somewhere that is already there before the union of two persons results in the birth of a child on that soil. Soil and birth is the natural law (law of nature) foundation for the positive law (law of people) parts of Part 1 and Part 2. The implicit positive law in Part 1 = acquire U.S. citizenship by natural birth to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. The implicit positive law in Part 2 = attain age 35 and reside 14 years.

Part 2

Attain to age 35 and reside 14 years only on the U.S. birth soil starting from the day one of birth. Both Part 1 natural law and positive law and Part 2 positive law are the requirements to be eligible (also a positive law word) to be president.

What does ‘or’ imply in “No person except ... or a Citizen of ...”?

1) No person except

2) a natural born Citizen

3) or a Citizen at the time of adoption of this Constitution

4) 35 years of age

5) 14 year resident

6) within the United States

- 216 -

1) What did the word ‘or’ in “… or a Citizen of ... at the time [1787] ... adoption ... this Constitution” mean to the original birthers?

2) What did ‘or’ and ‘adoption’ mean when Martin Van Buren, born December 5, 1782, President #8 (March 4, 1837 to March 4, 1841) became the first 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of …” to be president who was born after 1776 and before 1787?

3) What did ‘or’ and ‘adoption’ mean when William Henry Harrison, born February 9, 1773, President #9 for one month, March 4, 1841, died April 4, 1841? He became the ninth Article II “… or a Citizen of …” to be president by being born before 1776.

4) What did ‘or’ and ‘adoption’ mean when John Tyler, born March 29, 1790, President #10 April 4, 1841 to March 4, 1845, became the first 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” president? He was the first “natural born Citizen” president to be born after September 17, 1787.

5) What did ‘or’ and ‘adoption’ mean when James K. Polk, born November 2, 1795, President #11 March 4, 1845 to March 4, 1849, born after 1787, became the second 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” president?

6) What did ‘or’ and ‘adoption’ mean when Zachary Taylor, born November 24, 1784, President #12 for 16 months (March 5, 1849 – July 9, 1850) became the tenth and last 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of …” to be president? He was born after July 4, 1776 and before September 17, 1787.

Well, one thing we do know is, since the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the 1800s, only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president. That is what ‘or’ and “adoption” mean today in the 2000s. Only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president because only a “natural born Citizen” has singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. That means that since September 17, 1787 when Article II was ‘adopted’ and since the last 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s, only a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president generation to generation. It’s obvious that both ‘or’ and ‘adoption’ mean the same thing today in the 2000s as they did in 1700s. That is obvious, right?

‘Or’ Truth Proof

How does one produce convincing ‘truth proof’ for an idea that is from people living in 1787? The truth proof of the 1787 original birthers, the original framers themselves, counters 2000s eligibility truthers, aka neobirthers and ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ neobirthers who do not care what ‘or’ meant to the original authors who wrote the 1787 Article II words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” for eligibility to be president. It is obvious that the original authors wrote “… or a Citizen of … time … Adoption ...” for a practical reason. On September 17, 1787, the day the constitution was adopted (only 11 years after 1776), no “natural born Citizen” was old enough yet to be elected president, so the July 4, 1776 naturalized patriots, every person born on British America soil before the 1776 start of the war of independence such as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc., were grandfathered into presidential eligibility. What did the 1787 original birthers mean in Article II with the word ‘or’ in relation to eligibility to be president? Does ‘or’ mean the same thing in the 2000s as it did in 1787?

YES — Either / Until

The word ‘or’ does mean that either a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” or a 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” would be “… eligible to the Office of President” only until the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s. Then, after the last 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” died only the 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement would continue to apply to a child only born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born. The two parents can be U.S. citizens either by birth or by naturalization or a combination of the two, but they must be U.S. citizens before the child is born to them otherwise ‘legal’ unity of singular citizenship and continuity of singular citizenship is broken. The ‘legal’ continuity requirement of only singular U.S. citizenship is only possible with a ‘legal’ physical union of two U.S. citizen parents.

- 217 -

NO — Both / Perpetual

The word ‘or’ does not mean that the original genesis implicit intent of both “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” was to be perpetual. If both presidential eligibility phrases were intended to be perpetual that would mean that a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” will continue to apply as long as children are born, and a 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of … at the time … Adoption … Constitution ...” would continue to apply as long as children are born, so both are forever eligible to be president. Stated that way it is obvious that “... or ...” means that both presidential eligibility phrases were definitely not intended to be perpetual although both are immutable until the last ‘or’ died sometime in the 1800s. The word ‘or’ implies that only one eligibility phrase was intended to be perpetual. That is obvious, right?

The single word ‘or’ implies only one of three ‘born’ possibilities.

Nope — ‘born’ and ‘or’ implication #1

Is it true that both “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” were applicable only until the year 1787? The answer is obvious — Nope to the word ‘until’ because ‘until’ does not allow for perpetual singular unity of citizenship of both U.S. citizens married parents and the devolving of perpetual singular continuity of citizenship on the child for eligibility to be president.

Nope — ‘born’ and ‘or’ implication #2

Is it true that both “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” were applicable perpetually after the year 1787? The answer is obvious — Nope to the word ‘after’ because ‘after’ implies perpetual, and, of course, the last “... or a Citizen of … time … Adoption … Constitution ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s.

Yep — ‘born’ and or’ implication #3...this is really #1

Is it true that both “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” were applicable together from the year 1787 only until the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s? The answer is obvious — Yep to the implicit intent of the original birthers who were aware that after the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died only a “natural born Citizen” would be eligible to be president.

For those who think that an “... or a Citizen of ...” who was born before 1776 is a different kind of ‘citizen’ from a ‘citizen’ born after 1776 and then 1787 when the new Constitution identified the two perpetual and temporary ‘born’ requirements to be eligible to be president, they need to remember that the common law in 1787 America was that a ‘citizen’, for eligibility to be president, was a ‘citizen’ by birth alone on the soil of the parents who were already ‘legally’ married only to each other, not a child of cohabiting couples who were not ‘legally’ married to each other.

Notice also the significance of the soil of the parents and the original genesis implicit intent of singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone only after the ‘legal’ marriage of the parents only to each other before the birth of a child. If this original genesis implication of soil and birth was not the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers, well then, what was the original genesis implicit intent? Was it dual soil and birth to parents who had two different citizenships? Really? For eligibility to be president, the mix of U.S. soil and foreign soil of birth of the parents and so dual citizenship of the parents just do not pass the common sense test of original genesis implicit intent. In contrast to dual citizenship, only singular soil of birth of the child and singular U.S. citizenship of both parents to pass on singular U.S. citizenship to a child does pass the common sense test of original genesis implicit intent. Right? Yep.

When the Constitution was adopted in 1787 the former “natural-born subjects” of Great Britain who became naturalized citizens of the ‘Union’ by adhering to the purpose of the war against England they were grandfathered into U.S. presidential eligibility. Those ‘grandfathered’ into presidential eligibility included persons who had been born before July 4, 1776. As long as a ‘grandfathered’ Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” citizen was alive, both a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” and a 1787 Article II “... or a Citizen of...” were “… eligible to the office of President” during that time only. There was a union, not a fusion, of the two Article II phrases, ‘born’ and ‘or’, and the union was temporary. There was a distinction, not a separation, between the two Article II phrases, and the distinction was perpetual. An Article II “natural born Citizen” is forever eligible to be president. An Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” was eligible to be president only until the last 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s. It is obvious now.

- 218 -

What controls eligibility to be president?

Only Article II ‘law’ controls presidential eligibility, not an Article I Act of Congress ‘law’, and definitely not an Article III Judicial fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ about Article II ‘law’. Right?

The 1787 words “natural born Citizen” control presidential eligibility since the last 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the 1800s. What does not control presidential eligibility are any of the immigration and naturalization Acts of Congress and the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment words “… born … naturalized … are citizens ...”. After the error of the first Congress which naturalized presidential eligibility with the three words “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) in the 1790 Naturalization Act was corrected by the third Congress with the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ word, all of the succeeding Acts of Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment refer only to a ‘citizen’ and none of the Acts refer to presidential eligibility explicitly or implicitly.

What does not control eligibility to be president? Positive Law

NOT 1700s Act of Congress “citizen”

→ NOT 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’)

→ NOT 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen”

NOT 1800s Acts of Congress “citizen” (examples 1802, 1855, 1866, etc.)

NOT 1800s Amendments, 1865 slaves set “free”, 1868 “citizen”, 1870 “vote” – all positive law words

NOT 1900s Acts of Congress “citizen” (examples 1922, 1952)

NOT 2000s Acts of Congress “citizen”

NOT 1700s to 2000s Act of Congress “citizen” positive law (law of people).

What does control eligibility to be president? Natural Law

Only a natural law (law of nature) ‘act of congress by two heterosexual U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born can ‘create’ a child by birth alone who is eligible to be president.

Only ‘nature’ can ‘create’ a child who is a positive law (law of people) ‘citizen’ who is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.

Only by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other before a child is born can a child have only singular U.S. citizenship.

Only natural law (law of nature).

NOT positive law (law of people).

The Article II act of congress ‘issue’ (pun intended) that is implicit in John Jay’s original genesis reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington, written before We the People created the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Congress, the original genesis reason for underlining the Article II word ‘born’ trumps any Article I Act of Congress statute. That is obvious, right?

Well, yeah, right, that makes sense when the positive law (law of people) issue about an Act of Congress and the natural law (law of nature) ‘issue’ that is ‘created’ by an ‘act of congress is put in that unique way.

U.S. Representative Age 25, ‘Citizen’ 7 Years Minimum

Article I Section 2 Clause 2

“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, …”.

Maybe the time has come to amend the Constitution so that eligibility to be elected a representative to the federation government will be exclusively limited to a ‘citizen’ born to second generation citizens, or born to natural born Citizens. See the section about amending Article II and eligibility to be president being limited to second generation children.

The language of Article I has been clear for 236 years (1787-2023). Since September 17, 1787, when the language of the Constitution was adopted by the delegates at the constitutional convention, a citizen of a state who was sent to the federation to be a representative of a district within the state must be at least 25 years old to be eligible to be a U.S. Representative. Naturalization is implicit in the ‘seven Years’ minimum (see Article II “within” the U.S. ), not ‘7 Years’ residence from birth. If a child is from birth a citizen for the first 7 years of life, the child would be a “natural born Citizen” if born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. So, for eligibility to be a U.S. Representative, the implication is not that the child is a U.S. citizen from birth, or, from birth, a citizen for 7 years. Also, if a child has at birth only one U. S citizen parent the child is a naturalized U.S. citizen at birth by an Act of Congress, a positive law (law of people), and so is eligible to be a U.S. Representative at age 25, but not ever eligible to be president at age 35. That is obvious now, right? Having at birth only one U.S. citizen parent is mentioned in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, the Act which identifies my Texas federal senator Ted Cruz, based on his birth year, as a ‘citizen’, not a “natural born Citizen”.

- 219 -

Since 1787, to be eligible to be a Representative of a state district to the federation government, the naturalized citizen was expected to reside only on U.S. soil for a minimum of 7 years after naturalization at any age, either before or after age 25, not reside on foreign soil for 7 years after naturalization. One implication is that being naturalized for eligibility to be a Representative of a state district to the federation government can be for 7 years starting from day one of age 18 (age of majority), or day one of age 23, or day one of age 25, or any day after age 25, etc. The day of naturalization starts the clock of the 7 year residence requirement to be eligible to be a Representative of a state district to the federation government. The implicit intent of the Article I language was not that a person can naturalize as a U.S. citizen at, for example, age 23, and then move to a foreign land and reside exclusively there for 7 years as a naturalized U.S. citizen until age 30, and then return to the United States and run for election as a Representative (25 or older) or a Senator (30 or older).

U.S. Senator Age 30, ‘Citizen’ 9 Years Minimum

Article I Section 3 Clause 3

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States …”.

Maybe it's an idea whose time has come to amend the Constitution so that eligibility to be elected a senator to the federation government will be exclusively limited to a ‘citizen’ born to second generation citizens, or only born to natural born Citizens. See the section about amending Article II and eligibility to be president being limited to second generation children.

The original 1787 language of Article I said that a citizen of a state sent by the legislature of the state to the federation to represent the state as a senator must be at least 30 years old to be eligible to be a U.S. Senator. The implication is that a 30 year old naturalized citizen must reside as a citizen only on U.S. soil for a minimum of 9 years (see Article II ‘within’ the U.S. ), not reside on foreign soil for 9 years. The original language which said that the legislatures of the states were to send the senators to the federation in Washington DC was changed by the 1913 Seventeenth Amendment which said that the federation senators were to be elected by popular vote, not chosen by the legislatures. The 30 years old for eligibility and 9 years residence requirements still apply.

U.S. President Age 35, “natural born Citizen” 35 Years Minimum

Article II Section 1 Clause 5

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of … attained to the Age of thirty five Years … fourteen Years a Resident within … United States …”

Maybe it's an idea whose time has come to amend Article II so that eligibility to be president of the federation government will be exclusively limited to a ‘citizen’ born to second generation citizens, or only born to natural born Citizens. See the section about amending Article II and eligibility to be president being limited to second generation children.

The language of Article II explicitly says that the president of the federation government must be 35 years old. The original genesis implicit intent of Article II is that the eligibility clock must start from day one of age 1 day to day one (at least) of age 35 to be eligible to be U.S. president. The implication is that a “natural born Citizen” from day one of birth to day one (at least) of age 35 (or older) is eligible to be president, and a naturalized citizen of 7 years or 9 years is not eligible to be president.

- 220 -

U.S. Supreme Court ‘Citizen’ by Birth or Naturalization

Article III Section 1 Clause 1

“Judicial Power … United States … vested in one supreme Court … inferior Courts … as the Congress … ordain and establish … Judges … shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. …”.

Maybe it's an idea whose time has come to amend Article III to limit access to all federation government courts (Supreme Court and inferior courts) to a ‘citizen’ born to second generation citizens, or only born to natural born Citizens. See the section about amending Article II and eligibility to be president to second generation children.

The 1787 language of Article III does not say anything about the citizenship status of the Supreme Court judges, but the Article III language implies that judges of the federation government must be ‘citizens’ of the United States either by birth or by naturalization to be in implicit agreement with ‘citizen’ in Article 1 and ‘Citizen’ in Article II. That ‘citizen’ connection makes sense, right?

Maybe It's An Idea Whose Time Has Come To Amend

Article II Section 1 Clause 5

If a person did live for 7 years in a foreign land after being naturalized as a U.S. citizen, that 7 year residence outside of the U.S. and then a return to the United States to run for elected office would be a ‘tell’ as to their heart, their mindset, and their intent. Residing ‘within’ the U.S. to fulfill the age 25 and 7 year minimum residence requirement to be a U.S. Representative, the age 30 and 9 year minimum residence requirement to be a U.S. Senator, or the age 35 and 14 year minimum residence requirement to be a U.S. President is not ultimate protection from those whose allegiance is not to the original genesis implicit intent of original birthers John Jay and George Washington for Article II and eligibility to be president. Instead, allegiance would be to a globalist, internationalist ideology, and the obvious intent would be to burrow within U.S. society to run for president, for example, and say things like “...we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America...” because the free citizens of America need to change their individualist way of thinking to a progressive, collectivist way of thinking. What is a ‘collectivist’ way of thinking? Well, possibly, change to see the U.S. Constitution, for example, as a “charter of positive liberties” and no longer to see it as a “charter of negative liberties”. See the section where Illinois State Senator Barack Obama said in a radio interview that he prefers for the Constitution to be interpreted as a “charter of positive liberties”, what the federal government must do for and to citizens and aliens, not a “charter of negative liberties”, what the government must not do for and to citizens or aliens.

Any requirements of the three articles of the constitution can be subverted. The openness of the U.S. ‘citizen’ system for SCOTUS justices with lifetime tenure, 7 years as a naturalized ‘citizen’ to be eligible to be a federal representative at age 25 with unlimited elections, 9 years as a naturalized ‘citizen’ to be eligible to be a federal senator at age 30 with unlimited elections, 35 years as a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be president with unlimited elections if the constitution is amended again, back to unlimited elections if the president wanted more than two terms. See, there is not a deterrent to those who want to use U.S. election law to subvert the electoral process and to take control of the governing power of the federation.

Maybe it's an idea whose time has come to amend Article I, II, III to limit access to all federation offices to a ‘citizen’ born to second generation citizens, or only born to natural born Citizens. See the section about amending Article II eligibility to be president to second generation children.

Singular Citizenship vs. Dual Citizenship and Eligibility to be President

The issue is simple to articulate. The ‘theory’ (‘myth’) that only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a child a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president is bogus. Children, by birth alone, follow the citizenship status of the parents in the political world (law of people ‘original intent’) and in the natural world (law of nature ‘original genesis’). Right?

When heterosexual males and females unite physically, they produce a ‘human’ person. Right?

When two singular U.S. citizens unite in ‘legal’ marriage and unite physically in an act of congress they produce a singular U.S. ‘citizen’ child. Right?

- 221 -

If two persons unite in ‘legal’ marriage and unite physically in an act of congress and one parent is a U.S. citizen and one parent is a foreign citizen, their child has dual citizenship at birth. Right?

If two persons unite in ‘legal’ marriage and unite physically in an act of congress and both parents are U.S. citizens before a child is born on U.S. soil the child is a U.S. “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship. Right?

The first living originalist and original birther John Jay was not only original genesis prescient in underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington, Jay was also intelligent design common sense prescient. For eligibility to be president, children can only be what the parents are in original genesis birth and in original intent citizenship for the same natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people) reason. The birth must precede citizenship. The positive law (law of people) citizen status is dependent on the natural law (law of nature) birth. There can not be a law for or against what does not exist. Right? A positive law (law of people) ‘citizen’ child does not exist before natural law (law of nature) birth of the child. Right?

One might even say that in the political context of Article II, original genesis implicit intent is a, well, a creative conjugation and as a conjugation it has only one original genesis implicit intent (one meaning, one purpose, one result) — two of a kind produce one of a kind by birth alone — singular U.S. citizens married only to each other produce a singular U.S. “natural born Citizen” who is eligible to be president by birth alone.

For eligibility to be president, two required to produce one works for original genesis birthers who are informed by original genesis birther John Jay and original genesis birther George Washington. A ‘two … one’ for singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president is the implicit reason that Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. That singular implicit reason is why Washington agreed with Jay and passed Jay’s suggestion on to the constitutional convention delegates who also agreed with the ‘singular’ U.S. citizenship implicit reason, and so they accepted the Article II Section 1 clause 5 language without private or public debate at the convention. They went on to adopt ‘natural born’ as the natural law (law of nature) foundation for a positive law (law of people) ‘Citizen’ being the only citizen eligible to be president of the new federation government.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz has said in interviews with Sean Hannity that he is a U.S. citizen with the deliberate implication that he is an Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” by birth alone because at birth in Canada at least one parent, his mother, was a U.S. citizen. An unintended implication, however, is that because his father was a Cuban citizen at Sen. Cruz’s birth, he was also a Cuban ‘citizen’ at birth, which means that at birth Sen. Cruz had triple citizenship, 1) Canada at birth, 2) U.S. at birth, 3) Cuba at birth. The clarification is ‘at’ birth, not ‘by’ birth. Eligibility to be president is ‘by’ birth alone with singular U.S. citizenship, not ‘at’ birth with dual or triple citizenship.

Do you see the problem? An Article II “natural born Citizen” has only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, not dual or triple citizenship at birth. Because Sen. Cruz's mother was his parent who was a U.S. citizen when he was born in Canada, it is being reported on some May 2013 political blogs that Sen. Cruz and his advisers are confident that they could win the legal battle over his eligibility status if he pursues the presidency because he considers himself to be an Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth to at least one U.S. citizen.

Maybe some common sense questions can help advisers of future aspirants for president such as Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio save a ‘whole lotta’ money if they try to litigate to convince the courts that their candidate meets the Article II requirement. Why do the Republican GOPe think that litigation will be necessary for their Republican ‘citizen’ candidate if that person is, ‘by birth alone’, already eligible to be president? Well, maybe because the courts protected and defended Democrat Obama, so why would the courts not protect a Republican ‘citizen’. The eligibility requirement still dogs BHObama and his eligibility truthers since his first election in 2008 to ‘occupy America’, uh, I mean, ‘occupy’ the “... Office of President”, but it should not dog any legitimate Article II “natural born Citizen” who knows they are a ‘citizen’ with singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born. Right

- 222 -

Sure and Not Sure ‘legal battle’ Questions for a Presidential Aspirant

Here are obvious questions for advisers of future presidential aspirants similar to the citizenship histories of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, and others who may want to be president or vice-president in the future.

Sure: Why waste litigation time and money on attorney's fees if a presidential aspirant is sure about eligibility to be president by being a 1787 Article II U.S. “natural born Citizen” by birth alone?

Sure: Why waste litigation time and money on attorney's fees if a presidential aspirant is sure about being by Act of Congress an Article I “citizen” either at birth or at naturalization?

Not Sure: Expect to waste litigation time and money on attorney's fees if a presidential aspirant is not sure about eligibility to be president by being a 1787 Article II U.S. “natural born Citizen” by birth alone.

Not Sure: Expect to waste litigation time and money on attorney's fees if a presidential aspirant is not sure about being by Act of Congress an Article I ‘citizen’ either at birth or at naturalization.

To discover the obvious answer about ‘sure’ and not sure’, consider my Texas Senator Ted Cruz: His mother was a 1787 Article II U.S. ‘citizen’ by birth alone (birth to two U.S. citizens) before her child was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1970, and his father was not a U.S. naturalized “citizen”. What ‘legal battle’ is necessary for Sen. Cruz (or any presidential aspirant) who is only a 1952 (or newer) Immigration and Nationality Act U.S. ‘citizen’ and not a 1787 Article II U.S. “natural born Citizen” (which requires having only singular U.S. citizenship) because he had only one U.S. citizen parent? Is a ‘legal battle’ to establish presidential eligibility necessary for a person who is qualified under Article I to be a federal representative or a federal senator? No.

The first point to remember is that all persons who are a 1787 Article II U.S. “natural born Citizen” are also a U.S. ‘citizen’ and also eligible to be an Article I federal representative or federal senator. A second point to remember is that not all Article I persons who have only one U.S. citizen parent can be, at birth (by Act of Congress ‘positive law’), a U.S. ‘citizen’ and also be, at birth, an Article II “natural born Citizen” with two U.S. citizen parents. Advisers for presidential aspirants, what ‘legal battle’ is necessary IF someone is an Article I ‘citizen’ and not an Article II “natural born Citizen”? A legal battle is not necessary, right?

So, is a ‘legal battle’ necessary for anybody today or in the future? No, right?

‘Legal Battle’ Questions For a ‘citizen’ Presidential Aspirant Statesman

Will Texas Senator Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz be the ‘citizen’ statesman for the history books and clarify that he is a 1787 Article I ‘citizen’ at birth (by a 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act of Congress) and not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone to two U.S. citizens and so is not eligible to be president?

Will Florida Senator Marco Antonio Rubio be the ‘citizen’ statesman for the history books and clarify that he is an 1898 Supreme Court ‘naturalized citizen’ and not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone to two U.S. citizens and so is not eligible to be president?

Will Louisiana Governor Piyush ‘Bobby’ Jindal be the ‘citizen’ statesman for the history books and clarify that he is an 1898 Supreme Court ‘naturalized citizen’ and not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone to two U.S. citizens and so is not eligible to be president?

Will South Carolina Governor Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley be the ‘citizen’ statesman for the history books and clarify that she is an 1898 Supreme Court ‘naturalized citizen’ and not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone to two U.S. citizens and so is not eligible to be president?

Which future ‘citizen’ POTUS Aspirant ___?___ will restore and transform America back to its original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers for a “more perfect Union” for their own ‘Posterity’ by defending the original words of the original birthers, the framers of the 1787 Constitution and the perpetual original genesis implication that only a “natural born Citizen” is “... eligible to the Office of President”?

For President – 35 Years: A ‘legal battle’ is not necessary for a U.S. ‘citizen’ who is a 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” who has reached age 35. Right?

For Representative – 7 Years: A ‘legal battle’ is not necessary for a U.S. ‘citizen’ who is a 1787 Article I “... Age of twenty five Years…seven Years a Citizen”. Right?

For Senator – 9 Years: A ‘legal battle’ is not necessary for a U.S. ‘citizen’ who is a 1787 Article I “... Age of thirty Years…nine Years a Citizen”. Right?

- 223 -

For President: A ‘legal battle’ to be recognized as a “natural born Citizen” is necessary only if a presidential aspirant is a 1787 Article I Section 2 clause 2 “… seven Years a Citizen”, or only a 1787 Article 1 Section 3 Clause 3 “… nine Years a Citizen”. Right?

For president? Right, yes!!! Uh, no…! I mean NO!!!

That’s right. NOW you got it right. NO.

Article I: NO ‘legal battle’ is necessary for a 1787 Article I ‘citizen’ who was not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other because an Article I ‘citizen’ is not eligible to be president. Right?

Article XIV: NO ‘legal battle’ was necessary for an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ who was born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen male, and, since the 1922 Cable Act of Congress, NO ‘legal battle’ is now necessary for an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ who was born to one U.S. citizen female because a Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ is not eligible to be president. Right?

Article II: NO ‘legal battle’ is necessary for a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” who has only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other because birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens was original birther John Jay’s only original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 thank-you note to George Washington. Right?

For president? Right, yes. That’s right. NOW you got it right.

BIG Talk · BIG Blog · BIG Think · BIG Print · BIG Media – Think About This

What does “… a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of …” mean?

The 1787 original genesis implication and original intent implication of “natural born [and] Citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5 means, for eligibility to be president, singular U.S. citizenship is possible only by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born. However, some conservative Republicans and Democrats and progressive Republicans and Democrats are still asleep at the wheel concerning eligibility to be U.S. president.

Conservative and Progressive R. I. D. L. S. C.

Conservative Republican, Independent, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist

Progressive Republican, Independent, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist

Conservative Socialist/Communist: A 21st Century political mutation is currently in the nascent embryonic cell division stage as the World Economic Forum (WEF) ‘schooled’ DINOs and RINOs go to ideological ‘great reset’ war against ‘individualist’ citizens represented by various organization. One prominent example resisting the WEF revolution evolution is True The Vote and ‘TEA Party’ efforts (TEA = Taxed Enough Already). “True the Vote (→ https://www.truethevote.org/) is a conservative vote-monitoring organization based in Houston, Texas whose stated objective is stopping voter fraud”. “The Tea Party movement was an American fiscally conservative political movement within the Republican Party”.

Progressive Socialist/Communist: A 160+ year old political mutation currently in 2000s ‘lean forward’ cell division stage as the Democratic Party, which has already kicked God out of the DNC, resurrects godless Karl Marx with the help of marxist activist author Saul Alinsky (his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ was dedicated to Lucifer, i.e., the ‘god’ of the godless) and his acolytes Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Barack Hussein Obama used to teach the Alinsky vision and radical ‘transformation’ tactics to fellow ‘comrades’ in thought, and Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote her thesis on Alinsky's vision for using the rules of the political game for radical ‘transformation’ of society.

The BIG Talkers and the BIG Bloggers are not low information voters, but they might as well be concerning the original genesis implicit intent, the reason for original birther John Jay underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington. The BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers rarely if ever talk or write about first principles and the original genesis implicit meaning of the word ‘born’ and “natural born Citizen”. BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers rarely (99.99999% of the time?) talk or write about the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” from 1787 original birther John Jay’s perspective.

- 224 -

A BIG Disappointment: Paging the BIGs and Waiting, Waiting, Waiting...

It has been many years since Barack Hussein Obama was inaugurated President of the United States for the first time on January 20, 2009, and We the Posterity of the 1787 original We the People are still waiting for informed and meaningful comments about Article II from BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, BIG Thinkers, BIG Media. Until the BIGs comment about what ‘born’ means in “natural born Citizen” and who is or is not ‘born’ eligible to be president, and until they explain why, well, their BIG Silence is a BIG Disappointment. This will be updated and corrected again when at least one of the ‘BIGs’ publicly announces that a person with only singular U.S. citizenship is a “natural born Citizen” and the only ‘citizen’ who is eligible to be president as John Jay intended when he underlined the word ‘born’. So, until then (don’t hold your breath), we’re paging (and waiting … waiting … waiting ...) for the BIGs and all ‘right thinking’ American ‘citizens’ to become informed about the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ for eligibility to be president. And paging all ‘left’ and ‘right’ socialist, marxist, progressive, internationalist, globalist BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, BIG Thinkers, BIG Media – you know who you are. And also paging sooooo many, so so sooo many ‘right’ thinking silent majority.

The history books will record the BIG Silence BIG Disappointment of the BIG Uninformed and BIG Misinformed BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, and BIG Thinkers. The way some of the BIGs (you know who you are) ridicule original genesis birthers who defend and articulate the original genesis implicit reason for John Jay underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, and Jay's obvious understanding of the common law in the 1787 era of the ‘unity of singular citizenship and allegiance’ of two U.S. citizens married only to each other followed by the ‘continuity of singular citizenship and allegiance’ which, by birth alone, was passed on to a child as understood by the first living originalist and original genesis birther John Jay in 1787 America, they might as well be acolytes of Kevin, aka Dr. Conspiracy at ObamaConspiracy.org and his theory (‘theory’ is his term against the common sense ‘two parents’ requirement for eligibility to be president), his 2000s myth (‘myth’ is my term about his one parent’ theory) that only one parent who is a U.S. citizen is sufficient to make a person a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President.

Ok people — ok 2000s We the Posterity of the 1787 We the People, now do your thing. Let your local BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers and BIG Media know their BIG Silence is a BIG Disappointment as long as they maintain their BIG Silence. Hey hey BIGs ... hey WAKE UP!!!

What President Abraham Lincoln Said About The Perpetual ‘Union’

President Abraham Lincoln made an excellent point in his 1861 first inaugural address about a “... more perfect Union ...” which relates to ‘unity’ and ‘continuity’ of singular citizenship for eligibility to be president.

To read what President Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861 about those who would try to ‘break’ the perpetual ‘Union’, and what he said about the ‘Union’ and the U.S. Constitution, visit → http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html (paragraphs 12-16).

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln traced the origin of the United States back to the 1774 Articles of Association, the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the 1778 Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States, and clarifies the original intent of a “more perfect Union” and the seminal original genesis original intent for perpetual existence under the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

1. …general principles the Union is perpetual [‘perpetual’ = original intent ‘positive law’ word]

2. confirmed by the history of the Union itself

3. The Union is much older than the Constitution

4. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774

5. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776

6. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States [seminal original genesis]

7. expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual,

8. by the Articles of Confederation in 1778

9. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects [‘objects’ = original intent ‘positive law’]

10. for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was [‘establishing’ = seminal original genesis]

11. to form a more perfect Union [‘more’ = perpetual original intent ‘positive law’]

- 225 -

In paragraph #13 President Lincoln said: “One party to a contract may violate it — break it, so to speak — but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?” In paragraph #14 he said, “The Union is much older than the Constitution”.

Since it is obvious that the BIGs have not been thinking, they must ‘feel’ that since BHObama has spent about $3 million dollars (from 2008 to 2013 when this tabletalk conversation was started) on lawyers defending his putative citizenship and eligibility, and BHO seems to have used obfuscation successfully in the court system, then whoever becomes the next GOPe presidential aspirant should also try obfuscation if she or he is not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” because “… the Constitution is not a suicide pact”. Huh? What? The Constitution is not a ‘suicide pact’ (cough, cough, aaagh)? Yes, that is what commentators have written on various forums.

So, is the Republican political solution to sock-it-to the American electorate with a duplicate political sucker punch if the RINO GOPe I-I-I managed to occupy America presidential aspirant can get away with it too? Is ‘let’s get em the way they got us’ the common sense response because the obscurantist Obama did it first and he successfully got away with the lie about his eligibility to be president? Huh? Is that the way to promote the President Reagan “bold colors, not pale pastels” vision for 2000s America? Would President Reagan recognize an American electorate that doesn’t seem to understand the perpetual significance of the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 1787 Article II original genesis distinction between “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” and what it means to be a “natural born Citizen”: only singular U.S. citizenship, only by birth alone, only on U.S. soil, only to two U.S. citizens, only married, only to each other, only before a child is born, and, for those seven natural law (law of nature) reasons, is eligible to be President?

Can the only creator God who identified himself to Moses bless America again with ‘THEY did it first and got away with it, so let us do it too’ political responses to the deceptive and unconstitutional transformation of America that started in 2008 with obfuscation about a birth certificate and whether or not BHObama was a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen”?

Will Sen. Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz or Sen. Marco Antonio Rubio try the way of ‘obfuscation’ in the court system too, or will they do the Reagan ‘right thing’? For instance, will Sen. Cruz stand up as a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act naturalized citizen and defend the original genesis implicit intent of the Constitution, specifically the 1787 Article II words “natural born Citizen”, as written by the original birthers?

Sometimes I wonder…

I wonder... Sen. Cruz’s father, Rafael Cruz, said in interviews and in public speeches that, starting when Sen. Cruz was a four year old boy, he would remind his son that God had GREAT things planned for him. What GREAT things (plural) has God planned for the adult Sen. Cruz if he were to accept the 1787 original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” as being a reference to only born with singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before the birth of a child? That is the only way, the only natural law (law of nature) way possible for a child to have only singular citizenship by birth alone.

I wonder... what would happen in America if a natural leader like Sen. Cruz were to say that, yes, he is a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’ naturalized at birth by statute alone and not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone so he has chosen to not pursue the presidency of the United States and occupy America like President BHObama did, and will instead support without reservation the presidential aspirant who is an Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone?

I wonder... what GREAT opportunities would God, America and the world offer to an honorable person who willingly GAVE UP pursuit of the U.S. presidency TO SAVE the U.S. presidency from usurpation by all enemies, foreign and domestic?

However… what if? What if... the GOPe were to become constitutionists in name only (CINO) and turn to Sen. Ted Cruz and his supporters who are neobirthrs and portray Sen. Cruz as the best that the Republican Party can offer and he managed to win the Republican primary? Well, what is a constitutionist supposed to do in the November general election, huh? In this case, vote for the ‘CINO’ candidate, of course. Right? However, voting for a ‘CINO’ was not necessary in 2016 because businessman Donald J. Trump won the Republican nomination and became the 45th President as a “natural born Citizen” with only singular U. S citizenship, a presidential eligibility requirement which is possible only by birth alone.

- 226 -

Will the Prophecy of the Father of Senator Ted Cruz be Fulfilled a Different Way?

Let’s consider a hypothetical Ted Cruz vs. Hillary Clinton match. For whom will a constitutionist vote in the general election if not also in the primary, for former First Lady Hillary Clinton, or Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who, although he is not Article II “… eligible to the Office of President” because he had only one U.S. citizen parent, he is considered to be one of the best in the current conservative in name only (CINO) Republican Party. The ‘best’ in a GOP which seems to be in the ‘cell’ division stage and moving into a socialist conservative Republican ‘Grand Old Party establishment’ (GOPe). Is the GOPe becoming a socialist progressive Republican GOPe? Well, even though Sen. Cruz is not clause 5 eligible to be president and he knows it since he says he is a ‘citizen’ and he never says he is a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen”, I would vote in Texas in the general election for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. In promoting Sen. Cruz the GOPe would be in the same position as the Obama neobirthers, defending the GOPe version of well, uh, but, but, uh, uh… he’s, well, you know, Cruz is our Republican Party ‘MY GUY’ and, well, we gotta win, we just gotta win, and, and, and, well, the U.S. Constitution is not a ‘suicide pact’. So, the GOPe Cruz neobirthers would probably have to defend Sen. Cruz as their ‘MY GUY’ choice in court against the ‘MY GUY’ of the Democrat neobirthers.

Hypothetical Statements About Original Genesis and Original Intent

Neobirthers Defend Original Genesis Against a Dual Citizenship Senator

Does anybody doubt that neobirthers would go to court and say something like this hypothetical explanation of original genesis in the next three paragraphs if they thought it would be to their advantage in court? The hypothetical is what living constitutionism would look like if the attempt were made by neobirthers to articulate living originalism and original genesis to their living constitutionism advantage.

A Hypothetical ‘original genesis’ Statement to a Judge

“Judge, Senator ‘X’ has admitted that he was born on foreign soil not under U.S. jurisdiction to only one U.S. citizen parent who was married to a foreign citizen parent, so he had triple citizenship at birth, 1) Canada foreign soil not under U.S. jurisdiction, 2) U.S. citizen mother, 3) foreign citizen father, identified by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act under which he was born as a ‘citizen’ and not a 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and, of course, not an “... or a Citizen of ...” at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1787 because, according to natural law (law of nature), the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the 1800s.

“Judge, this means that, according to original birther John Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Senator ‘X’ is not “… eligible to the Office of President” at this time. There is doubt if Senator ‘X’ ever was or ever will be eligible to be president. It would require a constitutional amendment to retroactively grandfather him into presidential eligibility.

“Judge, it would also take a constitutional amendment to clarify the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ differently from the common sense original genesis implicit meaning of only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone implied by John Jay in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend General George Washington. In his note Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for what he expected would be a perpetual national defense reason, to protect the executive branch from control by foreign and domestic agents who would pretend to be friends with a stealth agenda of fundamentally transforming the United States of America. In other words, the original intent of John Jay was to ‘protect and defend’ the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

This hypothetical statement about what the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” meant to John Jay has so much original genesis common sense that it is doubtful that it would ever be a monologue in a movie to defend living originalism and original genesis. You know that something like that hypothetical to ‘protect and defend the U.S. Constitution’ is what the Democrats would like to say on radio, blogs, tv, and in court, and they would shout it out for years. Right? However, Republican and Democrat neobirthers would never articulate ‘protect and defend’ the Constitution with original genesis because they don’t believe in either living originalism or original genesis. What they would do is spin living constitutionism in a way that implies that they believe in living originalism but would obfuscate the reason for Jay underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” to promote their ‘just in time’ discovery (‘serendipity, wow, look at what we found just in time’) of what ‘born’ implies so that they can articulate their living constitutionism reason for rejecting the eligibility of Candidate ‘X’ (Sen. Cruz, Sen. Rubio, Gov. Jindal, Gov. Haley, etc.,) and whoever may come along in the future.

- 227 -

Well, GOPe (grand old party establishment) BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, BIG Thinkers, BIG Media and highly educated politicos, what’s an honest jurist, what are the honorable men and women in black robes supposed to do, just sit there like potted plants and obfuscate on behalf of Sen. Cruz like judges obfuscated on behalf of Obama? If you BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers have not followed any of the court cases, well, that is the problem (not a fault, just a problem of a lack of self education), and it’s reflected in your radio, tv, and keyboard silence, well, at least when you weren't ridiculing on your platforms the John Jay original genesis eligibility truthers, aka original birthers, defending original birther John Jay. The Obama eligibility truthers did not get any pushback feedback from America’s GOPe conservative BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers and BIG Media.

So, what are living originalism constitutionists supposed to do in the general election if the GOPe were to back Sen. Ted Cruz? Why not tell the GOPe to simply try the President Ronald Reagan right thing from the git go, the original intent right thing? Why not simply defend the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II and the original genesis implicit meaning of the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” as referring to having only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone? Why not simply ask the GOPe to ask Sen. Cruz now to simply STAND Up as a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’ and say that he does not want to be accused of trying to occupy America and the oval office as a transformer putschist and a transformer usurper in the same way that BHObama did in 2009 and 2013 when he fooled the people who voted for him about what he implicitly meant when he said “…we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. And with that simple statement about not wanting to ‘occupy’ America, or something similar, Sen. Cruz would honorably enter the history books and would instantly elevate himself into the STATESMAN category as an honest politician, an honest man, with quasi plenipotentiary authority to speak for We the Posterity of We the People. If Sen. Cruz were to STAND UP and decline to pursue the presidency of the United States because he is not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen”, in the future history books around the world it could be written of Senator Cruz that ‘when Ted Cruz speaks people listen’ (‘ or when Rubio or Jindal or Haley or Harris or ??? speak people listen’).

To “protect and defend” the U.S. Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic Sen. Cruz can say that he was not fooled and he willingly and with living originalist original genesis understanding, that, as only a ‘citizen’ he chose to decline the office of president to defend the office of president for an Article II “natural born Citizen” who, by birth alone, is eligible to be president.

If Sen. Cruz were to STAND Up and SPEAK Up, it would be written in the history books for centuries and talked about for centuries that, at a crisis point when the future of a constitutional and free America was on the edge of the ‘I-I-I-Transformed-America’ Obama’s lemming leaping cliff, that it took only one U.S. ‘citizen’ to protect and defend the original genesis implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” in Article II.

John Jay, the first original genesis birther, underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington with only one implicit meaning, only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual or triple citizenship, because ‘born’ can have only one implicit meaning, only birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. It is that ‘citizen’ who is a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” who is the only ‘citizen’ who is eligible to be president.

What Is Sacrifice? A Prophecy Fulfilled Some Other Way?

Could Sen. Cruz sacrifice, willingly give up pursuit of the U.S. Presidency, to fulfill an unforeseen application of an inspired prophecy (unknown until it happens) of what Sen. Cruz’s father said to his four year old son, and also throughout the years, that God had GREAT things planned for him? Who knows? What is sacrifice? If accepting the ‘citizen’ original intent and the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” as understood by the 1787 original birthers (John Jay, George Washington and the original framers of the Constitution) results in Sen. Cruz giving up pursuit of the presidency because he is an honest and honorable ‘citizen’ and he has chosen to SAVE the “… Office of President” for a “natural born Citizen” only, is the meaning of sacrifice revealed by saving the original genesis implicit intent of Article II and the Constitution? Would that public proclamation by Senator Cruz be an example of an act of sacrifice for the greater good of We the People and the Constitution? It takes only one U.S. ‘citizen’ to make it known.

- 228 -

A Hypothetical Speech by an Article I ‘citizen’ Who Declines Article II Office

A declaration of declination by a presidential candidate who is ‘only’ a constitutionally naturalized “seven Years a Citizen” or “nine Years a Citizen” under Article I, or an Act of Congress ‘citizen’ naturalized by statute, an Article I Act of Congress, for example, the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Scenario #1: Act of Congress ‘citizen’ by Oath

“I am giving up pursuit of the high office of President so that I can protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II Section 1 clause 5 and eligibility to be president.

“I have learned that I am only a U.S. ‘citizen’ by the original genesis implicit intent of the prescient and seminal original words of Article I which explicitly states being “seven years a Citizen” to be eligible to the U.S. House of Representatives, and “nine years a Citizen” to be eligible to the U.S. Senate. The explicit number of seven or nine “years a Citizen” in Article I Section 2 and Section 3 do not imply that eligibility to be a federal representative or a federal senator was denied to a “natural born Citizen” before election to the federal house or senate who has not yet attained to age 35. The positive law (law of people) words of ‘’seven years’ and ‘nine years’ in Article I implied only naturalization because of birth on either U.S. or foreign soil to married or unmarried parents who both had foreign citizenship. In the 1700s era, the heterosexual female with foreign citizenship was considered to be a U.S. citizen when she was naturalized by marriage with the U.S. citizenship of the heterosexual male who was a U.S. citizen by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization. In 1787 a child born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen male who was not married was in a unique Article I naturalization category “at birth”.

“I have learned that under the common law of the 1700s, a child born in 1787 on U.S. soil to foreign citizenship parents was considered to have foreign citizenship by birth alone to two foreign citizenship parents.

“I have learned that a child born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen female who was married to a foreign citizen male, the child was considered in 1787 to have only singular foreign citizenship by birth alone, not dual citizenship, because the U.S. citizen female acquired the foreign citizenship of the male by marriage, essentially naturalization by marriage. That means that they both had only singular foreign citizenship.

“I have learned that, because of naturalization by marriage, if the heterosexual U.S. citizen male and the heterosexual foreign citizen female were married only to each other before the birth of a child, their child was recognized as a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone.

“I have learned that naturalization by marriage continued until the 1922 Cable Act allowed heterosexual females to choose to retain their foreign citizenship after marriage to a heterosexual U.S. citizen male or to naturalize after marriage to a U.S. citizen male.

“I now recognize that when John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington, he implied by the use of the word ‘born’ that only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone produces (“produces” = ‘creates’ = a natural law / law of nature word) a ‘citizen’ who is the only ‘citizen’ who is eligible to be president.”

Scenario #2: Act of Congress ‘citizen' At Birth

“I decline the Office of President so that I can, with original genesis intent, protect and defend eligibility to be president as defined in the Constitution in Article II Section 1 clause 5: “… except a natural born Citizen ... eligible to the Office of President”.

“I am giving up pursuit of the high office because I am only a U.S. “citizen” at birth as defined by an Article I Act of Congress, having been born on U.S. (or foreign) soil with only one U.S. citizen parent as mentioned in the 1952 (and updates) immigration and naturalization act. The two words “at birth” apply also to a person who is born on foreign soil with two U.S. citizen parents since the 1795 Naturalization and Immigration Act, or, since the 1922 Cable Act, born on U.S. soil with only one U.S. citizen parent.

“I have chosen to protect the Office of President for only a “natural born Citizen” of the United States who has only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents who are married only to each other before a child is born.”

- 229 -

With a public proclamation like this America would get an education about the Constitution, and the original intent of the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president. America would be educated about why it was the original intent of the original birthers. America would be educated about why, in 1787 America, to “form a more perfect Union” required protecting the office of commander-in-chief from all enemies, foreign and domestic by birth alone.

On September 17, 1787 the Constitution of We the People was adopted and sent to the states for ratification with the intent that it was to be perpetual, from generation to generation. In the 2000s We the Posterity are expected to continue to preserve the Constitution to continue to develop a “more perfect Union”.

We the Posterity in this generation and into the future would definitely continue to listen to and act on the words of a truth speaker like (__insert name here__) if she or he were to publicly express their opinion that the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” as understood by the original birthers is still relevant and important in the 2000s. We the People would continue to listen to a truth speaker who would give up pursuing an office with the purpose of protecting the office to secure the liberty of We the People generation to generation, election to election, president to president.

The whole world would listen to a truth speaker who would speak “bold colors — not pale pastels” truth to We the People in a way similar to Presidents George Washington (independent America), Abraham Lincoln (united America), Ronald Reagan (free America), Donald Trump (great America — independent, united, free). The proof would be in the historical fact that the truth speaker had given up something of great honor and respect in order to adhere to the original intent and original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” as understood by the original birthers.

It makes one wonder how the prophecy of Rafael Cruz will be fulfilled if his son accepts and adheres to the original genesis implicit intent of Article II and “natural born Citizen” as being a reference to only singular U.S. citizenship, only by birth alone on U.S. soil, only to two U.S. citizens married only to each other?

I Wonder... About the GOPe BIGS

I wonder... BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, BIG Thinkers, BIG Media are you going to continue to maintain head in the sand silence about Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the original genesis implicit meaning of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” as written by the 1787 original birthers?

I wonder... BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, BIG Thinkers, are you going to talk and write positively about Mark Levin’s book Liberty Amendments, released August 2013, and his emphasis on Article V, the only article in the U.S. Constitution which gives authority to the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose amendments without input, pro or con, by any branch of the federation government, legislative, executive, judicial?

I wonder... BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, BIG Thinkers, are you going to talk about the original intent of Article V? Are you going to educate yourselves about Article V as the constitutional tool which We the People can use to contend against the newest iteration of globalism (Fabian and Gramci and ‘Reset’) which is intended to communize America for the collective good of We the People, of course.

Did the New York Times ‘birther’ Senator Ted Cruz?

In the quote which follows next from Breitbart.com it is obvious with the use of the two words “most likely” that the authors do not know Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the original genesis implicit meaning of the 1795 Naturalization Act word ‘citizen’ that replaced the three 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” words because the 1790 words did not mean the same thing as the three 1787 “natural born Citizen” words: only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil.

- 230 -

NYT Goes Birther: Ted Cruz has Dual Citizenship and is eligible as “natural born”

→ http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/16/NYT-Goes-Birther-Attacks-Canadian-Born-Cruz-Calls-Him-McCarthyite

“... Weissman and the Times commit an unforgivable error by referring to Cruz as ‘Canadian-born’ without mentioning he was born to a mother who was a U.S. citizen, which most likely makes Cruz ‘natural born’ and eligible .... Yes, ... the Times goes birther”.

By adducing the New York Times article which tags Sen. Ted Cruz with the ‘birther’ appellation, the Breitbart.com article also tags Sen. Ted Cruz with the ‘birther’ appellation. The Breitbart.com quote of the New York Times article with the ‘most likely’ words is an example of the way some journalists do not consider and then adduce the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” by the original author and original birther John Jay and the original birther document of the ‘Union’, the Constitution. The NYT reference to Canada and Breitbart’s ‘most likely’ comment miss the original genesis point of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. Senator Cruz is said to be ‘natural born’ simply because he was ‘born’ somewhere on earth, and said to be a ‘Citizen’ because at least one parent was a U.S. citizen. For that ‘natural born’ reason, according to Breitbart.com, Sen. Cruz is eligible to be president even though he was born in Canada, on foreign soil, not U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil, just foreign soil. It makes a person wonder if the New York Times and Breitbart.com knew the difference between foreign soil and U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil. If they did know, maybe they just forgot... maybe.

It is obvious with the ‘most likely’ words used in Breitbart.com about the NYT article that our friends from Breitbart.com do not know Article II and original birther John Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president. It is also apparent that the NYT and Breitbart authors do not know the intent of the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ word that replaced the three 1790 Naturalization Act words “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’).

When Obama birth neobirthers and eligibility truthers attack original genesis birthers, the Obama neobirthers are saying that the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 Article II words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of …” (which was written by the 1787 original birthers for their own eligibility to be president benefit) are not relevant in the 2000s. However, when the Breitbart.com article authors express their ‘most likely’ sentiment in the above quote, they are revealing that they do not know the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” in relation to eligibility to be president. What the Breitbart.com article is saying unwittingly is that (1) it does not matter if the U.S. Constitution implicitly requires that a “natural born Citizen” have two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born and not just one U.S. citizen parent, (2) it does not matter if a child has dual citizenship, and (3) it does not matter that a child does not have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone only on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

What the Breitbart.com article authors obviously do not know, probably because they have been, uh, oh-so-busy chronicling the transformation of America by Putschist-in-Chief Obama, so they have not had the time to analyze Article II and to think it through from living originalist John Jay's original genesis perspective and his reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. If they had thought it through, they would have realized that the 1787 original birthers did not imply that eligibility to be president includes being born on either U.S. soil or foreign soil, and the original birthers did not imply one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent was sufficient for eligibility to be president, whether the foreign born parent was from Canada, Mexico, France, England, or wherever.

Maybe the BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, BIG Thinkers, BIG Media can now find the time to analyze the 1787 original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birthers and framers of the 1787 original birther document, specifically Article II and the presidential eligibility words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” before the next ‘I-I-I managed to occupy America’ usurper arrives on the political scene and tries to ‘occupy’ the oval office again like BHObama did twice. John Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” is a starting point for the BIGs. The word ‘born’ illustrates the difference between a U.S. ‘citizen’ child born naturally to one U.S. citizen parent and a U.S. “natural born Citizen” child who is eligible to be president by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.

‘Cruz Is eligible’: Cruz Advisers Say So

→ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347052/cruz-2016

“Cruz isn’t worried that his birth certificate will be a problem. Though he was born in Canada, he and his advisers are confident that they could win any legal battle over his eligibility. Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and he considers himself to be a natural-born citizen”.

- 231 -

Only One “natural born Citizen” and Many ‘citizens’

1) 1787 U.S. Constitution

Article II Section 1 clause 5 words “natural born Citizen” and “... or a Citizen of ...”.

2) 1790 Naturalization Act: “natural born citizen”

The three “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) words were authored by the first Congress in President Washington's first administration, and repealed by the ‘citizen’ word in the 1795 Naturalization Act.

3) 1795 Naturalization Act: “citizen”

The single ‘citizen’ word in the 1795 Naturalization Act, passed in the third Congress in the second term of President George Washington’s administration, replaced the three “natural born citizen” words of the 1790 Naturalization Act.

4) 1866 Civil Rights Act: “citizen”

This ‘citizen’ has nothing to do with who is eligible to be president because an Act of Congress about who is a ‘citizen’ can not repeal the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” since the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the 1800s.

5) 1868 Fourteenth Amendment: “citizen”

This ‘citizen’ has nothing to do with who is eligible to be president. The amendment about who is a ‘citizen’ did not repeal Article II and the original genesis implicit intent of only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.

6) 1875 Minor v. Happersett: “native” = “natural born Citizen”

This has the best Supreme Court comment about the meaning of “native”, or “natural born Citizen”, specifically the obvious conclusion that ‘or’ = ‘also’ called.

7) 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark: “citizen”

This is the worst Court decision about who is a U.S. ‘citizen’ because it naturalized with a fiat (‘because we said so’) “opinion” and said that a child is a U.S. ‘citizen’ even if born on U.S. soil to parents who are not U.S. citizens at their child’s birth.

8) 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act: “citizen”

See the language about the ‘citizen’ status of a child born on foreign soil with one U.S. citizen parent married to one foreign citizen.

As with most busy people, the ‘Cruz is eligible’ commentators on different forums may not be informed about this specific “natural born Citizen … eligible to the Office of President” issue, but they express honest opinions and honest assertions that obviously come from honest intent (yes, I also remember a time when I was not very informed and I also commented with honest intent) and are simply honest opinions about what the commentator may have heard, or may have been told by someone they know, or may have heard on a radio program, read on a blog, etc. So, if the many honest commentators conclude that since Sen. Cruz has said in interviews that he is a U.S. ‘citizen’, or a columnist on Breitbart.com or NationalReview.com has said that Sen. Cruz is a U.S. ‘citizen’, or a radio and tv person like Glenn Beck has said that Sen. Cruz is a U.S. ‘citizen’, or a constitutional scholar like Mark Levin has said that Sen. Cruz is a U.S. ‘citizen’, and they all say that Sen. Cruz is a U.S. ‘citizen’ with the implication that he is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president, well, that settles it. Right? Really?

Since neobirthers assert that Sen. Cruz is ‘eligible’ to be president, that means that he is not only a ‘citizen’ but also a “natural born Citizen” because he was ‘natural born’ somewhere on earth to a U.S. citizen. All children are ‘born’ somewhere on earth to someone according to natural law (law of people), right? Also, under the authority of Article I, he was naturalized by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (clause ‘g’) statute, not naturalized by oath. So, since Sen. Cruz was not naturalized by oath and since he became a ‘citizen’ by statute when he was ‘natural born’ to one U.S. citizen, well, ‘that settles it’, right? Sen. Cruz, a 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act ‘citizen’, is eligible to be president for the same reason that an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment citizen is eligible to be president, because the neobirthers say so, even if they are born with either one or zero U.S. citizen parents.

The point of ‘that settles it” is that all U.S. ‘citizens’ are said by neobirthers to be eligible to be president when they are born anywhere on earth, either on U.S. soil or foreign soil, to only one U.S. citizen, either married or not married, or born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens, as were Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, California Sen. Kamala Harris.

That settles it? Really? Does that make eligibility common sense? Does it make sense that not only a “natural born Citizen” but any U.S. ‘citizen’ is eligible to be president? Does it not matter where on earth the U.S. ‘citizen’ is born? Does it not matter how many U.S. citizen parents the ‘citizen’ has, two or one or zero?

- 232 -

NationalReview.com: A Confused BIG Blogger Example

One prominent BIG Blogger example of birther ridicule by my ideological friends is the March 7, 2012 National Review Online editorial, six days after the March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse news conference by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The editorial starts the first sentence with these words, “As Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio beclowns himself and his wayward admirers …”.

This March 7, 2012 post by the NRO Editors, ‘Conspiracy Again’ with 420 comments by April 15, 2012, took what looks to be the head in the sand position that since Hillary Clinton adduced the birther issue in 2008 against BHObama, then it must be bogus, and the last sentence directed at Sheriff Joe Arpaio has the dismissive ridicule words ‘birthers flim-flam’.

Did the NRO editors (→ http://www.nationalreview.com/content/conspiracy-again) accept the Hillary Clinton so-called connection after doing research, or did the editors simply accept it without verifying? Here is the final paragraph:

“Republicans who have chosen to associate with the birthers.... And as Sheriff Arpaio settles comfortably into that political mental ward, the same must be said of those Republicans who choose to associate themselves with him more broadly. Those who cannot distinguish between the birthers’ flim-flam and the critical questions that face our nation in 2012 will not win and do not deserve to”.

The final paragraph is an example of the National Review editor’s own “flim-flam” of a response to the thoughtful conclusion of the Cold Case Posse investigation headed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a true defender of the east coast National Review editors’ 1st Amendment freedom to think, speak, write... and ridicule true patriots like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and detective Lt. Mike Zullo. Oh well, it seems that the NRO “flim-flam” editors lost to BHObama twice. He beat the BIG Thinkers for the second time when he was elected on Nov. 6, 2012 as a ‘citizen’. The ‘occupier-in-chief’ pulled his own ‘citizen’ neobirther “flim-flam” over the NRO BIG Thinker editors who were not watching the ideological enemy within America and more enemies gathering at the gates who also want to ‘transform’ America.

After the six month Cold Case Posse investigation by professional investigators led by Lt. Mike Zullo, which included retired police officers, the BIG Thinkers at the National Review say that the repeatedly reelected Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio “beclowns” himself. That is the opinion of east coast BIG Thinkers, professional magazine editors who opine daily after reading, interviewing, writing, editing and publishing their opinions in the form of text on paper and blogs. The National Review editors put a shame-on-you evil eye on those trying to WAKE UP America!!! about the attack by putative President Obama and his neobirther cadre on the U.S. Constitution, the original birther document of our ‘Union’. With their ‘beclowns himself’ ridicule of Sheriff Arpaio the NRO editors actually made a BIG Thinker shallow ‘flim-flam’ accusation against the Constitution eligibility truth made by the 1787 original birthers John Jay, George Washington, the convention delegates, and the “natural born Citizen” ratifiers of the states.

The National Review editors wrote that “… the [U.S. Constitution eligibility truth] birthers have done their party and their country a disservice” without realizing that they, the NRO editors, have themselves done their party and their country a disservice with their shallow ‘beclowns himself’ rhetoric. Who is doing the “disservice” to their party and country, those who defend living originalism in agreement with original genesis birther John Jay and the implicit intent of Article II by investigating the authenticity of a birth certificate, or those who ridicule defenders of original genesis and implicit intent?

Were the original birthers guilty of doing a “disservice” to their country when there were no political parties and they wrote the presidential eligibility words “natural born Citizen” which they intended to be perpetual? Are the defenders of the original intent of the original birthers guilty of doing a “disservice” to their country by calling attention to the prescient, seminal, perpetual words “natural born Citizen” that obviously had only one natural law (law of nature) ‘born’ implicit intent and only one positive law (law of people) ‘Citizen’ explicit intent in 1787, and which was intended to continue generation to generation? The word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” can imply these seven things for eligibility to be president: (1) only singular U.S. citizenship, (2) only by birth alone, (3) only on U.S. soil, (4) only to two U.S. citizens, (5) only married, (6) only to each other, (7) only before a child is born.

- 233 -

If “natural born Citizen” does not mean at least only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president, then maybe the highly educated BIG Thinkers at the National Review can write to persuade others about what they think John Jay may have had in his living originalist mind when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington. Are the wise guys doing a “disservice”, uh, I mean, are the highly educated BIG Thinkers and word writers who have their own original intent purpose to influence the thinking of the readers of their words doing a “disservice’ by ridiculing patriots like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Lt. Mike Zullo who are pursuing the bad guys and defending the 1st Amendment right of the National Review editors? Do they not care about the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers, the original framers of the constitution? Instead of attacking and ridiculing, why don’t the highly educated National Review BIG Thinkers adduce the original genesis words of living originalist John Jay to correct the (mis)understanding of the original birthers instead of ridiculing those who they think are not BIG Thinkers like the highly educated wise guys, uh, I mean, highly educated word writers at National Review?

To consider and then adduce what they, the highly educated BIG Thinkers at the National Review think may have been the original genesis implicit intent of John Jay in 1787, and what John Jay may have implied when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, John Jay would definitely inform the highly educated BIG Thinkers at National Review. After they become informed by John Jay's only implicature in underlining the word ‘born in “natural born Citizen”, what they think may have been John Jay's 1787 original genesis implicit intent would help the highly educated BIG Thinkers to promote their own informed understanding about presidential eligibility, and then the highly educated BIG Thinkers would be able to correct the (mis)understanding of the original genesis birthers of 2000s America with whom the highly educated BIG Thinkers disagree, that is, if it truly is the John Jay inspired original genesis birthers who need correcting.

The implication by the highly educated Big Thinkers at National Review is that only their flim-flam deserves to win and will supposedly save the nation, and that defenders of the Constitution, specifically Article II, “… will not win and do not deserve to”. Yeah, right. It seems that BHObama managed in 2008 and 2012 to get past the gate keepers when he and his neobirthers pulled a fast one on the National Review editors who said in agreement, unwittingly, with the Obama neobirthers: “U.S. Constitution Authority? Birth Certificate? We don’t need a stinkin’ birth certificate verifying Article II “natural born Citizen” eligibility ‘cause “citizen” is good ‘nuf to be president”.

If the National Review editors were informed (better informed???) about the original genesis implicit intent of Article II and the original intent about “natural born Citizen” and “... or a Citizen of ...” before BHObama was elected for the first time on November 4, 2008, maybe the Benghazi, Libya massacre, in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other men were murdered, would not have happened September 11, 2012, 56 days before BHO’s second national election November 6, 2012. Before another OCCUPIER appears again, it is expected that the editors of National Review become informed (better informed???) about the original genesis implicit intent of Article II and the original genesis implicit reason for constitutional convention delegates adopting the perpetual words “natural born Citizen” and the temporary words “… or a Citizen of ...”.

Other prominent BIG Talker examples are ‘right’ thinkers Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity who, on more than one occasion, have ridiculed the positive and honorable birther appellation, obviously because they thought that birther was a demeaning appellation (this was first written online after 2012 during Obama’s second term in office). BIG Talker Rush Limbaugh doesn’t ridicule birthers because he simply never talks about birthers in the context of Obama’s eligibility to be president, or even in the context of defining the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II, and the original genesis implicit reason for John Jay underlining the word ‘born” in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note. The BIGs who ridicule birthers do so even though they do not seem to realize that they are also ridiculing and short changing the original genesis implicit intent of original birther and founder John Jay, original birther and founder George Washington, and the original birther delegates at the constitutional convention who adopted the original birther words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...”.

- 234 -

In fact, on March 2, 2012, the day I started writing what became this tabletalk conversation and the day after the first of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse news conferences, Glenn Beck and his co-hosts, Pat and program director Stu, ridiculed Sheriff Joe Arpaio for pursuing an obviously, to them, (at least in their uninformed state of mind in 2012) phony rumor that was inspired by the Hillary Clinton camp during her 2008 primary challenge against BHObama. It seems that, if not all, most BIG Talkers started ridiculing Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Detective Mike Zullo when I, also uninformed on March 2, 2012, started researching to become informed about the meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.

Glenn, Pat, and Stu ridiculed Sheriff Arpaio as being foolish for pursuing the BHObama identity, but they never talked about their own understanding of the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” in Article II, and what it should be… or could be… or is… in the context in which the original birthers wrote with seminal and perpetual intent. The truth that does not have an agenda, as Glenn likes to say, does not seem to be pursued by Glenn and Pat and Stu concerning the origin of the Clinton assertion that Obama lacked presidential eligibility. They also do not seem (‘do not’ = this was being written at the same time they were live on the radio and opining) interested in understanding the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...”. In the months which followed Glenn, Pat, and Stu never focused on the original genesis implicit intent of the original words and they simply ridiculed original genesis birthers as foolish since Hillary Clinton, well of course, she obviously started the so-called rumor, and Hillary was not being truthful about Obamas eligibility to be president. Right?

Hillary Clinton wouldn’t lie about BHObama’s eligibility would she? Uh, scratch that.

Hillary Clinton wouldn’t tell the truth about BHObama’s eligibility would she? Scratch that too.

Hillary Clinton either lied about Obama’s eligibility to be president or spoke the truth about his eligibility.

It was either one or the other, it was not both. Right?

Fun with Truthing about Lying – Fun with Lying about Truthing

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill sad that during war it is necessary to protect truth with a bodyguard of lies. We are not doing that here, and we also are not going to protect lies with a bodyguard of truth. Instead, let's have a few minutes of fun with truth about lies and lies about truth. Here are four questions (my choices are #2 and #4) about Hillary Clinton's alleged lying and truthing about 2008 presidential candidate Obama's eligibility to be president:

1) If Hillary was lying why stop lying if lies work?

2) If Hillary was truthing why stop truthing if truth works?

3) If Hillary was lying was she advised to stop lying about Obama's eligibility because the lie would hurt him?

4) If Hillary was truthing was she advised to stop truthing about Obama's eligibility because the truth would hurt Obama?

Well, it seems that Glenn, Pat, and Stu believe that Hillary was lying about Obama’s eligibility, so when Hillary stopped lying that Obama was not eligible, well, then, Hillary, by her silence, must have started to tacitly tell the truth. Right? Glenn, Pat, and Stu never mentioned that the BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, BIG Thinkers,

BIG Media never reported that Obama and his defenders never called out Hillary in public on her version of the ‘BIG truth’ about Obama's eligibility to be president, or her version of the ‘BIG lie’ about Obama's eligibility to be president.

I mean, Hillary’s version of the lie about the truth of Obama’s eligibility to be president.

I mean Hillary’s version of the truth about the lie of Obama’s eligibility to be president.

Well, you know, whatever the truth is, whatever the lie is, it is what it is.

I’m just having fun with truthing about lying and with lying about truthing.

I’m just having fun with truth about truth about lies.

I’m just having fun with truth about lies about truth.

I’m just having fun with lies about lies about truth.

I’m just having fun with lies about truth about lies.

OK, back to reality with the truth of Obama’s eligibility to be president?

OK, back to reality with the lie of Obama’s eligibility to be president?

Hmm… ‘big truth’ or ‘big lie’.

It’s one or the other, not neither.

The question is, which is the ‘big truth’ and which is the ‘big lie’? Right?

- 235 -

Somebody should have asked Hillary Clinton in 2008 during her presidential campaign to ask her husband Bill, the ‘Wizard of Is’, what reality was (and still is) about Obama's eligibility to be president. In his impeachment trial Bill told Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr that an answer to a question depended on “what the meaning of is is”. That's why Hillary should have asked the ‘Wizard of Is’ what the reality was (is) of Obama's eligibility to be president.

As Glenn likes to emphasize when looking into a possible reason for a past action, he might like to look into Article II Section 1 clause 5 and ask why there is a distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and an “… or a Citizen of ...” in the same sentence, separated by a comma and followed by the words “… time … Adoption … Constitution … eligible … Office … President”? As mentioned earlier, ‘why’ is related to John Jay's implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president. That said, well, it is obvious that BIG Talkers Glenn, Pat, Stu, Mark, Sean, Rush, Ann, and soooooooooo many others simply do not know why. Right? They do not know the original genesis implicit reason for original birther John Jay underlining the word ‘born’. How can you tell that they do not know why? If they did know why they would have said so by today, September 29, 2020, the date of the first debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. It has been 11 years 8 months 9 days since BHObama's first inauguration on January 20, 2009 and still no comments from the BIGs about WHY ‘born’ was underlined.

Why are the words “natural born Citizen” and “... or a Citizen of ...” in the same sentence separated with a comma? Since the purpose of Glenn Beck’s radio program is to talk, if Glenn and Pat and Stu know (knew in 2012) the original genesis implicit intent and why the words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” were inserted into Article II, they would TALK about why the words were considered during the constitutional convention and then adopted on September 17, 1787, and then the new constitution was sent to the states for ratification, and they would TALK, wouldn't they, about the original genesis implicit intent of the words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of …”, and what the words meant to the original birthers in 1787 and that they mean the same thing today in 2000s America.

If they knew why, they would talk about why, right?

Yes. So, why not start talking today?

Well, probably ‘cause they still don’t know why. Right?

Glenn, Pat, and Stu and the other BIGs mentioned previously could begin to talk about the 1787 Article II original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers without reference to BHObama in 2008 or 2012 or today, but only reference a future presidential aspirant, any future usurper – insurgent – putschist – occupier (pick a word) who would try to occupy America and the oval office again without full disclosure as BHObama has managed to do, without verifying that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen”.

Big Talkers, when will you become informed and simply say this? A presidential aspirant must have 1) only singular U.S. citizenship, which is possible 2) only by birth alone, 3) only on U.S. soil, 4) only to two U.S. citizens, 5) only married, 6) only to each other, 7) only before a child is born.

1) Only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible

2) Only by birth alone

3) Only on U.S. soil

4) Only to two U.S. citizens

5) Only married

6) Only to each other

7) Only before a child is born

Those 7 only ‘implicit’ intents of Article II make a U.S. ‘citizen’ eligible to be president. Who knows? Have the BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers been persuaded and convinced that to ask arena of ideas questions such as ‘why’ will make them look foolish and they do not want to feel foolish if they try to defend the honorable birther appellation and the honorable original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers who wrote the original words of the original birther document? Who knows? They never say what they think the correct understanding of Article II should be — could be — is — from their perspective. They are quick to ridicule and do not talk about ‘why’. Glenn, Pat, and Stu still (this was originally written in 2012) think that it is a phony issue even though they have not looked into the perpetual original genesis implicit intent of Article II.

- 236 -

So, this conversation in the arena of ideas, as Rush likes to say (I’ve been a listener since the week he went national on WABC New York in 1988, 35 years ago when I was living in Modesto, California, and he was surprised when Pentax Camera advertised for the second time), this conversation will continue without the input of the BIGs until they become informed, hopefully before another usurper – insurgent – putschist – occupier – manages to ‘occupy’ America and the oval office as president without verifying that she or he is a “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone and for that reason is the only ‘citizen’ eligible to be president. Maybe one BIG Talker can start asking pertinent questions about why John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” regarding eligibility to be president. Right? One BIG Talker is not too much to ask for, is it? Maybe BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers and BIG Media can start a tabletalk about the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen”.

Relevance of Soil and Original Genesis “natural born Citizen” By Birth Alone

Birth Soil: jus soli = soil / place = original location birth

Birth Blood: jus sanguinis = blood / parents = original genesis birth

Questions About Jus Soli – Jus Sanguinis – Original Genesis – Implicit Intent

Since most of us reading this tabletalk conversation are common sense non-lawyers, some historical writings, law terms and Supreme Court decisions referenced by lawyers when discussing citizenship and naturalization are not used in this tabletalk conversation about original genesis ‘natural born’ ( natural law / law of nature) and original intent ‘Citizen’ (positive law / law of people). However, although they are not used often here, jus sanguinis and jus soli are two Latin terms that are helpful to clarify law, specifically Article II eligibility to be president.

Jus Sanguinis is Latin for ‘right of blood’. The word jus = ‘right’, a positive law (law of people) word, and sanguinis = ‘blood’, a natural law (law of nature) word defining ‘birth blood’ rights (‘rights by birth alone’) which is the real constitutional definition of ‘birthright citizenship’ from ‘birth blood’ parents (e.g., not the 1898 Supreme Court definition of ‘birthright citizenship’ which resulted from their fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen at birth on U.S. soil even though both of his parents had not naturalized before his birth). The real ‘birthright citizenship’ child is a born citizen of a country with reference to the ‘legal’ blood and birth (in that order – conception/genesis precedes birth) relationship with the parents who have a ‘legal’ marriage only to each other before the child is born (in that order). For continuity of citizenship from parents (plural) to child, ‘legal’ marriage precedes conception and birth for the singular U.S. citizenship of both parents to be passed on to the child by birth alone. The ‘legal’ order of events for eligibility to be president is: 1) ‘legal’ marriage ‘union’ precedes 2) ‘legal’ blood (conception/genesis) and birth which results from the ‘legal’ marriage which is followed by the physical ‘union’ of male and female.

Jus soli is Latin for ‘right of soil’. The word jus = ‘right’, a positive law (law of people) word, and soli = ‘soil’, a natural law (law of nature) word defining ‘birth place’ rights, the constitutional definition of ‘birthright jurisdiction’ from the soil of the ‘birth blood’ parents. The child is born with citizenship acquired from the soil on which the birth occurred with reference to the blood relationship of the child with the parents who have a ‘legal’ marriage only to each other. The Latin terms refer to parent (blood) and place (soil), and the right (jus) of U.S. citizenship that belongs to the child by natural law (law of nature) blood (sanguinis) and soil (soli), both of which refer to ‘natural born’ which determines positive law (law of people) ‘Citizen’ status of children. To put it in other words, the ‘unity of singular U.S. citizenship and allegiance’ of the two parents are passed on by birth alone to the child in whom the ‘continuity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance’ results in only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone.

- 237 -

Q1) Birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. Citizen Parents

Does a person have only singular U.S. citizenship if born on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship)? [x] yes [ ] no – Yes, for eligibility to be president ‘singular’ is the only original genesis implicit intent of Article II.

Q2) Birth on foreign soil to two U.S. Citizen Parents

Does a person have only singular U.S. citizenship if born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other? [x] yes [ ] no – Yes, according to current U.S. immigration and naturalization ‘citizen’ language. Since the 1795 Naturalization Act, the subsequent naturalization acts of Congress do not use “natural born citizen” language. The naturalization and immigration statutes since 1795 define the status of children born to two U.S. citizens on foreign soil as a ‘citizen’ only. The implicit intent since 1795 is that a U.S. ‘citizen’ born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other is not eligible to be president.

Q3) Birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. Citizen Parent

Does a person have singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship if born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent who is either married or not married to the foreign citizen? [ ] ‘singular’ [x] ‘dual’

Q4) Birth on foreign soil to one U.S. Citizen Parent

Does a person have singular U.S. citizenship if born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen married to the foreign citizen? [ ] yes [x] no – Current immigration and naturalization act ‘citizen’ language does not differentiate between ‘singular’ or ‘dual’ citizen because the naturalization oath implies only singular U.S. citizenship for naturalized persons. All of the naturalization acts since 1795 do not use “natural born Citizen” language for children born on foreign soil to one or two U.S. citizens, and do not use “natural born Citizen” language for children born on U.S. soil to only one U.S. citizen, and also do not use “natural born Citizen” for children born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens.

Q5) Birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. Citizen Parents

Does a person have only singular U.S. citizenship if born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other? [x] yes and [x] no – (see also #3). The 1787 Constitution implicit intent was no, but 111 years later the implicit no became yes according to the ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Supreme Court based on how, 30 years later, the Court (mis)construed the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizens’ word.

The answer in 1787 was an implicit ‘yes’ to only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before the birth of a child for the child to be eligible to be president, but an implicit no to only singular U.S. citizenship when born to zero U.S. citizens, married or not. The original implication of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizens’ (plural) word also was an implicit ‘yes’ to only singular U.S. citizenship in agreement with the three 1868 “... born or naturalized ...” words for the same implicit reason. In 1868 the word ‘naturalization’ implied only singular U.S. citizenship by oath, and ‘singular’ citizenship by oath was in agreement with the 1787 implicit intent of only singular U.S. citizenship by birth, but ‘oath’ was only for citizenship, not for eligibility to be president.

The 1787 and 1868 ‘yes’ to only singular became ‘no’ to only singular 30 years later with the 1898 Supreme Court in the United States v Wong Kim Ark majority ‘opinion’ about the word ‘citizen’ in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. From September 17, 1787 when the U.S. Constitution “natural born Citizen” and “... or a Citizen of ...” language was adopted, up to the inclusion of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ language, and for another 30 years until the day before the majority ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Supreme Court, a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were not born U.S. citizens or naturalized U.S. citizens, the child born to them on U.S. soil was not considered to be a U.S. ‘citizen’. That is the 30 year (1868-1898) natural law and positive law reason that the United States Attorney said to the Supreme Court that Wong Kim Ark was an alien at birth on U.S. soil and not a U.S. citizen, and should be denied reentry to the United States when he returned from China.

Article II itself is internal black text proof that ‘singular’ citizenship was implied ‘by birth’ and ‘by oath’ in 1787 and 1868. In 1787, General George Washington, the former British ‘subject’ who fought in the war for independence from Great Britain, was naturalized as an “... or a Citizen of ...” the U.S. by Article II. The only implicit conclusion to be drawn from the word ‘or’ in clause 5 is that any former British ‘subject’ would not have dual allegiance, and would have only singular U.S. citizenship by naturalization as a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...”, not be both a September 17, 1787 U.S. citizen and a September 16, 1787 British subject. That makes sense, right?

- 238 -

In 1898 the U.S. Supreme Court ‘opined’ about the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘law’ about “... born or naturalized ... are citizens” and concluded that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. ‘citizen’ even though his parents were not U.S. citizens before he was born. In other words, the 1868 U.S. Supreme Court ‘opinion’ in essence ‘naturalized’ Wong Kim Ark ‘by opinion alone’, not by oath alone, and, obviously, not by birth alone. The issue of an alien who did not have U.S. citizenship is why the action by the United States against Wong Kim Ark was called the ‘United States v Wong Kim Ark’. From 1787 until the day in 1898 that the Court ‘opined’ that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. ‘citizen’, We the People and the federation government (Article I legislature, Article II executive, Article III judiciary) did not consider a child born on U.S. soil to legal or illegal alien parents to be a U.S. ‘citizen’ if the parents had not naturalized. The implication of the 1898 Court’s ‘opinion’ is that, as a ‘citizen’ by naturalization by the ‘opinion’ ( fiat naturalization,) of the Supreme Court, Wong Kim Ark would be eligible to vote in state and federal elections, and, as neobirthers assert without citing legal sources, others in the same position as the 1898 first ‘birthright citizenship anchor baby' Wong Kim Ark, 2000s ‘anchor babies’ would also be eligible to be president. That’s why Democrat and Republican neobirthers say that Texas Sen. Cruz, Florida Sen. Rubio, Louisiana Governor Jindal, and South Carolina Governor Haley and other is the future, are eligible to be president without only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone.

This ‘opinion’ by the 1898 Supreme Court must be revisited and overturned by the (2020...? or 2030...? or 2040...? or 2050...? or 20...??) Supreme Court to stop the ‘break and enter’ to ‘plop and drop’ an ‘anchor baby’ idiocy that the U.S. Congress refuses to correct with legislation at least, if not with an amendment. The weakest branch of the federation according to the framers of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court does not have the final say as to who is a ‘citizen’ of the United States. WAKE UP!!! — U.S. Congress — WAKE UP! Since the 1898 ‘opinion’ of the Court, children have been ‘considered’ to be ‘naturalized’ by judicial fiat as U.S. citizens even though the parents are illegal aliens. Children are also said to be ‘naturalized’ U.S. citizens ‘at birth’ on U.S. soil when the parents are on U.S. soil with a legal temporary visa.

The U.S. ‘citizen’ definition which is based on the 1898 Wong Kim Ark ‘ fiat opinion’ is nuts!!! The ‘opinion’ should be overturned by the current Supreme Court to stop ‘birthright citizenship’. If the current Court can’t handle the truth that a previous Court made a mistake in 1898 the U.S. Congress should correct the mistake with an amendment. If the U.S. Congress can’t handle the truth that the Court made a mistake and the Congress continues to make its own mistake by continuing to accept the 1898 mistake by not proposing an Article V amendment to correct the mistake then the last resort is for the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to correct the mistake with an Article V amendment under the authority that We the People gave We the Posterity in 1787 in Article V.

Q6) Birth on foreign soil to zero U.S. Citizen Parents

Does a person have only singular U.S. citizenship if born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents married or not married to each other? [ ] yes [x] no – Foreign citizen parents can only produce children with foreign citizenship. The naturalization acts do not use “natural born Citizen” language for children born on foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents.

Q7) Birth on U.S. soil to two or one or zero U.S. Citizen Parents

Does a person have only singular U.S. citizenship if born on U.S. soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizens, married or not? [ ] yes [x] no–‘or’ is not an option with only singular U.S. citizenship if born on U.S. soil.

Q8) Birth on foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. Citizen Parents

Does a person have only singular U.S. citizenship if born on foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizen married parents? [ ] yes [x] no – ‘or’ is not an option along with only singular U.S. citizenship if born on foreign soil.

Original Genesis

Questions #3 to #8 are listed for consistency of progression from the common sense to the absurd. This is common sense that refutes the absurd idea (theory) that has been found written by various eligibility truthers who say that it does not matter if a child is born on U.S. soil with only one or zero U.S. citizens married only to each other, or born on foreign soil with one or two U.S. citizens married or unmarried. Why? Simple, because the child is ‘natural born’ like all people are.

After making the absurd claim that any child, whether born on U.S. soil or born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent, is eligible to be commander in chief of the U.S. military, the neobirther truthers agree with living originalism and original genesis birthers that an aspirant to be U.S. president must fulfill clause 5 and reside on U.S. soil, not reside on foreign soil, only reside on U.S. soil for 14 years and also reach age 35 to be eligible to be president (or older).

- 239 -

So it seems that neobirthers want to pick which part of Article II to reject and which part to retain for eligibility to be president? Is that right? Part of Article II can be ignored for political gain and part must be fulfilled because ignoring part of Article II supports the agenda of neobirthers who defend the narrative that only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a person a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president. The Republican Party presidential candidates Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are also ignoring the original genesis implicit intent of Article II (only singular U.S. citizenship) and the original genesis implicit meaning of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” because it implies birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens. All original genesis birthers and neobirthers agree that Article II requires that the presidential aspirant must reside 14 years on U.S. soil. Some people refuse to admit that original genesis is as important as 14 years residence and attaining to age 35, and 1) that a presidential aspirant must be born only on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil), and 2) that a presidential aspirant must be born only to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

Article II Section 1 Clause 5

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”.

Clause 5 Part 1

Part 1a: No Person except a natural born Citizen,

Part 1b: or a Citizen of the United States,

Part 1c: at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

Part 1d: shall be eligible to the Office of President;

Clause 5 Part 2

Part 2a: neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office

Part 2b: who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,

Part 2c: and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So, what is common sense about clause 5 eligibility to be president?

1. Implicit: only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone.

2. Implicit: only U.S. birth to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born.

3. Explicit: only attain to age 35 from day of birth on U.S. soil / jurisdiction.

4. Explicit: with consecutive 14 year residence within the U.S. , ending on the last day of year 14, the day before day 1 of year 15 and continuous residence.

Do “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers who promote singular or dual citizenship really think that birth is important, age is important, residence is important, but birth within the U.S. , and birth to two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other before a child is born is not important for presidential eligibility? Really? The difference is obvious between that which is common sense about Article II presidential eligibility and that which is nonsense and absurd. It is obvious — the “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers and eligibility truthers are confused about the original genesis implicit intent of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president.

- 240 -

Questions About Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Eligibility to be President

Here are 13 easy 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 presidential eligibility questions, no tricks. Well, for the temporarily uninformed, maybe questions 12 and 13 will seem tricky.

Q1) Does a 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” refer to singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born? [x] Yes [ ] No. Singular U.S. citizenship was original birther John Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.

Q2) Does a 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” refer to a child born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen and one foreign citizen parent who were married to each other before a child was born? [ ] Yes [x] No. The 1868 Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was (mis)construed thirty years later by the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court. Since the 1898 U.S. v Wong Kim Ark ‘opinion’ (not a unanimous decision) the words “... born or naturalized ... are citizens ...” have been used to promote the notion (theory, myth) of ‘birthright citizenship’ to allow children born on U.S. soil to be considered a U.S. citizen with eligibility to vote in state and federal elections and to be president of the federation (with executive authority which can affect the states) even if born to one or zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other. That’s nuts!!!

Q3) Does a 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” refer to a child born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens married only to each other? [ ] Yes [x] No. That’s double nuts!!!

Q4) Does a 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” refer to a child born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizens, married or not? [ ] Yes [x] No. That’s triple nuts!!! This child is a foreign born citizen. Period.

Q5) Does a 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” mean the same thing as a 1787 clause 5 “… or a Citizen of …”? [ ] Yes [x] No. The difference is obvious in the use of the comma which separates the two phrases which identify who was eligible to be president from 1787 until the last “… or ... Citizen of ...” died sometime in the mid to late 1800s.

Q6) Does a 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’? [ ] Yes [x] No. The Fourteenth Amendment words, “... born or naturalized ... are citizens ...”, did not change John Jay's original genesis meaning of ‘born’ and his implicit reason for underlining ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president and as a reference to only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone.

Q7) Does a 1787 clause 5 “… or a Citizen of ...” mean the same thing as an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’? [ ] Yes [x] No. The last 1787 “... or a Citizen of ...” who was eligible to be president died sometime in the mid to late 1800s. Not every 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ is eligible to be president because some are born to only one (or 1898 zero) U.S. citizen parent.

Q8) Is a singular U.S. citizen born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens “… eligible to the Office of President”? [x] Yes [ ] No. Singular U.S. citizenship is derived only by birth alone.

Q9) Is a child born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen married to one foreign citizen “… eligible to the Office of President?” [ ] Yes [x] No. Dual citizenship negates eligibility to be president.

Q10) Is a child born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens eligible to be president? [ ] Yes [x] No. Since the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ this child is considered to be a ‘citizen’ with dual citizenship, a U.S. ‘citizen’ by fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the Court and a foreign ‘citizen’ by birth because the parents are both aliens with foreign citizenship. ‘Dual’ negates eligibility to be president.

Q11) Is a child born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizens eligible to be president? [ ] Yes [x] No. A foreign born person with foreign citizenship is not eligible to be president. An obvious absurdity, right?

Q12) Does a 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” mean the same thing as a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen”, or a 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’? [ ] Yes [x] No.

• The 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” language was then and still is today in the 2000s a reference to a child born only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.

• The 1790 Naturalization Act of the first Congress during President Washington’s first 4 year term which wrote the “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) language was, until it was repealed in 1795, only a one time reference to a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens.

• The 1795 Naturalization Act of the third Congress during President Washington’s second 4 year term corrected the error of the 1790 Naturalization Act of the first Congress.

Q13) Do the three 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” words mean the same thing as the single 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ word that repealed the three 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” words? [ ] Yes [x] No.

• The three 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” words refer to a child born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens.

• The single 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ word referred to a child naturalized at birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens. For eligibility to be president all naturalization and immigration statutes since 1795 refer only to naturalized ‘citizens’ at birth, not to “natural born Citizens” by birth alone.

- 241 -

2 – 1 – 0… BINGO!!!

E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y wins the ‘unique’ U.S. presidential eligibility prize … yea and right on! Cough cough uggg. Some people have written in forums that they think the answer is ‘yes’ to questions similar to questions 1 to 3 above, and the ‘citizen’ child, simply by being ‘born’ on U.S. or foreign soil, is a “natural born Citizen” and so is eligible to be president. Cough, hack, wheeze, aaaaagh. If that is the Democrat and Republican “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirther and eligibility truther conclusion, well, another original genesis ‘think’ is needed about John Jay's implicit intent for underlining the word ‘born’ in his “natural born Citizen” note to George Washington.

Ten Clause 5 If Questions

1) Is “natural born” in clause 5 fulfilled if a male is not known as the result of rape? [ ]Yes [x]No

2) Is “natural born” in clause 5 fulfilled if a male is not known as the result of rape and the child is adopted? [ ]Yes [x]No

3) Is “natural born” in clause 5 fulfilled if a male is not known and the adoptive parents are heterosexuals? [ ]Yes [x]No

4) Is “natural born” in clause 5 fulfilled if a male is not known and the adoptive parents are homosexual females? [ ]Yes [x]No

5) Is “natural born” in clause 5 fulfilled if a male is not known and the adoptive parents are homosexual males? [ ]Yes [x]No

6) Is “natural born” in clause 5 fulfilled if ‘in vitro’ fertilization is successful and the known male donor citizenship verification documents are not available? [ ]Yes [x]No

7) Is “natural born” in clause 5 fulfilled if ‘in vitro’ fertilization is successful and the male donor citizenship verification documents are available and it is known that the male donor is a U.S. citizen but the female is not a citizen? [ ]Yes [x]No

8) Is “natural born” in clause 5 fulfilled if ‘in vitro’ fertilization is successful and the male donor citizenship verification documents are not available and it is known that the female is a U.S. citizen? [ ]Yes [x]No

9) Is “natural born” in clause 5 fulfilled if ‘in vitro’ fertilization is successful and the male donor citizenship documents are available and it is known that the male donor and the female both are U.S. citizens but are not married to each other? [ ]Yes [x]No

10) Is “natural born” in clause 5 fulfilled if ‘in vitro’ fertilization is successful and it is known that the male donor is the natural father and the female is the natural mother and both are U.S. citizens and they are married only to each other before a child is born? [x]Yes [ ]No

‘What If means’ #1

If the male is or is not known and the marriage status is not known, the child is only a ‘citizen’. This is based on the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ that Wong Kim Ark, born on U.S. soil to parents who both were not naturalized, was himself a U.S. ‘citizen’ at birth. The Supreme Court based their 1898 divided court ‘opinion’ on the 30 year old 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ language that granted citizenship to the freed slaves. To put it in other words, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment naturalized the ‘slaves’ into free ‘citizens’ with only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship. That makes sense, right? However, until a 2000s Supreme Court corrects the 1898 Supreme Court error of granting U.S. ‘birthright citizenship’ to ‘anchor babies’ of aliens by fiat (‘we said so, that makes it so’), a 2000s child of an unknown male is an 1868 U.S. ‘citizen’, not a 1787 U.S. “natural born Citizen”, even though the child is ‘natural born’ on U.S. soil. That is why the child is not eligible to be president.

Also, ‘opining’ in 1898 that a child born on U.S. soil to alien parents was a ‘citizen’ was not the original genesis implicit intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. How can we be sure of the 1868 implicit intent today, almost 155 years later in the 2000s? Well, the United States Solicitor General would not have gone to the 1898 Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark to defend U.S. citizenship as pertaining only to children born to U.S. citizens if “... born or naturalized ... are citizens ...” in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment had been understood for 30 years as applying to children born to at least one U.S. citizen parent and also applying to children born to at least one or two (Wong Kim Ark) foreign citizens. In other words, it makes sense that the Solicitor General would not have gone to the Supreme Court in 1898 if for 30 years since 1868 a U.S. ‘citizen’ was also a person whose parents were not U.S. citizens before the birth of their child. That makes sense, right?

- 242 -

‘What If means’ #2

Except for if question #10, which says that the singular U.S. citizenship and the ‘legal’ marriage status of both of the original genesis parents is known, the other babies (in vitro’ or ‘’in vivo’) are not to be recognized as being a “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be president. How do we know that today? For the same 1787 original genesis implicit reason that ‘natural born’ on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other is the foundation of singular U.S. citizenship which is passed on by parents to a child by birth alone, natural law (law of nature) is the foundation of positive law (law of people): 1) implicit ‘birth ... soil’ (birth only on U.S. soil) and 2) implicit ‘birth ... two’ (birth to two U.S. citizens married only to each other) are the foundation of 3) explicit “age 35” and 4) explicit “14 year residence” in clause 5. The four Article II requirements are seminal, perpetual, inviolable. Birth and soil (#1 and #2) are nature / natural law, and age and residence (#3 and #4) are people / positive law. Putting it in other words, implicit in Article II are natural law (law of nature) soil and birth which obviously must precede positive law (law of people) which is explicit in Article II, 14 years and residence. That makes sense, right?

Yes, both U.S. soil and birth day in clause 5 Part 1, and age and residence on U.S. soil in Part 2, are seminal, perpetual, inviolable for singular U.S. citizenship and eligibility to be president. Part 1a listed previously is based on natural law (law of nature), and because it is text in the Constitution it can only be changed with an amendment, not with positive law (law of people) acts of Congress statutes or Supreme Court opinions. Part 1a eligibility to be president is determined exclusively by natural law (law of nature) original genesis which is possible only by ‘legal’ heterosexual marriage with physical union and reproduction. The ‘legal union’ of male and female, ‘legally’ married only to each other before a child is born, can result with conception ‘in vitro’ (in the glass, the physical union of sperm (seed) and ovum (egg) outside of the body) or with conception and gestation ‘in vivo’ (in the body, the physical union of two heterosexuals), or with conception ‘in vitro’ and gestation for nine months ‘in vivo’, and both in vitro conception and in vivo gestation are accomplished according to natural law (law of nature).

A 2nd Look: “Is a child born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents eligible to be president?”

What are you supposed to do if both ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ alien parents, married or not married to each other, enter your country (‘break and enter’ your house) and ‘plop and drop’ a ‘birthright citizenship’ ‘anchor baby’? Since legal immigrants into America do pay smugglers to emigrate from their home country, what would you do if illegal aliens broke the law and entered your home and then went to your local hospital emergency room so that a baby can be born and paid for with your taxes? What would you do? What would you want done?’

What if the city mayor, the city attorney, the city judiciary, the city police, tell you that they, the elected city officials, now expect you, a U.S. citizen, to allow them to use your taxes to help the ‘break and enter to plop and drop’ illegal aliens and their illegal ‘anchor babies’, their illegal alien children which you are expected to ‘fund’ from their cradle to your grave?

How do your local officials expect you to help those who ‘break and enter’ your home, your country? Well, just KISS em – keep it simple silly; all you need to do is 1) house them, 2) feed them, 3) clothe them, 4) medicate them, 5) educate them, 6) employ them, 7) license them to drive, 8) give them the rights of citizenship, 9) give them the right to vote, 10) give them the right to vote in federal elections without voter ID, 11) give them the right to be eligible to be elected to state and federal house and senate, 12) give them the right to be elected to write state and federal laws, 13) give them the right to amend previous laws which the illegal alien parents broke when they used smugglers to help them ‘break and enter’ your country, home, voting precinct.

1) house them

2) feed them

3) clothe them

4) medicate them

5) educate them

6) employ them

7) license them to drive

8) give them the right of citizenship

9) give them the right to vote

10) give them the right to vote in federal elections without voter ID

11) give them the right to be eligible to be elected to state and federal house and senate

12) give them the right to be elected to write state and federal laws

13) give them the right to amend previous laws which the illegal alien parents broke when they used smugglers to help them ‘break and enter’ your country, home, voting precinct.

- 243 -

Also, do not complain or you will be (mis)labeled a racist anti-child bigot 'cause isn’t it a human right for those who ‘break and enter’ to be equal before the law and be equal to those who do not ‘break and enter’. Right? No!!! Of course not! Right? Right.

To repeat, what should you do after the illegal aliens ‘break and enter’ your country and after they ‘plop and drop’ a new ‘anchor baby with ‘birthright citizenship’ at your city hospital? Would you volunteer to pay for their housing and food and clothes and medicine and education?

No? Why not? What would you do if illegal aliens chose to ‘break and enter’ into your backyard and put up a tent and then go into your garage to help themselves to your food that you might have in your garage freezer and then walk into your kitchen to cook their food on your stove and help themselves to the dessert in your refrigerator and then rest on your couch ‘cause they’re tired, and of course, they have a natural law (law of nature) human right to rest. Right?

No? Why not? Isn't it a natural law (law of nature) human right for those who ‘break and enter’ onto your property and then into your house to be treated as equal to those who do not ‘break and enter’ and who do own or rent the house?

No! Why not? The common sense answer is: ‘Cause it’s wrong, that's why not!

It is ‘wrong’ for the same reason that it has always been wrong and illegal to ‘break and enter’ into a private home; it’s not their home, it’s your home.

It is “wrong” for the same reason that people who ‘break and enter’ into your home are called criminals, it’s not their home, it’s your home.

It is “wrong” to ‘break and enter’ into your private country, ‘cause it’s not their country, it’s your country.

Persons who ‘break and enter’ into a home are criminals committing an illegal act.

Persons who ‘break and enter’ into a country are criminals committing an illegal act.

Nature and Nurture

An implication concerns nature and nurture. Nature refers here to heterosexual original genesis conception in vivo (in body) or in vitro (in glass). Nurture refers here to the day-to-day raising of a child by natural parents, or adoption by heterosexual male and female couples, or adoption by homosexual male couples or homosexual female couples. The child will still need to be recognized as a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be president, and eligibility is only by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. In 1787 America the original birthers, the original framers of the words “natural born Citizen” were not referring to both heterosexual and homosexual conception and birth, which, by natural law (law of nature), obviously is not possible for two homosexuals without the biological help of the other (hetero) gender.

Original Genesis Original Intent Seminal and Perpetual Relevance

Marriage and heterosexual ‘congress’ are two reasons why the 1787 Article II words “natural born Citizen” have immutable seminal perpetual eligibility relevance parent to child, generation to generation, election to election.

Marriage Relevance Reason

In the 1700s, parents who were both U.S. ‘citizens’ were expected to be married only to each other before the birth of a child for the child to be recognized by the 1787 era common law which influenced the positive law (law of people) text of Article II and “natural born Citizen” with eligibility to be president. In 1787 America both parents were expected to be male and female heterosexuals whose physical ‘union’ was and still is the only ‘seminal’ source of an original genesis “natural born Citizen” child who was in 1787 and today in the 2000s the only U.S. ‘citizen’ who is eligible to be president. Today in the 2000s both parents must be U.S. ‘citizens’ married only to each other before the birth of a child on U.S. soil for the child to be recognized as having only singular U.S. citizenship with eligibility to be president.

- 244 -

Heterosexual Relevance Reason

Today in the 2000s both parents must be married male and female heterosexual U.S. ‘citizens’, the only source of original genesis conception of a child with singular U.S. citizenship. Today in the 2000s both parents must be U.S. ‘citizens’ married only to each other before the birth of a child on U.S. soil for a child to be eligible to be president. The 1787 original birthers, the original framers of the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president, did not know that in the 2000s homosexuals would be given ‘legal’ standing and societal good will approval to raise children attained by adoption or by ‘in vitro’ conception with ‘in vivo’ gestation by either the natural mother or a surrogate so that the child is ‘natural born’.

In other words, although the 20th century terms ‘living originalism’ (originalism applies until the constitution is amended) and ‘living constitutionism’ (judicial serendipity – ‘look at what we found emanating from the text of the constitution at the very moment we needed to find it ... wow ... now we can give our ‘opinion’ about the case’) were not used in 1787 America, the 1787 delegates to the constitution convention were not confused by original genesis. They did not implicitly intend that, if the singular U.S. citizenship of the natural father and natural mother of a child could not be legally verified, then a child would be recognized to be a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president if adopted by two heterosexuals or two homosexuals who were both U.S. citizens and who were married only to each other before a child is adopted. Also, since the 1787 constitution convention delegates were not prescient about the science of in vitro conception and in vivo gestation, they could not have implicitly intended that if the singular U.S. citizenship of the natural parents

was legally verified, and it was also legally verified that they were married only to each other before a child was born, then, if the child was adopted by heterosexuals or homosexuals, well, of course, the child would be recognized to be a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president. Since the 1787 original genesis birthers / founders were not prescient about the science and not prescient about heterosexual or homosexual adoption of verified “natural born Citizen” children, they could have implicitly intended for adoption by heterosexuals, but they could not have implicitly intended for adoption by homosexuals. For that common sense reason, maybe the time has come to amend the constitution to restrict “natural born Citizen” status with eligibility to be president to “natural born Citizen” children born to the “natural born Citizen” children who were adopted by heterosexual and homosexual parents.

If the Supreme Court were to assert that, for eligibility to be president, the constitution convention delegates could have implicitly intended adoption by homosexuals in the text of the Constitution is an example of ‘living constitutionism’ by judicial ‘opinion’ ( fiat serendipity: it is so because we say it is so). However, by amendment under Article V authority, either the bicameral Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ could negate the arbitrariness of a serendipitous judicial ‘opinion’ that emanating from the text of the Constitution was adoption by homosexual couples. An amendment to clarify the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” as ‘born’ to two heterosexual U.S. married citizens (who possibly put the child up for adoption, or who were deceased) would end incessant court battles about a heterosexual ‘right’ and a homosexual ‘right’ to adopt children who are already recognized as having been born with only singular U.S. citizenship before adoption and eligibility to be president.

Two questions in the 2000s for We the People is, do we want ‘living constitutionism’ which supports ‘living originalism’ with an amendment which requires the approval of We the People and the Legislatures of the ‘several States’, or do we want ‘living constitutionism’ which is arbitrary and at the mercy of whimsical judicial ‘opinion’ promoting the newest ‘right’? Those are two good questions, right?

What was required to be eligible to be president in 1787 is still required today in the 2000s. 1) only singular U.S. citizenship 2) only possible by birth alone 3) only on U.S. soil 4) only to two U.S. citizens 5) only married 6) only to each other 7) only before a child is born. In other words, eligible only by birth alone to two U.S. married citizens. Some things are just sooooo obvious. Right?

- 245 -

What Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Did Not Mean in 1787

For eligibility to be president Article II identifies four important requirements: 1) implicit soil, 2) implicit birth on that soil, 3) explicit residence on the birth soil for a minimum of 14 years, 4) explicit attaining to age 35. Notice the implicit and explicit requirements for eligibility in Article II. 1a) Implicit is residence on U.S. soil starting from day 1 of age 1 day (day of birth); 1b) Explicit is attaining to 35 years of age; 2a) Explicit is 14 years of continuous residence on the same U.S. soil of birth starting from the age of majority (obviously not implying starting as a minor from age 1 day to day 365 of age 14. Right?); 2b) 14 years of continuous residence ending on day 1 of age 35 or older, ending on day 1 of any age after age 35.

“Or older” than 35 is implicit. Living abroad for work or school is implied after birth on U.S. soil. The 14 years of residence must end on day 1 of age 35 or whatever age over 35 on which a person may be elected president. Obviously 14 years continuous residence (for example, age 14 to 28, or 17 to 31, etc.) on U.S. soil before age 35 then going to a marxist / communist-internationalist country, or a Muslim / nazi-nationalist country, or a Muslim / globalist-great reset country, or a Muslim / capitalist country for 10, 20, 30 years...or more, and then returning to the U.S. to run for president was obviously not the original intent of the 1787 original birthers who were inspired by John Jay to insert ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II. That makes sense, right?

What were the 1787 framers of Article II implying concerning eligibility to be president? Were they implying 14 years of continuous residence on U.S. soil ending on day 1 of age 35 (or day 1 of age 36 and up to day 1 of any age unless and until a constitutional amendment limits the age of presidential eligibility) or were they implying any 14 years of continuous residence on U.S. soil except for the last 14 years ending on day 1 of age 35 (or day 1 of any age after age 35)? Which 14 years of continuous residence is implicit common sense and which are not implicit common sense because they are absurd? 1) Any 14 years of residence, or 2) Any except for the last 14 years of residence, or 3) only the last 14 years of residence? That's a good question, right? The only answer is only the last 14 years of continuous residence up to day 1 of age 35 or older.

1) Clause 5 Part 1 does not imply that only a 1787 U.S. “natural born Citizen” (or ‘citizens’) at the ‘time’ of the September 17, 1787 ‘adoption’ of the Constitution was to be the only ‘citizen’ (or ‘citizens’) eligible to be president.

2) Clause 5 Part 1 does not imply that only an “… or a Citizen of ...” (or ‘citizens’) at the ‘time’ of the 1787 ‘adoption’ of the Constitution will be the only ‘citizen’ (or ‘citizens’) eligible to occupy the office of president because the last “… or a Citizen of...” died sometime in the mid to late 1800s.

3) Clause 5 Part 1 does not imply that a “natural born Citizen” will cease to be a future requirement for eligibility to be president. Since the ‘adoption’ of the Constitution September 17, 1787, people are still being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before children are born. This means that the child has only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone. For eligibility to be president singular U.S. citizenship which was received from two U.S. citizens was expected in 1787 America and is implicit in the preamble, “We the People … form … a more [implies perpetual] perfect Union ... Posterity ...”. Posterity in context implies that citizenship is passed on from citizen parents to citizen children by birth alone.

4) Clause 5 Part 1 does not imply that a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” can continue to be a future requirement for eligibility to be president after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 because the last person who was born before July 4, 1776 and who adhered to the war of independence and then was grandfathered into presidential eligibility as an “… or a Citizen of ...” on September 17, 1787 died sometime in the mid to late 1800s. A 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. married citizens was a requirement “… at the time of adoption … Constitution …” and by implication a perpetual requirement for future ‘citizens’ who may want to be president.

5) Clause 5 Part 1 “… or a Citizen of ...” in 1787 was an “… at the time of adoption ...” requirement only. It was not intended to be perpetual for people who would be born after the “… time of adoption …” in 1787. A person can not be an “… or a Citizen of ...” at the “… time of adoption…” in 1787 and become an “… or a Citizen of ...” at the “… time …” and also after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 (‘after’ = next day, next year, next decade, next century, next whenever).

6) Clause 5 Part 1 does not imply that a 1787 “natural born Citizen” and a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” mean the same thing. The words are separated by a comma for a reason.

7) Clause 5 Part 1 does not imply that a 1787 “natural born Citizen” and a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” are in conflict with each other, or they restrict each other since they are independent of each other. That is proven by natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people) because people continue to be born (law of nature) and the last 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” (law of people) died (law of nature) sometime in the 1800s.

8) Clause 5 Part 2 does not imply that in the 2000s a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen” who is a 14 year resident but is only 34 years of age (or younger) is eligible to be president. Some things are obvious, right?

9) Clause 5 Part 2 does not imply that in the 2000s a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen” who is a 13 year resident but is 35 years of age (or older) is eligible to be president. Some things are just obvious, right?

10) Clause 5 Part 2 does not imply that the 35 years of age eligibility requirement is the same as being a 14 year resident ‘within’ the United States. Right?

11) Clause 5 Part 2 does not imply that the 35 years of age eligibility requirement and the 14 year residency requirement are in conflict with each other.

- 246 -

President #10 Was the First “... except a natural born Citizen ...”

1. George Washington (1789-1797): “… or a Citizen of ...” (b. February 22, 1732)

2. John Adams (1797-1801): “… or a Citizen of...” (b. October 30, 1735)

3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809:):“… or a Citizen of ...” (b. April 13, 1743)

4. James Madison (1809-1817): “… or a Citizen of ...” (b. March 16, 1751)

5. James Monroe (1817-1825): “… or a Citizen of ...” (b. April 28, 1758)

6. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829): “… or a Citizen of ...” (b. July 11, 1767)

7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837): “… or a Citizen of ...” (b. March 15, 1767)

8. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841):“… or a Citizen of ...” (b. December 5, 1782)

9. William Henry Harrison (1841): “… or a Citizen of ...” (b. February 9, 1773)

10. John Tyler (1841-1845:): “natural born Citizen” (b. March 29, 1790 – after 1787)

11. James Polk (1845-1849): “natural born Citizen” (b. November 2, 1795 – after 1787)

12. Zachary Taylor (1849-1850): “… or a Citizen of ...” (b. November 24, 1784)

What Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Does Mean

1) Clause 5 Part 1 does imply that in 1789, the first president and executive of the federation government, George Washington, because he was born a British ‘subject’ before July 4, 1776, was a 1787 “… or a Citizen of at … time of the adoption of this Constitution …” and not a “natural born Citizen”. Some things are just sooooo obvious, right?

2) Clause 5 Part 1 does imply that since the 1787 ‘adoption’ of the Constitution, eight presidents (#1 to #7 and #9) were an “… or a Citizen of …” in 1787 because they were born British ‘subjects’ by birth alone before July 4, 1776, or born after 1776 but before 1787 (#8 and #12). Some things are just sooooo obvious, right? Of the first twelve presidents, eight presidents (#1 to #7 and #9), were born before July 4, 1776. Two presidents, #8 and #12, were born after 1776 and before 1787, and two presidents, #10 and #11, were born after September 17, 1787. Ten presidents were recognized by their constituents as “… or a Citizen of ...” by naturalization on July 4, 1776, the date of the public declaration (a public ‘oath’ so to speak) of separation from Great Britain when ‘subjects’ by birth alone became U.S. ‘citizens’ by naturalization alone.

Of the first twelve presidents, two presidents (#10 and #11) were ‘citizenized’ by birth alone because they were born to two parents who were British ‘subjects’ who had already been naturalized as U.S. ‘citizens’ on July 4, 1776. To put it in other words, because the Constitution was already adopted in 1787, because both British parents of the two presidents were naturalized before their children were born, the two future presidents were each ‘citizenized’ after 1787 as a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone. Notice also that presidents #8 and #12 were both born before 1787 and presidents #10 and #11 were born after 1787.

As the language of Article II was understood in 1787, two presidents (#10 and #11) were recognized by the voters to be eligible to be president because each was a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before their children were born, and who had ‘naturalized’ on July 4, 1776. All presidents who followed president #12 were also eligible to be president as an Article II “natural born Citizen” with two exceptions, #21 Chester A. Arthur and #44 Barack H. Obama, because neither was a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens.

In 1837 president #8 Martin Van Buren (b. December 5, 1782) was the first Article II “… or a Citizen of …” to be president who was born after July 4, 1776 and before 1787. This means that he was the first “or” who was born on U.S. soil after 1776 to two parents married only to each other who were born before 1776 as British ‘subjects’, and both were naturalized U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776 before their children were born. The parents publicly accepted the ‘legal’ 1783 Treaty of Paris and the end of the war of independence from Great Britain.

- 247 -

President #10 John Tyler (b. March 29, 1790), the first “natural born Citizen” president, was born 2 years 6 months after September 17, 1787.

In 1850 president #12 Zachary Taylor was the last Article II “… or a Citizen of … at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” president.

3) Clause 5 Part 1 does imply that after president #12 all Presidents must be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not simply an Article II “… or a Citizen of …” because an “… or a Citizen of …” will not be born ever again because it is not possible for an ‘or’ to be born before July 4, 1776 and before September 17, 1787. Some things are just soooooo obvious, right?

4) Clause 5 Part 1 does imply that an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ is not superior to a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president.

Why were both 1787 Article II ‘citizens’ not the same, or equally perpetual? For one natural law and one positive law reason. For an obvious law of nature vs. a law of people reason. Natural law trumps positive law. The law of nature trumps the law of people. What that means is that ‘death’ trumps ‘or’. For eligibility to be president the two Article II ‘citizen’ words were ‘equal’ only until the last Article II “... or a Citizen of ...” died in the 1800s. Also, for eligibility to be president, the 1787 and 1868 ‘citizen’ words were not referring to the same kind of ‘citizen’. In other words, “natural born Citizen” and “or a Citizen of…” in Article II are not referring to a “… born or naturalized … citizens” in the Fourteenth Amendment. And, of course, a “naturalized” citizen is in a separate category of “citizen” and not eligible to be president.

In addition to the ‘citizen’ issue, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment word ‘born’ was not amending or modifying the 1787 original genesis implication of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II which is a reference to only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. Both ‘born’ in 1787 “natural born Citizen” and ‘born’ in 1868 (“... born or naturalized ... are citizens ...”) refer to only singular U.S. citizenship for all persons “... born or naturalized ...”. This is so even though the 1787 Article II word ‘born’ is a reference to birth to only two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born, while the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment word ‘born’ can apply to both a child who is eligible to be president because of being born with two U.S. citizens as implied in Article II, and it can apply to a child who is not eligible to be president by being born with only one U.S. citizen (one U.S. male or one U.S. female) as understood under the common law from the 1700s until the 1922 Cable Act.

In other words, the natural law (law of nature) of birth and death regarding eligibility to be president trumps positive law (law of people) citizenship which can be changed by statute and amendment. Eligibility to be president begins with positive law written by people about birth and citizenship and ends with natural law inherent in nature. Only renouncing U.S. citizenship cancels singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone which otherwise only ends by death alone. Some things are just sooooo obvious, right?

In 1787 a “natural born Citizen” was not an “... or a Citizen of ...” and an “... or a Citizen of ...” was not a “natural born Citizen”. Some things are just soooooo obvious, right? So what’s the difference? Well, not all ‘citizens’ were recognized in 1787, 1795, 1868, 1898 to be a U.S. “natural born Citizen”, nor are all ‘citizens’ recognized in the 2000s to be a U.S. “natural born Citizen” even if they are 1) a U.S. citizen at birth with only one U.S. citizen parent, or 2) a U.S. citizen at birth on U.S. soil with two parents who are not U.S. citizens. Even the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ in United States v Wong Kim Ark did not ‘opine’ that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen” when it ‘opined’ that he was a ‘citizen’ at birth on U.S. soil. Wonk Kim Ark was in fact a naturalized ‘citizen’ by Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’. All 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizens’ and 1898 Supreme Court ‘citizens’ by ‘opinion’ are ‘naturalized’ citizens and are not eligible to be president. That is why Florida Senator Marco Rubio, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal are not eligible to be president; they are 1868 Fourteenth Amendment naturalized ‘citizens’ at birth by an Article 3 Supreme Court ‘opinion’.

In 2000s America children continue to be ‘natural born’ on U.S. soil to two citizens who are married only to each other who are both U.S. citizens either by birth alone, or at birth, or by naturalization before their child is born on U.S. soil. The children are born to two parents who are married only to each other before a child is born. For eligibility to be president the 1787 Article II perpetual meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” is simple to comprehend:

Article II eligible if born to two married parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth alone before a child is born.

Article II eligible if born to two married parents who are both U.S. citizens by naturalization before a child is born.

Article II eligible if born to two married parents if one parent is a U.S. citizen at or by birth and one parent is a U.S. citizen by naturalization.

Since there was no July 4, 1776 “… or a Citizen of ...” alive today who was alive “… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution …” in 1787, only a “natural born Citizen” who was born after July 4, 1776 on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other is forever the only original genesis citizen who continues to be eligible to be president.

- 248 -

What Is the Word ‘or’ There For?

In 1787 why was ‘or’ put in “… except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of … time” in Article II? The obvious distinction in 1787 was between a perpetual eligibility requirement and a temporary eligibility requirement; between a “natural born Citizen” and an “… or a Citizen of ...” An “... or a Citizen of ...” applied only from July 4, 1776, the date the revolution patriots were naturalized by their ‘oath’ of action, so to speak, by adhering to the revolution and independence from England, until the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the mid to late 1800s. Some things are soooooo obvious, right?

Perpetual

The Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement of birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens was expected to be a perpetual requirement because people would continue to be born, generation to generation. The perpetual only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility requirement was expected to continue beyond 1787. Some things are so obvious, right?

Temporary

An Article II “… or a Citizen of ... time ... Adoption” in 1787 was temporary from July 4, 1776 because they would not live forever. One person born before 1776 or before 1787 would be the last “...or a Citizen of...” who would die sometime in the mid to late 1800s. Some things are obvious. Right? In 1787 a person born before July 4, 1776 in British America was considered to be a naturalized citizen of the new nation, and a person born after September 17, 1787 to two U.S. citizens married only to each other was considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the new nation. That is why both “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of …” were included in Article II.

At the writing and adoption of the constitution in 1787 a “natural born Citizen” was contrasted with an “… or a Citizen of ...” in the same clause 5, in the same sentence, separated with a comma. The word ‘or’ indicates that a “natural born subject” of the English monarch if born before July 4, 1776 or September 17, 1787, would have the same opportunity to pursue the office of president as did a person born after September 17, 1787. At the time of the ‘adoption’ of the Constitution in 1787 the “… time of adoption ...” referred to the time between a perpetual and born after September 17, 1787 “natural born Citizen” and a temporary and born before September 17, 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” for eligibility to be president until the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died in the 1800s. IF a 1787 (18th century) Article II “… or a Citizen of … time of Adoption ...” was as perpetual as is a 1787 “natural born Citizen” the 1868 (19th century) Fourteenth Amendment would not have been (mis)construed by the 1898 (19th century) Supreme Court. With their fiat ‘opinion’ (‘it is so because we say so’) that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen even though he was born on U.S. soil to two parents who were not naturalized U.S. citizens, the 1898 Court (mis)construed and thereby committed a constitutional fallacy (fraud) regarding the ‘singular’ implication of “... born or naturalized ... are citizens ...”.

How can we ‘know’ today in the 2000s that “... born or naturalized ... are citizens...” in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was not needed by the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court to clarify what ‘citizen’ meant in 1898 and why the Court ‘opined’ that Wong Kim Ark was a ‘citizen’ even though his parents were not citizens? A 1787 “… or a Citizen of …” meant only one thing from 1787 until 1868 (81 years) when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified; ‘or’ meant only one thing from 1787 to the 1898 (111 years) Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ‘opinion’, and ‘or’ means only one thing today in the 21st century 235 years later.

We can ‘know’ because a 1787 “… or a Citizen of …” would absolutely have been (but it was not) referenced by the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court as the perpetual source definition of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “... are citizens ...”, but “... or a Citizen of ...” has never been referenced because no 1787 “… or a Citizen of … time of Adoption ...” is still alive since the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died in the 1800s. That being a fact of ‘natural law’ history (‘death’ ends ‘or’), how can we know in the 2000s that the 1898 Supreme Court got it wrong about using the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “... are citizens ...” language to ‘opine’ that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. ‘citizen’ at/by birth on U.S. soil to parents who were not U.S. citizens? Well, we can ‘know’ for two obvious reasons. 1) In 1868 “... born or naturalized ... are citizens …” could imply only singular (not ‘dual’) U.S. citizenship, and 2) the parents of Wong Kim Ark could not pass on to him what they did not possess, ‘singular’ U.S. citizenship, because they both had not naturalized. The Solicitor General asserted to the Supreme Court that Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen when he was born on U.S. soil so he should not be allowed to reside in the U.S. simply because he was born in the U.S. Remember, this was the common law understanding since September 17, 1787 and specifically for 30 years after the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was adopted and ratified. The fiat (‘it is so because we said so’) declaration of the 1898 Court that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. ‘citizen’ and so he could not be denied entry to the U.S. on his return to the U.S. after visiting relatives in China, the Court ‘opinion’ is not constitutional and should be revisited and overturned by the current Supreme Court or an amendment to the constitution. That is obvious, right?

Well, when it is put like that, yes, it is obvious.

- 249 -

Requirements to be eligible to be President: Soil · Birth · Age · Residence

1) Birth before July 4, 1776: The British ‘subjects’ living in British America, aka the thirteen colonies, were naturalized when they accepted the reason for the declaration (a written ‘oath’ so to speak) of independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776. A British subject by birth alone became by naturalization (a positive law (law of people word) a U.S. citizen by oath alone. British subjects not born in British America who participated in the war of independence from Great Britain were also naturalized by declaration ‘oath’ on July 4, 1776. One of the most prominent persons was Alexander Hamilton who was born in the West Indies to unmarried British subjects living in a British colony.

2) Birth after September 17, 1787: Birth to two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil made the 1787 to 2000s child an Article II “natural born Citizen”, the only ‘citizen’ eligible to be president generation to generation since the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died in the 1800s.

3) Birth after September 17, 1787: Birth to two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil did not make the child a 1787 Article II “... or a Citizen of ...”.

4) Birth after September 17, 1787: The 1790 Naturalization Act made a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other a “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) who was not eligible to be president because the birth was on foreign soil. The 1790 Naturalization Act was law for five years until the legal contradiction between the 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone only on U.S. soil and the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” by birth on foreign soil was corrected when the 1790 act was repealed with the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ language. 1790 and 1795 foreign born children were not then and are still not today eligible to be president for two positive law and natural law reasons: A positive law can not ‘create’ a natural law. Law can not ‘create’ nature. 1) The 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts referred to birth on foreign soil, and 2) a naturalization act (law) does not ‘create’ (nature) a “natural born Citizen”.

5) Birth after September 17, 1787: Birth to one U.S. citizen on foreign soil makes the child a 1952 (and updated) Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’ (naturalization by statute) who is not ‘eligible’ to be president, and also not a 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” since the last ‘or’ died in the 1800s.

6) Birth after September 17, 1787: According to 2000s neobirthers, a child born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen is an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ and by birth alone is eligible to vote according to the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ about the ‘citizen’ status of Wong Kim Ark. According to 21st century Democrat and Republican neobirthers, the ‘opinion’ of the 19th century (1898) Supreme Court in the United States v Wong Kim Ark case implies that the child is both eligible to vote and eligible to be president. However, the 1868 ‘citizen’ born to only one U.S. citizen is not ‘eligible’ to be president because the 1868 ‘citizen’ born to only one U.S. citizen is not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen”. Also, an 1868 ‘citizen’ born to only one U.S. citizen is also not an “… or a Citizen of ...” who was temporarily eligible to be president, only until the last ‘or’ died in the 1800s.

7) Birth after September 17, 1787: Birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other does not make the child a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” or a “… or a Citizen of ...”, or a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen”, or a 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’. However, birth to zero U.S. citizens does make the child an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ if born on U.S. soil according to the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ about Wong Kim Ark. Birth on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen makes the child a 1952 (and updates) Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’. The glitch in the ‘citizen’ definition in the 1898 ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court in United States v Wong Kim Ark is the fact that there is no ‘legal’ basis for the Supreme Court naturalizing anybody with a fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’. There is no ‘legal’ basis for ‘opining’ that a child born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen ‘by birth’ to two foreign born parents who are not U.S. citizens by naturalization before the birth of a child. To put it in other words, there is no ‘legal’ basis for the executive branch president or the judicial branch supreme court naturalizing anybody because the constitution explicitly gives immigration and naturalization authority to only the Article I bicameral legislature, the House and Senate.

- 250 -

From the Common Sense to the Incoherent Absurd

The 6th birth option was added for consistency of progression from the common sense to the absurd; from the common sense birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other to the absurd idea (theory, myth) which asserts that it does not matter if a child is born on U.S. soil and if one of the parents is not a U.S. citizen. Where does this absurd theory come from since, for eligibility to be president, it is not implicit in either the three 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” words or in the single 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ word? Well, neobirthers simply assert that being ‘natural born’ anywhere on earth to at least one U.S. citizen is good ‘nuf for government work and eligibility to be president. They simply say so. That’s all.

The 7th birth opinion is absurd, of course, and was added for consistency of progression from the common sense of birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other to the absurd of birth on U.S. soil to two parents who are not U.S. citizens, married or not married. To reiterate for emphasis, consider common sense birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other to the absurd idea (theory, myth) which asserts that it does not matter if a child is born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens, married or not, because birth on U.S. soil is good ‘nuf for eligibility to be president for neobirthers. That is why neobirthers do not say that the child is by natural law (law of nature) a “natural born Citizen” with Article II authority, but the child is by a positive law (law of people) fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the 1898 U.S. v Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court a ‘citizen’ who, because of being ‘natural born’ to somebody sometime somewhere on U.S. soil, is eligible to vote and to be president.

Here is a common sense original genesis look at the idea that children are constitutionally recognized U.S. citizens if born on U.S. soil to ‘zero’ U.S. citizens, and they also have state and federal eligibility to vote and to be president of our republic. A child born to ‘zero’ U.S. citizens may be (until overturned) an 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) opinion ‘citizen’ but they are:

not a 1787 “natural born Citizen” child.

not a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” child.

not a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” child.

not a 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” child.

not an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” child.

not a 1952 (and all updated Acts) Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen” child.

Think it through. The idea (theory, myth) is absurd which says that a child born to zero U.S. citizens is ‘natural born’ and a U.S. ‘citizen’ just because the Supreme Court said so in 1898 in the United States v Wong Kim Ark case!!!??? Huh? Really? A Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ about the word ‘citizen’ in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment is the only ‘legal’ authority that neobirthers produce? Really? If the parents are in America as illegal aliens or as legal temporary visa visitors, the parents are not U.S. citizens but their children are U.S. citizens ?? if they are born on U.S. soil while the foreign citizen parents are visiting the U.S. ??? Really??? Is that dumb, or what? How dumb is that? That is definitely living constitutionism and definitely not living originalism which original genesis birther John Jay implicitly intended when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington. It was definitely not the original genesis implicit intent of the framers of the 1787 Article II words for eligibility to be president, “... natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of ...”, and it was also not the original genesis implicit intent of the framers of the citizen and naturalization language of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment which was written to naturalize the former slaves as not only ‘free’ under the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment, but also “... born or naturalized ...” free citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.

- 251 -

Permanent and Temporary Original Genesis Intent

Just because both “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of...” are positive law (law of people) declarations (because that is what a constitution is, positive law – law of people) does not mean that the implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” can be changed by an Act of Congress from only singular U.S. citizenship to dual citizenship for eligibility to be president. The perpetual 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” original genesis implicit intent can only be changed with an amendment to the Constitution under Article V authority. The amendment can be proposed by either the bicameral U.S. Congress (two thirds of both House and Senate must agree with a proposal before three quarters of the states can ratify only that specific proposal), or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ (two thirds of the states must agree with a proposal before three quarters of the states can ratify only that specific proposal). Article V only allows only specific proposals to the existing Constitution. Article V does not give authority to either the U.S. Congress or the Legislatures to convene a ‘runaway’ constitutional convention, called a ‘con-con’ by those who do not want the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose amendments because, they assert, the legislatures will rewrite the entire Constitution as was done in 1787. Neither the U.S. Congress nor the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ are able to rewrite the entire Constitution because the Congress and the Legislatures are only convening to consider and propose a specific amendment for ratification by three quarters of the Legislatures of the “several States”.

The perpetual 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” original genesis implicit intent was not affected by the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “... are citizens” language, or affected by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’ word for the same reason that the temporary 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” was not affected by the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ word, or affected by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’ word. Both the 1787 permanent “natural born Citizen” requirement for eligibility to be president (singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone) and the 1787 temporary “… or a Citizen of ...” requirement for eligibility to be president (singular U.S. citizenship by July 4, 1776 naturalization) were written into the U.S. Constitution with birth and death, both natural law (law of nature) immutability words. Birth = ‘born’ and death = ‘or’, a positive law (law of people) word, until the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the late 1800s.

A 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...”

In the case of a 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...,” the immutable fact is that it was a temporary designation at that time and for as long as an “… or a Citizen of … at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution ...” was alive. The natural law (law of nature) historical fact (death ends ‘or’ – natural law determines the purpose, function, and extent of positive law) is that the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the mid to late 1800s. Since all 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” persons who were alive “… at the time of the adoption …” are now dead, a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” can never again ‘occupy’ the office of president. The points being made here are: 1) a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” was a ‘citizen’ by naturalization, not a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone; 2) both the 1787 ‘born’ citizen and the 1787 ‘or’ naturalized citizen were recognized as having only singular U.S. citizenship; 3) the “… or a Citizen of ...” was not recognized as having dual citizenship, for example, U.S. and British, or U.S. and French, or U.S. and Spanish, or U.S. and Mexican, or future U.S. and whomever whenever, etc.

A 1787 “natural born Citizen”

In the case of a 1787 “natural born Citizen”, the immutable fact for eligibility to be president is that it was perpetual language at that time and for as long as a 1787 “natural born Citizen” who was identified as living “… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution …” was alive, and, for eligibility to be president, the immutability applies as well to their posterity generation to generation into perpetuity. According to natural law (law of nature), that means for as long into the future as children are born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born. As in 1787 America so also in 2000s America, parents must be married only to each other before a child is born for a child to acquire only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone and be recognized to be a “natural born Citizen” who is eligible to be president. Since all 1787 Article II “... or a Citizen of ...” persons who were alive “… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution …” are all dead, the last one having died sometime in the 1800s, only children who have singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (U.S. citizens by birth alone or by naturalization oath, and who were U.S. citizens before a child is born), only that child can be a “natural born Citizen” and so be eligible to be president. Derived from heterosexual parents married only to each other, “natural born” = natural law (law of nature), and, also derived from the same parents only by birth alone, “Citizen” = positive law (law of people).

- 252 -

‘Citizen’ Status of Two Presidents: #21 Chester Alan Arthur and #44 Barack Hussein Obama

It was expected for We the People — from parent to child — generation to generation — election to election — president to president — to know how to determine who is eligible to be president of our federation government even though “natural born Citizen” is mentioned only one time in the Constitution. We the People must remember the original genesis implicit intent of the original words of the original birthers and the documents of the ‘Union’ of America — or else — an ‘occupy’ the Oval Office by an unqualified ‘citizen’ could happen again.

‘Or else’ is not a pointless comment since ‘or else’ has happened two times in American history. The first ‘or else’ presidential birth eligibility issue was after President James Garfield was assassinated and Vice President Chester Alan Arthur became the 21st President. His Article II “natural born Citizen” presidential eligibility status had not been vetted before he was selected by presidential candidate Garfield to be his vice president. The second ‘or else’ presidential birth eligibility issue involved the “… we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” 44th President Barack Hussein Obama who also was not vetted about his Article II presidential eligibility status.

‘Or else’ also means that an attempt to illegally ‘occupy’ the oval office could happen again with a misinformed electorate, aka low information voters ‘Joe Sixpack’, ‘Sally Supermom’ or national radio and tv BIG Talkers and online BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers wherever they are.

‘Or else’ also means that we may need to contend with more usurpers – insurgents – putschists – any I-I-I-Occupiers – who will try to occupy the executive office to try to transform America again but next time they will try according to the original purpose of even more malicious progressive transformers who will want to transform the ‘Union’ of America from an individualist republic into a collectivist commune.

And, of course, the original intent of the ‘transformers’ will be contrary to the original genesis purpose of the authors of the only birther document of the ‘Union’, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II Section 1 clause 5 and “natural born Citizen”, the only presidential eligibility words which are still relevant in 2000s America and will be forever relevant for presidential eligibility since the last 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...’ died sometime in the mid to late 1800s.

Birth on U.S. Soil to Two U.S. Citizens

Q1) Is a person born in the 21st century on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen”? [x] yes [ ] no

Q2) Is a person born in the 21st century on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of …” citizen? [ ] yes [x] no (Remember, the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died in the 1800s.)

Q3) Is a person born in the 21st century on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “...born or naturalized ... are citizens” citizen? [ ] yes [x] no – Remember, the Fourteenth Amendment did not amend Article II. The original genesis implicit intent of Article II and eligibility to be president was not changed by the Fourteenth Amendment from birth with two U.S. citizens to birth with only one U.S. citizen parent.

Article II and Naturalization Acts

Here is a list of ‘citizen’ and ‘Citizen” since the 1787 ‘Union’. Two are in the Constitution (one ‘Citizen’ and one ‘citizen’) and six ‘citizen’ acts of Congress:

1) 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen”

2) 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen”

3) 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen”

4) 1798 Naturalization Act “citizen”

5) 1802 Naturalization Act “citizen”

6) 1866 Civil Rights Act “citizen”

7) 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

8) 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (and updates) “citizen”.

- 253 -

Article II Section 1 clause 5 has not been amended since being adopted September 17, 1787. Consider the original genesis implicit reason for using the two words ‘except’ and ‘or’ in clause 5 concerning eligibility to be president: “… except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of …”. It is obvious in clause 5 that a “natural born Citizen” and an “... or a Citizen of ...” do not refer to the same kind of ‘citizen’ although in 1787 both kinds of citizen were eligible to be president until the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died in the 1800s.

Clause 5 Part 1

1a) No Person

1b) except a natural born Citizen,

1c) or a Citizen of the United States,

1d) at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

1e) shall be eligible to the Office of President;

Clause 5 Part 2

2a) neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office

2b) who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,

2c) and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Clause 5 Part 1 reveals the original genesis implicit intent of “… except a natural born Citizen…”. It is obvious that since 1787 ‘natural’ implies only natural law (law of nature) birth by the physical union (conception either in vivo or in vitro) of a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female. That is obvious. Right?

It is obvious, ‘born’ implies only birth on U.S. soil, not birth anywhere else on earth. Right? Well, if John Jay was not implying only birth on U.S. soil, why would Jay imply birth anywhere else on earth? Right? That would not have made sense in 1787 and it does not make sense today in the 2000s.

It is obvious, ‘Citizen’ implies only born to citizens married only to each other who are both U.S. citizens before a child is born so that, as Jay wrote in his note to Washington, “...the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen” who acquired only singular U.S. citizenship from two married parents with singular U.S. citizenship.

The original genesis implicit intent in 1787 obviously did not imply married or unmarried conception and birth (genesis and birth), and definitely did not imply a male in 1787 having multiple ‘unions’ with multiple females with or without conception. That is obvious. Right? It is obvious, ‘natural born’ and ‘Citizen’ can only refer implicitly to parents who are both U.S. citizens and married only to each other before a child is born.

For eligibility to be president the original genesis implicit intent in 1787 was obviously not birth to only one parent who was a U.S. citizen. Right? Obviously not with the 1700s common law mindset about marriage in which the U.S. citizenship of the male determined the U.S. citizenship of the female (not vice versa), and the singular U.S. citizenship of both parents by ‘legal’ marriage only to each other before the birth of a child determined the U.S. citizenship of a child (“determined” = ‘devolve’ and ‘given’ only by natural law act of congress ‘birth’ alone, not ‘devolve’ or ‘given’ by positive law Act of Congress declaration).

According to the common law mindset of the 1700s, the ‘unity of singular citizenship’ of married males and females resulted in the ‘continuity of singular citizenship’ for the 1700s children, male and female, although only males were eligible to vote in federal elections (see Minor v Happersett). The common law mindset in 1787 recognized only 1776 males as being grandfathered by Article II into presidential eligibility although adult males and females were U.S. ‘citizens’ and their children acquired their singular U.S. citizenship from their singular U.S. citizenship parents by birth alone. Although there would probably have been doubt by the male citizens in the 1700s, and specifically in September 17, 1787, about female citizens being eligible to be president because of the ‘unity of singular U.S. citizenship’ of U.S. citizen males and their females spouses (naturalization of females by marriage to U.S. citizen males), there is no doubt today in the 2000s that a “natural born Citizen” of either gender with only singular U.S. citizenship is eligible to be president. That suggests that an amendment to the constitution to clarify the eligibility to be president of females is not necessary. That is, since the 1922 Cable Act, natural law common law common sense. Right?

- 254 -

1790 Naturalization Act

“An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. [...] And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as “natural born citizens”:

Synopsis:

Children born on U.S. soil to citizens who naturalize after a child is born, and children born on foreign soil to parents who are citizens before a child is born, are 1790 ‘natural born citizens’, not 1795 ‘citizens’.

Introduction:

An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. […]

[An “Act” of the Congress, not a Constitution ‘rule’]

New sentence:

And the children of such persons so naturalized,

[“such … so” = the parents are naturalized after a child is born]

dwelling within the United States,

[the children are already dwelling in the U.S. ]

being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization,

[“being” = children are still “under” age 21]

[“time” and “such” = the day the parents (plural) naturalized]

shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

[“also” = both the children and the parents are to “be considered” as “citizens”]

[“be” = after the parents naturalize the children will also be considered as citizens]

[“also be considered as citizens” = five positive law (law of people) words by legislators]

New sentence:

And the children of citizens of the United States,

[“And’ = also other children]

[“of citizens” (plural) both parents are married citizens before a child is born]

that may be born beyond sea,

[children born on foreign soil to married ‘citizens’]

or out of the limits of the United States,

[“out of the limits of” = born on foreign soil not under U.S. jurisdiction (Canada, Mexico, Panama, etc.)]

shall be considered as “natural born citizens:” ... .

[“considered as” = positive law (law of people) language of legislators]

[“natural born citizens” = positive law (law of people) language of legislators]

[‘considered’ naturalized “natural born citizens” by statute alone, a positive law (law of people) word of the U.S. Congress, so, for that reason, not eligible to be president, and also not ‘considered’ to be a “natural born

Citizen” by birth alone, and, for that Article II reason, not eligible to be president]

- 255 -

1790 Naturalization Act Questions

Q1) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [x] yes [ ] no

Q2) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1790 Naturalization Act U.S. “natural born citizen” and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [x] no

1795 Naturalization Act

“Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject […] Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States … “.

Synopsis:

Children born on U.S. soil to citizens who naturalize after a child is born, and children born on foreign soil to parents who are citizens before a child is born, are 1795 ‘citizens’, not 1790 ‘natural born citizens’.

Introduction:

Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization;

[An “Act” of the Congress, not a Constitution ‘rule’]

and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject […]

[An “Act” of the Congress is repealed by Congress, not an amendment to the Constitution]

New sentence:

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted,

[“enacted” = another Act of Congress, not an amendment to the Constitution]

That the children of persons duly naturalized,

[children of parents who are naturalized after a child is born]

dwelling within the United States,

[children are already “dwelling” in the U.S. ]

and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization;

[“being” = children are already “under” age 21]

[“time … such” = parents are naturalized after a child is born]

New sentence:

and the children of citizens of the United States,

[“and” = also other children of “citizens”]

[“of” = parents (plural) who are U.S. “citizens” before a child is born]

born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,

[children born on foreign soil not under U.S. jurisdiction (embassy, etc.)]

shall be considered as citizens of the United States:

[children are “considered as citizens” by naturalization alone by an act of Congress]

[children are not “considered as” “natural born Citizens” by birth alone]

[children born on foreign soil after parents naturalize are “considered as” U.S. “citizens”]

[children born on foreign soil before parents naturalize are not “considered as” U.S. “citizens]

- 256 -

1795 Naturalization Act Questions

Q1) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [x] yes [ ] no

Q2) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1795 Naturalization Act U.S. ‘citizen’ and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [x] no

1798 Naturalization Act

“An Act supplementary to and to amend the act, intituled “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.” [...]

“Sec. 6. And be it further enacted,

“That in respect to every alien, who shall come to reside within the United States after the passing of this act, … to be admitted a citizen of the United States ….

[“every alien” is “admitted a” 1798 “citizen”, not a 1787 “natural born Citizen”]

The 1798 Naturalization Act is the first of the four acts that make up the Alien and Sedition Acts which were approved by Federalist President John Adams in his first and only term of office.

The Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts as an unconstitutional consolidation of power by the federal government.

Three years later in 1801 Thomas Jefferson became the 3rd President and one year later the 1798 Naturalization Act was repealed by the 1802 Naturalization Act.

5th Congress, 2nd Session

June 18, 1798: An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization (‘Naturalization Act’) [This is the first of four Alien and Sedition Acts.]

June 25, 1798: An Act concerning Aliens (‘Alien Friends Act’) [The second of the Alien and Sedition Acts.]

July 6, 1798: An Act Respecting Alien Enemies (‘Alien Enemies Act’) [This is the third of the Alien and Sedition Acts. It remains in force today in Title 50 of the United States Code, § 21, 22, 23, and 24.]

July 14, 1798: An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States (‘Sedition Act’) [This is the fourth of the Alien and Sedition Acts.]

1798 Naturalization Act Questions

Q1) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [x] yes [ ] no

Q2) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1798 Naturalization Act U.S. ‘citizen’ and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [x] no

1802 Naturalization Act

An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject…

SEC 4: And be it further enacted

That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States Provided also that no person heretofore proscribed by any state or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

- 257 -

[My comment about “parents are already naturalized”]

If the parents are already naturalized before the children are “...born out of the limits...” or if the parents are naturalized after the children are born, the children are considered to be naturalized U.S. citizens at birth, not ‘considered’ to be a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone. [End of comment]

[My comment about “parents are already U.S. citizens”]

If the parents are U.S. citizens and the children are “born out of the limits” of the U.S. , children are said to be naturalized citizens at birth, not a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone. [End of my comment]

1802 Naturalization Act Questions

Q1) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [x] yes [ ] no

Q2) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) an 1802 Naturalization Act U.S. ‘citizen’ and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [x] no

1866 Civil Rights Act

“… all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power … are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

[U.S. born and declared to be a “citizen” by statute alone, not a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone]

1866 Civil Rights Act Questions

Q1) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [x] yes [ ] no

Q2) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) an 1866 Civil Rights Act U.S. ‘citizen’ and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [x] no

1868 14th Amendment

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ... .”

[“born” a U.S. and State “citizen” yes, not a U.S. “natural born Citizen”]

1868 14th Amendment Questions

Q1) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [x] yes [ ] no

Q2) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment U.S. ‘citizen’ and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [x] no

- 258 -

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401]

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; [...snip...b—f...]

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who ... .

The fact that this is an Act of Congress tells us that if one parent is a U.S. citizen married to an ‘alien’ who has not naturalized as a U.S. citizen, and the child is born out of the ‘limits’ of the U.S. , then the child is considered to be only a U.S. ‘citizen’ at birth, not a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone.

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Questions

Q1) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [x] yes [ ] no

Q2) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’ and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [x] no

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically Section 1401 (g), is the ‘citizen’ status of Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This means that since Senator Cruz is not a 1787 “natural born Citizen” he is not eligible to be president. So, why are the GOPe neobirther eligibility truthers promoting Sen. Cruz for President? Why are the GOPe neobirther eligibility truthers not asking Republicans to follow the original genesis implicit intent of the original birther document of the ‘Union’, the Constitution? Do they not know that for eligibility to be president what is required by Article II is 1) only singular U.S. citizenship which is 2) only possible by birth alone 3) only on U.S. soil 4) only to two U.S. citizens 5) only married 6) only to each other 7) only before the child is born? That's a good question, right? Is the answer simply that they do not know or they do know but do not care? Hmmm, either they don't know or they do know and they don't care. So, either they're uninformed (ignorant?) and they don't know it or they're lying and they know it? Right?

Where are the BIGs?

Where are you BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers and BIG Media on the truth that has no agenda? Where were you in 2008 and where are you today? Do you not know that California Senator Kamala Harris is not eligible to be president because she is not a 1787 “natural born Citizen”. Senator/VP Harris is an 1898 naturalized citizen according to the fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark case which the United States lost when the Court, by fiat, naturalized Wong Kim Ark as a U.S. ‘citizen’ with their fiat ipso facto (it is so because we said so). ‘opinion’ that he could remain in the United States because he was a U.S. ‘citizen’. Why? Well, because he was born on U.S. soil even though both parents had not naturalized before his birth. Since Kamala Harris is also a naturalized citizen like Wong Kim Ark according to the 1898 Court ‘opinion’ she is also not eligible to be president because she is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ by birth alone. Only the Article I bicameral Congress has constitutional authority to enact immigration and naturalization law, not the Article III Supreme Court. For that legal reason the 1898 Supreme Court fiat ‘opinion’ which naturalized a child of alien parents who were legal residents in the U.S. should be either overturned by the current Court or with an amendment to the Constitution by either the Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’. Either way the nonsense of ‘plop and drop’ a child on U.S. soil with automatic ‘birthright citizenship’ will be stopped immediately

Being an 1898 naturalized citizen by Supreme Court fiat ‘opinion’ is why Florida Senator Marco Rubio, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal were also not eligible to be president. While naturalized citizens are eligible to vote in federal and state elections, if they are not a 1787 “natural born Citizen” by birth alone they are not eligible to be president. That makes 1787 and 1898 sense.

Where are the BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers on defending all of the explicit (‘born’ and ‘Citizen’) and implicit (‘singular’ citizenship) text of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II and ‘exclusive’ eligibility to be president? Where are the BIGs when the U.S. Constitution, the original birther document of the ‘Union’, needs defending to protect the original genesis implicit intent of the original words “natural born Citizen” in clause 5 for eligibility to be president, and defending it against ‘transformers’ who think that the Constitution should be amended to ‘transform’ it from a “charter of negative liberties” into a “charter of positive liberties”?

- 259 -

A Very Easy Quiz: 2… 1… 0… Bingo!

Two U.S. Citizen Parents – 9 Q and A

1) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 clause 5 U.S. “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

2) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – ‘birthright citizenship’) a 1787 clause 5 U.S. “… or a Citizen of...” and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

3) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – ‘birthright citizenship’) a 1790 Naturalization Act U.S. “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

4) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – ‘birthright citizenship’) a 1795 Naturalization Act U.S. “citizen” and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

5) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – ‘birthright citizenship’) a 1798 Naturalization Act U.S. “citizen” and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

6) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – ‘birthright citizenship’) an 1802 Naturalization Act U.S. “citizen” and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

7) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – ‘birthright citizenship’) an 1866 Civil Rights Act U.S. “citizen” and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

8) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – ‘birthright citizenship’) an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment U.S. “citizen” and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

9) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (jus sanguinis – ‘birthright citizenship’) a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen” and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

One U.S. Citizen Parent – 9 Q and A

1) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to one U.S. citizen (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 clause 5 U.S. “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

2) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to one U.S. citizen (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 clause 5 U.S. “… or a Citizen of...” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

3) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to one U.S. citizen (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1790 Naturalization Act U.S. “natural born citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

4) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to one U.S. citizen (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1795 Naturalization Act U.S. “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

5) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to one U.S. citizen (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1798 Naturalization Act U.S. “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

6) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to one U.S. citizen (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) an 1802 Naturalization Act U.S. “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

7) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to one U.S. citizen (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) an 1866 Civil Rights Act U.S. “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

8) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to one U.S. citizen (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) an 1868 14th Amendment U.S. “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

9) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to one U.S. citizen (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

- 260 -

Zero U.S. Citizen Parents – 9 Q and A

1) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 clause 5 U.S. “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

2) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1787 clause 5 U.S. “… or a Citizen of...” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

3) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1790 Naturalization Act U.S. “natural born citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

4) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1795 Naturalization Act U.S. “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

5) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1798 Naturalization Act U.S. “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

6) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) an 1802 Naturalization Act U.S. “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

7) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) an 1866 Civil Rights Act U.S. “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no (original intent)

8) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment U.S. “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no (intent in 1868)

9) Is a person born in the 2000s on U.S. soil (jus soli – jurisdiction citizenship) to zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other (jus sanguinis – birthright citizenship) a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship and eligible to be president? [ ] yes [ ] no

Remember, the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ about the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark is applicable until the current Supreme Court revisits and overturns the naturalization fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Court, or until the Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ correct the obvious error of naturalizing legal or illegal aliens and awarding them with ‘birthright citizenship’. The error can only be corrected with an amendment which removes the 1898 ‘anchor baby’ magnet.

From the Common Sense to the Absurd

The zero U.S. citizens questions were added for consistency of progression from the common sense ‘by birth alone’ on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens to be eligible to be president, to the absurd theory (myth) proposed by 2008 neobirthers (Democrat and Republican) that it does not matter if a child is ‘natural’ born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens because the child is an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment U.S. citizen from the time of the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court.

The neobirther theory (myth), since the 2008 election of BHObama, that one or zero U.S. citizens is included in the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II is contrary to original birther John Jay’s living originalism implication when Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to original birther George Washington. Also implicit in the word ‘born’ was the 1787 era common law understanding that, by marriage, the citizenship of the male determined the citizenship of the female, and the singular U.S. citizen status of both parents determined the singular U.S. citizenship of a child who was born after the parents were married only to each other.

- 261 -

Three Simple Questions for Democrat and Republican neobirthers

Here are three simple questions for defenders of the birth theory (myth) that only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a person a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president. Which of the questions was understood by John Jay in 1787 America?

Q1) Did John Jay underline the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in accord with the 1700s common law that, by marriage, the citizenship of the male determined the citizenship of the female, and the singular citizenship of both parents determined the singular citizenship of the child? [ ]Yes [ ]No

Q2) Did John Jay underline the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” with the 2000s theory (myth), the implicit 2000s understanding that one citizen parent is sufficient to make a person a 1787 U.S. “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president? [ ]Yes [ ]No

Q3) Did John Jay underline the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” with the understanding that the citizenship of only one parent was implicit in 1700s America and that only singular U.S. citizenship of both parents was not implicit? [ ]Yes [ ]No

Both One and Two Parents Were Implied in “natural born Citizen? Really?

Do neobirthers really think that one U.S. citizen parent (which allows for dual citizenship) and also two parents who are not U.S. citizens (which also allows for dual citizenship) were implied by John Jay when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington for eligibility to be president? Really? Both only one (1 = Democrat Obama, Republican Cruz) U.S. citizen parent and two (2 = Rubio, Haley, Jindal) parents who are not U.S. citizens were implied (really?) by John Jay in 1787 for eligibility to be president, but Jay did not imply (really?) only two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born for the child to be eligible to be president? Really?

If Obama neobirthers could (but they can't) they would attempt refutation of only two parents who are U.S. citizens before a child is born for the child to be eligible to be president. Only ‘two’ implies only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president. However, neobirthers never attempt to refute the 1787 common sense that Jay implied only two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born for the child to be eligible to be president. They avoid refutation because it is an ideological no-go-zone for them.

Singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president is by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

Dual citizenship is at birth on U.S. soil to one (1868 Fourteenth Amendment) or zero (1898 Supreme Court fiat – ‘because we said so’ – ‘opinion’) U.S. citizens who are married or not, and, also, dual is at birth on foreign soil to two (by statute) or one (by statute) U.S. citizen married only to each other (or not).

Imagine:

A ‘citizen’ Who is Not a “natural born Citizen” Can Wake Up!!! America

This tabletalk conversation is presented so that We the Posterity of We the People in 2000s America can imagine — again — liberty from the tyranny which results from the confusion about the original genesis implicit reason for the words “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president. The authority for controlling who is a “natural born Citizen” is found only in Article V by amendment. Authority is not found in Article I with U.S. Congress statutes, and authority is also not found in Article III with the Supreme Court and their fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ about who is a ‘citizen’ and who is eligible to be president.

Imagine that all it takes is a ‘citizen’ who is not a “natural born Citizen” to Wake Up!!! America about the 1787 U.S. Constitution requirement to be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be president into perpetuity. In the context of the time in 1787 America, to be Article II ‘natural born’ simply meant only birth on U.S. soil to two citizens married only to each other before a child is born, and Article II ‘Citizen’ meant only singular U.S. citizenship which can only be derived from the two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other who are also both U.S. citizens before the birth of a child.

Imagine that, both parts of “natural born Citizen” are simple to state and understand, right? Well, yes, when we start with two citizen married parents who pass on only singular U.S. citizenship to a child so that the child is eligible to be president.

Imagine if at least one,(only one) U.S. citizen who is considering pursuit of the presidency were to WAKE UP!!! and then become the national voice to WAKE UP!!! AMERICA about the enemies without and within who are attacking the U.S. Constitution by marginalizing the Article II requirement of being a U.S. “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be president.

Imagine if at least one ‘citizen’ presidential aspirant were to understand that the threat to the Constitution includes not protecting the entire Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, who do not want to adhere to the original genesis implicit intent of Article II as understood by original birther John Jay and the other constitutional convention original birthers when they adopted the 1787 words “natural born Citizen” and “... or a Citizen of ...” in the same clause 5, in the same sentence, separated by a comma.

Imagine:

A Citizen

Imagine if in the call to the U.S. citizen to WAKE UP!!! America that America did WAKE UP!!! to what it means to only be a “natural born Citizen” with eligibility to be president? Who would make the WAKE UP!!! call? Which state or federal senator? Which state or federal representative? Specifically, which ‘citizen’ who would like to be the federal president but who knows that they are not eligible because they are not a “natural born Citizen” will make the wake!!! up!!! America!!! call?

- 262 -

Imagine:

A U.S. Presidential Aspirant Born on Foreign Soil to One U.S. Citizen Parent

Imagine if a U.S. presidential aspirant were to announce that after diligent study of the Constitution and the 1787 original genesis implicit reason for the words in Article II the aspirant came to a conviction about the implications about being born to one U.S. citizen on foreign soil. Also, since, according to clause 5 the aspirant is not a U.S. “natural born Citizen” but is a U.S. ‘citizen’ by a naturalization Act of Congress, he or she is not eligible to be president so he or she will not pursue the nomination and will campaign for the person who is an Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone.

Imagine:

A Presidential Aspirant Born on U.S. Soil to One U.S. Citizen Married or Not

Imagine if a U.S. presidential aspirant were to announce that after diligent study of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II, the aspirant verified birth to only one U.S. citizen parent, and birth was on U.S. soil. Since, according to clause 5, by not being a U.S. “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship acquired from two U.S. citizens by birth alone, and is only a U.S. ‘citizen’ at birth with only one U.S. citizen, she or he is not eligible to be president so she or he will not pursue the nomination and will campaign for the person who is a 1787 “natural born Citizen” by birth alone.

Imagine:

A ‘Citizen’ Statesman

Imagine if a U.S. presidential aspirant were to Stand UP and say something in a news conference about defending the original genesis implicit intent of the original words in Article II, and in the process make a positive impression on the rest of the world by briefly describing the differences between various ‘citizens’: 1) a 1787 “no person except a natural born Citizen”; 2) a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...”; 3) a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen”; 4) a 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen”; 5) an 1866 Civil Rights Act “citizen”; 6) an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”; 7) an 1898 Supreme Court ‘citizen’ by fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ which is naturalization by ‘opinion’, not by an Act of Congress. That is what the 1898 Supreme Court did in it’s ‘opinion’ about what and who is a ‘citizen’ and why they are a ‘citizen’ when born to aliens; 8) a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen”.

1. 1787 “no person except a natural born Citizen”

2. 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...”

3. 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen”

4. 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen”

5. 1866 Civil Rights Act “citizen”

6. 1868 14th Amendment “citizen”

7. 1898 Supreme Court ‘citizen’ naturalization by fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ about who is a ‘legal’ U.S. ‘citizen’ even if the parents are not.

8. 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen”

- 263 -

Imagine:

Forever Free Existence is the Original Genesis Intent for the ‘Union’

The person who wants to be a U.S. president must have only singular U.S. citizenship to be a U.S. “natural born Citizen” to fulfill John Jay’s reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington. Jay's original reason was to protect national security by perpetually protecting acquisition of the office of the presidency, including protection from a foreign ideology intent on transforming America. John Jay’s original genesis implicit reason must be the attitude of all future presidential aspirants who are a U.S. “natural born Citizen” and for that reason they know that they definitely are eligible to be president. If “natural born Citizen” was not put in Article II to protect the forever free existence of the “... more perfect Union ...” then what’s the point of Article II?

When will the U.S. Congress (not the Supreme Court) come up with an intelligent and coherent statement as to how any Court ‘opinion’ or any Act of Congress or any Amendment could ever be said to express the original implicit intent that can be said to make the children of ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ aliens into ‘legal’ U.S. citizens? Where is the clarifying statement, U.S. Congress (not Supreme Court), about why and on what ‘legal’ basis legal and illegal aliens born on U.S. soil are citizens eligible to vote in state and federal elections, and, as some neobirthers assert, also eligible to be federal president? If the U.S. Supreme Court won't revisit to correct its 1898 ‘opinion’ error, when will the U.S. Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ use their Article V authority to propose an amendment to correct the idiocy of the 1898 Court. The Court’s ‘opinion’ has resulted in 2000s neobirthers asserting that the 1898 Court implicitly granted U.S. citizenship, voting rights, and, according to Democrat and Republican neobirthers, eligibility to be president ever since the Supreme Court’s 1898 fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ naturalized Wong Kim Ark as a U.S. ‘citizen’.

When will the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. bicameral Congress correct the globalist idiocy of encouraging aliens to visit America who come, not to assimilate but to ‘plop and drop’ a ‘birthright citizenship’ ‘anchor baby’ knowing that Supreme Court and current statute law will protect the baby as a U.S. ‘citizen’ from the cradle to the grave? The alien parents (many times only the mother) do not come to America for government subsidized abortions in U.S. hospitals before the babies make it to the cradle. Notice the illogical incoherence: if aliens come to the United States to abort a baby all they need is an abortionist, and if aliens come to birth the baby they know that the federation government will cover the expense. What is the ‘legal’ basis for the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ which naturalized an alien baby into a ‘legal’ U.S. ‘citizen’ when the ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ alien parents are not ‘legal’ U.S. ‘citizens’ by naturalization before the child is born? That is just shallow thinker ‘lean forward nuts!!!. Right?

Imagine:

A Hypothetical Declination Speech by a ‘citizen’ Who is Not a “natural born Citizen”

Imagine a hypothetical declination speech by a hypothetical U.S. ‘citizen’ who aspires to be president but realizes that she/he is not eligible to be president because she/he does not have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone.

My Fellow Americans

I will start by quoting Article II Section 1 Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

After studying the U.S. Constitution written in 1787, the original presidential eligibility document which requires eligibility to be exclusively by birth alone as implied by the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in clause 5, and after studying the original genesis implicit intent of the constitutional convention delegates, the original birthers and authors of Article II, and after considering the original genesis relevance to the original birthers who agreed with the presidential eligibility words ‘natural born’ and ‘Citizen’, I have come to the realization that, although I am older than 35 years and have resided within the United States for more than 14 years, I now understand that the original genesis word ‘born’ implicitly means that I am not eligible to be president because I do not have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens. 1) I am not a clause 5 “natural born Citizen” by birth alone, 2) I am not a clause 5 “... or a Citizen of ...” by birth alone because the last “or a Citizen of” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s, and so, 3) by birth alone, ironically, I am not eligible to be president of the United States.

I am not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone.

I am not a 1787 Article II “... or a Citizen of ...” by naturalization.

- 264 -

I am a 1787 Article I naturalized citizen who is not eligible to be president.

I do not have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone.

I was not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens.

I was born on ___*__

or

I am a 1798 Supreme Court naturalized by opinion citizen who is not eligible to be president.

I do not have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone.

I was not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens.

I was born on ___*__

 

*[...insert one eligibility circumstance from this list]

*U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen

*U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens

*foreign soil to one U.S. citizen

*foreign soil to two U.S. citizens

Why do I say this? I would like to repeat what I said earlier. I have come to understand that the original genesis word ‘born’ implicitly means that, not only am I not a 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” by birth alone, I am also not a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” by naturalization alone. In part 1 of Article II I considered the words that are still the law of the land today: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...;”.

I am not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone and, of course, I am also not a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” by naturalization because the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the mid to late 1800s. After the last 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” died only a 1787 “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president, and always will be unless Article II is amended to allow any person born anywhere on earth to two or one U.S. citizens to be eligible to be president, and also amended with words that say that the ‘parents’ (the ‘genesis’ source, the ‘reproducers’ of a child) must be ‘legally’ married only to each other before a child is born, or do not need to be married before a child is born for a child to be ‘legally’ eligible to be president.

In the 1787 marriage mindset inspired by the Jewish-Christian family and community standards of conduct, and especially after the 1776 war of independence ended and young single males returned to the homes of their parents before they married, ‘natural born Citizen’ simply meant to them birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. ‘citizen’ parents married only to each other before a child is born. So, it is obvious to me now, after thinking about John Jay’s original genesis implicit common sense reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington, that the original genesis implicit intent of the delegates to the constitutional convention, the original birthers who agreed to insert “natural born Citizen” into Article II, was to apply the requirement of clause 5 to all future presidential aspirants whether the presidential aspirant is their GUY or their GAL of the opposing political party or our GUY or our GAL of our political party.

The 1787 original birthers were prescient. The seminal words “natural born Citizen” imply not only original genesis birth but also original intent citizenship. The words ‘natural born’ imply by birth alone, ‘born’ implies perpetual, from parent to child, generation to generation, and ‘Citizen’ implies that the ‘unity of singular U.S. citizenship’ of the parents is passed on to their children with ‘continuity of singular U.S. citizenship’ generation to generation, election to election, president to president.

For all of the common sense reasons I have mentioned, I have concluded that I am not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and so not eligible to be president at any time in the future, unless, of course, clause 5 is amended to let any child born anywhere on earth to be eligible to be president if born to two or one or zero U.S. citizens, married or not.

- 265 -

Unity and Continuity of Citizenship from Parents to Children

Next is a portion of one of my posts on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog.

→ https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=3651895997482884113&blogID=7466841558189356289&isPopup=false&page=10

Mario, in your phrase “the rule of unity of the citizenship of the husband and wife” (April 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM) is contained the essence of what I have been articulating, two is the only way to produce one — two U.S. citizens is the only way to produce a child with only singular citizenship. As you wrote about the common law from 1787, “... there was no such thing as husbands and wives with different citizenships. Husbands and wives were either both U.S. citizens or both aliens.”

Both parents are “either … or” before the child was called a U.S. citizen or an alien citizen. Either way, in the “rule of unity”, two is the only way to produce one. In 1787 the citizenship status of the child was determined by the citizenship status of both parents. If the U.S. citizen husband married a foreign citizen wife, the new wife was considered to also be a U.S. citizen because she was in essence naturalized by ‘legal’ marriage to a U.S. citizen, and the child was a U.S. citizen with singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. If the foreign citizen male married a U.S. citizen female, both were considered to be foreign citizens, and their child was also considered to be a foreign citizen and not a U.S. “natural born Citizen” or a U.S. ‘citizen’. Either way, U.S. citizenship or foreign citizenship, two = one.

So, putting the “rule of unity” phrase together with living originalism birther John Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, and the historical fact that the convention delegates did not need to debate how many persons were needed to ‘reproduce’ a child, and they also did not need to debate how many U.S. citizens were needed to produce a U.S. ‘citizen’ child, we have the essence of the common sense original genesis understanding of the original birthers that “natural born Citizen”, with the implicit presupposition of by birth alone, meant that only two singular U.S. citizenship parents was the way to produce one child with singular U.S. citizenship.

The citizenship of the male determined the citizenship of the female. The singular citizenship of both citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other determined the singular citizenship of the child. In Article II the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” was a legal codification of the common sense natural law (law of nature) reality together with positive law (law of people) reality that two U.S. citizens was the only way to produce one U.S. citizen. This means that, after ratification of the Constitution, only two U.S. citizen parents (citizens by birth or by naturalization before the birth of a child) could bestow singular U.S. citizen status on the child, and for that reason was recognized as an Article II “natural born Citizen” with John Jay’s implicit by birth alone presupposition. Two U.S. ‘citizen’ parents with only singular U.S. citizenship is the only way to ‘create’ (reproduce) a singular U.S. citizen child who is eligible to be president.

In the 1700s, the era in which John Jay lived when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington, the word ‘born’ could only have implied only singular citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens. The common law understanding at that time was that the citizenship of the male determined the citizenship of the female by their ‘legal’ marriage to each other, and the singular citizenship of both married parents ‘legally’ passed on singular citizenship to their child. Two U.S. citizen ‘legally’ married parents is the only way for two married U.S. ‘citizens’ (and for the nation itself, made up of other natural born citizens) to ‘create’ by birth alone another singular U.S. ‘citizen’ child who is recognized by other U.S. ‘citizens’ of the same nation as a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president.

In other words, unity and continuity — the ‘unity of citizenship’ of the heterosexual parents ‘legally’ married only to each other, and the ‘continuity of citizenship’ which they pass on to their singular citizenship child. The ‘unity and continuity of citizenship’ shows the natural law (law of nature) ‘legal’ reason that the positive law (law of people) applies to an Article II “… natural born Citizen ...” child, and why only this kind of ‘citizen’ is still the only kind of U.S. ‘citizen’ who is eligible to be president in 2000s America.

If not only ‘legal’ heterosexual marriage, what was the ‘legal’ basis in 1787 America for using the ‘unity and continuity’ word eligible’ to be president? If not heterosexual ‘legal’ marriage, why did the 1787 founders codify in their new ‘legal’ document (the U.S. Constitution, the LAW) that to be eligible to be president a person must be only a “natural born Citizen” with the only common sense implication possible in a long-lasting coherent society (“… a more perfect Union …”) than this: Only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens married only to each other only before a child is born? Two singular citizenship parents by ‘legal’ marriage is the only positive law (law of people) way to ‘create’ singular U.S. citizenship children.

- 266 -

Original Genesis Soil / Birth and Original Intent Citizenship

Which of these soil, birth, and citizenship questions below (1a, 1b, 1c and 2a, 2b, 2c) would original genesis birther John Jay have affirmed in 1787 for eligibility to be president when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington? Hint: what was the original genesis implicit intent of John Jay? Was it the option which promotes only singular U.S. citizenship (parents who are both citizens), or the option which promotes dual citizenship (one parent is a U.S. citizen and one is a foreign citizen and the child has dual citizenship)?

1a Only U.S. soil birth?

1b Only Foreign soil birth?

1c Either U.S. or Foreign soil birth?

2a Only two U.S. citizen parents?

2b Also one U.S. citizen parent?

2c Also zero U.S. citizen parents?

What was John Jay implying in 1787 when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington at the time when the citizenship of the male husband determined the citizenship of the female wife and the citizenship of both parents determined the citizenship of the child? From 1787 until the 1922 Cable Act, husbands and wives had the same citizenship status by marriage. Husbands and wives were either both U.S. citizens or both aliens, and the children were what their parents were. Both parents. Also, after the 1922 Cable Act, what continues to be the only source of a singular U.S. citizen and eligibility to be President? Only two U.S. citizens who are married only to each other before a child is born.

That is the 2000s common sense conclusion as to why original genesis birther John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his suggestion to George Washington, a suggestion which all of the convention delegates accepted as is without debate as to what exactly the words “natural born” and “Citizen” meant to Jay and Washington, and a suggestion which was accepted without debate by the ratifiers of the “several States”. The U.S. soil was obviously implicit in the word ‘born’ because the birth has to take place on the soil that is already there and recognized as the national soil, U.S. soil, not foreign soil, and both parents would be only U.S. citizens, both parents. Right? The entire membership of the bicameral U.S. Congress, House and Senate, is not able to produce a single “natural born Citizen” by statute alone in the form of a naturalization act which is positive law (law of people). It takes two ‘citizen’ parents to ‘create’ a “natural born Citizen” by uh, you might even say, by a natural law (law of nature) act of congress, and the two houses of Congress are not able to ‘create’ a single “natural born Citizen” by uh, you might also say, a positive law (law of people) Act of Congress. It takes both, natural law and positive law. Both, the parents natural law (law of nature) act of congress and the legislative positive law (law of people) Act of Congress. That makes sense, right? Yes.

The 1787 Context

For the record, the context is John Jay underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in the 1700s when it was understood as common law that, by marriage, the U.S. or foreign citizenship of the male determined the female’s citizenship, and the U.S. or foreign citizenship of both heterosexual parents determined the U. S or foreign citizenship of a child.

Some ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ neobirthers, Democrat and Republican, do not seem to care to understand the 1700s original genesis implicit intent of the founders that, in the 1700s context, there was only one original genesis implicit reason for original birther John Jay (the first living originalism founder) underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to another living originalism founder and original genesis birther George Washington only 4 years after the 1783 signing of the Treaty of Paris, the ‘legal’ document which ended the war of independence against England, a ‘foreign’ power.

- 267 -

It is historically obvious that U.S. national security vs. foreign influence was the explicit original genesis reason for John Jay’s underlining the word ‘born’, and the implicit reason was birth only on U.S. soil, not or foreign soil. The 1700s implicit presupposition was that to be a “natural born Citizen” only singular U.S. citizenship was implied in the word ‘born’, and birth was to be only on U.S. soil, not or foreign soil, only U.S. soil, and that birth was only to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.

The Obama neobirther narrative, the ‘one citizen parent’ theory, the myth that only one U.S. citizen is sufficient to make a person a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president, this myth is what the Democrat neobirthers have asserted since 2008 about Sen. Barack Obama, and now some Republicans are starting to promote the same myth with variations in citizenship heritage about Sen. Ted Cruz — Cruz birthers, Sen. Marco Rubio — Rubio birthers, Gov. Nikki Haley — Haley birthers, Gov. Bobby Jindal — Jindal birthers, etc.

The only 1700s presupposition possible at that time was the common law understanding of the ‘unity of citizenship’ and the ‘continuity of citizenship’: the singular U.S. citizenship of the male determined the U.S. citizenship of the female, and the U.S. citizenship of both married citizens determined the singular U.S. citizenship of a child, both parents. That U.S. ‘citizen’ child ‘created’ by the physical union of two U.S. citizens is a U.S. ‘citizen’ who is also an Article II “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.

The living originalism ‘higher hurdle’ in 1700s America and intended to last into perpetuity was only two U.S. citizens for eligibility to be president.

The living constitutionism ‘lower hurdle’ in 2000s America is the theory of one or zero U.S. citizens makes a person eligible to be president.

Birther? Neobirther?

The ‘birther’ and ‘neobirther’ appellations are not derogatory, they are simply descriptive (John Jay original genesis birther, Cruz birther / neobirther, Rubio birther / neobirther, Jindal birther / neobirther, Haley birther / neobirther, etc.). We are simply an original genesis birther when we adhere to the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” as understood by the 1787 original birthers who wrote the 1787 original ‘birther’ document of the ‘Union’ for themselves and for their own posterity, their “... more perfect Union” posterity, intended perpetually from parent to child, generation to generation, election to election, president to president.

In the preceding hypothetical presidential aspirant statement declining to pursue the presidency we see that it takes an honest ‘citizen’ who is a STATESMAN to Stand UP and Speak UP to defend the original genesis implicit intent of the “natural born Citizen” requirement for presidential eligibility, and publicly admit that they are not “… eligible to the Office of President” because they were not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. That person who would defend John Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington and was incorporated into Article II may not be “... eligible to the Office of President”, but that person who publicly gave up the reach for the prize of the U.S. presidency and the public approval and honor that goes along with winning such a prize would definitely be a STATESMAN who, when speaking, people would definitely listen.

It is at this point that Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Independent neobirthers might try to say something self-serving like the next hypothetical about their ‘MY GUY’ / ‘MY GAL’.

- 268 -

My Guy / My Gal Good · Your Guy / Your Gal Bad

Their ‘GUY / GAL’ who is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ is a not so nice ‘GUY / GAL’ and is also a dishonest ‘GUY / GAL’ who does not love America and the Constitution and who wants to transform America and do other bad things, but ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ (insert name), who also is not a ‘natural born Citizen’, is an honest and nice (*choose one: below___) and a true American patriot — and many good things to protect and defend the ‘Union’ for only WE the Posterity of U.S. ‘citizens’ — so surely the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birthers, the original authors of the original words “natural born Citizen”, was not to exclude from presidential eligibility such a nice person like ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ __ insert name __. Right?

* → Choose one: *agnostic, *atheist, *theist, *Christian, *Jew, *republican, *democrat, *conservative, *liberal, *progressive, *anarchist, *socialist, *communist, *marxist, *nazi, *satanist, *illuminatus, *33rd degree Mason, *atheist Mason, *Jewish Mason, *Christian Mason, *Muslim Mason, *Muslim nazi, *Muslim communist, *Muslim Islamist, *World Economic Forum marxist / nazi amalgamation, *LGBTQ *transhuman, *transgender, and *whatever ideology arises in the future.

Was it the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers to exclude only the bad presidential candidate of the opposing party? No. Well, for the Republicans to exclude only the obvious bad GUY / GAL of the Democrats who is not eligible to be president and not the obvious good GUY / GAL of the Republicans who is also not eligible to be president, well, was that the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers? No, right? So, who will be the first honest ‘citizen’ Statesman to lift up America by defending the original genesis implicit meaning of the prescient, seminal and perpetual “natural born Citizen” requirement of only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president? Who will be the first ‘citizen’ to defend the original genesis implications of John Jay’s words ‘natural born’ (law of nature) and ‘Citizen’ (law of people)? Who?

- 269 -

Imagine:

Who Will Be The First ‘Citizen’ Statesman To Defend Living Originalism / Original Genesis?

Imagine the national acclaim and elevation to the status of a worldwide true STATESMAN if a future U.S. ‘citizen’ presidential aspirant were to STAND UP for the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II and the words “natural born Citizen?”

Imagine if a future U.S. ‘citizen’ presidential aspirant said something like this:

‘I do not want to occupy the office of president because I accept the original genesis implication of the original genesis words in Article II, “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...”, the same way that the 1787 original birthers intended them. Therefore, since I do not want to, in effect, ‘occupy’ America contrary to Article II, I do not want to ‘occupy’ the office of president.’

Imagine if a future U.S. ‘citizen’ presidential aspirant decided to defend the U.S. Constitution instead of pursuing the presidency under false pretenses? That would be a huge WAKE UP!!! America call that she or he would force on the Republicans or the Democrats and their BIG Talker, BIG Blogger, BIG Thinker supporters who talk and blog and think about everything under the political sun except John Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” that was inserted into Article II. It would create worldwide astonishment that a ‘citizen’ admitted that she or he was not a “natural born Citizen” so she or he will protect and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Imagine who can unite the Republican BIG Thinkers and BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers behind a “natural born Citizen” in the 2012 primary (oops, that did not happen in 2012), maybe it will happen in the 2016 primary (oops, that did not happen in 2016), maybe it will happen in the 2020 primary (oops, that did not happen in 2020), maybe, is it possible(?) that patriots will unite behind three candidates who are each a “natural born Citizen”, and will patriots unite for one generation – 24 years (six terms x 4 years), then two generations – 48 years, then three generations – 72 years, then four generations in a row – 96 years, then, is it possible(?) that America will WAKE UP!!! and unite behind a “natural born Citizen” for eight generations in a row – 192 years?

Imagine what national acclaim and approval would be offered to that STATESMAN who would willingly give up pursuit of something when it really cost something of value, and the opportunity presented itself to STAND UP to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

Who Is Eligible to be President – Two, One, Zero

[ ] I was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens

[ ] I was born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen

[ ] I was born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens

[ ] I was born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens

[ ] I was born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen

[ ] I was born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizens

Who Is and Who Is Not Eligible to be President by Birth

Presidential Aspirant Born on U.S. Soil #1:

I, [insert name], was born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen. Since the 1922 Cable Act, birth with one citizen parent makes me a ‘citizen’ at birth according to the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment; ‘at birth’, not by birth alone. The 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ about Wong Kim Ark said that a child is a U.S. citizen even if born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, aka ‘aliens’.

I am, by constitutional amendment, an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ by birth alone on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent. One U.S. citizen parent means that I am not eligible to be president.

Also, because I have one U.S. citizen parent and not zero U.S. citizen parents as did Wong Kim Ark in 1898, I am also not a 1787 Article I naturalization act (statute) ‘citizen’, a naturalized ‘citizen’ designation which has been confirmed by all of the updated Article I naturalization acts since 1795.

- 270 -

Presidential Aspirant Born on U.S. Soil #2:

I, [insert name], was born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens. Zero citizen parents makes me, according to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ error, a ‘citizen’ ‘at birth’ who is not eligible to be president. Also, I am not an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ by birth alone to at least one U.S. citizen parent.

Presidential Aspirant Born on U.S. Soil #3:

I, [insert name], was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens. Two U.S. citizen parents and birth on U.S. soil makes me a 1787 Article II ‘citizen’ who is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.

Presidential Aspirant Born on Foreign Soil #1:

I, [insert name], was born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents. Birth on foreign soil, even to two U.S. citizen parents, makes me a U.S. ‘citizen’ by statute alone according to all immigration and naturalization acts of Congress since the single 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ word (lower case ‘c’) repealed the three 1790 Naturalization Act ‘natural born citizen’ words.

Presidential Aspirant Born on Foreign Soil #2:

I, [insert name], was born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent. Both birth on foreign soil and birth to one U.S. citizen parent make me a ‘citizen’ by statute alone according to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act — INA: ACT SEC. 301. 8 U.S.C. 1401 (clauses ‘a’ and ‘g’) and updated acts of Congress, so I am not eligible to be president.

Presidential Aspirant Born on Foreign Soil #3:

I, [insert name], was born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents. Both birth on foreign soil and birth to zero U.S. citizen parents make me an alien not eligible to vote in federal or state elections, and not eligible to be president. As an ‘alien’ I am without a U.S. Selective Service number, without a U.S. Social Security number, without a U.S. birth certificate number, without a right to vote, and, without Article II authority, I am not “… eligible to the Office of President” or Vice-President or Speaker of the House of Representatives, or to any position in the line of succession to the presidency of the United States. I am also not eligible to be elected to state or federal office.

President Abraham Lincoln:

“The Union is Much Older than the Constitution”

What President Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861 about the ‘Union’ confirms, in his own words as seen in the brief excerpt below, and as the prescient preamble of the 1787 U.S. Constitution shows, that original genesis is not only a seminal presupposition but a perpetual presupposition.

“… general principles ... the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union.”

- 271 -

1. …general principles ... the Union is perpetual [original intent]

2. confirmed by the history of the Union itself.

3. The Union is much older than the Constitution.

4. It was formed [seminal], in fact, by

5. the Articles of Association in 1774.

6. It was matured and continued [intent] by

7. the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

8. It was further matured [intent],

9. and the faith of all the then thirteen States

10. expressly plighted and engaged

11. that it should be perpetual [original intent],

12. by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.

13. And finally, in 1787,

14. one of the declared objects [intent]

15. for ordaining and establishing [prescient and seminal original genesis] the Constitution was

16. to form a more [perpetual intent] perfect Union.

In President Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address in 1861 he traced the origin of the United States back to the Continental Congress Articles of Association and the perpetual existence as a nation.

President Abraham Lincoln’s 1861 First Inaugural Speech

I...

...the laws...

… I shall take care…

that the laws of the Union

be faithfully executed in all the States. ...

I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but

only as the declared purpose [original intent] of the Union

that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself [perpetual].

“It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration [April 30, 1789] of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

“Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it — break it, so to speak — but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

“Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself.

“The Union is much older than the Constitution.

“It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.

“It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

- 272 -

“It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.

“And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union”.

“But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

“It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

“I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself”.

The civil war “disruption of the Federal Union” was what President Lincoln was referring to with the words in the last paragraph above, “I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws[,] the Union is unbroken, …”, and avoiding civil war he emphasized with these clarifying words:

One party to a contract may violate it — break it, so to speak —

but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

The 21st century ‘disruption’ of the Union in 2008 that took the form of a civil war with words sounded to most American voters like benign rhetoric from former commune(ity) organizer BHObama when he said to his applauding audience, who agree with his ‘disruption’ rhetoric, that his vision for America as the next president to be inaugurated in a few days on January 20, 2009 was that ‘we’, speaking only for the people who supported him, “... we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” (applause).

However, what President Obama managed to pull off with his Alinsky style commune(ity) organizer disruption of the Union to “violate it — break it, so to speak” tactic, also known as “… we are five days away from [unilaterally] fundamentally transforming [‘violate … break’] the United States of America,” was done with the shallow breathing “lap-dog” help of the BIG Media and a self-imposed ‘don’t talk to me about natural born Citizen eligibility’ silence by tv and radio BIG Talkers with BIG microphones, and internet BIG bloggers with BIG keyboards, and BIG Thinkers with BIG ideas and BIG thoughts about economic policy that was said to be more important than the original genesis implicit intent of Article II and the singular U.S. citizenship words “natural born Citizen” about eligibility to be president. None of the national BIGs, BIG Media BIG Names BIG Talkers BIG Bloggers BIG Thinkers took the lead in articulating the “natural born Citizen” presidential eligibility requirement.

It took American patriots who are not as well known as the BIG Name patriots such as the national BIG Talker patriots and national BIG Blogger patriots and national BIG Thinker patriots who made the public effort to pursue lineage info, heritage info, political info, legal info, constitutional info surrounding the flaky citizenship status and background of putative President BHObama.

It took American patriots like Mario Apuzzo, Esq., on his Natural Born Citizen blog Puzo1.blogspot.com.

It took American patriots like Leo Donofrio, Esq., on NaturalBornCitizen.wordpress.com.

It took American patriots like Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, reelected by his constituents to uphold the law in his county, and at the request of over 200 county constituents, pursuing the legality of the birth certificate posted on the federation government website with his MCSOCCP.org Cold Case Posse.

The television and radio BIG Talkers and the internet BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers in the ‘arena of ideas’ were no shows in 2008 in the conversation articulating the Article II presidential eligibility requirement. The progressive or conservative R-I-D-L-S-C BIGs sometimes talk about the constitution this and the constitution that but they are still original genesis no shows with no thought, no talk, no write about “natural born Citizen” eligibility.

- 273 -

[My comment about “progressive or conservative R-I-D-L-S-C BIGs”]

Republican, Independent, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist (R-I-D-L-S-C). As a new embryonic political mutation, a ‘Republican Socialist Communist’ is in ‘cell’ division stage, while the ‘Democrat Socialist Communist’ has been making an effort to finally ‘emerge’. The emergence of the Democratic Party ‘critical theory’ and ‘critical race theory’ weirdness became obvious when the ideological and big bucks oligarchs behind Antifa and Black Lives Matter funded their mind numbed robots, their foot soldiers of the marxist revolution who were calling for deconstructing America by calling for defunding the police, and were burning down property in Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon and other states, and destroying statues and monuments and burning flags – tear down to build back better..

The BIGs are the television, radio, and internet BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, BIG Thinkers who talk, talk, talk and write, write, write and think, think, think about anything and everything under the sun — except — the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement to have only singular U.S. citizenship to be eligible to be president. A requirement which is only possible by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born. That is the only way for the singular U.S. citizenship of the parents to be passed to their “natural born Citizen” child for eligibility to be president.

The television and radio BIG Thinkers and BIG Talkers and internet BIG Bloggers did not think seriously in 2008 and 2012 (or in 2020 with California Senator Kamala Harris who is also not eligible to be president or vice president) about defending the original genesis implicit intent of Article II and the words “… natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of… time of the Adoption of this Constitution … eligible to the Office of President …”.

In their self-imposed silence some of the BIG Talkers and internet BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers impugned the integrity and intelligence of great American patriots like WND.com founder Joseph Farah, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo after the March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse investigation news conference about apparent fraud perpetrated by putative President Obama with his Article II related eligibility documents, 1) birth certificate, 2) Social Security number, and 3) Selective Service number.

Some BIGs ridiculed the original genesis birthers who said that it was valid to vet the background of President Obama’s 1) birth, 2) parents, 3) lineage, 4) heritage, 5) soil that he was born on and lived on for a few years. Article II requires 35 years of age from the day of birth and a minimum of 14 years residence within the U.S. Yes, the clause 5 implicit reference to birth on U.S. soil is as important as the reference to residing 14 years on the same U.S. soil as birth, and also to attaining to the age of 35 years, and is as important as avoiding the ‘disruption’ of the perpetual ‘Union’ that President Abraham Lincoln mentioned, and which BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, and BIG Thinkers definitely agree is still very important.

The ‘civil war with words’ and ‘disruption’ of the ‘Union’ to “violate it—break it, so to speak” is what many people infer from Obama’s 2008 speech when he said, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. If that statement by nominee BHObama was not a ‘civil war with words’, well, what was it? Was it hugs and kisses with words about a “... more [perpetual] perfect Union ...” as President Abraham Lincoln explicitly stated in his first inaugural speech? End of my comment]

A Civil War With Words

Why is nominee Obama’s “transformation of America” statement a ‘civil war with words’?

Why is it a ‘disruption of the Union’?

Why is it an implicit “violate it — break it, so to speak” illegal activity and not a simple, innocent rhetorical device expressing what sounds like an innocent ‘lean forward’ sentiment? A ‘civil war with words’ is as serious as a civil war with weapons because both cause ‘disruption’ of the ‘Union’ to “violate it — break it, so to speak”. That is obvious.

President Lincoln explicitly said: “… and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself”.

Candidate Obama explicitly said: “… we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”.

Lincoln explicitly said: “One party to a contract may violate it — break it, so to speak — but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?”

Obama implied: One ‘party’ to a contract can ‘transform’ America.

“transforming” = “destroy” = “violate … break it”

“transforming” does not = “more perfect”

- 274 -

The word ‘all’ in the 2000s means the same as ‘all’ in 1861 at Lincoln’s first inaugural address.

All citizens must be involved in “Union … endure forever” or “transforming … America”.

All = a vote by all of We the People/Posterity so that “the Union will endure forever”

All = a vote by all elected Senators

All = a vote by all elected Representatives

All = a vote by all members of the Supreme Court

All = a vote by all states of the Union

All does not = vote by a small faction of “violate it — break it, so to speak” transformers.

All does not = a vote by only 1 president

All does not = a vote by only 1 political party

All does not = a vote by only 5 Supreme Court judges

All does not = a vote by only some eligible voters

All does not = a vote by only some Electoral College electors

If all of the 2000s descendants of the 1700s ‘parties who made’ the Union are not in agreement to ‘lawfully rescind’ the Union ‘contract’ (specifically Article II and the original genesis implication of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president), it is obvious that it is not lawful for one oligarch or one political party to begin the process to ‘rescind’ the “more perfect [perpetual] Union”. That is obvious, right? By starting a process for “fundamentally [contrary to original intent] transforming [“violate … break”] the United States of America …” the ‘civil war with words’ is not ‘legal’, is it, Mr. Lincoln? Yes. That’s right!

Thank you 16th President Abraham Lincoln for your 1800s words that help us in the 2000s to understand the 1800s affirmation of the 1700s original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birthers who wrote the words “natural born Citizen” to protect the ‘Union’ since 1787 and for their posterity in the 2000s and beyond, God willing.

Thank you President Abraham Lincoln for providing us in the 2000s with perpetual original genesis and original intent ‘legal’ grounds for opposing the ‘illegal’ disruption of the ‘Union’ by the “... fundamentally transforming the United States of America ...” 44th President Barack Hussein Obama and his cohort of “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers.

‘Original Genesis’ Is A Mnemonic Device

If the four ‘union/Union’ original genesis (seminal) birth documents of the United States do not convey perpetual original genesis implicit intent then they are not seminal birth documents with “more perfect union” intent. The repetition of original genesis and original intent is deliberate, a perpetual mnemonic device. If we in 2000s America do not know what the original genesis implicit intent was of the 1700s original words written by the original birthers in 1787, well, what is this memory aid for if it does not help us to remember the original ‘genesis’ reason for the Article II words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” and how “… or a Citizen of ...” informs us about the immutable perpetuity of “natural born Citizen”.

We the Posterity of the 1787 We the People must remember the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers, specifically Article II for perpetual eligibility to be president, or else we may again need to contend with more usurpers — insurgents — putschists — occupiers — who will try to perpetrate version 2.0 of another ‘I-I-I Managed to occupy America’ end run around “natural born Citizen” and will also try to ‘lean forward’ to transform America again, but next time it will be according to the intent of the collectivist ‘lean forward’ transformers. Of course, the original intent of the 2000s collectivist ‘lean forward’ transformers will be contrary to the original genesis implicit intent of John Jay, the first living originalism and original genesis birther, and the second original genesis birther George Washington, and the 1787 original genesis birthers, the framers of “natural born Citizen” in Article II.

- 275 -

One Original Genesis Birther Document and Three Barack Hussein Obama Documents

1) Birth Certificate

2) Selective Service Number

3) Social Security Number

U.S. Constitution: The ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ Document of the ‘Union’ was started on March 2, 2012, the day after Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo held a news conference on March 1, 2012 to reveal the conclusions of the volunteer Cold Case Posse investigation about three identity documents that are said by the Obama neobirthers to belong to President #44 Barack Hussein Obama: birth certificate, Selective Service number, Social Security number. The conclusion of the Cold Case Posse investigation was that Obama’s birth certificate was computer generated, indicating deliberate fraud.

What Fraud Means: American Heritage Dictionary

1. A deception deliberately practiced to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

2. A piece of trickery; a trick.

3a. One that defrauds; a cheat. 3b. One who assumes a fake pose; an impostor.

What Fraud Means: Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition

“An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact … which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury ….”

Barack Hussein Obama Selective Service Number

The Obama Selective Service number is an obvious fraud. The stamp year was the two numbers 80 instead of the four numbers 1980 that an official 1980 stamp would use. It looks like a 2008 stamp had the number 20 cut off, and in the process, the bottom of the 08 was cut with a flat bottom, so when the 08 was inverted to 80 the flat bottom of the 08 became an 80 with a flat top and then glued back on to a date stamp.

Barack Hussein Obama Social Security Number

The Connecticut zip code # is 06814 and the Hawaii zip code # is 96814. The Connecticut state Social Security number that Obama received when he was age 19 living in Hawaii was found to be fraudulent because it was discovered that there are two problems with the Connecticut SS number: (1) It had previously belonged to a man who had been dead for decades; (2) BHObama never lived in Connecticut.

Neither Obama’s Caucasian mother Stanley Ann Dunham nor his Negro father Barack Obama, Sr. ever lived in Connecticut (see BHObama’s ‘certificate of live birth’, COLB). The birth certificate says African, a term that was not in common use yet on birth certificates in 1961 in the U.S. like negro was. The presupposition that the zip codes were a state initiated typo is not credible. Obama’s mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the Communist Party USA since the time he published a magazine in Chicago before moving to Hawaii where some of his acquaintances were walking on the dark side of the law when union work was needed and producing a Social Security # was required for employment in the 1980s.

[My comment about “The birth certificate says ‘African’, a term that was not in common use yet on birth certificates in 1961 in the U.S. like ‘negro’ was”]

American Heritage Dictionary

Caucasian adj. 1a. Anthropology Of or being a human racial classification distinguished especially by very light to brown skin pigmentation and strait to wavy or curly hair and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India. b. Of or relating to a racial group having white skin, especially one of European origin; white. 2. Of or relating to the Caucasus region or its peoples, languages, or cultures. 3. Of or relating to a group of three language families spoken in the region of the Caucasus Mountains, including Chechen, Abkhaz, and the Kaartvelian languages.

- 276 -

Caucasian n. 1. Anthropology A member of the Caucasian racial classification. 2. A native or inhabitant of the Caucasus. 3. The Caucasian language family.

Caucasoid adj. Anthropology Of or relating to the Caucasian racial classification.—Caucasoid n.

Caucasus also Caucasia A region between the Black and Caspian seas that includes Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and parts of SW Russia.

Negroid adj. Anthropology Of or being a human racial classification distinguished especially by brown to black pigmentation and often tightly curled hair and including peoples indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. Negroid n.

Negro n. 1. A Black person. See Usage Note at black. 2. A member of the Negroid race. Not in scientific use.

[In Spanish, Portuguese negro is not a pejorative, it means black: black person, black shoe, black font color, etc.]

Negrophile n. One who admires and supports Black people and their culture.

Negrophobia n. 1. Fear or contempt for Black people and culture. 2. Behavior based on attitude or feeling.

Joel Gilbert Has a Theory About Barack Hussein Obama

→http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/a_possible_explanation_for_obamas_connecticut_social_security_number.html

Jack Cashill reported on American Thinker, September 14, 2012 that BHO has not yet explained how and when he got his Connecticut social Security number with the Connecticut 042 prefix. If the clerical error is that the Hawaii zip code 96814 was mistaken for the Connecticut zip code number 06814, it is a very real possibility that Frank Marshall Davis, acquainted with nefarious types in Hawaii who were associated with the Japanese syndicate called the Yakuza, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), Davis may have known people who could have produced the phony Connecticut Social Security number. After Hawaiian statehood in 1959 the Federal Government entered Hawaii and the syndicate went underground while they maintained control of the union and other activities.

Jack Cashill reports that filmmaker Joel Gilbert, producer of the film Dreams from My Real Father, may have the best explanation. See a trailer at 01:58 (→ http://www.obamasrealfather.com) where Obama says “we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. While doing research for his film, Joel was told by Honolulu police detectives that the Hawaii bureaucracy was corrupt before statehood in 1959 and for decades later, including the 1980s, and “anything could be purchased, including Social Security numbers”. The numbers were real and available after the original SS card holder died because the sellers “trafficked in SSNs that did not originate in Hawaii. That way, if the person using the phony SSN were ever caught, the crime would be traced back to the issuing state, not the Hawaii office”.

What is author and filmmaker Joel Gilbert’s theory?

The SSN and BHObama’s birth certificate are related.

1) A birth certificate is needed to get a SS#.

2) Obama needed a valid birth certificate.

3) Obama bought a SS# to get his first job at the Baskin Robbins in 1977.

4) Obama got a SS# with the Connecticut prefix that could not be traced back to Hawaii.

5) Obama did not know that the Connecticut first #0 was not the legal Hawaii first #9

or

6) Obama did know that the #0 was not the #9.

In 1979 when he is age 20 BHO attended Occidental College.

In 1981 when he is age 22 BHO transferred to Columbia University.

WOW!? What a steal of a deal that Connecticut SS # turned out to be. The Obama neobirthers continue to call the confusion about BHO’s identity a clerical error of the Connecticut zip code number that is very similar to the Hawaii zip code number because the neobirthers know that the confusion is not challenged by the internationalist (aka ‘global’) lap-dog Obamedia.

- 277 -

A Computer Generated Certificate of Live Birth (COLB)

- 278 -

The Putative Certificate of Live Birth

- 279 -

Figure 1 – The COLB Full Version of the PDF With All Layers Together

- 280 -

Figure 2 – The COLB Background Layer With All Overlays Removed

- 281 -

Figure 4 – Overlay 1, the Main Text of the COLB

- 282 -

The Putative Selective Service System Registration Form

A Selective Service date stamp with the year 2008 (4 #s) had the 20 cut off and the 08 was inverted to look like the number 80 (only 2 #s) and glued back on to the date stamp. His birthday 1961 + age 19 = 1980. The stamp year on the SS registration form has the two numbers, 80, instead of the four numbers, 1980, that an official 1980 stamp would use. It looks like a 2008 stamp had the number 20 cut off, and in the process, the bottom of the 08 was cut with a flat bottom and when the 08 was inverted the flat bottom of the 08 became an 80 with a flat top and glued back on to a date stamp.

The Connecticut Social Security number that BHO has had since he was age 19 and living in Hawaii failed an E-Verify check in 2012. See more at theobamahustle.wordpress.com.

→ http://theobamahustle.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/breaking-news-obama-caught-using-stolen-social-security-number

“The problem of using the social security number as an identifier is the fact that a social security card contains no biometric identifiers of any sort, making it essentially impossible to tell whether a person using a certain SSN is truly the person to whom it was issued without relying on some other means of documentation (which may have been falsely procured through use of a fraudulent SSN). “SSN-042-68-4425 is the number that Obama has been using since 1979 when he was 18 yrs. old. A number that he acquired from CT while living in Hawaii? Below is the stolen SSN number that Obama is using and it has been broken down so we can understand how a social security number is produced.

- 283 -

“As a result of the June 1936 decision, the current SSN is composed of three parts:

1) “The first three digits are the area number (042); 2) “The next two digits are the group number (68); 3) “The final four digits are the serial number (4425)

“At the inception of the program, all SSNs were assigned and cards issued based solely on information provided by the applicant. However, in the 1970s, SSA began requiring proof of age, identity, and citizenship”.

The Putative Social Security Number

Jack Cashill has more in his Sept. 14, 2012 American Thinker article, ‘A Possible Explanation for Obama’s Connecticut Social Security Number’. [Connecticut zip code is 06814; Hawaii zip code is 96814]

→http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/a_possible_explanation_for_obamas_connecticut_social_security_number.html

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Cold Case Posse Investigation News Conference, March 1, 2012

This tabletalk look into the original genesis implicit intent of Article II started March 2, 2012, the day after Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo had a news conference to announce the results of the six month Cold Case Posse investigation into the three identity documents that are believed by Obama defenders to belong to President BHObama: 1) Certificate of Live Birth, 2) Selective Service number, 3) Social Security number. Except for some media people who were there to be contentious with their questions for Sheriff Arpaio and investigator Zullo at that first news conference, and at the second news conference held almost four weeks later, the news conferences were not attended by state or national BIG Media. The news conferences were also not referenced in a positive way by conservative tv or radio BIG Talkers or internet BIG Bloggers or print BIG Writers or the think tank BIG Thinkers.

- 284 -

The prominent BIG Blogger that I remember who wrote about the March 1, 2012 news conference was the BIG Thinker editors of and some of the contributors to National Review who ridiculed Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation as “birther flim-flam”. Huh? What?

The prominent BIG Talker I remember who was ridiculing Sheriff Arpaio the next morning, March 2, 2012 was Glenn Beck, a BIG Talker whom I really like even when he shows his lack of informed insight when he ridicules the, yuck, the ‘birthers’, yuck. He obviously does not know that they are simply defending the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birther John Jay and the original framers of the original ‘birther’ document of the ‘Union’, and specifically Article II Section 1 clause 5.

Glenn Beck is (since 2012) so uninformed and misinformed about the Article II presidential eligibility requirement that he has never talked about the original implicit intent of “Citizen” and the original genesis meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” and it’s eternal relevance for the ‘Union’ of America. Glenn and his radio associates show their uninformed lack of insight every time they ridicule the legitimate Cold Case Posse investigation results and any news about the fraudulent BHObama birth certificate.

Also, and this is a VERY significant indicator of what is happening again in the 2020 presidential season, all of the conservative radio BIG Talkers, Rush and Sean and Mark and Glenn for example, are not saying anything about California Senator Kamala Harris and her birth on U.S. soil to parents who were not U.S. citizens before she was born. I would like to say to the BIGs, hey BIGs, Kamala Harris was not born with singular U.S. citizenship. That means that she is not a “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be president. Hey BIGs, that’s easy to articulate in a few seconds. Right? Well, why the head in the sand silence? Do you still not know what the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” implies? Do you still not know? Well, what have you been doing for years? That is why, to some people (not including the conservative BIGs) the tv BIG Media networks are thought of, spoken of, and written about as the shallow stream media — the same stream media — the lame stream media — the GWBush lapdog media — the BHObama lapdog media — the BIG Obamedia.

In addition to the lack of interest by the Obamedia was the Alice in Wonderland “curiouser and curiouser” lack of We the Posterity of the 1787 We the People curiosity and interest by those whom I have regarded for years as BIG Talker radio ‘friends’ and BIG Blogger web ‘friends’.

The BIG Talkers whom I call my radio ‘friends’ include, but is not limited to, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and others but these are the four BIG Talkers that my local radio station in El Paso, Texas has on its roster. The BIG Bloggers whom I consider my blogger ‘friends’ include at this time in 2012 TheBlaze.com, Breitbart.com, FrontPageMag.com, WND.com, Conservatives4Palin.com, NationalReview.com, HumanEvents.com, and many more.

Conservatives4Palin.com (C4P) is not a BIG Blogger like Breitbart.com or TheBlaze.com or the others, but like all of the BIG Bloggers, C4P also has a ‘silence shows ignorance’, uh, I mean, C4P has a ‘silence is golden’ policy that does not allow forum comments about the eligibility of BHObama ever since the founders of C4P imposed the restriction against the, what they consider a pejorative, the ‘birthers’, and birth certificate comments, because, as ‘RAM’ (Rebecca Mansour, an original co-founder of C4P and moderator, and now at Breitbart.com) commented circa 2009, Obama is a ‘citizen’, so he is eligible to be president (a nice lady who meant well, but, at the time, was not informed). After the ‘citizen’ comment by RAM no contrary comments were allowed on C4P. After C4P officially asserted that BHO was a ‘citizen’, not defended it, simply asserted it, no forum comments were allowed to adduce news such as the Sheriff Arpaio Cold Case Posse investigation conclusions and other evidence that BHObama was not a “natural born Citizen” although Obama’s Article II “... eligible to the Office of President” was not the purpose of the Cold Case Posse investigation. C4P, a blog that I STILL consider among my blogger ‘friends’ and I still post comments there now and then related to Gov. Sarah Palin, but it still in 2015 does not allow comments about “natural born Citizen”, even in the context of preventing future I-I-I-Managed to occupy America as a Commander in Chief transformers. If C4P wants it’s visitor count to increase, maybe they should consider discussing the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers, the original framers of “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” and the significance of both to the current questions surrounding the presidential eligibility of my Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and others.

- 285 -

We Do agree with C4P and We Do Not agree with C4P (Conservatives 4 Palin)

BHObama definitely is an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment U.S. “citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil if it is true that he was born on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent.

BHObama would be a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act citizen if’ born on foreign soil to either one or two U.S. citizens. 1952 “citizen” agrees with 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”.

BHObama definitely is not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before his birth.

BHObama definitely is not a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” because the last 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle 1800s.

My point here is that C4P and all of the BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding due to a lack of information so that is why they never consider the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers putting “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” in Article II in the same clause, in the same sentence, separated by a comma and the word “or” followed by the words “… time … Adoption … Constitution”.

See, one question leads to another. If C4P and the BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers had considered the original genesis implicit intent of the Article II words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...”, doing so would naturally have led to their looking into the original genesis implicit intent of having the three words “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) inserted into the 1790 Naturalization Act and then five years later having the three words replaced with the single word “citizen” (lower case ‘c’) in the 1795 Naturalization Act by the third Congress in the second Washington administration. Yes, the third Congress corrected the error of the first Congress who should have known better than to write that a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other was a “natural born citizen” with the implicit conclusion of also being eligible to be president.

Why is that important? Well, because “natural born citizen” implies eligibility to be president for all children born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. Why is that to be avoided? When John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington, Jay and Washington were only thinking about birth on the soil of the new nation, not birth on foreign soil. If they had thought that birth on foreign soil was included in the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ then that issue about the ‘issue’ on foreign soil would have been debated by the delegates to the convention. Right? Since the issue about the ‘issue’ on foreign soil was not debated, the ‘issue’ (‘foreign’ soil and dual citizenship) obviously was not the original genesis implicit reason for the original birthers to insert “natural born Citizen” in Article II. Some things are just so obvious, right?

What Is The Difference Between a 1790 “natural born citizen” and a 1795 “citizen”?

If the BIGs would simply consider the difference between the three 1790 Naturalization Act words “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) and the single 1795 Naturalization Act word, “citizen” (lower case ‘c’), this would lead progressive and conservative BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers to look at the original genesis implicit intent of Article II and ask two clarifying questions. 1) Does Article II imply dual citizenship by birth on either U.S. or foreign soil? 2) Does Article II imply only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born?

Looking at the original genesis implicit intent of Article II concerning eligibility to be president could lead to looking at the original genesis implicit intent of the 1790 Naturalization Act and why it refers to a “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) who is born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens instead of being born on U.S. soil. That question could lead to looking at the implicit intent of the 1795 Naturalization Act referring to a ‘citizen’ who is born on foreign soil to two U. S citizens. That question could lead to looking at the implicit intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment referring to a “citizen” who is born on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen and then that ‘citizen’ child being eligible to be president. That question could lead to looking at the implicit intent of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act referring to a ‘citizen’ who is born on foreign soil to at least one U.S. citizen married to a foreign national who has not become a U.S. citizen by naturalization before a child is born (SEC. 301. 8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) and also if that ‘citizen’ child is eligible to be president.

- 286 -

Since the time that the three 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) words were replaced with the single 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” (lower case ‘c’) word, all immigration and naturalization Acts since then refer only to a ‘citizen’, including the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen” which is the controlling Act of the citizenship status of my Texas Senator Ted Cruz, which means that, like Sen. Obama at the time, Sen. Cruz is a U.S. ‘citizen’ but is not a “natural born Citizen” and also not eligible to be president.

Look at the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 U.S. Constitution and eligibility to be president, specifically Article II referring implicitly to a “natural born Citizen” who is born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens.

Look at the original genesis implicit intent for eligibility to be president of the 1790 Naturalization Act referring to a “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) who is born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents.

Look at the original genesis implicit intent for eligibility to be president of the 1795 Naturalization Act referring to a “citizen” (lower case ‘c’) who is born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents.

Look at the original genesis implicit intent for eligibility to be president of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment referring to a “citizen” who is born on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen.

Look at the original genesis implicit intent of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act which refers to a “citizen” who is born on U.S. soil and to one U.S. ‘citizen’ parent and to a “citizen” who is born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen married to a foreign national who has not become a U.S. ‘citizen’ by naturalization before a child is born (SEC. 301. 8 U.S.C. 1401(g)). The 1952 INA is the controlling legal authority for Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s U.S. ‘citizen’ status but not for presidential eligibility. It is obvious that Senator Cruz was born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent and a foreign citizen parent, so, according to the only controlling legal authority for presidential eligibility, the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Sen. Cruz is not a “natural born Citizen” because he does not have only singular U.S. citizenship, and he was not born only on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.

A “natural born Citizen” is such a simple requirement to fulfill, so, relative to ‘citizen’ Senator Cruz, why is Article II, the controlling legal authority, rejected as the perpetual presidential eligibility requirement? Could it be because Senator Cruz is such a nice guy and he is an obvious conservative common sense breath of fresh air as the current ‘MY GUY’ favorite of Republican neobirthers? Could it be because Senator Obama managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheeple in 2008 and 2012 to become the first obvious ‘I-I-I Managed to occupy America Without Vetting and Become Commander in Chief’, well, then, maybe the current Republican ‘MY GUY’ can also, uh, you know, occupy the oval office? Is that possible again? Could it be that some of the friends of Senator Cruz are aware and some of the friends of Senator Cruz are not aware of the original genesis implicit intent of the original authors of Article II “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of …”, so some friends of Senator Cruz who are aware continue to say that the ‘MY GUY’ of the ‘bad’ Democratic Party is not eligible to be president, and some friends of Senator Cruz who are not aware continue to say that the current good ‘MY GUY’ Republican is eligible to be president? What common sense reason could there be for BIG Talker and BIG Blogger and BIG Thinker silence?

5 Sample WHY Questions for the Silent BIGS

Q1 WHY do all BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers never educate themselves and their listeners and readers about the implicit reason for John Jay underlining the word ‘born” in “natural born Citizen” and why the convention delegates inserted the phrase in Article II?

Q2 WHY was a 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” (lower case ‘c’) born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other not considered to be eligible to be president in the 1700s but is considered to be eligible to be president in the 2000s?

Q3 WHY was an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent not considered to be eligible to be president in the 1800s but is considered to be eligible to be president in the 2000s?

Q4 WHY was a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen” not eligible to be president in the 1900s but is eligible to be president in the 2000s?

- 287 -

Q5 WHY were both a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” and a 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” the only two presidential eligibility requirements that were good ‘nuf in the 1700s and 1800s (at least until the last Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle 1800s) but in the 2000s (since the last “... or a Citizen of ...“ died) a “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship is now said by 2000s new meaning neobirthers to not be the only citizenship requirement for a person to be eligible to be president?

Huh? So, now, either singular citizenship or dual citizenship for eligibility to be president? Huh? That’s nuts. Why “nuts”? Well, since both a 1787 “natural born Citizen” and a 1787 “... or a Citizen of ...” had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (either by birth alone or by naturalization alone), now, just because the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died in the 1800s, that does not imply that now both singular and dual citizenship are of equal status for eligibility to be president just because the Democrat or Republican neobirthers say so ipse dixit (= an assertion made but not proved). John Jay and George Washington would both say that both singular and dual are not so by natural law (law of nature)! That makes natural law sense. Why does it make sense? Because dual citizenship positive law (‘because people say so’) does not negate singular citizenship natural law (‘by birth alone’). Immutable natural law determines mutable positive law meaning and implicit intent, right?

So why? Why were “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of …” (both with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship) good ‘nuf for presidential eligibility in 1787 America until the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the 1800s, but today in 2000s America, a “natural born Citizen” with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is not good ‘nuf to be the ONLY type of ‘citizen’ who is eligible to be president?

Why? It could not be, could it, that my tv and radio BIG Talker ‘friends’ and my internet BIG Blogger ‘friends’ and my ideological BIG Thinker ‘friends’ have tacitly accepted replacing ‘Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!’ with a phrase updated by presidential eligibility truthers which could go like this: ‘U.S. Constitutional Authority? Birth Certificate? We don’t need no stinkin' Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” birth certificate ‘cause “citizen” is good ‘nuf!’

Say it ain’t so Joe F, Rush L, Sean H, Mark L, Glenn B, Sarah P, Michelle M, Ann C, Ben S and etcetra, soooooo many under(mis?)informed neobirthers. Well, at least Joe F said that it ain’t so. Joe F is Joseph Farah, founder and owner of WND.com, the internet BIG Blogger that is the only news blog that has consistently and fully covered the Sheriff Joe Arpaio Cold Case Posse investigation and news conferences about the Obama identity documents which are said to belong to BHObama: 1) the PDF birth certificate, 2) a Selective Service number, 3) a Social Security number (from Connecticut where BHObama has never lived).

On the loooooooooong WND.com Obama eligibility archive (http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/98546) BIG Talker Rush Limbaugh is mentioned only 10 times in 4 years (June 2008 to June 2012) as making comments about Obama’s eligibility. However, Rush, an ideological ‘friend’ never gets into the nuts and bolts to educate his listeners about the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in Article II and the eternal relevance of “natural born Citizen” and presidential eligibility, and he never says with historical substance that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” and never articulates a reason why Obama is not a “natural born Citizen.” Rush simply talks about eligibility and how Obama is a ‘citizen’.

Other than Joe Farah, who does not ridicule the Article II eligibility truth and the birthers (an honorable appellation) and Rush Limbaugh, who simply does not talk about birthers for his ‘silence is golden’ reason and who has never ridiculed birthers whether it’s Obama eligibility truthers, the Obama neobirthers, or John Jay inspired original genesis birthers, why have the BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers maintained radio silence and keyboard silence in the arena of ideas concerning this specific Article II intellectual war of ideas — except when some of them impugn the integrity of and ridicule the efforts of original genesis birthers and others who simply have questions and different opinions such as Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Joe Farah?

Who knows? We can’t know because they don’t adduce specific original genesis implicit intent words by the original birthers, and they just ridicule “stupid” birther foolishness and birther nonsense. “Stupid” is what our ideological and conservative ‘friend’ Sean Hannity said about original genesis birthers the day after he had Joe Farah on his Fox tv program. When Sean was talking with a guest about the comment made the previous day about Senator Marco Rubio not being eligible to be president because Senator Rubio is not a “natural born Citizen”, Sean said that it is “stupid” to say that Senator Rubio is not a “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be president. Does the “stupid” word simply reveal that Sean Hannity is possibly only misinformed, or is he underinformed, disinformed, willingly refusing to educate himself about the eternal relevance of ‘born’ and “natural born Citizen” in Article II?

- 288 -

One thing the BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers need to clarify though is, when they ridicule what they deride as “stupid” birther foolishness, are they referring only to the Obama eligibility truthers who deny the common sense original genesis implicit intent of founder John Jay and the other founding birthers, or are they also ridiculing original genesis birthers who are promoting the original genesis implicit intent of the original authors of Article II? Inquiring minds want to know – what do the BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers know about the original birther document of the ‘Union’ and presidential eligibility?

Still askin’ ‘cause the BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Thinkers are still not talkin’ about the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers and the original birther document of the ‘Union’ where the 1787 words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” are still found in Article II in clause 5, in the same sentence, separated by a comma and the word “or” followed by the words “… time … Adoption of this Constitution ...” for a sensible and practical reason. Simply stated, there were zero July 4, 1776 “natural born Citizen” children old enough on September 17, 1787 to be eligible to be elected president on April 30, 1789, so General George Washington was the first July 4, 1776 “citizen” who had been naturalized by independence and the first American patriot to be the first 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” who was elected president. The only July 4, 1776 naturalized citizens who were old enough to be president were grandfathered into presidential eligibility as either an “… or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution ...” only and until the last July 4, 1776 “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the mid 1800s.

Here is how we can “know” in the 2000s that the BIGs are still, since 2008, uneducated(?), uninformed(?), misinformed(?), underinformed(?), about the original genesis implicit reason for John Jay underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington. The two BIGs, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, have not said anything, not one word about the fact that Vice President-elect Kamala Harris is not eligible to be president for a reason that is simple to express in a few words on the radio – Kamala Harris is not a “natural born Citizen” because her mother, born in India, and her father, born in Jamaica, both did not naturalize as U.S. citizens before Kamala was born in California. That is a simple sentence, right? Easy to say on the radio. Right? Yes. Well, BIGs, extrapolate from that simple sentence and educate your audiences about the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, OK?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse

Some ‘thought leaders’ listed here and most, could we say 99%? of the national media, did not comment about Sheriff Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse news conference where it was revealed that there is probable cause to conclude that fraud and forgery was perpetrated by someone in the Obama administration which was obviously authorized by the ‘highest’(?) authority. Sheriff Joe Arpaio should get the respect of having his legal criminal investigation news updates posted on all news blogs every day and on the hard news blogs with paid reporters.

Because the national media did not comment about Sheriff Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 news conference the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party had another conference on March 31, 2012. Here is a brief description about the fraud and forgery. The two legal issues are simple: 1) The fraudulent multi-layer birth certificate posted on the government White House web site; 2) The fraudulent cut and paste date stamp on the Selective Service Number card. At the March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse news conference it was revealed that there is probable cause to conclude that fraud and forgery was perpetrated by someone in the Obama administration. Yes, it must be said that it must have been by authority from a higher level, if not the highest level. Why conclude that the highest level must have been involved in releasing a bogus or legitimate birth certificate? First, if the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) is authentic the highest authority would be the only authority to give the OK to release personal documents. That is obvious, right? Second, of course the highest authority was involved in releasing the COLB because nobody was fired for putting out bogus info on government computers. That is also obvious, right?

Two things have not been determined yet: 1) Who crafted the birth certificate on government computers, plural, since the investigation revealed that it was not a scan from a paper original. It was assembled on a computer from start to finish and then uploaded to the White House web site; 2) Who crafted the government Selective Service Number card date stamp? The date of ‘80’ without ‘19’ preceding implies that the number is not authentic.

- 289 -

Barack Hussein Obama Birth Certificate

The fraudulent birth certificate was crafted on a federal government computer, it was not scanned from a paper original. The obvious conclusion by the investigators is that whoever the people (plural) are who crafted the birth certificate they did not have the authority to initiate the fraud and forgery on a federal government White House web site, so it must have been authorized by a high authority, if not the highest authority. Whomever the higher authority is who suborned silence (“suborned” implies criminal intent) of the crafters of fraudulent documents that were designed to deceive voters, subornation of silence about a crime is itself a crime. Since most people reading this are not lawyers, here is a quick definition of ‘suborn’ from the American Heritage Dictionary: Suborn v. 1 To induce (a person) to commit an unlawful or evil act. 2 Law a. To induce (a person) to commit perjury. b. To procure (perjured testimony).

If not the highest level authority, who would dare to authorize the posting of a fraudulent and forged birth certificate on the federal government White House web site and thus misrepresent the president and bring suspicion on his conduct in office since he said in public, after it was posted on the federal government White House web site, that it was his authentic birth certificate? That suspicious conduct consists of two parts: 1) Authorizing posting the birth certificate on the White House web site after it was ‘assembled’; 2) Affirming to the American people the authenticity of the ‘assembled’ birth certificate. The two acts of suspicious conduct would be impeachable offenses, a “high crime and misdemeanor” if there ever was one. That is fraud on a federal government White House computer. That is crime. That is a “high crime and misdemeanor”, impeachable if fraud is authorized by the highest authority.

Barack Hussein Obama Selective Service Number

The fraudulent Selective Service number was crafted when the date stamp year was altered. It shows the ‘80’ without the ‘19’ preceding it as in ‘1980’. This was the result of taking the ‘08’ from a 2008 date stamp, and then inverting the ‘08’ to the ‘80’ after the ‘20’ was cut off of the date stamp. All authentic SSN date stamps have four numbers for the year such as ‘1980’, but the fraudulent SSN card has only two numbers, an ‘8’ and a ‘0’, the number ‘80’. Since the fraudulent Federal SSN card was obtained by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, it appears that the Federal Government provided a fraudulent and forged SSN card. It has not been determined yet who forged the card and provided it to BHObama in ‘1980’ when he was ‘19’. That is fraud on a federal document. That is crime, period. That is a “high crime and misdemeanor” and is definitely impeachable if complicity in fabrication of the fraudulent SSN card is established.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio – Sun City, Arizona, March 31, 2012 News Conference Transcript

→ http://youtu.be/uICO4l5PRcs at 14 min. 55 sec.

Next is a partial transcript of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s 13 minute comments in Sun City, Arizona March 31, 2012 about the media blackout of the March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse investigation. Sheriff Arpaio starts by asking “What have I got, the plague or something?” After this second news conference the BIG Talkers, the BIG Bloggers, the BIG Thinkers maintained their uninformed silence about Article II and eligibility to be president.

• Sheriff Joe Arpaio – MCSO.org → http://www.mcso.org/Default.aspx

• Apply and join the Cold Case Posse → Press Releases – http://www.mcso.org/About/Posse.aspx

• Press Releases → http://www.mcso.org/PressRelease

• The Cold Case Posse PDF → http://mcsoccp.org/joomla

• 03-01-2012 – Cold Case Posse 1h 21m → http://youtu.be/XWmWO18GTc8

• 03-01-2012 – Cold Case Posse 1h 22m → http://youtu.be/vjzAH2DhydA

• 03-31-2012 – Cold Case Posse conference 2hr → http://youtu.be/uICO4l5PRcs

- 290 -

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

“What have I got, the plague or something? I get on national TV with pink underwear [prisoners]. I can’t even get on with this ... (not clear – audience applause). Never seen anything like it. […]

“I’m just doing what I took an oath of office to do. I know it’s corny to say that, but I firmly believe it ... (unclear – audience applause). You need action. You can’t just talk. [... ]

“A lot of you people know me. They call me the toughest sheriff in America. It’s the world. It’s not in America. (audience laughter) So, I’m just doing what I took an oath of office to do .... Do you think I’d be taking on a president if I was appointed? I’m elected. What are they going to do to me? And you mention, I report to the people. 250 people signed a petition ... and came and asked me to do something. I’m not accusing the President of any crime. When I took this on I said to Mike [Detective Zullo], [...]

“I got a posse; why not give it to them? It doesn’t cost a penny, so, they can’t go after me by saying I’m using taxpayers money.[…]

“I told Mike, ‘Mike, I want to do everything to clear the president of the United States. I wanted to do it, really. ... I’m a law enforcement guy. I wanted to be the guy to get up there, say that birth certificate is legitimate. Leave the president alone. But, it didn’t work out that way. (audience laughter) ... I don’t know, some problems.

“Another thing we came up [with] was the Selective Service form. ... see, the media won’t print this. In all my press releases, I put a nice little p.s., and I said, I have registered 40,000 inmates to sign up for the Selective Service.… Then I said we have 10,000 from another country. When I started this, the U.S. Government Selective Service system didn’t even know you have to sign up illegals, aliens. And I did. I got 40,000.

“So, I take this serious, the Selective Service. I didn’t know this coming up, the Selective Service problem that we have with the president. This came up through our investigation. So, what do you do? Throw that in the waste basket? No. We’re not going to throw it in a waste basket. And, once again, I’m not accusing the president of any crime, but we do have some probable cause on a couple of documents, government documents, and the last I heard, if you forge documents, I think that’s a violation of law, somewhere. If you did it, you’d be in trouble, big time. I don’t care who you are, [...with humor...] unless you’re the president. [audience laughter] I don’t care who you are. The president mentioned me 3 months ago at the White House. What an honor. [audience laughter] So, we’re going to continue our job.[...]

“Where is everybody? How come nobody’s saying something about me? Not that I need the politicians to do so. But, they could at least [say] you’ve got a nice shirt. Or they could at least say, I don’t know nothing about that, but, let’s see what the Sheriff comes up with. All I hear is that he’s here legitimately, that the birth certificate is ok, everything is ok. What is this? A ten year old can look at that birth certificate and know it’s not real.[...]

“So, I don’t know what’s going on in this country. ... when I’m in Sun City, I always give my age. When I’m in Scottsdale, I’m 39. [audience laughter] When I’m in Sun City, Sun City West, I’m 79, going on 80. I’ll be 80 June 14, Flag Day.

“Do you know what I’m going to do? … I’m going to take that 80, that phony 80 that was upside down on that Selective, I’m going to flip it and that’s going to be my birth day. ... . ... I want every birthday card, a copy of that Selective Service form. Ok? Thank you….”

President Theodore Roosevelt Was Wrong About Eligibility To Be President

At Sharon Rondeau’s The Post and Email on October 15, 2019 I posted a comment about Justice Gorsuch’s A Republic, If You Can Keep It book tour.

→ https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/10/05/national-constitution-center-rejects-comment-about-chester-arthurs-presidential-eligibility

Scroll to 07:54 pm. At 10:53 am on the same page, commentator jigsaw St. John posted a comment with a books.google.com link to a 1916 book by President Theodore Roosevelt titled Fear God And Take Your Own Part in which he wrote that the person under discussion in Chapter IX (When Is An American Not An American? – pages 284-292), P. A. Lelong Jr., was eligible to be president of the United States even though Mr. Lelong was born in America in 1880 before his French father naturalized as a U.S. citizen decades later.

- 291 -

Because he was born in America, President Roosevelt thought that Mr. Lelong was a natural born citizen and eligible to be president.

In the context of dual nationality, he mentions that president Chester A. Arthur (who was born in 1829) would have been required to serve in the British army if he had ever visited England. See the comment below, “President Arthur would have been in the same plight” on Books.Google.com.

→ https://books.google.com/books?id=3KQZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA291&dq=fear+god+and+take+your+own+part.+lelong&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwjOSkg6HlAhUJvJ4KHYHqD7EQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=fear%20god%20and%20take%20your%20own%20part.%20lelong&f=false

Oh well, presidents are fallible too when they are uninformed or misinformed. President Teddy Roosevelt was wrong about Mr. P. A. Lelong, Jr., whom he implied was a natural born citizen when he said that he was eligible to be president, believing that to be correct because he was born in the United States, even though he had dual nationality at birth. By implication, because he didn’t address it in his comments in his defense of Mr. Lelong’s citizenship status, even though he was also wrong about President Arthur being eligible to be president even though he also had dual nationality at birth, he was correct about President Arthur having dual nationality, although he didn’t accept dual nationality as valid – “a dual nationality — which, incidentally, is a self-evident absurdity”.

This next comment and outline was provided by commentator jigsaw St. John mentioned earlier:

“Roosevelt’s comment was part of a larger article on dual nationality and the problems it can create. He begins the article by reproducing a letter written in 1915 to the US State Department and their response. The letter was from P. A. Lelong Jr. and concerned his understanding that on a trip to France, he might be inducted into the French military or imprisoned for failing to join the French military. Lelong outlined his circumstances in his letter. They are as follows:”

• About 1873 – Lelong Sr. immigrates from France to the U.S.

• 1880 – Lelong Jr. is born in New Orleans.

• About 1908 – Lelong Sr. naturalized as a U.S. citizen.

• 1913 – Lelong Sr. dies.

• 1915 – Lelong Jr. writes to U.S. State Department.

• 1915 – U.S. State Department responds that Lelong Jr. was born with dual nationality and he is subject to the citizenship laws of France should he travel to that country.

• 1916 – President Roosevelt writes about the Lelong letter and states the following: ….

President Theodore Roosevelt Wrote a Book: Fear God And Take Your Own Part

Previously listed is the books.google.com link to Fear God And Take Your Own Part by President (1916) Theodore Roosevelt in which he asserts that P. A. Lelong Jr., the person under discussion in chapter nine, was eligible to be president even though Mr. Lelong was born in America in 1880 before his father naturalized.

President Roosevelt’s introductory comment about the letters in the book:

“The following two letters show an attitude on the part of the National Administration which challenges the careful consideration of every American. The letters, which were sent me by Mr. John M. Parker, of New Orleans, explain themselves:”

Chapter IX: When Is An American Not An American?

“Hon. William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

“Your Excellency:

“My father, P. A. Lelong, was a native of France and came to New Orleans when he was about twenty years of age; lived here about forty years. He died here about two years ago, but about five years before his death took out naturalization papers.

- 292 -

“I was born in New Orleans, June 18, 1880. I have never been out of the United States and have regularly voted as an American citizen since I reached the age of twenty-one years, and if war ever occurred between France and the United States, I most certainly would have fought for the United States. I have held the office of Township Commissioner in Henderson County, North Carolina; have held several court appointments, both Federal and State, and am a member of the State and Federal bar, and have considered myself as much an American citizen as President Wilson or any of the members of the Cabinet.

“I wish to visit France on business in the near future, and am informed by Mr. Ferrand and the French Consul here that if I go to France I could be either impressed into the French service or punished for not having reported for military duty, and also for having served in the State Militia of Louisiana without permission of the French Government.

“I contend that if the French Government had any right to claim me as a citizen under their laws, in times of peace they should have called on me to serve my three years in the military service.

“Wishing to know whether my constitutional privileges as an American citizen follow me wherever I go, with its constitutional guarantees, or whether the United States Government will allow the French Government to act in the manner as stated by Mr. Ferrand, the French consul,

“I respectfully expect an answer at as early a date as possible.

“Respectfully yours,

“(Signed) P. A. Lelong, Jr.”

[Here is the answer from the State Department]

“Department of State, Washington, April 2, 1915

‘Mr. P. A. Lelong, Junior, 832 Union Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

“Sir:

“The Department has received your letter of March 27, 1915, stating that you expect to go to France on business in the near future and inquiring whether you would be molested by the French military authorities.

“You say that you were born in New Orleans, June 18, 1880, and that your father, a native of France, resided in this country about forty years and obtained naturalization as a citizen of the United States shortly before his death, which occurred about two years ago.

“Under the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. Section one, Article VII of the French Civil Code, states that the following are Frenchmen: ‘Every person born of a Frenchman in France or abroad.;

“It thus appears that you were born with a dual nationality, and the Department cannot therefore give you any assurance that you would not be held liable for the performance of military service in France should you voluntarily place yourself within French jurisdiction.

“I am, sir,

“Your obedient servant,

“For the Secretary of State,

“(Signed) Robert Lansing, Counselor.”

[President Roosevelt cont.]

“One effect of this decision, on an American citizen who actually went abroad, reached me in a letter I received, dated November 6th, 1915, from Camp House, Short Hills, New Jersey. The writer is an Italian woman, Elizabeth Parness. Her husband, Vito Parness, is not only a naturalized citizen, but has served in the Eleventh Cavalry, United States Army, for three years, being discharged a non-commissioned officer. In November, 1914, he went to Italy to see his old father and mother and has not been allowed to return. His wife writes me that she is in dire poverty, having no means of support; that the State Department has been notified, but that nothing has been done. But it is, perhaps, natural that when native-born Americans are murdered and their wives raped with impunity in Mexico, naturalized Americans, even although ex-United States soldiers, receive no protection in France.

- 293 -

“I hold that it is the clear duty of the American people immediately to repudiate the doctrine thus laid down by the Wilson Administration. According to this doctrine there are in our country very many citizens — and, as a matter of fact, this ruling would apply to millions of citizens — who are “born with a dual nationality.” Two or three years ago it was announced that Germany had passed a law by which she provided for her citizens, who became naturalized in the United States or elsewhere, the means of also retaining their German citizenship, so that these men would preserve a dual citizenship, what the Department of State in this letter of April 2nd last calls “a dual nationality.” I hold that it was the business of our Government as soon as this statement was published to investigate the facts, to require would-be citizens to repudiate this law, and to notify the German Government that we protested against and would refuse to recognize its action; that we declined to recognize or acquiesce in the principle of such a dual citizenship or a dual nationality; that we would hold naturalized citizens to the full performance of the duties of American citizenship, which were necessarily exclusive of and inconsistent with the profession of citizenship in or allegiance to any other nation, and that in return we would extend the same protection to these citizens that is extended to native-born citizens. Such action was not taken. It is a reproach to us as a nation that it was not taken. We should not for a moment tolerate the assumption by Germany or by any other foreign power that foreign-born citizens of the United States can retain any citizenship in or allegiance to the country from which they came.

“But the present case is even worse. It seems incredible that the Department of State can promulgate the doctrine of dual nationality promulgated in its letter above quoted. Yet it has been asserted and reasserted, both before and since Mr. Bryan left office. It is dangerously close to treason to the United States to hold that men born here of foreign parentage, men who have served in the militia in this country, who vote and hold office and exercise all the other rights of citizenship, and who in good faith are and always have been Americans, should, nevertheless, be blandly informed by the State Department that if they visit the countries in which their parents were born they can be seized, punished for evasion of military duty, or made to serve in the army.

“Let me point out a few of the possible applications of the doctrines thus laid down by the Department of State. If Colonel Goethals went to Holland he would be liable to be shipped out for military service in Sumatria. If Admirals Osterhaus and Schroeder had gone to Germany they could have been forced to serve under Admiral von Tirpitz in the German navy. If General Barry should visit England he could be seized and sent to the trenches of France If my neighbor Messrs. Peter Dunne and Mark Sullivan, and my friends Judge O’Brien and Hames Conolly and Charles Conolly, went to England they could be impressed into the British army for service in Flanders or Ireland. If the sons of Jacob Riis went to Denmark they could be retained in the Danish forces. If the son of the great war correspondent McGahan, whose mother was a Russian lady, went to Russia, he could be sent to serve in the Carpathians. President Andrew Jackson on this theory could have been impressed for military service in the English army against which he fought at New Orleans, if he had ever happened to visit England; and President Arthur [#21] would have been in the same plight.

“Such incidents seem like the phantasmagoria of an unpleasant dream. Until I saw this letter of April 2nd last, I had not supposed that it would be possible for any human being in our country to uphold such a proposition. Yet in point of rights, Mr. Lelong stands exactly level with the men whom I have thus instanced. Surely it ought not to be necessary to say that the rights of every citizen in this land are as great and as sacred as those of any other citizen. The United States cannot with self-respect permit its organic and fundamental law to be over-ridden by the laws of a foreign country. It cannot acknowledge any such theory as this of “a dual nationality” — which, incidentally, is a self-evident absurdity.

“Mr. Lelong was born in this country; when he became of age he elected to exercise his birthright granted to him by the Constitution [Fourteenth Amendment] of the United States; he took an oath to support that Constitution, and he has held military office under its authority, and under the authority of two states of the American Union. He is eligible to the Presidency of the United States. He is a citizen of the United States, standing on an equality of right with all other citizens, and he is entitled to the protection of the United States both in and out of any foreign country, free and exempt from any provisions of the law of that country as to citizenship.

- 294 -

“There should not be a moment’s delay in asserting this doctrine, not only as regards Mr. Lelong and France but as regards Germany in connection with her law providing for a dual citizenship so far as it concerns immigrants from Germany who become citizens of the United States.

“We should assert in the face of all the nations of the world, of France and England, of Russia, Austria and Germany, the principle that we ourselves determine for ourselves the rights of citizenship of our citizens, that we champion them in the full exercise of these rights as against any foreign power that interferes with them, and that in return we hold them to a full accountability for the exercise of these rights in the sole interest of the United States as against any foreign power which claims any allegiance whatsoever from them.

[End of letters by State Department and President Theodore Roosevelt]

Suggested Amendments To Counter Trojan Horse Possibilities

To protect America against 21^st century trojan horse possibilities that could be used to undermine the original genesis implicit intent of the U.S. Constitution (the LAW) written by the people of the ‘several States’, it may be necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect the original genesis implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president. Here are possible amendments for Article I legislative branch eligibility to be a federation representative and senator, Article II executive branch eligibility to be a federation president, and Article III judicial branch eligibility to be a federation justice. These possible amendments relate to only the three federation branches. The people of the states, because they are the ‘creator’ (singular) of the three federation branches, are always free to decide security, voting, and related issues for the benefit of the people of the states and their own constitutions in agreement with the federation constitution which was written by the delegates of the states to protect the interests of the ‘several States’.

Two examples of states interests written into the federation constitution to protect the sovereignty of the ‘several States’ are Article I Section 10 clause 3 – The states will not “… engage in war, unless actually invaded, …”, and Article II Section 1 clause 2 – The new president will be determined by “Each State…as the Legislature...may direct…Electors”.

Suggestion #1

Part a: new U.S. naturalized citizens should not be eligible to vote in federal elections for six complete presidential four year terms (24 years – one generation). The states should consider applying the 24 year minimum to the states.

Part b: “natural born Citizen” children of U.S. naturalized citizens are always eligible to vote.

Suggestion #2

Part a: new U.S. naturalized citizens should not be eligible to be federal representatives or senators for six complete presidential four year terms (24 years, one generation). States should consider applying the 24 year minimum to the states.

Part b: “natural born Citizen” children of U.S. naturalized citizens are always eligible to be federal and state representatives and senators.

Suggestion #3

Part a: new U.S. naturalized citizens should not be eligible to be federal judges for six complete presidential four year terms (24 years – one generation). The states should consider applying the 24 year minimum to the states.

Part b: “natural born Citizen” children of U.S. naturalized citizens are always eligible to be federal and states justices and lower court judges.

Suggestion #4

Part a: first generation “natural born Citizen” children of U.S. naturalized citizens should not be eligible to be president for six complete presidential four year terms (24 years – one generation). The states should consider applying the 24 year minimum to the states.

Part b: second (and following) generation “natural born Citizen” children of U.S. naturalized citizens will always be eligible to be president by birth alone from day of birth on U.S. soil.

- 295 -

Since Article II was adopted on September 17, 1787, naturalized citizens have not been eligible to be president.

Since Article II was adopted on September 17, 1787, “natural born Citizen” children of naturalized citizens have always been eligible to be president.

Why deny federal voting rights to new naturalized U.S. ‘citizens’ and allow only a first generation “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to vote?

Why deny eligibility to be federal president to a first generation “natural born Citizen” and begin with a second generation “natural born Citizen”?

Why deny voting eligibility to new naturalized U.S. citizens? For the same national security reason that the 1787 delegates permanently denied eligibility to be U.S. president to new and older naturalized U.S. citizens. The 2000s national security reason is similar to the national security reason which John Jay suggested when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington, a reason that was accepted without private or public debate by the delegates to the convention who adopted the language or the states who ratified the language.

Why deny voting eligibility to new naturalized U.S. citizens? To protect America from all enemies, foreign or domestic. That is the same 1787 reason that eligibility to be president was permanently denied by the original genesis birthers to all naturalized ‘citizens’.

Yes, that’s right. Since 1787 U.S. ‘citizens’ have been denied eligibility to be president, and that was done by the original genesis birthers. In the U.S. Constitution adopted in 1787, ‘citizens’ who were naturalized were not eligible to be president. That still applies today in the 2000s according to the positive law (law of people) of Article II which still prohibits eligibility to be president to any ‘citizen’ who is not a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

Positive law (law of people) can be amended by positive law

Natural law (law of nature) can not be amended by positive law

According to the original genesis implicit intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5 and eligibility to be president, there is no natural law (law of nature) preventing a positive law (law of people) to prohibit voting rights to naturalized U.S. citizens from being added to the Constitution, proposed by either the bicameral Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’. There is also no natural law (law of nature) preventing a positive law (law of people) to be added to the Constitution to prohibit, for six complete presidential four year terms (24 years), new naturalized U.S. citizens from being eligible to vote or to be federal representatives and senators, and to be federal judges.

For those who may ‘feel’ that an Article V amendment permanently prohibiting naturalized citizens from being eligible to vote may be too exclusive, an alternative is an amendment which can be worded to prohibit voting rights to naturalized citizens for a maximum of 25 years (one generation) from the date of naturalization. Also, an Article V amendment can be worded to prohibit eligibility to be elected a federal representative or senator or a federal judge for a maximum of 25 years from the date of naturalization. Of course, eligibility to be a federal president will, generation to generation, be perpetually exclusive to a “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

And, while we’re at it, why not propose an Article V amendment to limit federal terms to a maximum of 24 years total for both the federal representatives and senators? For example, limiting a federal representative to a maximum of 12 years (6 terms, 2 years each) and limiting a federal senator to a maximum of 12 years (2 terms, 6 years each) would ‘till the soil’ so to speak and encourage ‘change from the ground up’ so to speak, from the soil of the people. Then, after a maximum of 24 years (12 years as a representative and then 12 years as a senator) the experienced ‘politicians’ may want to run for federal president, or go home and run for state governors or mayors of their cities, or even start a business and meet payrolls by signing the front of the checks, and live under the laws they wrote during their 24 years in public office.

Maybe Article V should be used if our elected federal officers do not want to limit their own terms in federal office. Article V is waiting to be used by the ‘several States’ to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution when the federal house and senate do not want to act to protect America from all enemies, foreign and domestic. If our elected federal officers are not comfortable with language like this about the ‘several States’ using their Article V We the People authority, then maybe they are part of the problem and should be encouraged to go home, start a business, meet a payroll under the laws that they have passed.

- 296 -

Archives.gov and Library of Congress Urls

Archives.gov: → http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html

Library of Congress.gov: → http://www.loc.gov/index.html

U.S. Constitution text: → http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

What Is A Natural Born Citizen? (video): → http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_pKLeWhlwU

1790 Naturalization Act Text

An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Section 1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:

Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: [snip]

Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

[Approved, March 26, 1790]

1795 Naturalization Act Text

An Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.

For carrying into complete effect, the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

Section 1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise.—

First He shall have declared on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citizen or subject.

- 297 -

Second He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation, before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall he recorded by the clerk of the court.

Third The court admitting such alien, shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Fourth In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

Section 2

Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, may be admitted to become a citizen, on his declaring on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover ….

Section 3

And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization [i.e., of the two parents]; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

Section 4

And be it further enacted, That the act intituled “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg

Speaker of the House of Representatives

John Adams

Vice-President of the United States, And President of the Senate

George Washington

President of the United States

Approved January 29th, 1795

[My comment about “considered” and “citizens”]

The word ‘considered’ is a positive law (law of people) word which refers to ‘at’ birth, not ‘by’ birth alone according to natural law (law of nature) as implied in Article II. This is why ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II, which implies birth on U.S. soil for eligibility to be president, clarifies the error of the 1790 Naturalization Act which explicitly mentions birth on foreign soil. Birth on foreign soil implies not eligible to be president.

- 298 -

Also notice as an example of the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president that in both the 1790 NA and 1795 NA ‘birth’ is to ‘persons’ (plural) and ‘citizens’ (plural). The implication is that ‘birth’ is to two ‘persons’ married only to each other before a child is born to them and both are ‘citizens’ of the United States with only singular U.S. citizenship which is passed on to a child by birth alone, not citizenship of the country in which they are living when a child is born to them. That is why a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents is ‘considered’ in the 1790 Naturalization Act to be a “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) with the implication that both a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other and a child born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other would be eligible to be president. That makes original intent sense, right? For that common sense reason it also makes original intent sense that the 1795 NA inserted ‘citizens’ to avoid the implication that the new ‘citizen’ born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other would also be eligible to be president. That also makes sense, right?.

After the U.S. Congress noticed that ‘born’ in their explicit 1790 NA statute language was contrary to ‘born’ as implied in the 1787 Article II language, the three words “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) in the March 26, 1790 NA were removed and the single word ‘citizen’ was inserted in the January 29, 1795 NA. The positive law (law of people) word ‘considered’ is used in both naturalization acts for a positive law reason. The word ‘considered’ in a statute enacted by Congress can not negate the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ which implies by birth alone in Article II. Right? Remember that eligibility to be president by birth alone was John Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. Jays suggestion in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington was passed on to the constitutional convention delegates and was adopted without debate by them. Also without debate as to what ‘born’ implied in Article II, the new constitution was ratified by the ‘several States’. It makes sense that Jay would imply only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil, so what is there to debate, right? Right. [End of comment]

McCarran-Walter Bill of 1952: Public Law No. 82-414

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act

→ http://www.uscis.gov/forms

Introduction

“The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.

“The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States. It is arranged in fifty subject titles by general alphabetic order. Title 8 of the U.S. Code is but one of the fifty titles and deals with ‘Aliens and Nationality’. When browsing the INA or other statutes you will often see reference to the U.S. Code citation. For example, Section 208 of the INA deals with asylum, and is also contained in 8 U.S.C. 1158. Although it is correct to refer to a specific section by either its INA citation or its U.S. code, the INA citation is more commonly used.”

INA: Title III: Chapter 1 – Nationality At Birth And By Collective Naturalization

→ http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html

ACT 301 Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth

ACT 302 Persons born in Puerto Rico

ACT 303 Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

ACT 304 Persons born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867

ACT 305 Persons born in Hawaii

ACT 306 Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands

ACT 307 Persons living in and born in Guam

ACT 308 Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth

ACT 309 Children born out of wedlock

- 299 -

INA: Act 301: Nationals And Citizens Of The United States At Birth Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401]

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a

citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

[My comment about ‘at birth’ and sections ‘a’, “a person born in the United States”, and ‘g’, “a person born outside … one … alien … other … citizen … United States”]

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ...”

Section ‘a’ applies to the citizenship status of Illinois ‘citizen’ Barack Hussein Obama, an ‘at birth’ citizen because he was “… a person born in the United States ...” in Hawaii to only one U.S. citizen, his mother; his father was a citizen of Kenya.

Section ‘g’ applies to the citizenship status of Texas ‘citizen’ Senator Ted Cruz, an ‘at birth’ citizen because he was “… a person born outside … United States ...” in Canada to only one U.S. citizen, his mother; his father was a citizen of Cuba. That means that Sen. Cruz is not a “natural born Citizen” and so not eligible to be president. [End of my comment]

- 300 -