Obama abandons Founding Fathers’ Dream

Dear Dr. Keyes

I wanted to take this opportunity to once again explain the scientific facts of life to you and Orly Taitz.

Although Obama does not qualify under Article II as a “natural born Citizen” it is clear to me that neither you, nor Orly Taitz, nor Mario Apuzzo, nor any one else I have ever heard or read about seems to know or understand the true legal meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen”. I have come to realize that people in general, and this includes you and Orly Taitz, hold onto your false beliefs of the meaning of Article II “natural born Citizen” with a religious fervor that is devoid of reason, history, Law, and observations of Natural Reality. It is one thing to point out that Obama is not qualified under the Constitution and it is quite another thing to show people why he does not qualify. You and Orly Taitz have not shown why as a matter of Law.

I have tried over and over again to enlighten you and Orly and the population at large to the correct meaning and interpretation of Article II, without success. I can only conclude that you and Orly and Mario Apuzzo and the general population have a mental condition formulated from baseless beliefs that prohibits the acceptance of truth and/or Natural Reality. For what it is worth I provide this simple legal outline below that shows the true meaning of Article II “natural born Citizen” in the hopes that you will be able to overcome your mental impediment and become enlightened to the truth. Here are the facts of life that define and describe Article II “natural born Citizen”:

1) The Constitution embodies only two jurisdictions from where authority is derived, a Natural Law jurisdiction and a Positive Law jurisdiction.

2) Article II “natural born Citizen” is a unique construct that is not defined in English Common law, or U.S. Positive Law, but is defined solely in Natural Law and just declared in the Positive Law at Article II in order to be protected. Article II “natural born Citizen” derives its authority solely from the Natural Law jurisdiction of the Constitution as meaning one who is born a native sovereign of the country. Sovereign political rights are Natural Rights that are inherited from males (father) under the Natural Law jurisdiction, because it is males who create the Positive Law (government) to secure the natural political rights and membership in the father’s society that is inherited. (Explained by Vattel and declared as a self-evident truth of Nature in the Declaration of Independence.) This is probably due to the natural fact that under the Natural Law jurisdiction, males are physically superior in strength and aggression and no female can physically prevent a father from securing the political rights and membership of his children into his society.

3) When it comes to citizenship and political rights, the jurisdiction of foreign soil or a foreign mother are only considered to be a Positive Law jurisdiction in contrast to that of the father’s Natural Law jurisdiction. The soil is obvious because soil is always a Positive Law jurisdiction. A foreign mother might seem to be a Natural Law jurisdiction that is equal to the father’s, but upon investigation you will see that this is not so. Whenever there is a foreign father, then the political rights and membership of the children in the mother’s society are in question, and must be adjudicated and secured solely by the Positive Law via statute. Any citizenship or political rights must be defined by statutory authority due to the competing superior Natural Law jurisdiction of the father. The father’s Natural Law jurisdiction is always considered to be the superior controlling jurisdiction and forces the mother to be under the Positive Law jurisdiction for describing or securing any political rights or membership in the mother’s society.

Since the Natural Law jurisdiction is superior to and controlling over that of the Positive Law jurisdiction, it makes no difference where you are born or the citizenship status of a foreign mother, as both jurisdictions will only be Positive Law jurisdictions that will define the citizenship rights or political rights which will not compete with the father’s pre-eminent Natural Law jurisdiction no matter whether the father is native or foreign. Therefore your place of birth or the status of your mother are irrelevant as long as you have a citizen father.

4) Loyalty and Allegiance considerations. Any loyalties or allegiances that are derived from foreign soil or a foreign mother at birth, are only statutory in nature due to the Positive Law jurisdictions that are controlling in such matters, and so they are not inherited loyalties or allegiances from a citizen father due to the Laws of Nature for the reasons outlined above. Therefore, it makes no difference whether one is born into the Positive Law with foreign loyalties and allegiances or if one develops foreign Positive Law loyalties and allegiances after birth through migrating to some other country. Both situations are easily remedied by the repatriation requirements of Article II, that requires one to be born a native citizen of the country which is secured solely by a citizen father under Natural Law jurisdiction (Vattel), and the 14 year residency requirement in Article II that causes one to sever any foreign loyalties or allegiances that are derived solely form the Positive Law jurisdiction and repatriate and reestablish the loyalties and allegiances of the native father, that one is born inheriting as a function of the Laws of Nature which is the Natural Law jurisdiction. Patriot is derived from the Greek/Latin “patros” meaning “father”, so to repatriate means to return to the land of your father and take up his loyalties and allegiances. This is what Article II requires and provides for.

5) The term “natural born citizen” that is defined under the 14th Amendment and by U.S. case law and Supreme Court decisions is only referring to “subject” status as in one who is “subject to the jurisdiction of” the Positive Law, and so it is only a Positive Law construct of a “legal right” or privilege, not a Natural Right; and any political rights that are derived from “natural born citizen” status are thus only legal political rights and not natural political rights. This term is defined and borrowed from English Common law as a citizen “subject” of the King/State whose authority is derived solely from the king’s/state’s soil jurisdiction that the king/state claims dominion over. This is solely a Positive Law jurisdiction, as the King/State is not the source of Natural Rights only Positive Law “legal rights”. This is what differs “natural born citizen” from “natural born Citizen” . The former is a function solely of Positive Law and is a privilege of soil only, where a citizen father is not even required, and the latter is a function solely of Natural Law where ONLY a citizen father is required and the soil is irrelevant. Article II is a unique construct that has nothing at all to do with Positive Law or English Common Law, but rather represents the break with England and the form of monarchy political system that caused an automatic involuntary allegiance to the King/State by being born under the king’s/state’s soil jurisdiction. Instead the construct “natural born Citizen” is defined solely under Natural Law to represent the Natural Sovereign authority that all People inherit and are entitled to, that was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the war of 1776 that secured the recognition of these natural sovereign political rights to be inherited from our fathers that the King had refused to recognize.

6) One can see that not only is there a big legal difference, as defined by the Constitution and by Supreme Court cases, between “natural born citizen” and “natural born Citizen”, as just outlined in 5 above, but also between “Citizen of the United States” and the 14th amendment “citizen of the United States”. The term “Citizen of the United States” is referring to a sovereign State Citizen. The term “citizen of the United States” is referring to a citizen “subject” of the State that is declared in the 14th amendment to be a citizen “subject” of the State jurisdiction, as in a ward of the State, and not a sovereign State Citizen who is not a “subject” of State jurisdiction without voluntary consent and who is not a ward of the State. Here is a link with Supreme Court references that helps to clarify this distinction: http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/AppendixC.htm

As you can see, a correct understanding of the Natural Law jurisdiction and the Positive Law jurisdiction –both of which are well-defined in law to be opposite and “opposed” jurisdictions, with the Natural Law jurisdiction being superior– perfectly defines and describes Article II “natural born Citizen” as only requiring a citizen father who creates you, and your place of birth and the status of one’s mother are both irrelevant. One need only claim the natural political rights in order to be a sovereign representative of the sovereign citizens of the country and then repatriate for 14 years to sever any foreign allegiances or loyalties, in order to qualify under Article II for the Office of President.