HOME Page ~Welcome to obama- -nation.com

-providing insights into Presidential  eligibility and verification~

 an amalgam of original essays and comments
by a.r. nash and others, from many web sources, covering the Constitution, history, philosophy, the law, and the birth certificates.  You’ll find here insights found no where else, and an aggregation of information like no other site contains.

“There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away.  There is a time to fight, and that time has now come.” – Peter Muhlenberg

nazi-collage-thmb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Technical Expose’ Of the PDF Fake by Mara Zebest

Her exposition on the essence of her expose’

Obama’s SSN Investigation Results: Inexplicable

FORGERY-GATE: A Nation-wide Conspiracy of Silence

The history and fraud of the first birth certificate

FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM;

  “Let Justice Be Done Though The Sky Fall”

Principles of Citizenship explained in graphic form.

 Double

Screen-size      Screen Size  Prints-size (8 x 11)

Large-Size png version  Medium Size   PDF Version

CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES DEFINING NATURAL BORN CITIZENS

PRINT SIZE

*   *    *    *    *    *    *

   

PRINT-SIZE

Don’t visit “American Sod”  (sowing the seeds-Of-Destruction) unless you can handle a big dose of reality.   http://americansod.wordpress.com/

Pdf version; Citizenship illustration

half-size, negative

half-size, negative

Full-size

8 types of citizenship black & white

8 types of citizenship
black & white

8 Types of Citizenship Large view size, 190 Kb

8 Types of Citizenship Large size, small,  Print Size

8 types of citizenship 
black & whiteAdobe PDF versions (with some exceptions)

Many listed below are not included in the Header Navigation:

PDF copies

CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS OBAMA DEPENDS ON 1

CITIES & CITIZENS; NATURAL vs LEGAL

NATIVE-BORN TADPOLE CITIZENSHIP

NATIVES, TRIBES, AND FORGOTTEN CITIZENSHIP TRUTHS

IS OBAMA A CAUCASIAN KENYAN?

OFFICIAL STATE ERROR & A NON-CITIZEN PRESIDENT

   CITIZENSHIP BY LIFE & CITIZENSHIP BY LAW

OBAMA vs The TRUTH ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT

PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY CITIZENSHIP PRIMER

NATIONS, CITIZENS, RESPONSIBILITY & NATURAL LAW

THE BASTARDIZATION OF CITIZENSHIP LAW & PRINCIPLES

THE REALITY OF NATIVE-BORN TADPOLE CITIZENSHIP

THE IRON GATE THAT NO LONGER PROTECTS THE PRESIDENCY

VARIOUS REJECTED PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

FESTERING CITIZENSHIP QUESTIONS THE PRESS WILL NEVER ASK

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS

CITIZENSHIP BEYOND ALL LAWS

OBAMA: AN UNNATURAL HYBRID NATIVE

THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP

A BRIEF HISTORY OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

WHAT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN MEANS  & WHY

THE SIMPLE FACTS OF CITIZENSHIP -from A to  Z

A  CITIZENSHIP PRIMER for The  SUPREME COURT

HYPOTHETICAL OBAMA CITIZENSHIP SCENARIOS

 DANGEROUS QUESTIONS  &  EXPLOSIVE ANSWERS

~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~

FACTS VERSUS CERTAINTY

YOU ARE NOT A “LEGAL” AMERICAN!

OBAMA’S  QUESTIONABLE & COVERT CITIZENSHIP

DELUSION, CORRUPTION, & A CHARLATAN PRESIDENT

NATIONAL IGNORANCE & A CONSTITUTIONAL TRAVESTY

(THE QUESTIONS NEVER ANSWERED NOR EVER EVEN ASKED)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

US LAW vs OBAMA’S  UNNATURAL CITIZENSHIP

THE SOURCE OF OBAMA’S PRESIDENTIAL INELIGIBILITY

NATURAL vs ARTIFICIAL CITIZENSHIP/ the Gorilla Analogy

REALITY CHECK :  1789

~No Bastard Daughter of a Catholic African Alien Can Be President

THE VANCOUVER BIRTH SCENARIO

AN OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE SLUG-FEST

THE QUESTION REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS FEAR

THE THIEF-in-CHIEF WHO STOLE THE PRESIDENCY

THE WISDOM & INSIGHTS OF BHO’s  SPEECH WRITER

LARRY, MOE  and BARRY O.

OBAMA NEEDS TO BE OUTED

THE UNITED NATIONS OF AMERICA

OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE SHOOTOUT

A BLIND SHEPHERD & A NATION THAT’S LOST

THE  VAMPIRE PRESIDENCY Of  COUNT B. OBAMA

IS SURI CRUISE A NATURAL BORN SCIENTOLOGIST?

OBAMA: AN ADOPTED CITIZEN & ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT

BARRY’S BURIED PAST & COUNTERFEIT BIRTH CERTIFICATE

AN UNVETTED COUNTERFEIT PRESIDENT

ONE  IN 315  MILLION, -BUT THE WRONG ONE!

THE UNMASKING OF A COUNTERFEIT PRESIDENT

WHEN EXPERTS ARE IDIOTS & AUTHORITIES ARE FOOLS

OBAMA’S HALF-AMERICAN,  HALF-FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP

THE TRUTH ABOUT VATTEL’S DESCRIPTION OF SOCIETIES

SPOCK, OBAMA, JOHN THE BAPTIST & HEROD THE GREAT

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS & FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS

OBAMA:  CITIZEN BY GRACE and PRESIDENT BY FRAUD

“NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS” CAN’T BE  PRESIDENT

NATURAL LAW AND UNNATURAL DUALITY

THE NATURE OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

WHEN BRILLIANT MINDS ARE MORONS

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

MINOR Vs HAPPERSETT  by LEO DONOFRIO

VERTICAL      HORIZONTAL     ONE PAGE

~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

ANGELS, VIRGINS, NUNS,  & NATURAL CITIZENS

 THE PRINCIPLES of UNALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS

THE THINGS OF NATURE & THE NATURE OF THINGS

THE IMMUTABLE NATURE of NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

THE UNWRITTEN LAW of NATURAL CITIZENSHIP

NATURAL CITIZENSHIP:  BEYOND ALL LAWS

UNLIMITED & UNTOUCHABLE CITIZENSHIP

~ ~ ~

The BEAUTIFUL, BLISSFUL BLINDNESS Of OBAMA’S TRUE BELIEVERS

~ ~ ~

FROM SUBJECTS OF THE KING TO CITIZENS OF THE NATION

 A ZOMBIE PRESS, LOBOTOMIZED CONGRESS, & A NATURALIZED PRESIDENT

THE FOUNDATION of NATIONS/ NATURAL RIGHTS  & Unnatural Citizenship

The UNCONSTITUTIONAL  CARPETBAGGER PRESIDENCY of BARRY OBAMA

THE CONSTITUTIONAL TRUTH About An UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT

NIXON’S PARDON, A NATIONAL DELUSION,  & OBAMA’S ELECTION

WHY AMERICAN’S BORN ABROAD ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

“NATIVE-BORN” CITIZENS ARE NOT   CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

*

NATIVE BORN VS  NATURAL BORN   *   WHERE INMATES RUN THE ASYLUM

OBLIVIOUS TO THE ABSURDITY -14th AMENDMENT DELUSIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS & UNCONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD

CONSTITUTIONAL TREASON & AN AVATAR PRESIDENT

*

OBAMA:  A CITIZEN BY GRACE,  -THE PRESIDENT BY FRAUD

THE BAMBOOZLING of AMERICA At The HIGHEST LEVEL

THE ELIGIBILITY CREDIBILITY  Of ONE BARRY OBAMA

The LIBERAL LIE THAT ELECTED A PRESIDENT

THE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRESIDENT

INCOMPETENCE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL

*

THE DNC & THE HALF-BLOOD PRESIDENT

 EVERY TOM, DICK, & HARRY BUT NOT MY SON?

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP via STATE CITIZENSHIP

FROM CERTAINTY TO CONFUSION, TO IGNORANCE, TO TREASON

*

CITIZEN ZERO & THE CONSTITUTION’S BAN AGAINST OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY

NATURAL CITIZENSHIP vs CITIZENSHIP BY SUBSTITUTION

NATIVE-BORN FOREIGNERS & FOREIGN-BORN NATIVES

FOUR WAYS TO ACQUIRE UNNATURAL  CITIZENSHIP

THE NATURE OF VATTEL’S CITIZENSHIP DEFINITION

*

NATURAL CITIZENSHIP versus LEGAL CITIZENSHIP

WHO IS A NATURAL AMERICAN and WHO IS NOT?

THE AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP CONUNDRUM

WHEN NATIVE-BIRTH CONVEYS NOTHING

NATURAL NATIVE Versus HYBRID NATIVE

YOUR ARE NOT A “LEGAL” U.S. CITIZEN

*

How “LADY & The TRAMP” DEBUNKS OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY

A MAN CALLED “HORSE” & A MAN CALLED “PRESIDENT”

SITTING BULL & OBAMA: A TALE Of TWO CHIEFS

JESUS & OBAMA: TWO UNNATURAL HYBRIDS

MOSES And THE HALF-BLOOD PRESIDENT

*

THE AUDACITY OF FRAUD; -AN UNNATURAL AMERICAN PRESIDENT

TALE Of A DEAD PRESIDENT‘ & HIS TWINS BROTHER’S CHARADE

AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PATH TO THE PRESIDENCY

WHERE’S THE BEEF? – OBAMA’S TVP CITIZENSHIP

THE END OF EDEN & THE RISE OF OBAMA

*

CAN CHILDREN of MASS MURDERERS BE PRESIDENT?

HOW MARCO RUBIO COULD DESTROY The APPLE CART

US AMBASSADORS & An UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT

THE AMERICAN HISTORY OF NATURALIZATION By MARRIAGE

AMERICA vs The CONSTITUTION -WHAT’S RIGHT vs WHAT’S BEST

*

THE TYRANNY OF GOOD INTENTIONS  WHEN THE EXPERTS ARE IMBECILES

FROM A NATION Of LAWS TO A NATION Of LAW-BREAKERS

MISSING THE POINT & IGNORING THE FACTS

THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN AMERICA

 THE PROBLEM THAT CAN’T BE SOLVED

MY MAJOR RANDOM THOUGHTS

  ~EQUAL RIGHTS & EQUAL LIBERTY

State seal appears as if by Magic!                                           all  essays except the last one are by

A. R. Nash  arnash1@gmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEW WEBSITE:  All images of  CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH pdf -layers revealed

NEW WEBSITEAMERICAN S.O.D.   sowing the SEEDS Of DESTRUCTION         

About Mr. Obama’s Birth Certificate  by Paul Murphy

When Is A Citizen Not A Citizen?  by Cindy Simpson

Alexander Hamilton & John Jay’s Letter to Washington   by John Woodman

Link to the original WH 9-layer PDF -376 Kb

There are several pertinent questions that people fail to ask, such as: By what principle is John McCain a natural born citizen even though not a native-born citizen?
By what principle is Obama a U.S. citizen, and is it the same principle as that by which McCain is a natural born citizen?
Would Obama be a U.S. citizen if he had been born in a foreign location like John McCain?
Is Obama’s presidential eligibility not affected by his parentage while McCain’s was?
Can birth as a subject of a foreign sovereign nation make one a natural American citizen?

No person whose U.S. citizenship is derived from any legal source is a natural born American.  Any legal citizenship, including constitutional citizenship, is artificial citizenship because it is not the product of natural law, but of human law,  it’s membership-by-permission.  No one whose citizenship is by permission of the government is eligible to be the President of the United States.  The citizenship of natural citizens is beyond the authority of the government.  It cannot bestow it, nor rescind it, nor regulate it, nor infringe upon it.  The unalienable nature of natural citizenship supersedes the legitimate authority of all human forms of legitimate government because the right of the government to exist is granted by the will and choice of natural citizens, -not the other way around.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama was a provisional Commonwealth subject via birth in wedlock (?) to a named British subject father.  By not renouncing his American citizenship as an adult, his connection to Kenya was thereby terminated, along with his Commonwealth membership.  His Indonesian citizenship via adoption may also have been provisional.

  He was also a provisional American citizen, provided he fulfill the residency requirements of the naturalization statute dealing with children of foreign fathers and American mothers.  At age 14, Obama began fulfilling the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) 301(a)(7) and 301(b)’s five-year continuous residency requirement to become a U.S. citizen, a  See 8 U.S.C. 1409(c) .   Thus, at nineteen he finally became a full-status statutory U.S. citizen.  Did he register with Occidental College at 18?  If so he may have semi-legitimately not defined himself as an American citizen because his U.S. citizenship was still pending his completing U.S. residency until age of 19.

 Barack Obama admits he was born a British Citizen on his “paid for by Barack Obama” fightthesmears,com website (now shutdown):    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on the 4th of August, 1961,  Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

Obama-is-only-a-Usurper said…
You know if you read the Civil Rights Act of 1866 it makes amply clear that someone who was born “not subject to any foreign power” was a US Citizen.
Now Obama admits he was subject to a foreign power at birth.

 1866 Civil Rights Act   14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.   CHAP. XXXI.
“An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;…”

It’s totally crystal clear that if in 1866 a person of dual citizenship was not a US Citizen, then by all means in 1776 the founders would not consider a person who was not even a citizen to be a natural born citizen!!

And remember the Civil Rights Act was passed twice, once in 1866 and again  2 years after the 14th Amendment was passed (1868). There was no question as to its intent, and this is still law.

Obama Agrees That Natural Citizenship Requires both Parents Be Citizens  Senate Resolution 511 2008
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”–Barack Obama, co-sponsor

At the peak of the Rev, Wright flare-up, Obama played his Michelle trump card. “I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners,” he boasted in his bellwether speech on race, “an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.”

What if Barry O.  had married a Kenyan woman?  Would he have been viewed as presidential candidate material then?  What kind of citizen would he have been viewed as, natural? or something else?  What if he  had married a white woman? Would he have been viewed as presidential candidate material then?  How many black women would have voted for him?  What if his mother had been the Kenyan wife of his father?  What kind of citizen would he have been viewed as then?  Natural? or something else?  But what difference would it have really made?  Well, he wouldn’t have been a citizen at all through his mother nor able to pull off the greatest deception since  traitors in the upper management levels of the FBI and CIA were discovered.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense.” –Thomas Jefferson

In Dec. 2011 I discovered that NATURALIZED, NATIVE-BORN, and NATURAL BORN ARE DISTINCT in the official Immigration Service website which includes Attorney General Interpretations of Supreme Court decisions and Congressional Naturalization law.

I shared what I discovered with attorney Leo Donofrio .  Read his response on his blog NaturalBornCitizen  (Since Leo Donofrio no longer publishes comments to his site, I’ll publish my own comments in reply here. )      It states the following:

UPDATE: THE PAGE HAS BEEN MOVED ON THE CIS WEBSITE! The page displayed  now states:

404 – Requested Page Not Found on Site

This was the url perhaps for many years, possible a decade:  http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.htm

But the puppet-masters changed its address so the link that I’d found would no longer lead to it.  But by using the site’s search function I was able to relocate it.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

   Also, even though the CONSPIRATORS in Obama’s inner circle  altered the CIS website, the internet archive site “the WayBack Machine” has it recorded.  Here’s its copy of the moved page: http://web.archive.org/web/20110711184242/http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html  (the rats are on the run)

The pertinent sentence is the second-to-last stand-alone sentence.

Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.
Repatriation
(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it. ["paragraph 6"] but to restore the person to the status if NATURALIZED, NATIVE, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Natural citizens can be born anywhere in the world because their parents are Americans, but “native-born” citizens, with immigrant parents, must be born in the U.S. or else the 14th Amendment does not apply to them.  They are constitutional citizens by the grace of the American people who passed the 14th Amendment, whereas natural citizens are citizens by nature and no law grants, governs, regulates, restricts or defines their citizenship.  It doesn’t come from government.  It precedes government.  Government can’t exist without naturally connected members to create it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen. Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951) “

There are actually five classes of citizens:  1. the natural born citizens, -who are one type of “born citizen”,  2. the native-born citizens who are born to foreign immigrants, also describe by me as constitutional citizens via the 14th Amendment) 3. the naturalized citizens, and 4. the derivative citizens who are automatically naturalized (children and wives of newly naturalized fathers, -or foreign brides marrying American husbands, -no longer the policy in the U.S.)  5. Provisional citizens; children born abroad to foreign fathers.  Their citizenship will become permanent but with the provision that they live x number of years in the U.S. during their youth.

There are eight  types of people in America; natural American citizens, naturalized American citizens, American Nationals, Native Americans without US citizenship, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants,  foreign guests and diplomats, and children of unions of various combinations of the preceding groups,

There are seven  types of children born in America; children born to natural citizens, children born to naturalized citizens, children born to legal immigrants, children born to illegal immigrants, children born to American nationals, and children born to foreign guests and diplomats, and those with mixed parentage combining the preceding groups.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.S. CONSTITUTION Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

  “No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,…”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The TEN RULES of Natural & Naturalized Citizenship

1.  No American is a natural American unless born to American parents.
2. Only children of Americans  parent are eligible to be President.
3.  American parents produce natural American children regardless of where they’re born.
4.  No American can father a child that’s a natural citizen of a foreign nation -even if born within that foreign nation, nor can a foreigner beget a natural citizen of a nation foreign to him, (such as the United States) even though his child may be born within its borders.

5.  No one born to a foreign Diplomat, Ambassador, Consul, Soldier, visitor, tourist, worker, professor, or student is constitutionally an American citizen because he is what his father is, and his father is a foreigner who lives in a foreign nation and remains subject to its foreign jurisdiction, -not that of the United States.   As such, his child is not covered by the 14th Amendment.

6.  A foreigner, whether immigrant or non-immigrant, cannot father a natural American because his children will either be foreign citizens only or be both foreign and native-born naturalized-at-birth U.S. citizens. They won’t be native-born natural American citizens.

7.  Anyone “native born” but with legal immigrant parents is a citizen by 14th Amendment automatic naturalization, having their foreign citizenship overlaid with naturalized American citizenship. They are dual citizens.

8.  Citizenship acquired by naturalization, (whether automatically or via process) is not natural citizenship because it was not naturally acquired.  Rather, it’s acquired, not by natural means, but via legal mean through the laws & policies of the nation.

9.  No foreigner who’s subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government, (nor one who is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government), can father a constitutionally eligible candidate for President because his children come into the world with foreign alienage attached to them.

10. No one born with foreign alienage is eligible to be President because they are/were dual citizens, not natural citizens.

Obama’s father was just such a foreigner.  Also, he was not an American immigrant, but even if he had been, his son still would not be a natural born American because his father would be an un-naturalized  foreigner, -not an American father, making him only a constitutional naturalized citizen and not a natural citizen.  Any person with such citizenship is constitutionally ineligible to hold the Office of the President. Barack Obama is such a citizen. Consequently his presidency is unconstitutional.

The Ten Rules of Natural Law Membership & Citizenship

1.  Everyone possess a natural right to be accepted as an equal member of the group into which they are born.
2.  No one possesses a natural right to be accepted as an equal member of any group into which he or she is not born.
3.  No natural group has a right to decide that the children of its natural members are not members.
4.  All natural groups have the right to decide when, how and why non-members are allowed to join their group
5.  All natural groups have a right to decide that the children of non-members are not members, even if born within the group’s territory.
6.  The location of one’s birth conveys no natural right whatsoever.
7.  No non-member who inhabits the land of a group (other than his own) and does so without the permission of the group, possesses any natural right to the full protection of the group in regard to defense against enemies or the violation of rights possessed by the members.
8.  Only non-members who have the official permission of the group to live among them are covered by the protections of the group’s rules.
9.  Children born to non-members are not natural native members of the group because they come from a mixed-blood or a foreign-blood origin.
10. Children who are not natural native members of the group, but are given permission to be members, possess no natural right to be equally eligible to be the Chief of the group.  Only natural members possess that right which they inherit from their member parents.

No one who is not a natural citizen of the United States, -who was not born to American parents, -who was born with mixed-blood or fully-foreign blood connections to a foreign power and is considered one of that foreign nations natural members through the father, is eligible to be entrusted with the knowledge of, access to, keys to and codes to nuclear weapons.  No nuclear nation on earth allows dual-citizens such access and permissions.

If immigrant parents from the former Soviet Union (or Iran) had received legal residence in the U.S. and produced children here who were constitutional citizens via the 14th Amendment, those children would never be allowed into the inner circle of Americans entrusted with the keys and launch codes for American nuclear-armed ICBMs, nor allowed to be a member of a nuclear submarine, nor a nuclear bomber squadron.  They would fail the test of possessing the necessary background criteria of full American parentage and American roots.  They would never be trusted like natural American citizens are trusted.
Yet the people of America placed into the position of Commander-in-Chief of all American military and nuclear might someone who could never be qualified to be a commander, nor even a crewmen, of any of our nuclear forces.  He wouldn’t even be trusted to serve to protect the President with a loaded weapon.  Thus, Barack Obama could never pass the requirements of natural US citizenship via birth to American parents which is required to guard himself as President.

Obama’s citizenship is not via the 14th Amendment as written because when it was written his citizenship would have been viewed as being solely that of his British-subject father.  His father could not produce a child that was not subject to the same jurisdiction as himself,  which, not being an immigrant, was British, not American.    Since he was only a transient alien here on a Visa and not a legally sanctioned immigrant his son was born as a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies (UKC subject).
Obama appeared with a highly questionable and almost mysterious citizenship, with a mysterious past, with a mysterious fake non-physical birth certificate, with mysterious hidden collegiate records and accomplishments, with a private, guarded law practice, law student/ law professor records, with mysterious friends with subversive backgrounds yet wants us all to just trust him and give him another chance to wreck the country further for another four years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SEVEN LIES THAT ELECTED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT

Ignorance is everywhere, -the deception universal.
The delusion infects all minds that are not seeking the truth.
SEVEN LIES that perpetuate Obama’s illegitimacy.

Lie #1. Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen from birth.
Lie #2  Anyone who’s a citizen from birth and can prove it is a natural born citizen.
Lie #3. Anyone with a State birth certificate is “officially” eligible to be President.
Lie #4. Only naturalized citizens are ineligible to be President.
Lie#5.  All “born citizens” are alike, whether born to foreigners or Americans.
Lie#6.  Constitutional citizenship, and natural citizenship are indistinguishable .

Lie#7.  Foreigners can be President if they’re born in the United States.

Ignorance?  Stupidity?  Group-think?  A combination of the three?  These delusions are so wide-spread that it’s unrealistic to assume that a great teacher will appear to make the American public aware of the truth.

SIX SMOKING GUNS: EVIDENCE OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY

Consolidated Fake COLB

The Significance of The “None” Anomaly pdf

The word that shouldn’t exist in its unexplainable form

 7 Separated elements with background flipped vertically (jpg)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Delegates at the Constitutional Convention who were concerned with:

  “admitting strangers into our public Councils,” and feared that
foreigners without a long residency in the country …
bring with them, not only attachments to other countries,

but ideas of Govt. so distinct from ours that in every point of view they are dangerous.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Presidential Eligibility Primer Regarding Citizenship

~Guidelines for Presidential Candidates~
~Seven Truths About Eligibility

1.  The Constitution bars anyone with only foreign citizenship from being the President.

2.  The Constitution bars anyone not born with American citizenship from being President.

3.  The Constitution bars anyone with a father who is/was a foreigner from being President.

4.  The Constitution bars all immigrant naturalized citizens from being the President.

5.  The Constitution bars any mere  “native-born citizen” from being President.

6.  The Constitution bars all but a “natural born citizen” from being President.

7. The Constitution requires age discrimination & residency discrimination.

These facts demolish the legitimacy of Barack Obama as an eligible candidate for the presidency.

He inherited only a British nationality from his father, he wasn’t “a born citizen” by being born in the U.S. because he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States through his father (as required by the 14th Amendment) but instead was subject to the jurisdiction of Britain.  Only American citizens and legal “Green Card” permanent residents are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, -not foreign tourists, diplomats, visitors, or students.

In summation: no citizenship from his father, possibly no citizenship from his mother, no citizenship from the 14th Amendment, and no natural citizenship via any of the above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The truth is what determines the legitimacy of the presidency of Barack Obama,  and it is not on his side.  He has not even attempted to provide any authentic authoritative and truthful refutation regarding the nature of his citizenship at birth, nor the authenticity of the birth document images that have been concocted on his behalf, which were not the product of the State of Hawaii, since no state in America releases digital image files as authentic birth evidence because digital files can be manipulated and counterfeited with ease on any computer, just like printing counterfeit money is now so easy to do (except for the extraordinary anti-counterfeiting measures that are now employed).  Instead he has declared that he was born subject to British jurisdiction.  Therefore he would not have even been a U.S. citizen of any type for most of American history.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.   No person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President.

ONLY NATURAL BORN CITIZENS ARE ELIGIBLE

Emmerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following: § 212.

“Citizens and natives:  The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are its citizens. As a society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.  The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.  In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is a misunderstanding and misapplication of the word “natural” to ascribe place-of-birth to its meaning.  In the Natural realm the pro-creation of a natural off-spring does not depend on place of birth, but only on two things, which are:  two parents of the same species.

It’s the same in the political realm.  A natural citizen only needs two things; namely, two parents of the same citizenship.

Is Barack Obama Constitutionally eligible to be President?   Is he a natural American citizen?  Or something else?

Natural  Natives  only come from Natives.

 Natural Citizens only come from Citizens

  What do we know about the circumstances of  Barack Obama’s origins?  The nature of his U.S. citizenship is rooted in the circumstances of his birth and parentage.  His eligibility for the office of President hinges on whether or not he can be described as a natural born citizen.

While that phrase, as used in the Constitution’s Presidential requirements, could be claimed to have a general meaning as well as a Constitutional meaning,  no Supreme Court has ever ruled on the issue regarding any President’s eligibility, but if one did, they would have to decide whether or not to ascribed a broader general meaning or the limited meaning which the framers had in mind.

They had in mind only one thing, and that is a citizen with no connection of attachment to any foreign power, -no loyalty-allegiance to, nor citizenship with a foreign  potentate, nation or geo-political group.  Citizens with foreign fathers and dual-citizenship, with the resultant dual allegiance and duties of nationality, were not to be entrusted with the most powerful office in the land.

Hence, only those born to American citizens, in particular an American father (from whom citizenship was inherited by birthright) -having no connection to a foreign power, were allowed to hold the office of the President (and later, by Constitutional amendment, the Vice-President as well).

No other form of citizenship was sufficient.  No son of a loyal subject of a foreign King, whose wife happened to deliver on U.S. soil, was to be allowed to hold the office of President, especially one raised in his father’s country to be a proud subject and supporter of His Royal Highness and a believer in his infallibility and Divine appointment to power.

Hence, without an American father one cannot be considered to be a natural  American citizen because the only citizenship that could be viewed as natural was the citizenship passed naturally from the parents to the children.   To learn more read my treatise on Birthright Citizenship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama was born as a British subject by descent from a father born in a land governed by Great Britain.
Applying the British Nationality Act of 1948 to the accepted claim that Barack Obama Jr. was fathered by Barack Obama Sr. the deduction is that Jr. was born as a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (-a type of British subject which later became by The British Nationality Act of 1981 a “British Overseas Citizen” or a citizen of the Commonwealth).

Who is a British “citizen by descent”?  The British Consular Registry determines that which defines one by this section: Section 5-1
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

Then in 1963, Obama became a Kenyan citizen according to The Constitution of Kenya, Section 87, by virtue of the fact that his father was born in the Kenya colony. “Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on llth December, 1963, as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person, shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”
Thus, Obama Jr. became a citizen of Kenya, Dec. 12, 1963, when his father became a citizen.  While the Kenyan constitution prohibits dual citizenship for those 21 years old or older, it does not do so for minors.  But without taking steps to renounce his U.S. citizenship in a formal manner before Kenyan authorities, his Kenyan citizenship expired two years after he turned 21.  He therefore was no more a Kenyan citizen via birth to a Kenyan father overseas, nor through his Kenyan expired citizenship was he any longer connected to the British Commonwealth and therefore was either solely a U.S. citizen or possibly also an Indonesian citizen by adoption unless Indonesian dual-citizenship is unacceptable, like with Kenya.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When the Constitution was written, it was universally understood that a child born to a living foreign father was not a natural born American.  But the Supreme Court of today might choose to impose its view of how “natural born citizen” should be understood and might expand its parameters to include not just birth-right citizenship being passed from the father, but also from the mother, meaning from the mother in the absence of a father.  If they so chose, then they would also have to present some guidelines for finding a father to be absent and irrelevant.

If the parents of a Presidential candidate weren’t married, nor living together when he was born, then the American mother and her child were not under the jurisdiction of a foreign father, nor that of a foreign power.  In that case, even though the child was not born to an American father, does the MIA foreign father’s nationality have any impact on whether or not his off-spring is a natural born citizen?  No one can say for certain.  The question has never been considered nor adjudicated,  -nor even arisen.

If he was a British subject due to birth to a British subject, then he would not be a natural American, even if he was a native-born citizen.   Obama would not have been born a natural citizen under the 14th amendment.   It did not touch on the citizenship of natural citizens, but rather, citizenship of all other types.  The Constitution gives Congress no power to legislate regarding natural citizens, only immigrants and foreigners.

If he were born  to  married parents, -with an American mother,  and the foreign father was a naturalized citizen, the son would be deemed a natural born citizen via birth to citizen parents.

The nature of his citizenship is not determined solely by his place of birth but by his parentage and the jurisdiction his parents were, or were not, under.  But being deemed to be a U.S. citizen is quite different from being born a natural  citizen.
If a child was under British jurisdiction through the connection with the father, that would deny him birth as a natural  American citizen, even though he would be entitled to US citizenship due to his connection with his mother -if he were born in the US.
The 14th Amendment states that all persons born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens. ( It does not say they are natural born citizens because it was not written to proclaim, define nor declare the citizenship of those who are automatically citizens).  It was written for freed slaves and children of immigrants and foreign fathers.

Foreign citizens are under the protection of their own nation’s sovereignty over its citizens so they are not citizens of the United States nor in subjection to its jurisdiction. Thus, if one is born on US soil to foreign tourists, he/she is not a US citizen at birth. But if foreign parents are no longer under foreign jurisdiction due to legal residence , then their off-spring would rightly be considered US citizens at birth, but not natural born citizens because they lacked American parents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are (“natural born” citizens”  and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth.  They were not granted citizenship via that US statute, rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities.  They were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.

If it were certain that everyone in the State Department would always get it right, then the statute would not need to have been written nor included in an immigration statute.  But confusion and ignorance are unavoidable in the people who administer the regulatory power of the nation.  Therefore for unusual circumstances (birth abroad), codifying natural law eliminated confusion and misunderstanding.    Consequently, they could be described as both natural citizens and statutory citizens since the statue did not explain the principle by which they were recognized as citizens.  It’s left as an unanswered question, a question answerable only by the principle of natural law.

The next Congress repealed that Act and re-wrote it, dropping the reference to natural born citizen because the Act was unrelated to the issue of Presidential eligibility.  The phrase “nature born citizens” has never since been included in any United States statute.  It remains as it was in the beginning, -a term defined by its common language meaning and has never yet been defined by the Supreme Court.  If they can avoid it, it never will be.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP

The conduct of a foreign person and his compliance with U.S. policy, tradition, and law.
The circumstances of one’s birth, i.e. its location and the nationality of the parents.
The actions and guidelines of the INS officers who administer immigration policy.
The directives of their superiors who head the INS.
The opinions, written and spoken, of the Attorney General -the head of the Justice Dept.
The policy stance of the White House.
The force of Congressional legislation.
The force of constitutional law, in particular the 1st section of the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution is not underlying the above factors because it doesn’t deal with citizenship issues.
Underlying all of the above is unwritten fundamental natural law and the principle of natural membership.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While it can’t be proven that Obama is not a U.S. citizen, it can’t be proven that he was one at birth since it can’t be proven that he was even born within the United States.  The digital images that his office has posted online are rife with signs of manipulation that can’t be explained as legitimate and are not backed-up by any hard-copy that has ever been shown to the public or to experts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If he was born in Vancouver (http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/the-vancouver-scenario/ ) or Kenya, then he definitely was not an American citizen at birth because his mother was too young to convey American citizenship to him under U.S. law in effect at that time.  So he’s not natural born via natural law, nor “native-born” via the 14th Amendment since his father was not a legal registered immigrant and therefore was not “subject to (U.S.) jurisdiction” a la the 14th Amendment.  And, possibly he’s not even a U.S. citizen.  But the ignoramuses who administer immigration law view him, and every Tom-Dick-&-Harry illegal immigrant born here, as being a citizen.  Then his bamboozled supporters make the gigantic leap of proclaiming all domestically born citizens to be natural born citizens.  To them the word “natural” has no meaning whatsoever because if it does, then it means he is illegitimately serving as President.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama’s birth.

The Meaning of Natural Born

The legitimacy of the presidency of Barack Obama rests on the meaning of the words “natural born citizen”.  Those words were not invented by a King, a Pope, a Lord, a Judge, a Parliamentarian, a Governor, or a legal scholar.  It is not an invented phrase with a meaning assigned by its inventor.  It is nothing more than simple English words used in conjunction for emphasis of what they were intended to describe.  They were intended to describe Americans who are the off-spring of American parents and no others.
The words “natural” and “born” are closely connected and related in a semi-redundant way that reinforces the purpose and meaning of both of them.

Natural relates to natural law, and how in nature things are what they are due to natural processes, such as pro-creation, as opposed to unnatural or artificial processes that do not follow a natural pattern.

Born refers to the natural pattern of conception, gestation, and birth.  That process produces a natural entity, -such as a cub, a kitten, a puppy, a pony, or a child.  Born does not have any connection to geography, nor man-made boundaries, nor made-made rules.  It has no connection to location.  In the natural realm, the location where a birth takes place has no connection to the origin of that which is born.
Born only refers to the conclusion of the organic process of the reproduction & transmission of life and nature from parents to child.  It is not dependent on boundaries, soil, gravity, or even the earth itself.  It can occur in outer-space.  The product of birth is a replication of the nature of the parents, whether it be their species, breed, or group affiliation.

By the process leading to birth, the one born is endowed with the same nature as the parents.  And group membership, along with that nature, is also transmitted to them.  That membership can be in a clan, a tribe, a colony/state, or a nation.   They are born into it, -not adopted nor granted membership as is required for outsiders .  Membership is theirs by birth.   Their membership is natural membership because it is by natural reproduction.

Natural reproduction does not include reproduction via a union with one who is not a member.  Such a union only produces a hybrid, -half member, half outsider.  That membership is not describable as natural because its origin is not via the pattern of natural-birth membership because hybrids of all kinds are unnatural, whether they be in botany, animal husbandry, wild nature, human society, or politics.
Any type or source of membership that is other than that produced by the natural pattern fails the test of being natural.  The source of its legitimacy is not natural inheritance but human choice, human permission, human law.  No one whose membership is via human permission is a natural member of any group.  No one whose citizenship is via human law is a natural member of any nation.
In America, there is no law by which natural citizens possess citizenship.  It is an unwritten law.  It never needed to be written because it was an unalienable right and an element of Natural Rights that humans are endowed with by their Creator.

With a visiting student foreigner (non-immigrant, non-permanent resident), as a father whose membership in the British Empire was the natural inheritance transmitted to his child, Barack Obama possessed no unalienable right to American citizenship because he was not a natural born citizen, but was instead a hybrid with no natural citizenship in any nation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I ask;  “What is the nature of Panamanian-born John McCain’s citizenship?  Is it natural citizenship or statutory citizenship?”  Congress has proclaimed him to be a natural born citizen by a vote of 99-0. Those who claim that native-birth creates natural citizens will avoid attempting to answer it because they know that the answer undermines the entire basis of their fallacious notion about why Obama should be accepted as legitimate.  McCain’s natural citizenship came from his American parents, not where he was born.

Failure to answer my question shows that all of the Titanic captains (which they worship as infallible experts) have made the same grave error by doing what they’ve been doing, namely, relying on  opinions of previous “experts” who relied on earlier “experts” who made erroneous assumptions based on the unnatural institution of monarchical rule legitimized by “the Divine Right of Kings” during the one & a half centuries of colonial rule, and not on the natural law of Natural Rights endowed to man by the Creator.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An inescapable fact is that even Republicans are mentally bound by group-think, and thinking that the President of the United States is illegitimate is beyond where their minds are capable of going.  They are a part of the process and power structure and thus were complicit in allowing his election.

That guaranteed them that no objection would be raised to John McCain’s eligibility.  They thought he might win so they were silent and unthinking.  Now they are painted into a corner in which it is unacceptable to question the legitimacy of the President of the United States, -as if that would be an affront to the Office of the President and the dignity of the first mixed-race victor in the battle for the White House, when in fact, not doing so is an affront to the Constitution.

Even so, speaking the truth may be calling for the dispensing of medicine that is worse than the disease, -the disease that’s part of the gangrene of the body politic which is rotting from within with each new unconstitutional mandate passed by Congress or the Supreme Court or Executive Order.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The loyalty of only the President is an issue addressed in the Constitution because of the power he wields.  The holders of no other federal offices are required to be natural born citizens, only the President.  I’ll post the Presidential oath of office when I get inspired to find it.  But here’s
The United States Oath of Allegiance for Naturalization  (its shows the length to which foreigners with dual allegiance must go to strip themselves of it and the doubt as to their loyalty to America and the Constitution that a second allegiance raises.

( The first officially recorded Oaths of Allegiance were made on May 30th, 1778 at Valley Forge)

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;… so help me God.”

compiled by a.r. nash

continued on Page 2   Click Here


http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Blog

The Obama File -dark suspicions

Natural Born Citizenship blog

Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer

The Patriot Post

American Thinker -Conspiracy to Hide a Supreme Court Holding

Constitutionally Speaking -Conspiracy to Alter the Constitution

Liberty Legal Foundation -Government Proclaims “No Limits on Congressional Power”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/media-cover-up-of-obama-impeachment-exposed/
PriklyPetesays:

This is not just about “BO”, it’s about the entire White House and the pigs now feeding from the public trough. They’ve trashed our Constitution, opened our borders, stole our social security, and all tax dollars the American Public have paid, borrowed more money than god could have ever imagined and continue their smoke screen while making this country a third world nation. Our war should not be with third world nations but with Washington, [Republicrats included] these pigs need to be removed physically before this nation is gone. DO NOT SIT FAT, DUMB, AND HAPPY, GET UP AND DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

FiddlerBobsays:

Impeachment is only appropriate for a legally seated President. Mr. Obama may not even be a citizen. His entire presidency needs to be declared null and void.

Mr. Obama is not and has never been constitutionally eligible for the office of POTUS. Not only do we have the arguments presented here and elsewhere to show that he is clearly not eligible, we have his own stipulation that he was born under British jurisdiction and his sponsorship of SR 511 which serves as a signed confession that he has known all along that he is not eligible and has perpetrated this fraud in a very premeditated manner.

Mr. Obama needs to be arrested and charged immediately. An investigation also needs to be launched simultaneously to secure from our halls of governance the rest of the treasonous vermin who have knowingly enabled Mr. Obama’s insidious attack on our constitution and our sovereign Republic. This includes not only those sworn to protect and defend the Constitution who have remained silent, but the puppet masters behind the scenes.

It’s definitely time for some serious Spring cleaning.

Patriot1776says:

The man who calls himself the President of the United States should not only be removed from that position but tried for his crimes against the United States. His co-conspirator, Nancy Pelosi should also share his demise. She knew when she sent his nomination papers to the Democrat National Committee that he was not eligible to be President. She removed from that document the words :”natural born citizen” before submitting it. However, the Democrat Committee in charge of the nomination did not challenge the removal of that passage, therefore, they, as well as she, have committed Treason long before the imposter did and should suffer the same consequences, whether they are re-elected or not. The sooner we rid our nation of these traitors, the sooner we can bring this nation back to what is was meant to be.

flag

Old Glory

Jus Soli & Jus Sanguinis Citizenship vs. Obama’s Legitimacy

Understanding Presidential eligibility: To understand the Constitution’s requirement that no one is allowed to serve as President except a natural born citizen it is necessary to understand the fundamentals of citizenship. There are two types of citizenship at birth. One is based on a natural principle while the other is based on a policy. The natural principle is that off-spring are the same as their parents and become upon birth the new natural members of their parents’ group. That is the principle of natural membership, and it applies to all natural social groups, -including families, clans, tribes, countries and nations.
National membership by policy is based on an ancillary fact related to child birth and that is the jurisdiction into which one enters the world. That policy has an ancient name known as “jus soli” or Right of Soil while the natural principle goes by the ancient name of “jus sanguinis” or Right of Blood.
In some nations one or both of those are encoded into the law. That is not the case in the United States although it was true in one or more of the founding States of the Union. The United States only recognizes the Right of Blood in its written code of law but only in the context of foreign birth. In regard to domestic birth there is no specific language which recognizes either of the two.

The Constitution does not use either terms in regard to presidential eligibility so we must discern which of the two it refers to by the words “natural born citizen”. Is one a natural born citizen by jus soli or by jus sanguinis?
Law can make one a citizen but it must be on some basis. It must pick one or the other, -or…a law can be worded so vaguely or ambiguously that everyone is confused, -or instead everyone may be absolutely certain due to bias, applied logic, or misapplied logic. So to solve the riddle we must dissect the amorphous nature of a very clouded issue. We can do that by asking a series of questions, beginning with: “Can one be a jus soli citizen in more than one nation?”

The obvious answer is “no” because borders do not overlap. They are discreet and so one cannot be born in two countries. Next question is: “Can one be a jus sanguinis citizen of more than one nation?” The obvious answer is “yes” if one’s parents are not from the same nation and both of their nations impute citizenship to off-spring of its citizens.
The next question is : “Can one be both a jus soli citizen and a jus sanguinis citizen? The obvious answer is “yes” if one is born either in a nation other than that of the parents, -in a nation which bestows citizenship to children born within its borders (like Canada and the U.S.) or is born in either of those nations but with a parent that was from another nation, -one which bestows citizenship to off-spring of its citizens when born abroad.
The final question is: “Can one be a jus soli citizen and a jus sanguinis citizen in three different nations?” The not so obvious answer is “yes”. Ted Cruz is just such a citizen since he was born in Canada (a jus soli Canadian) to an American mother and a Cuban father (jus sanguinis citizenship twice over).

But the answers to those questions do not shed light on what constitutes a natural born citizen, so we must explore what its parameters are. Firstly, natural born citizens are all born being citizens, but confusion does not end there because some are born being citizens by jus soli and the rest (the 97%) are born being citizens by jus sanguinis. So the question then becomes: “Does jus sanguinis produce natural citizenship or does the coincident location of one’s exit from the womb produce natural citizenship?”

To answer that we only need consider the natural law principle of natural membership. Does the location of a newborn’s exit from it’s mother’s womb result in it being of the same species as its parents and belonging to their same group as a new member? The answer is obvious. A natural citizen, like a natural member, is not the result of where birth takes place but of what citizenship one inherits as their “political” nature. One’s national membership from birth is either the result of natural inheritance or is the result of national law (or policy), -which is a legal determinant, and not a natural determinant.
Being born a citizen can be the result of either but being born a natural citizen cannot, because, unlike birth, there is nothing natural about legal citizenship. It is imposed by the will and rules of rulers, and has no basis in natural principle unless they impose a rule that natural citizenship shall be the law of the land.

We have no such law, nor do we have its opposite, hence the confusion. That is nothing new since it dates back many centuries to eras that were so far removed from the fundamental principle of national membership that confusion arose due to the undue influence of the Crown to extend its umbrella of ownership over all persons born within the King’s dominion. He and his minions imposed the rule of jus soli on top of jus sanguinis thereby creating confusion where none had existed before. The resulting confusion has existed ever since, except where it was created. The British eventually renounced jus soli as the law of the land but that came only long after the power of the Crown was neutered. Eventually they corrected the bastardization of citizenship principle in a major rewrite of their nationality and naturalization law, but that has not happened in the United States and so confusion still reigns.
But the confusion here is even worse because people have no idea that one cannot be a jus soli citizen as well as a foreign jus sanguinis citizen and still be a natural citizen when such a birth circumstance results instead in not being a natural citizen of either nation. Just as one cannot be a jus soli citizen of one’s parents’ nation if the parents are of two nations and one was not born in either, so also one cannot be a natural born citizen of one nation while also being a natural born citizen of another nation through parents of different nationalities. Similarly, a mule is not a natural member of either parents’ breed of equine because it is not a natural horse -like one parent, nor a natural donkey, like the other. It is unnatural because it is a sterile hybrid. Barack Obama is just such a hybrid citizen as acknowledged by all including himself, but what he has never called himself is a natural born citizen. He has claimed since running for President that he is a native born citizen but native born citizens are not eligible to be President unless they are also natural born citizens, which he is not.

But it is even worse than that because Barack Obama is not even a United States citizen by jus sanguinis (since his mother was too young to impart U.S. citizenship to him by law or policy), nor was his father able to not impart Kenyan citizenship to him by Kenyan and British law, nor was Obama Jr. able to obtain jus soli citizenship since that would require that he be born to a father who was a legal immigrant as mandated by the 14th Amendment, -which his father was not.

So his citizenship is non-existent except as a presumption based on an erroneous policy instituted in 1898 which became the de facto law-of-the-land even though it was in fact just an institutionalized error of misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment in that year.
One can argue that Barack Obama absolutely is a U.S. citizen but one cannot argue that they can show exactly where in the U.S. Code that the circumstances of his birth results in U.S. citizenship.

If the “facts” of his birth are as he claims, and he was born somewhere in the United States, then he is not a U.S. citizen by U.S. law, but he would be if his mother had been several months older and he was born abroad, then the Code would cover him and he would be a U.S. citizen. But he is not a citizen by mere location of birth because the 14th Amendment requires more than that, much more, -namely a parent who is potentially subject to the most fundamental obligation of citizenship, -that being the obligation to defend the nation. Immigrant fathers are subject to that obligation but foreign temporary guests are not, and his father was only a temporary guest and not an American nor an immigrant, thus leaving him devoid of citizenship that’s based on birth in the United States and full subjection to its government.
As such, he is a charlatan, a fraud, a liar, a counterfeiter, a fake, a usurper, a deceiver and a traitor to the very Constitution that he took a lying oath to protect and defend. That oath was written in part to protect the nation from imposters such as him.
But he is not the only problem since we are also plagued by an entire government, national media, and State governments that silently and complicitly allowed him to be accepted as a candidate, with charisma, charm, and high hopes nullifying any allegiance to the requirement of the Constitution.

It sounds like a conspiracy. It was in fact a perfect storm of ignorance, indifference, biased preference, broad political corruption, and national conspiracy at the highest level of the Democrat party. We now know that he bolstered his irrelevant claim of domestic birth by concocting a 9-layer counterfeit digital abstract image of a Hawaiian birth certificate. It, like the honesty and integrity of union dominated, self-serving political hacks in the U.S. government give one the realization that it is unlikely that one can be overly suspicious about what those in government are willing to do to protect their well-feathered nests and political agendas.

Hopefully the current confluence of government corruption, over-reach, and conspiracy of cover-up will nudge the closed minds of those with no consciousness of what constitutes ineligibility to begin to suspect that perhaps there is something suspicious about Obama’s citizenship, along with the self-evident fraudulence of his counterfeit so-called “birth certificate” cyber document. But revelations will have to become much more shocking for that to definitely happen. Knowing what we know now, if Congress does its duty, that will eventually happen, and with all the importance riding on the next election, it needs to happen.

The Greatest Fraud in Human History

Americans vs United States Citizens

    I have a simple question for you, one whose answer will fracture your mind.  You will have absolute certainty as to its answer, but you will not know the reality behind your answer because you do not understand the subject asked about.  The question is this:”Are you an American Citizen?”

   That seems like a very straight forward simple question, and yet it is a very complex question at heart because it is a cross-species type of question that is inherently unnatural since it combines the oil of national membership with the water of national citizenship.  Huh?

   Being a member of American society (our country) is not the same thing as being a citizen of our nation.   In various ways you can be one without being the other because nations are something other than countries.
Nations are legal political entities created by the natural members of a country, -or by those who conquer them.  The natural members of the country, the natives,  then become the citizens of the nation.

   When Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait, the Kuwaitis had to flee their country, yet their nation continued to exist in absentia.  Saddam planned to create a new nation of Kuwait with new citizens who were Iraqi but none of them would have been natives nor natural members of the country.  [fyi, actually, he simply annexed Kuwait into Iraq.]

The question of nationality is multi-fold since it involves not only the nature of being a native but also of being a citizen.  Those don’t seem like anything but simple subjects, but reality is not as simple as it seems.
There are different ways to be both, and those differences are enormous.  One can be an American and yet not be a United States citizen.  And conversely, one can be a citizen of the United States and yet not be an American.  Those facts are due to abnormal origins or abnormal environments.

One can be brought into the United States as a toddler by parents who are illegal immigrants, raised in America and acculturated as an American, -knowing no other homeland, possessing American values, and yet not be a citizen of the United States, nor possess any right to become one.

~TAMPA, Fla., Oct 2 (Reuters) – Florida’s Supreme Court on Tuesday grilled attorneys on the implications of issuing a law license to an undocumented immigrant and law school graduate who passed the Florida Bar exam after disclosing he was in the United States illegally.

As 26-year-old Jose Manuel Godinez-Samperio of Mexico watched the proceedings from the gallery, one judge  accused the Florida Board of Bar Examiners of putting the state in an awkward situation.

Godinez-Samperio legally entered the country with his parents when he was 9, but the family over-stayed its tourist visas.  His father and mother, both professionals in Mexico, took farming and factory jobs while Godinez-Samperio became an Eagle Scout, high school valedictorian and a graduate of Florida State University’s law school.
~   ~   ~
Such Americans are loyal only to the United States since it is their only home and only preferred nation, yet they may be raised in an environment where there are many native-born citizens with no loyalty whatsoever to the United States, its laws, its other citizens, nor its Constitution.  They being the criminal class of citizens, the gang class of citizens, and the welfare class of citizens.

But there’s another type of citizen that is equally non-American.  It’s those naturalized citizens who did not mean a word of the oath of Allegiance and Renunciation that they swore.  They, like the younger of the Boston bombers, may have been socialized as Americans, (or as members of Western civilization) but were never philosophically American in their view of human rights, constitutional governance, individual worth and national allegiance.

If their Dagestanian parents had become naturalized, then they would have become derivative citizens through them.  They would have then been United States citizens, but they would still not have been Americans.

So to be an American is an undefined thing except in the general political sense of being a member of the nation.  We have a President who is politically and socially an American, but he is not an American in the most important sense, -that of being an American philosophically.

That involves having a significant sense of respect for the founders of the nation and the values they honored as the fundamental political principles of human governance, -values which they based our revolution on, as well as the government that they later created, -a one of a kind in human history.
Those values, and that charter of government are not honored and respected by tens of millions of people that we have to call Americans because they were born in the U.S. even though their values could be as alien as those of Nazis, Communists, narco-terrorists, and mass-murdering Islamic supremacists.

But those aren’t the extremes we generally face.  Rather, we face those with values, kept under the vest, that are subtle, incremental, progressive promotions of “social justice”, “General Welfare”, “common good”, benevolent authoritarianism, intrusive nannyism, unrestrained and redistributive spending, and all executed as perversions and violations of constitutional limited government that respects the constitutional rights of the States and the citizens that comprise the nation.

Similarly, being a citizen is not the same as being a native of a country.  The government cannot create new natives but it can create new citizens.  Nevertheless, it cannot create new natural citizens, yet it can deem all citizens to be natural citizens by fundamentally embracing the American fiction of law that all citizens are equal to natural citizens and therefore are viewed as being nothing other than natural citizens.

That is the fundamental philosophy of citizenship in the United States, and by it all naturalized citizens become not just legal citizens but also natural citizens because they have been “made natural” by the natural-ization process.  They are not said to be citizen-ized because their citizenship goes beyond simply being legal members of the nation.  By that fiction of law, they are identical to natural citizens in every way except for employment in critical positions involving national security, including the presidency.

Those born as natural citizens cannot be “unmade” because they were never “made citizens” in the first place.  They were born as citizens, just as a lion is born as a lion.  Its lion-ness cannot be rescinded because it isn’t something that it possesses.  It is what it is by nature.  So also, natural citizens are members of their country and nation by nature, -political nature, -not by law.

That truth is  so fundamental, so primal, so origin-al, so “a priori” that law was never needed to declare such an automatic self-evident truth, -and so there is no law by which you are an American nor a citizen, -unless you are Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal.  Then law is absolutely necessary for your citizenship because you were not the natural product of American parents.   They did not inherit American citizenship from an American father and mother.  Their citizenship is purely legal, and not natural.

The “Law” which grants the latter two legal citizenship is the 14th Amendment (1868), or rather, the Supreme Court’s re-interpretation of it in 1898 (US v Wong Kim Ark).  It makes the native-born children of immigrants into American citizens by automatic naturalization at birth, -by the authority of law.  But law cannot make one a natural citizen.  It only makes one a legal citizen.  All naturalized citizens are legal citizens and vice versa but not all naturalized citizens are born with citizenship since not all were born in the United States.

But for those who were, there are two distinct and surprising facts.  The 14th Amendment ["All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..."] does not declare them in plain language to be U.S. citizens [the Supreme Court took it upon itself to do that, and not by a unanimous vote], and they have no proof that they are American citizens.
That puts them into the same category as natural citizens born of American parents in that they also have no actual plainly written and understood law by which they are citizens, nor any proof that they are.*

Those foreigners who are naturalized by process and oath have proof of citizenship in the form of their naturalization papers or citizenship certificate from the federal government, but you, a child of American parents, have no such papers or certificate to prove your nationality.  All you and 14th Amendment native-born Americans have is birth documentation that is accepted as evidence of citizenship even though such documents were not meant to serve that purpose.  They were created as a record of birth registration for things such as inheritance, and proof of ownership or guardianship of one’s own children, -not proof of nationality.

If all nations were equal, there would exist no motivation to do everything that one could do to secure citizenship in another nation.   But nations are not equal, and so there is a very strong reason to seek admission into superior nations, especially when one can find work or go on welfare.

How is admission obtained for legal entry?  By the production of evidence of native birth, even if that evidence is fabricated.  Why isn’t native birth synonymous with citizenship?  Because for 97% of the population, citizenship is something that is inherited.

For the others it’s obtained legally by process or by domestic birth naturalization which only requires that the parents be immigrants and not citizens.  For such citizenship one does not have to present evidence of being the off-spring of American citizens, -only evidence of a U.S. birth location.  That evidence is always in the form of a birth certificate.  But that certificate can’t prove the thing that it is used for.

Its proof of native birth is not proof of citizenship.  Citizenship must be inferred from it, -as a presumption, -a presumption that one was not the child of a foreign diplomat or a foreign tourist.  Their children are born to people who are subject to a foreign power and not to the United States government.  As such, they are, by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, not citizens of the United States.  And besides them, there were the Native Americans also, who were not citizens of the United States until well into the 20th century.

So native birth is not “proof” of citizenship; it’s only evidence of a very high probability.  That probability is so high (following Native Americans being declared citizens) that native birth is accepted as de facto proof of citizenship.  And for that reason, birth certificate counterfeiting became a cottage industry for official but fraudulent  citizenship.  A counterfeit birth certificate can be used to obtain legitimate secondary documents which can then be used to obtain a real birth certificate.   Presto!  Citizenship that is legal while being at the same time criminal.

That perfunctory presumption of citizenship is applied to all native-born persons without distinction; -whether they be children of Americans, children of immigrants, children,  “non-immigrant aliens” or children of illegal aliens.  The presumption of citizenship covers them all.  But the law itself does not.

Alien-born children birthed within U.S. borders to foreign parents lacking a Green Card and its permanent residency permission,  do not qualify by law for citizenship, and yet the presumption is extended to them anyway.  That is the way it’s been done for seemingly forever, -so long that it predates everyone living, –unless born in 1898. It was in that year that a new form of citizenship was created which had never before existed in America.

It was as radical as declaring the children of foreign diplomats to be Americans since it declared U.S. birthed children of foreign visitors to be Americans as well as those of Consular Officers hired as civil service employees (not appointed by their government and given diplomatic immunity).

Why on earth would their children be viewed by any sane person as being Americans?  Their parents may serve in a consular office for a number of years and then return to their own country, perhaps even before a U.S. born child is old enough to enter kindergarten.

But the blanket presumption of citizenship is extended to children of all who don’t have diplomatic immunity.  Why?  Because of ignorance of fundamental principles of citizenship.  That ignorance became institutionalized in 1898 after the Attorney General (John Griggs) misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment when he assumed incorrectly that not only the children of immigrants (like Mr. Wong) are deemed to be citizens, but the children of all aliens of every sort are citizens including Visa Card visitors and illegal immigrants and migrants, (-excepting only those of diplomats).   That error is what created the new form of citizenship; citizenship by a policy based on presumption rather than by the actual law of the land.

We can call them political citizens or national policy citizens because their citizenship was created by and is perpetuated by political appointees who occupy the office of the Attorney General of the United States.  As the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government, his policy is in effect the law of the land even though it is not actual law.  It can be overturned by the federal courts or by the President or by the A.G. himself.
But the 14th Amendment can’t, nor can the unwritten citizenship of natural citizens.

The confusion surrounding citizenship is becoming clearer.  It’s all pretty much based on presumption, usually correctly so, but sometimes incorrectly so because:

1.  Native birth alone is not proof of citizenship.
2.  A birth certificate is not proof of citizenship.
3.  A birth certificate may be proof of nothing since it may be counterfeit.
4.  Natural citizens cannot point to any law by which their citizenship exists.
5.  Native-born children of immigrants have no hard-copy proof of citizenship.
6.  Native-born children of non-immigrants have no legal basis for citizenship
7.  Only naturalized citizens and those born abroad have government citizenship papers.
8.  Citizenship by political policy is not the same as citizenship by actual law.
9.  All citizens are lumped together as natural citizens by a fiction of law.
10.  By that fiction, no citizen’s citizenship can be revoked because all are natural citizens.

How do these facts relate to the Presidency?
If John McCain had lived his whole life in Panama where he was born, he would not be eligible to be President unless he moved to the U.S. and lived here for 14 years (and was 35 years old).  If he never did move to the U.S., then his children would not only not be eligible to be President, they would not even be Americans.
Marco Rubio, born in the U.S. to Cuban exiles, was a 14th Amendment citizen, a legal citizen, a born citizen, but not a natural citizen since his parents were not Americans.
Ted Cruz, born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father was both an American and a Cuban by birth, -and a Canadian by place of birth.  He was a hybrid citizen with triple citizenship.  He may have citizenship papers from an American consulate in Canada.

No dual or triple citizen with a foreign father is eligible to be President.  He is not a natural citizen because his parents had different nationalities, being members of different nations, nor is he a constitutional 14th Amendment citizen since he was born outside of the United States.  He is a statutory citizen only, -and only that if his mother was 19 years old when he was born.

Barack Obama, birth place unknown and unproven by any hard-copy certified official paper document,  eye-witness, natal photo, or released sworn statement by anyone, cannot point to any proof of citizenship via evidence of native birth, nor evidence from a non-forged birth certificate, nor proof via any law ever passed, or Supreme Court decision rendered, nor proof that his mother was single and he therefore inherited her citizenship instead of only that of his father, -which he would have if only she wasn’t too young to legally convey her citizenship to him.

All he has as a basis to claim he is even a citizen of the United States is the presumptuous political policy put in place by Attorney General Griggs.  It promoted the false assumption that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, instead of only immigrants’ children (as was the finding of the Supreme Court that year).
Being the child of a women too young to be eligible to provide him citizenship, and the child of a non-immigrant alien not subject to the full political authority of the American government, his citizenship is purely an American fiction of ignorance and presumption.
He is not a natural citizen, a naturalized citizen, a constitutional citizen, a statutory citizen, a derivative citizen, nor a provisional citizen, but he is a presumptive political policy citizen.  Needless to say, none of those types of citizenship provide eligibility to be the President except the first.

So some clarity can be had as to just what kind of citizenship he actually has, and in a previous exposition (Obama; Fraud to the Core) I explored why he is not what we natural citizens would consider as one of our American brethren from the ideological perspective, making him neither a real citizen nor a true American by nature, by law, nor by attitude and philosophy.

But the purpose of this exposition is to expose a travesty of fraudulence equal to those two, and it concerns his secret and hidden background and story.
I’m not referring to his contrived “autobiography” “Dreams from my Father” which was concocted and cobbled together by Bill Ayers from recollections by Barry O., instead I’m referring to something that has received no scrutiny of any sort since there was no interest, -or no source of information to ascertain the truth.  I’m referring to his professional accomplishments before elected office.

As everyone knows, he was a “community organizer” working for Leftist programs and foundations, including an Annenberg foundation which he co-chaired with former political bomber Bill Ayers, one of his neighbors and the owner of the home where Obama’s political career was launched..
But even before political office he was something else, something professional, something accomplished and reputable.  He was a Harvard Law School graduate, an Illinois lawyer and a Columbia U. law lecturer.  But there was one problem with that history.  There is nothing to support its foundation.

Its foundation is the acquisition of a degree from Columbia University, ** a Law degree from Harvard, and the acquisition of a license to practice law in Illinois by taking and passing the State Bar Exam.
But is there any proof supporting those claims, or was there even a claim of being a licensed attorney ever  made by Obama’s own mouth?  The truth of the matter is not determined by what someone wrote, or what he may have claimed.    Instead it is either provable or it is a deliberate fiction.  I contend that it is absolutely not provable and is in fact pure fiction.

I contend that Obama is worse than an Affirmative Action student given lots of passes but instead was a total fraud made possible by big money and influential backing.  After all, if you are going to be a partial fraud, why would you be adamantly opposed to being a total fraud?  Would honestly and integrity prevent that when you have neither one regarding academic & professional accomplishment and credentials?  Who needs integrity when covert elite sponsors keep opening all the doors for you?
I contend that simple logic and a total absence of evidence to the contrary lead to the conclusion that Barack Obama never earned a law degree from Harvard nor a license to practice law in Illinois, -which (along with Chicago) is home to endemic corruption.   Being awarded a degree and earning one are two different things.

The logic behind that conclusion is based on a few facts, the first of which is general in nature.  It is a fact that our whole corrupt public education system passes failing students on to the next higher grade in spite of failing grades.  In college there are similarly loose standards.  They result in straight A students receiving the same degree as straight D students just as all High School graduates received the same diploma.  Lack of merit is not punished by the system.  All are equal.  In such a system we see talented High School athletes who are semi-literate being given scholarships so they can bring in big bucks to the college or university via sports victories on the court or the field.  Academic integrity does not exist when it is systematically eclipsed by big money.   Think of Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky and how big money influenced that whole scandal, along with the fact that University Presidents across the land are fired frequently.

But big money can come in not only via the public game tickets, but via benefactors who make huge donations to the endowment funds.  Just ask yourself, -How many open doors would a $100 million dollar donation buy?  The answer is: All of them.

But they can be bought for far less in fact.  $10 million would probably buy a whole boat load of accommodation for one future-star student, as would $1,000,000.  By attending classes, or not, and earning all D grades via overly generous faculty grading which allows extra credit for whatever, one would eventually graduate with a degree in something or other, even if at the very bottom of the class, like the spoiled and lazy children of the elites such as George W. Bush and John McCain (who finished 5th from last in his Annapolis class).

College, to many if not most American males, is a time to freely get drunk and do drugs, and one Barry Soetoro no doubt carried his Hawaiian laid-back dope-smoking attitude to Occidental college with him, but those who smoke drugs aren’t big users of booze so he wouldn’t have had a problem of giving up alcohol when he was reacquainted with his Muslim background via his wealthy Pakistani Muslim room-mate who brought him to Pakistan with him in 1981.
He may have been the benefactor that provided Obama with the ring that he wears to this day.  The inscription that circles it in Arabic is identified to say something translatable as “NO GOD BUT ALLAH” or “1 God, Allah”.

“Finally, during the week of 14-18th of January 2010, just on the eve of my winter tour to the US, Rachel picked up a Nile TV broadcast in which Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit said on the “Round Table Show” that he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of a Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda. He asked that the Moslem world show patience.”  (attribution unnoted)

A recent world-wide Pew survey found that around 90% of Pakistanis believe in things like death for conversion to another religion, amputation and beatings for theft.  So it’s for certain that his visit to Pakistan was more than a mere sight-seeing excursion since the pervasive influence of Islam would have been everywhere, and he may have attended a mosque with his host and friend and his family, and might have bowed is head to the ground as they do en mass, and prayed with them.  It’s an expected behavior of such a society.

    Via that trip and experience, which, like his time at Columbia University, he has never discussed, reverence for Islam was deeply re-infused into his consciousness, -and his attitude and comments reflect just that, including bowing to the King of the land of “the Prophet”, his numerous references to “the Holy Koran”, which no Christian on earth would ever so describe, his many direct relatives who are active Muslims who promote, with Saudi backing, the spread of Islam and its influence, -the atmosphere in the U.S. military that made any criticism of anything Islamic so unthinkable that the insane and radicalized Major Hassan was never confronted or challenged regarding his growing and open radicalization which ended with the slaughter of 13 unarmed Americans in the Fort Hood cafeteria, along with 32 wounded, -and the removal of all reference to Islamic terrorism and violent Muslim Jihad in government training manuals.

But Islam was only one of two influences on him.  Indoctrination by “Frank” or “Pop” (as shared in his ghost-written “autobiography) inculcated Marxist ideology into him since he, the African-American Frank Marshall Davis, was his adult mentor in Hawaii throughout his years there from 10 to when he left Hawaii for California.  As a Black adult role-model, Barry’s grandparents regularly drove him to Frank’s home for Afro-American Marxist mentoring.

It’s unknown if they were strong supporters of the American Communist Party as was he, along with being the publisher of a communist periodical [as well as being a photographer who shot nude photos of Barry's mom before he was born and sold them to girly magazines].

Clearly, Barry was born and raised off in the far fringe of society’s edges with no roots in the mainland of America, the history of America, the reverence for American heartland values, and the political philosophy on which our nation was founded and our Revolution inspired.  His roots were somewhere altogether different, -in international third-world consciousness, [Indonesia, as with his anthropologist mother], in Kenyan ancestry, in drug culture, -in island laziness and idleness and, -in Marxism, and Islam. ***

They are all anti-American and diametrically opposed to what made America the nation that it once was.  Those are values to which he is obligated to give lip service, but which he has never personally embraced, just as he has never personally embraced salvation through Christ the redeemer and sacrificial Lamb of God all while pretending falsely to be a Christian convert since that, like American values, gets more votes and neutralizes inquiry into his true background and mind-set.  As a consequence, nearly all Black Christians voted for him though he is known to not hold their values in any esteem  and even holds views diametrically opposed to their Bible-based beliefs.

There is reason to believe that Obama never passed the Illinois State Bar Exam and yet was allowed to pass himself off as a lawyer based solely on his Harvard law degree thanks to big money and big influence being behind him.  But before explaining why, lets make plain the fact that facts are completely missing regarding everything about his professional accomplishments.  Nothing is documented.  No incontestable records are available, and I contend that that is because they would reveal academic inferiority, or because they simply do not exist because he didn’t accomplish anything via the usual academic channels.
When you look for facts to substantiate his background and achievement, you find that there are none, -of any kind.  He has seen to it that they are all kept secret by laws meant to protect the privacy of of private individuals, or they are kept secret by his fellow progressive-socialist admirers in academia.  Or both.  And no one can even say that they still exist.  His history is akin to a black hole.  Nothing comes out and it is invisible because even light can’t escape.

Where is evidence of his accomplishments at any of the colleges he attended?  It’s all secret.  Where is the evidence that hen attended them?  Also kept secret.  Where is the evidence of how he even got into them?  Very, very secret.  Where is the evidence that his entire academic career was not a financially and ideologically motivated fraud?  There is none.

* Those children of foreign parents, or a single foreign parent, are born with United States citizenship and have a law (the 14th Amendment) that they can point to as the source of their citizenship, but natural citizens have no such law.  Their citizenship exists separate and apart from law and the Constitution.  Like the primordial hydrogen gas that coalesces into a star, so also is the mass of native members of a country which coalesce into a nation.  The star does not produce the gas, rather, the gas produces the star.  Similarly, natural citizens are not created by government; government is created by natural citizens.

* *[No One at Columbia Remembers Obama by Wayne Allyn Root  "I am a graduate of Columbia University, Class of 1983. That’s the same class Barack Obama claims to have graduated from. We shared the same exact major- Political Science. We were both Pre-Law. It was a small class- about 700 students. The Political Science department was even smaller and closer-knit (maybe 150 students). I thought I knew, or met at least once, (or certainly saw in classes) every fellow Poly Sci classmate in my four years at Columbia.
But not Obama. No one ever met him. Even worse, no one even remembers seeing that unique memorable face. Think about this for a minute. Our classmate is President of the United States. Shouldn’t someone remember him? Or at least claim to remember him?  http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/barack-obama-the-ghost-of-columbia-university/ ]

****** In a 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani, Obama said, “I believe that there are many paths to the same place.” Obama also said, “All people of faith—Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone knows the same God.”

A Punahou Hawaiian classmate was interviewed by Jesse WATTERS: And, politically back then, did you see any trace of his democratic leanings or any sort of liberal leadership?

BOWERS: Well, you know, we had an incredible background at Punahou because we had an instructor who wove global understandings and perspectives of all countries throughout our entire curriculum. His name was Siegfreid Ramler.

And, he had been an interpreter in the Nuremburg trials and so he wanted to make sure that everything we did whether it was in Christian ethics or history or literature really wove together all these perspectives of different religions and different countries and histories. And, I would say that we all really benefited in having a global view that way. And, I’d say when we first started to hear Barack’s policies and the President’s stance on different issues, it made us so proud to hear a global voice. And that’s what we saw growing up, we were very lucky to have that.

WATTERS: So, you’re saying that the curriculum lent itself to more of a global view, a
world view that you think Obama is encompassing in his policies today?

BOWERS: Well, I certainly think that he and his family really embodied that in the beginning. Whether Punahou added a lot to it or not, but I can say that in particular the Punahou curriculum in the 70s was extremely focused on building GLOBAL CITIZENS. That was the goal.

BOWERS: There were several memories I think that we all had that were very strong and one was when his father came to speak to the 5th grade class. Everybody was really in sort of in awe of him. He came in a suit. He came from the East/West center. He not only looked very professorial, but we all thought that he was, he seemed like an ambassador or a statesman, that made a big impression I think on all of us.

WATTERS: What do you remember that his father spoke about to the class?

BOWERS: It was actually about Kenya. And, you know, it imbued the sense of, again, this world-view that there is a world outside of the United States and a different perspective that started to resonate with what we were being taught.
~  ~  ~

   Having a world view is not as wonderful a thing as it might seem -except for those in international relations.  But for those who sit behind the Resolute desk in the Oval office, it is definitely not a good thing because it comes with a perspective that diminishes the respect that the President must have for the sacrifices that Americans have made for the sake of Freedom, -not only for America’s Freedom but for peoples all around the world.  And, it undervalues American values by rejecting American exceptionalism in favor of a kind of universal equalism.  But no other nation is the father of constitutional democracy in our world, and the proclaimer and defender of unalienable rights.

by Adrien Nash  June 2013   http://obama–nation.com

Slaves, Half-Breeds, Transsexuals, and Obama

Perfect Natural Citizenship Analogies

There are two opposing views of the words the Constitution uses to describe what sort of citizen an American must be in order to be President.  One side lumps them all together and calls them a phrase, -or describes them as the more fanciful: “term of art”.  The other view sees them as what they are, just simple everyday words, -two of which are adjectives that modify a noun, -all of which can be understood perfectly as individual words.

These differences in view can be represented thusly:  Naturalborncitizen  or  Natural-born-citizen  or  NBC,  -as opposed to:  natural,     born,    citizen.
As the individual words that constitute the string are used, the purpose of the whole comes to light.
“No person, except a citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”.  Unacceptable as being overly susceptible to foreign influence since it includes foreigners naturalized into Americans.

“No person, except a born citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”.  Unacceptable as being overly susceptible to foreign influence since it includes children of foreigners naturalized at birth into Americans.

The American Citizenship Fiction of Law

“No person, except a natural citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”.  Unacceptable as being overly susceptible to foreign influence since it includes foreigners naturalized into Americans, -all of whom are considered natural Americans because of a fundamental American fiction of law.

By that fiction, foreigners do not become natural-ized citizens, they become natural citizens.  They then must be treated the same as those born as natural citizens.  That is the regrettable reason why if they become terrorists, their American citizenship (like that of the surviving Boston bomber) cannot be stripped from them.  If it could, then they could be shipped off to Guantanamo prison.  But natural citizenship cannot be revoked because it was never granted in the first place.  It was inherited.

But the fiction of law prevails over the wishes of the American people because it follows the natural law of natural membership, -combined with the fictional authority of government to fundamentally alter a persons political nature via the power of the Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation.

Natural membership is real.  It is something into which one is born, just as one is born into their own family as a natural member, -and not a legal member via adoption.  The power of government cannot replicate such natural membership by birth, but it can and does try to imitate it via the invented fiction of law.
But it is nothing more than a pretense that everyone agrees to for the sake of the equality and dignity of new Americans who are totally sincere and willing to forsake their previous attachment to their homeland and its government in order to become Americans.  There has never been any downside to it until the advent of terrorism and the rise of Obama to the position of presidential candidate.
That fiction of law does not apply to him but it influences the ignorant public’s view of who is eligible to be President.  The common thinking is that everyone born in America is eligible to serve as President because all are equal, but all are not equal, -hence the wording of the Constitution’s eligibility clause.

“No person, except a natural born citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”.  Acceptable because it is free of all foreign influence.  What does the addition of “natural” add to “born citizen”?  The answer is clear by reversing the order of the two words “natural” and “born” (a born natural citizen).
“No person, except one born a natural citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”.   Acceptable because it eliminates all possibility of foreign attachment.  Any American born as a natural citizen, and not merely made into a natural citizen by the legal fiction, is 100% American.
President BAIR-ak  H. o-BAM-a (the correct pronunciation) is only half American.  The other half is foreign.  As such he is constitutionally forbidden to serve as the United States President.

Government has the right to support the fiction that all types of natural-ized citizens are natural citizens, but what it cannot do is foster the notion that it has the power to make natural citizen into natural citizens.  That is not a mis-typed statement.  A perfect analogy will explain.

The Transexual:  A Perfect Analogue to Man-made Citizenship

A surgeon has the ability to take a prepared male and remake him into a female, but that female, although apparently identical in every respect, was not born as a natural female, just as naturalized citizens, including those naturalized at birth, were not born as natural citizens.
That is transparently clear, but what is confusing in the minds of some is that government has no power to make something that already naturally exists.  Just as no surgeon has the ability to make a woman into a woman, so also, the government has no power to make a natural citizen into a citizen.

The femaleness of born females is not the result of surgery.  So also, the American-ness of natural citizens is outside of the power of government to grant or alter.  Neither legislation, nor policy can grant nor alter that which already is pre-existent.
For that reason, no such legislation nor policy exists.  Government cannot make natural citizens into citizens because they were born being citizens.  They are the 97% of the nation who are its natural members because they were born of members.  They are citizens by nature and not by law.
It was natives like them that originally created the law which was needed to deal with people who were not natural citizens because they were foreigners or born of foreigners.  -Or…were born of a foreign father.

Slavery:  A revealing analogue to natural citizenship

Some folks have a warped view of citizenship because they have a warped view of the nature and scope of the power of government.  The true nature of citizenship, -as something that is natural in ordinary conditions, is illustrated by the relationships involved in slavery.

The slave plantation is the perfect analogue to the territory of the nation.  The slave owner is a perfect analogue to the government.  The slaves are perfect analogues to citizens.  Now here’s the comparison: suppose that a slave woman gives birth on the plantation.  To whom does the child belong?  To the parents only, or to the slave owner?

By natural rights the child belongs solely to the parents, but by property rights it belongs to the slave owner (the government).  Similarly, citizens “belong” to the nation because they are born as members of the society to which their parents belong.
But what clarifies the nature of citizenship is the case of a slave woman who gives birth in town and not on the plantation.  To whom does the child belong?  To the slave parents only?  To the town?  Or to the plantation owner?
The answer is obvious.  It belongs to Atlantis.  No, wait, that can’t be right.  But it makes as much sense as thinking that it does not belong to the plantation owner, which is analogous to thinking that an American child born just over the border (or even over the sea) does not belong to the nation of its parents, -that it is not a natural member of their society and country.
Such a warped view asserts that government action is needed in order to make an American child into an American citizen due to its birth beyond an invisible boundary line.  Such a view includes the unspoken assumption that the child does not belong to the parents and their nation through them, -that the child inherits nothing from them other than the father’s name.  That’s equivalent to the child of a slave mother belonging to another slave owner because the mother was visiting another plantation when she  gave birth.

Such a view has no place in any logical mind, and yet seemingly reasonable people adhere to it like there is no flaw at its heart. Understand this; just because government has sovereignty over the territory of the nation does not mean that it has sovereignty over the membership of those who created the government in the first place.  They and their progeny are natural members in perpetuity for all generations.

They are outside of the sphere of government authority because they created the sphere in the first place.  Just as God himself is not contained nor confined by the world of his creation, so natural members of a country, by creating a nation to protect their interests, do not become dependent on its authority or permission when it comes to their membership in that created nation.  They are the creators, the government is their creation. The government that they created cannot tell them, -its creators, that their membership in the nation of their creation is dependent upon it.  That would be like God having to ask Adam for permission for Eve to co-inhabit the Garden of Eden with him.

Sally Hemmings:  The Perfect Analogue to Dual-citizenship

What the heck was Sally Hemmings and how does her born status relate to American citizenship?  Sally was a cross of two opposite worlds, -a bridge between two disparate realities.  A hybrid being that was neither exclusively one nor the other.  She was the slave daughter of Thomas Jefferson.
Her mother, a slave, was the half-sister of Jefferson’s deceased wife, having the same slave-owner father.  Her existence provoked the question: “To which world did she naturally belong?”
Well, the question is the wrong question because it presumes that there is an answer when there is no answer since she was not a natural member of either world.  She was not a natural slave because she was the daughter of a freeman, and yet she was not a natural freeman because she was the daughter of a slave.  That made her the perfect analogy to dual-citizens.

Dual citizens, being hybrids, do not naturally belong to any nation because they are the product of two different nationalities.  Another extreme example is that of “a half-breed”.  The child of a white father and an Indian mother was not a natural member of either world.  The Indian tribe of its mother could not accept it as a full-blood brother or sister because it had a whiteman as a father.  Similarly, the white world would not accept it as a natural white person because it was born of an Indian, and those two opposite worlds did not mix.

Similarly, dual-citizens are born of two different worlds and thus are not natural members of either.  A  worse case scenario is when the nations of the parents go to war, as happened in America when the South seceded and went to war against the North, and brother fought against brother.  A mother from the North and a father from the South did not produce a natural member of either society.  Such a son would be neither a natural Yankee, nor a natural son of the South.
[Would the citizens of the United States (the North) have chosen as President and Commander-in-Chief a former slave-owning Southerner with deep roots in southern history?  How would that not have posed a potential national security risk?  When it comes to choosing sides, it's all about which side you're from.  If you are from both, then neither side can trust you.]

Suppose that Abraham Lincoln had exited his mother’s womb on the northern side of the invisible, unmarked Canada-United States border and then mother and child moved back to the south side.  Would that have made Lincoln a national security risk?  Would he have been “more American” if born on the southern side when birth is an event that no child has ever remembered nor felt any innate connection to?

And yet sincere people want us to believe the unbelievable; to believe that it actually would have made a difference, or at a minimum, that the founding fathers were too stupid to recognize that it would make no difference whatsoever.  Why would any sane, thinking person believe such foolishness?

Why would the framers of the Constitution think that only slaves born on the plantation belonged to the slave owner?  Why would they think that only children born within the ever-changing borders of a new nation, carved out of wilderness, belonged to the country of their parents?  Well, they didn’t.  But they failed to state that in the Constitution because the number of people that it would affect was minuscule.  Yet it absolutely could have affected Thomas Jefferson and John Adams who at the time were serving their nation as foreign ambassadors (Paris and London respectively).  Would sons born to them abroad be aliens?  Would they need government permission to even to recognized as Americans?

By such lame thinking, a son born to them abroad would be assumed to not be an American and would need the approval of government to become one.  The absurdity of such a view is self-evident.

The first Congress attempted to remedy that short-coming in the Naturalization Act of 1790 by ordering, in effect, all authorities, -in particular all port authorities, to recognize American children born abroad “as natural born citizens”.  That implied that they were more than merely citizens by government decree.  It  implied that they were citizens by nature and beyond the authority of government to bar or bless with citizenship.

But most importantly of all, it implied that they, like their domestically born brethren, were possible candidates for the Presidency, -something which the Constitution failed to address.
The citizenship of John McCain was not dependent on government authority because it was natural American citizenship since neither of his parents were foreigners.   Therefore, it didn’t matter where he was born or raised.  All that mattered was that in order to run for the office of President he be 35 years of age and 14 years a resident of the United States.

But if Barack Obama had been born in Panama, he not only would not have been a natural born citizen, he would not have even been a citizen at all since his mother could not pass her citizenship to him by law since she was several months too young.  Even native-birth can’t make “a half-breed citizen” into “a natural born citizen” nor make one eligible to be the President.

by Adrien Nash  June 2013

Natural Law versus Natural Rights; Obama vs Genesis

  The Foundation of Western Civilization

When it comes to the legitimacy of the presidency of Barack Obama and the issue of whether or not he is constitutionally qualified to serve, the entire Washington establishment and the American legal community are as silent as a grave stone, but there is a voice that is not silent to the ears of those who hear it, and that voice is found in the book of Genesis.
The origin of Genesis, and its assumed divine inspiration, is not relevant.  What’s relevant is its inescapable impact on Western Civilization through the adoption by Emperor Constantine of the Christian faith as the only state sanctioned faith & religion of the Roman Empire.

By his conversion, the Judeo-Christian scriptures and tradition of the Church became the bedrock of society in fundamental ways.  One of those ways was the relationship between husband and wife.
Before then, Rome had never been under the influence of Judeo-Christian tradition regarding the status of women but instead was under the more liberal tradition of their pagan theology.  When it came to women, Rome followed natural rights to a greater extent than Judeo-Christian tradition & society.  Roman woman enjoyed a slightly higher status in society and marriage than Christian women, with the role of the husband as the head of the family being less strongly established.

The difference between the two cultures regarding women bore a similarity to the difference between the status of Eve before “the Fall of mankind” and her status in relationship to Adam after the Fall.  If you’re unaware of the influence of the Fall on Western psychology, you will not understand the societies that evolved from The Holy Roman Empire.  It’s central to everything.

From it the status of women was determined for all time, -or until the age of the 19th Amendment came along and changed things.  What was that change?  It was a reset back to the original order in Eden, -kind of.

Genesis paints a picture of how originally in Eden Man & Eve lived in perfect harmony and blissful ignorance about good and evil.  They were co-created as equals in one version given in Genesis, while in another Eve was created later from the marrow of Man’s rib.  The two versions aren’t naturally reconcilable so instead of ignoring either one, we’ll look at both because both are part of the story.

Chaper 5:  “This is the book of the generations of Adam.  In the day that God created Man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them and called their name Adam (Man), in the day when they were created.” -(followed by the genealogy of the first born sons)

Chapter 1. verse 26: And God said: “Let us make man in our own image, after our own likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish, over the fowl of the air… (the human species having dominion over all life).

Both mentions agree regarding the simultaneous creation of the human species, like all other lower forms of life that preceded them.  But then another accounting appears in the story, -one in which Eve was created as a kind of after-thought.

Chapter 2, verse 7:  And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.  And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden and there he put the man whom he had formed.
verses 15-17:  And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it.  And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat, for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.

Verse 20:  And Adam gave names to…every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.
Verse 18:  And the Lord God said: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.”

Verses 21-25:  “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and of the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; -she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man’.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

So far we see two pictures; one in which they were created together and as co-equals, and one in which the man was first and the woman was later generated from his DNA, his flesh & bone as a secondary creation.
Then the serpent appeared and invited Eve to try the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

Chapter 3, verse 6:  And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food…and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.  And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked…

verse 13: And the Lord God said unto the woman, “What is this that thou hast done?”  And the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”
Unto the woman he said, “…in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

And unto Adam he said “cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;…in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken, for dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return.”

The elements of that story became the foundation of the husband-wife relationship in Judeo-Christian civilization, including our own.  It structured it in both social and legal ways.  The citizenship laws of our civilization flow from the laws of the Church, -the Church, or the Scripture (depending on whether Catholic or Protestant) being the lone authority in the sacred union of Holy Matrimony and family life.  The relationships adopted from Church Law became the basis of secular law, and remain so today to a significant degree.

Let’s put them in the spotlight.  Before the Fall, Eve was the equal of the Man, but not as a separate entity apart from him, but as a new manifestation of him; she was Adam with the opposite gender.  She was essentially his identical twin but with the tweaking of the gender genes.

That is the original state of mankind, the natural state, but then the Fall changed the relationship and the woman was blamed for her naivete (disobedience) and was thenceforth assigned an inferior role in relationship to her previously equal mate.  From then on, their relationship no longer followed the principle of Natural Rights, but instead followed the principle of Natural Law.

In the natural world, there’s a fundamental principle, and it is that greater force dominates weaker force, -whether it be gravity or energy or biology or psychology.  The stronger will dominate the weaker.  The male is stronger than the female and therefore is responsible to face far greater dangers in life.  The females, as well as children, are the subjects of the males’ protection and provision.
Mothers, sisters, wives and daughters are therefore the subordinate center and highest priority of male lives, -for both natural and biblical reasons.  One could speculate that the biblical story was shaped to fit the physical and psychological reality of the male-female relationship, (to conform to the male ego) but only the relationship itself, and its biblical origin and impact on Western Civilization, is of significance.

Two major aspects of that relationship are the foundation of fundamental citizenship law.  The subordinate role of the wife, and the fact that she and he are one, and not two.  The latter makes the former natural, because if she was not of him, then her subordination would be a stark violation of natural rights.  But the story, and the text of God’s words to her, along with the natural weaker nature of the female body, combine to make her subordination of similar weight to the opposing principle of Natural Rights that requires equality.  The matter was decided by the overwhelming weight of divine authority taking sides.

But at the heart of making it work is the other aspect of the Genesis relationship.  He and she are one, and therefore the rough edges of individuality are not going to rend it asunder.  When two similar elements are combined, they blend easily and naturally, but when two dissimilar elements combine (oil & water) unity is impossible.
The union of marriage was regarded as holy and sacred and spiritual.  A merging of hearts, psyches and bodies that results in a union of identities; she being a part of him and he being a part of her, and the friction of human individuality being modulated by the model mandated by God, as well as the natural pattern (-the harmonious structure of a singular entity).

Having become one in marriage, the couple then modeled the pattern of nature for physical bodies, namely that they have one head, and one body.  A body doesn’t have two heads.  So one of the two must be the head.  And which one that would be was decided by the factors found in the Genesis story and the factors found in the natural structure of male and female.  That appeared to be not only the Divine order but also the natural order, and vice versa.

That order is the basis of Church law, which is the basis of Secular law, including that of the States of America.  Every state followed that model or pattern, and when it came to the federal government formulating national naturalization Law & Policy, it was followed as well.
But both were a reflection of the traditional social structure of the nation.  It contained the  perennial conflicts of what seemed to be Natural Law versus Natural Rights in both the areas of male-female relationships, and also White-Black relationships and the Owner–”property” relationship maintained in the institution of slavery.

But only one side could be the law at a time, and so the struggle went on for a long time before either won a final victory, and the situation was resolved in favor of over-throwing the tradition of the Church-Bible centered society and its unity based model, and switching to the secular, Natural Rights based model built on individualism and Equality.  No one can say for certain which is better, only which one seems more “fair” versus which one is more spiritually supported by divine authority.

Now that the background is clear, let’s examine how it impacted American law.
The strongly patriarchal nature of most civilizations, along with the Judeo-Christian model of matrimonial unity and single-headship, resulted in nationality laws that followed that model.

The issue of one’s nationality was based first and foremost on universal natural law.  Parents of all species produce off-spring identical to themselves.  Dogs don’t produce cats.  Horses don’t produce Zebras.  Like breeds like.  The off-spring are of the same nature as their origin.  That’s the biological reality of natural law, but there is more.  There’s the social reality as well.

The off-spring are not born as members of communities of other species, but of their own.  They are the natural members of the community of their own kind.  They are members because they are born of members and born into the community as its new members.  That is the principle of natural membership.  It underlies all nationality law based on natural principle.

But the realm of natural law is not encoded into the realm of human law, -at least in America.  It is absent altogether.  Law is not needed to proclaim, declare, mandate, or order to be true that which is already naturally true.  Hence there is no law by which 97% of the American population possesses their American nationality.
There is a law (the 14th Amendment) which describes their natural citizenship from the point of legal theory, but does not legislate it.  It merely affirms that which was already true.  A cat is born a cat; you cannot legislate that it be a cat.

That is the alternate-reality truth about Natural Citizenship.  It is not given by nor governed by legal mandates because its origin is from outside of the legal system.  The legal system is a man-made construct designed to maintain order, -but it is not the entirety of the the ordered universe.  The Natural realm is the real universe and has its own order separate and apart from what legislators mandate.

They operate or sail on a lake of man-made mandates while thinking that that vast lake constitutes all of reality, when in fact it is just a superficial thing on the surface of a much greater reality.  Natural membership and its national form known as citizenship is not a part of that great lake of law, but is the bedrock on which it lies.

It is a part of the natural order of things, not the legal order.  The legal order recognizes that fact and thus the framers of our Constitution didn’t meddle in such a fundamental area.  But it was the job of the Congress that the founders created to provide order in situations outside of the natural order.  They had to fashion a legal order to deal with relationships that did not follow the pattern of nature.

Those relationships, American male and foreign female, or American female and foreign male, produced children that could not possibly be from a unified source (single origin) unless the Genesis-Christian pattern was followed to a “t”.  Relationships that didn’t follow it were fully regulated by law determined by tradition, international law, or congressional choice.  It was in fact a combination of all three.

The American male, following the patriarchal biblical tradition of society, was the head of the family.  His children were what he was since they were of him, -just as Eve was what Adam was, because she was of him.
Following that pattern completely meant that the American equivalent of Eve was also a part of the American Adam.  She was of him, part of him and one with him.  They were “one flesh”, one body in the community of society.  Whatever was his nationality was hers also because they were inseparable.  That was not only the theoretical view, but the actual view of the American government.  It followed the inherited Church Law pattern as part of the semi-natural order of things.
How did that play out in real life?  When a foreign woman married an American, she became an American also, just like her new head.  She left the headship of her father, -who gave her away to the headship of her husband, and she took his name and swore obedience to him as the new head of her life, and they became one.  One unit in the eyes of God and man.  United under one nation, one government, one allegiance, one national charter of Liberty, Security, and Civil Rights.

What was the proof of her new citizenship?  It was her marriage certificate and her husband’s birth certificate.  Her citizenship was not a tangible thing because she was not born as an American, but then even those born as Americans had no substantial proof of citizenship.  Rather it was deduced from the location of their birth because that was always an indisputable fact thanks to written records.

One could prove that they weren’t born as a member of a foreign nation since they were born in America.  But that was not what made them Americans.  It was merely the only practical means of showing one’s origin that was tangible and transportable.  They could not carry their parents with them to testify that they were born of American parents, which made them natural citizens like (almost) everyone else.
So birth certificates came to substitute for parental testimony.   It was accepted that if you were born in America then you weren’t a foreigner.  But that view overlooked a very serious problem.  Some persons born in America were born to foreigners, and thus were also foreigners just like their father, the head of their family.

That dichotomy created a problem eventually when the numbers of immigrants (like my great-grand parents) swelled to the millions.  Were their U.S. birthed children also just simply foreigners like their father?  Could their American birth make a difference, or would the fact that they were being raised in America and being Americanized all throughout their upbringing?  Could they be considered Americans and yet not be citizens?

The Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that they were born under American authority and therefore by the words of the 14th Amendment, they were American citizens.  And that settled the matter…-of the children.  But which children?
Children of only married foreign immigrants?  [If the father was subject to the full authority of the American government, then so were his children as required by the Amendment.]

But what about children of foreign non-immigrants?  [tourists and visitors and students]  Their father was not subject to American political authority.  They could not be drafted to fight for America like immigrants could following the court’s opinion.
And what about children of a non-immigrant father (Barack Obama Sr.) and an American mother?  Or children of American mothers married to foreign fathers and born in foreign lands?  Was there some natural law that covered such situations?  Of course not, -because they were not natural situations.

Positive naturalization law needed to be written by Congress exercising its constitutional plenary authority over naturalization.  And so in time laws to cover every possibility were written.  Except one.  That was the situation of one such as Barack Obama, -born of a “non-immigrant alien” who was not subject to the American federal authority that dictated the requirements and responsibilities of American citizens and immigrants.  That authority was extended over foreign immigrants by that Supreme Court ruling in 1898 (The U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark) but the issue of the citizenship of children of non-immigrant aliens was never addressed.

But…the Attorney General at that time, John Griggs, assumed that it had been, and therefore declared that the new policy of the United States government would be that all children born in America to foreigners would be viewed henceforth as being American citizens (except those of foreign diplomats) regardless of being born to a father who was not subject to the full American authority that the amendment requires one to be born under.

His misinterpretation then became national policy under the guise that it was actually national law mandated by the Supreme Court in interpreting the 14th Amendment.  Ever since it has been deeply entrenched as the established American way, though in fact it is merely established policy and not true law.  It is our calcified established institutionalized error.

But getting back to our focus on American women and their role in marriage, nationality, and naturalization law, we find that nationality always flowed from the head of the family, and that was always the father, unless he died or they divorced, or…the mother refused to reveal who and what he was.

If he was not or could not be known, then his child was the flesh and blood of only the mother, and her nationality became that of the child.  Otherwise, it was only the father’s nationality that determined that of their child.  That was the way the law was written and carried out.

But that pattern became even more deeply entrenched in 1907 when the naturalization act of that year stripped American citizenship from women who married foreign men.  Then, not only were her children not Americans, but she was not an American any longer herself, since she became what her husband was, and became a citizen of his nation, since she then belonged to him, and he belonged to his nation, -therefore so did she through him.  That was the law of the land for 15 years, -until it was rescinded by the Cable Act of 1922.

After the passage of the Cable Act and the 19th Amendment which granted women the right to vote, naturalization law gradually came to impute the American mother’s citizenship to her foreign-fathered children.  Those laws came into effect within the life time of many living Americans.

The view that Barack Obama is eligible to be President is based on multiple bastardizations of reality.  It begins with the false assumption that American nationality from before the founding of the nation was based on where one was born, -being based solely on British common law that held that all children born within the one-state nation of England would be considered to be natural born subjects even though they were not, since children of immigrants were in fact alien-born subjects. *
That kind of label and view became politically incorrect because it fostered discrimination, so children of foreigners were given the same label as children of subjects, and that was that.  It became a British “fiction of law” that all subjects were the same.

But in the new United States, there were no subjects nor any King, so no one was a subject, nor a natural born one.  In the real world, English common law had no place or authority once the legislature or Constitutional convention of a state agreed on what the state law would be regarding who is recognized as it citizens.  So state by state, each one determined its own law of citizenship.  Both those whom it recognized and those it naturalized became citizens also of the new nation (by extension).

But the new central government was not in the citizenship business, except for the writing of a rule of naturalization that would make the laws of all of the states uniform.  Under that system, children of foreigners were foreigners also like their father, unless they were born in a state that granted them citizenship from birth as new members of the state society.  That was something that the otherwise sovereign states held control over, -along with  immigration.  At least one had such a law, but whether or not other states did as well, the federal government never had any such law because Congress never passed one.  Why would it since that was the province of the states?

So unless Barry was actually, provably born in one of our States, and that state grants citizenship to children of non-immigrant fathers, then he would not be a citizen of that state nor of the nation through such state citizenship.  As explained, the federal government has no law which grants citizenship to children of “non-immigrant aliens” nor does the 14th Amendment provide it, nor did the Supreme Court opinion which interpreted it.  But it does have the  entrenched Griggs policy by which such children are presumed to be American.

So Barry is not a citizen via adopted English common law since Congress never adopted it regarding citizenship, nor via state “son of the soil” laws, nor via the Supreme Court ruling of 1898 regarding the 14th Amendment, and so his only basis of assumed citizenship was the error of A.G. Griggs which became the policy of the State Department and Naturalization Service, and has remained so ever since.

But let’s suppose that Congress had passed a law that was contrary to their Civil Rights Act of 1866, which required that in order for native birth to convey citizenship, one must be “not subject to any foreign power” (through a foreign father), -and that that law had done what the Supreme Court and the 14th Amendment did not do (make citizens of U.S. birthed children of non-immigrants , -meaning children of foreign guests), then Barack Obama would have been a bona fide American citizen if he was born within the territory of the United States.  He therefore would be a citizen of the nation.  But that would still leave him with a huge problem.

The Constitution prohibits “legal citizens” of the United States from serving as President.  Instead, one is required to be born a natural citizen, -which is something that one Barry Obama Jr. can never be.

What prevents him from fitting that description?  His father.  By American law, by English law, by Church law, and probably by Roman law and Greek law, his nationality was determined by the man who produced him and through whom his primary citizenship was determined, -just as his own election website freely shared in 2008.  It made it clear that the citizenship of Barack Obama Sr. was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, as well as that of his children.  This was in the words of his own ignorant supporters, making it clear that he was a dual-citizen at birth and not 100% American.

He was at best a dual citizen, possessing provisional citizenship in two nations.  But if born outside of the United States, he would have been British only because his mother was several months too young to convey her citizenship to her child according to naturalization law in effect when he was born.

That would be similar to his status if he had been born 40 years earlier.  Between 1907 and 1922, he would have also been British only because his mother would have lost her American citizenship due to a supposed marriage to a foreigner, -a marriage for which not one shred of evidence exists, -of any sort.  No love letters or notes.  No cards, no photographs, to witnesses, no record.  And that is along with there being no photos of his mother pregnant with him, nor photos of her along side her boyfriend and husband.  No proof they had a relationship that led to marriage and a child, -nor that they ever lived together, -while there is proof that they didn’t.

And on top of that is the fact that a month after his son’s supposed birth, he didn’t even know he had a son because if he did, he certainly would have trumpeted that fact to the immigration authorities who were at that time weighing whether or not to extend his student visa or expel him.  Instead, he failed to even mention it in his submission to them.

To be fair, perhaps he knew but was afraid of legal repercussions of impregnating a 17 year old white girl.  But if they were actually married there would have been none.  So either they weren’t married or he didn’t know that a son was being attributed to him at that time.
There is little doubt that he was the father by the fact that he traveled all the way back to Hawaii for a custody hearing regarding the child of their mysterious marriage (for which papers were never submitted).

That reveals that the relationship actually existed, at least the sexual relationship which was kept on the down-low,..very down low; so low in fact that no one even knew about it, -at least until Obama’s mother became pregnant.  But even then, it may have remained a secret since there is no record of her whereabouts between February of 1961 and late August of ’61  three weeks after the birth of Jr. when she registered for college classes in Seattle.  No one can prove where she was or where she wasn’t during that time.

If she spent much of it, or the tail end of it in Seattle, she could easily have decided to have her baby across the border in Vancouver if she found a hard-to-find couple or institution there that would adopt the mixed-race baby that she sought to make someone else’s problem.  That would explain much.
But it wouldn’t explain why in the British Archives, Obama Sr. has been discovered to have an entry for a son born in Kenya in 1961 even though no known Kenyan child was born to him between 1960 and 1963.  That fact gives fuel to the belief that Jr. had been born in Kenya, as his self-authored publisher’s biographical description stated for over a decade and a half.  It also comports with the fact that the INS records for inbound flights into the U.S. between Aug 1, 1961 and Aug 10, 1961 are the only ones known to be missing from the national microfilm archive.

While a Senator, he and his wife openly stated that Kenya was his home.  But that may have been to support his long-standing story that he was a product of two different international cultures, which gave him a unique perspective, -one worth writing about in a biography that was certainly worth purchasing (?) if he ever finally got around to fabricating one (which took years even though he took a huge advance for it).

So neither by Church law, nor English law, nor State law, nor Federal law, nor constitutional amendment, nor Supreme Court opinion is Barack H. Obama Jr. even an American.  His supposed citizenship rests entirely on the institutionalized error of Attorney General Griggs.  He depends entirely on that error.  Well, not entirely because he depends even more on another error, a “common knowledge” error of ignorance.  A false assumption that’s believed to be “common  knowledge” fact.

The American people are ignorant of the fact that the President must be a natural born citizen.

I wasn’t aware of that fact until I got an email from my sister about the issue.  That email changed the focus of my attention for three solid years.  And I was a straight-A student.  So if I wasn’t aware, it’s for sure that it isn’t common knowledge.

That error is the belief that citizenship universally results from being born in the United States, with all citizens being eligible to be President if so born.  That works for him and against him, because his proof of being born in the United States is non-existent.

He has successfully maintained the pretense that the state of Hawaii has officially verified and certified that his original birth certificate is in their possession.  There’s a few huge problems with that.
1.  No one from Hawaii has ever sworn under oath to anything, though they have issued lawyer-crafted statements intended to be ambiguous enough to successfully deceive, -none of which have ever described his birth record as being a Hawaiian birth certificate.

2.  Abercrombi, the newly elected governor of Hawaii, -Obama’s biggest fan, announced that he would prove beyond doubt that the doubters were wrong and that Obama was definitely born in Hawaii by locating the original birth certificate using his subpoena power.  Well, he never brought the subject up again after failing to find it anywhere.  He later told an old friend that they only found something hand written in the State Archives instead of an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate in the files of the Hawaiian Bureau of Vital Statistics.

3.  No hospital in Hawaii has claimed to be his birth location.  Because none of them were.

4.  The White House lie is that the image posted on its web site is that of a scan of a real Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth when no such document has been seen and examined by anyone with an objective eye and an inquiring mind.  Not any news magazine, TV host or producer, respectable newspaper or professional forensic magazine, nor the Enquirer.  It does not exist in the real world, only in the cyber world.  That is why it can’t be scanned and therefore wasn’t, evidenced by the nature of the pdf file and the fact that no scanner in the world would produce the image claimed to be a scan.  Scanners produce one layer images, -not nine-layer files.
5.  The two digital images of supposed birth certification documents are both non-physical digital counterfeits and easily shown to be so.  Besides the manner in which they were constructed, there is the fact that they lack the official seal of the Department of Health.  Along with that omission is the absence of any actual signature, it being substituted with a worthless rubber stamp signature facsimile.
On top of that is the fact that the image is not certified to be a True Copy of anything since the registrar’s rubber stamp text labels it as a True Copy OR an Abstract.

An abstract is not a true copy of anything and so it can’t be certified as being a true copy, and since all Hawaiian vital record documents are superimposed on a security paper background, it is therefore clear that the text of all documents has been digitized in order to be able to do that within a computer program.  That is unmistakable evidence of the creation of an abstract, a manipulatible abstract, and hence the need to mention that possibility in the stamp text, -all while lying that it also might be a True Copy (this OR that…) when they in fact no longer issue True copies since that requires actual photocopying reproduction and not simply computer print-out fabrication.

True copies can be certified by a Registrar’s hand signature & State Seal to be accurate exact copies of originals, but since abstracts are not exact reproductions of anything, they cannot be certified to be anything legitimate since the only thing legitimate is an exact copy that has not been altered in any way.

So because of the ease of digitally altering them, along with their very nature, Abstracts are inherently un-certifiable even though a state government can force all other jurisdictions to have to accept them because of “the full faith & credit clause” of the Constitution.

Much of that would not be a recognized problem if only the long-form digital fake had been flattened into a single- layer image before being up-loaded to the White House website.  But when the counterfeiter hit the save command for the final time, it was saved in the default format of multi-layer Portable Document Format (pdf) instead of in the flattened format of the Joint Producers Group (.jpg). Once people downloaded it and opened it with a pdf reader, all of its nine layers were revealed.  They are the nail in the coffin that seals the proof that it is a computer fabricated fake.  Read my exposition on those layers titled Six Smoking Guns.

And the efforts of numerous experts have uncovered element after additional element of proof of fraudulence hidden in that pdf file which contains a good amount of the history of the file.  And it isn’t going away.
But Obama’s flying monkeys have managed to scare every judge that has been touched by the court cases brought against his eligibility and perpetration of fraud, and forced them to rule in his favor even when his lawyer didn’t even bother to show up.  The travesty of non-justice that took place in Georgia was then repeated all the way to the Supreme Court which declined to hear it, with Obama’s two appointees not recusing themselves from voting against it.
The supremacy of Law was displaced by the supremacy of men, -corrupt men who would resort to any tactic necessary to protect their criminal-in-chief.

The problem is that any judge with children and a spouse is vulnerable to coercion that comes in the night in the form of an anonymous phone call that mentions the safety of one’s lovely children who go to school at such-and-such location, and visit such-and-such establishments.  What husband and father wouldn’t cave to serious implied threats against his own family?
The anonymous communications come in and then they aren’t able to trust that their family can be protected because the message, the threats are  implied, subtle, ambiguous, -not direct, -not deserving of law enforcement protection.

If the courts with pending cases base their rulings on anything other than the law, then you will know that they were reached and dissuaded because their written justification for their ruling will be missing or be full of superficial and inaccurate explanations of the law.

But like the Benghazi events, only the truth will stop the nagging questions and reveal the hidden facts.  Where there is a whole lot of smoke, there is certainly fire, but when it comes to Obama’s legitimacy, the smoke is camouflaged by a whole lot of fog of confusion and ignorance.  That ignorance permeates the entire Congress and military, media, academia, and legal profession.

But it may be inaccurate to call Congress ignorant, -when in fact they may not be.  They may instead be simply complicit in the massive lie and cover-up, -making them cowardly co-traitors to the United States Constitution and the American people.
If anything has become clear in the last half decade, it’s that Washington exists for its own benefit, -not that of the American people.

They certainly can’t be looked to to investigate their own complicity, and so we are at a stalemate.  Until enough men and women of position and authority come forward, we, the pawns in this giant game of chess, are powerless because the big players hold all of the power.
When they are willing to twist, omit, lie, fabricate, hide & destroy evidence, intimidate and threaten those who seek the truth, and bribe those who are their friends and go along with or facilitate the fraud of his counterfeit documents and illegitimate citizenship, and our legal system is compromised, then only a very fearless jurist can open the giant can of worms that is Obama’s legitimacy, -or a strong shift in the sentiments of the voters.

So in case nothing effective is done in our generation, I write this for the future, -for a time after a great national calamity has ripped the rug out from under our current corrupt system and its uninformed and complacent society, and re-set it.  Perhaps in such an age, the truth will be valued once again and sought out.  Perhaps then at a new beginning the nation will start anew with the light of truth shining into their minds and hearts.

If that age ever comes to pass, then I hope that the new American patriots will stand strong against the forces of selfishness and adamant, clever, and insistent deceit that will resort to big and bold lies, as well as subtle and invisible intellectual distortions of truth and reality, using words to manipulate the masses which are vulnerable to such manipulation.

We are all sub-normal specimens of humanity.  Our capabilities (rational and intellectual) are deficient compared to men of the past who built the greatest structures of all time, including feats like mechanical computers that computed Time and the movements of the planets decades in advance, and included the cutting and moving of a block of stone that weighs 4 million pounds, -the cutting and fitting of massive walls of stones so finely shaped and fitted together that a piece of paper can’t pass between them.
Sub-normalness is revealed in contrast by the examples of Secretariat, Leonardo de Vinci, Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, and, in the physical sense, Sergeant York whose vision was so superior that he not only could see German enemies during the first World War from over 1,000 yards, but he could use his standard rifle to take them out.   Annie Oakley was a great example as well.

Such examples are what we must consider to be normal, while the rest of us are sub-normal.  We as a race suffer from deficiencies in the logic center of the mind, -the place from where deduction is drawn.  Our logic ability and our process of drawing conclusions is as defective as the eyes of the color blind, or the hearing perception of the tone deaf.  Something significant is missing, -something vital to its flawless function.  We don’t know how to think in a flawless manner.  We are not Mr. Spock.

And so we are vulnerable to our own delusions which spring from our biases.  We know which conclusion we wish to arrive at, and so we subconsciously distort the facts, the path,  to arrive at the desired destination.
The majority of voters did that in electing Barack Obama.  We can only hope and pray that the swing-vote independent voters will recognize the mistake they made and swing away from the total transformation path that the counterfeiter-in-chief has put us on and kept us on.

But it will require a whole lot of untransforming to fix the damage that a hundred years of statist, socialist, progressive nanny-state, big-government politics and academic propaganda has wrought.  That war may be just beginning, and it may in time be seen as the second American Revolution.

by A.R. Nash  May 2013

* “the English law…clearly held that native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born subject and that native-born children of non-subject parents “are no subjects”, because they would be ‘not born under the ligeance of a subject’.  To the English, ‘aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign’ were in fact subjects by local ligeance.”

It is false to claim that unnaturalized immigrants were within the faith, loyalty and allegiance of the Crown because those attributes were still owed to their own sovereign.  All they were/ are within is the obedience, power, and protection.  But those are temporal and local relationships, and not life-long subject-hood (as was the case with natural subjects).

Being a natural subject was like being a slave.  It was for life with no escape.  But being an immigrant subject was like being an indentured servant.  Obedience is only owed until the debt is paid, just as obedience is owed to the Crown until one ups and leaves the jurisdiction of the Crown.  Slaves can’t do that but foreigners can.  Subjects could also move out of England, but they would still be attached to the Monarch by a life-long bond of belonging, like children who are forever the off-spring of their parents.

No one born of one who owes only temporal obedience would be born owing life-long obedience since such a subject-monarch relationship would not be inherited.
It’s not complicated.  It’s as plain as day.  You are what you inherit.  That’s natural law.
If you are born of natural subjects, then you are one also, regardless of where you exit the womb.  If you are born of aliens, then where you are born is of paramount importance because your national membership is then determined by the rule of law, and not the rule of nature.   AN

Class Presidents & U.S. Presidents

~The Eligible & the Ineligible

Some weak and confused minds are unable to penetrate the simple language of the U.S. Constitution in regard to presidential  eligibility.  “No person, except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”  To help clear up their  confusion, a simple comparison is useful.

Just as the nation elects a President, so also, the fictional College of Diplomatic Officers elects a student President.  They both do it by similar rules and with a similar purpose determining those rules.

The President of the United States wields the authority of the Commander-in-Chief and so he must have the most unquestionable loyalty to the nation of all officers of the United States government.

The President of the Student Union goes on after graduation to become the chief deputy officer for diplomatic security under the  Secretary of State, and so is entrusted with the lives of American diplomats around the world.

The rules for selecting the person voted to be President include the following considerations:

No person is eligible to be President of the Student Union except a student.
No person is eligible to be President of the United States except a citizen.

No alien-born student is eligible to be President of the S.U.
No alien-born citizen  is eligible to be President of the U.S.

Only American-born students are eligible to be President of the S.U.
Only American-born Citizens are eligible to be President of the U.S.

But there’s a problem.  What the heck does American-born even mean?

Does it mean born in America or born of Americans?
Those are very different possibilities since not all students / citizens born in American are born of Americans.
Some are born of foreigners because their parents are a foreign Diplomat-&-spouse serving in the U.S.

Are all “native-born-students” American students?  Well what does “American student” even mean?
Does it mean any student in America?  Any student born in America?  Or only students with American parents?
Confusion exists because of ambiguity of language.

Some “American students” were foreign born.  Some were “native-born” to foreigners.  And some were born of tenured American faculty  members or patriotic American citizens.
Some American citizens were foreign-born to foreigners.  Some were “native-born” to foreigners.  And some were born of American  parents.

Language is needed to clarify what “American student” and “American-born” means, -who it excludes, if anyone.
Language is needed to clarify what “born citizen and “native-born” means, and who it excludes, if anyone.

Children of foreigners can’t serve as President of the S.U., even if they are “American born”.  They must be citizen-born.

Children of foreigners can’t serve as President of the U.S., even if they are “American born”.  They must be citizen-born.

Therefore language must reflect those facts.  What language does that?
“No student except a natural-American student shall be eligible…”  That excludes American students-by-registration only, as well as U.S. birthed persons with foreign parents even though “native-born”.
And…
“No citizen except a natural-American citizen shall be eligible…”  That excludes American citizens-by-naturalization, as well  as U.S. birthed persons with foreign parents -even though “native-born”.

It could also be worded: an American by nature, one born of Americans, one born a citizen by nature, a natural citizen, a born natural citizen, and, as it is written; “a natural born citizen”.

A natural born citizen or natural American, has loyalty to only one country because he only has one  country.  His nationality is a singular nationality.  His roots are undivided if his parents are assimilated American citizens.  His national  history is a singular history because his parents are both Americans and not foreigners, nor were they a half-&-half, cross-breed, hybrid combo of two nationalities resulting in divided national attachment due to dual heritage and dual citizenship.

A similar revealing comparison is that of twins.  What does the label “twins” really mean?  That is similar to the question; “What does “born citizen” really mean?  Are those labels ambiguous?  Let’s consider a hypothetical.

Suppose you are a prejudiced Southern redneck from a bygone era.  Your friend tells you that he’s set you up on a date with twins!  Oh boy!  Just image a beautiful blond on each arm and all the pleasure that will follow.  But when they arrive you find that one is a fat black woman, and her twin is a skinny white albino gay man.  They are twins but they are not identical twins.  They’re only fraternal twins.

What does that mean?  It means they do not have an identical origin (from one single egg instead of two) -but have only the time of gestation and birth in common.  What they have in common does not truly provide them something innately identical, -as in their nature.
Similarly, native-born citizens who are children of immigrants (citizens by the 14th Amendment) have nothing innately in common with children of Americans, other than having the same national citizenship, -akin to fraternal twins having the same mother but not the same origin of a single egg fertilized by one father.

BAIR-ek H. o-BAMMA, (the true pronunciation of Barry’s name as spoken by the father whom the name came from, -and his mother and relatives) is not your American identical twin because his father was not your father.  His origin is not your origin.  His father was an alien, not an American, nor even an American Green Card permanent-resident immigrant.  He was absolutely and totally an alien in every sense and as such no child born to him could even be an American citizen by the United States 14th Amendment.
Like the alien-born American student that is not an American by nature, so Obama is an alien-born something and not an American citizen by nature.  He’s only half-American by nature and zero percent American by actual American law.
With that being the case, he is ineligible to serve as President, -but is doing so anyway in unmistakable violation of the United States Constitution.  He is a walking, talking crime against America’s foundational charter, -the one he swore a lying oath to preserve, protect and defend.

by Adrien Nash  May 2013  http://obama–nation.com

Principle vs Policy; Obligation vs Obedience

The problem that all Obama-defending students of legal history suffer from is that they are ignorant about four vitally important things.  They are the meaning of natural citizen, jurisdiction, resident, and principle.  Without understanding all four, they live in a zeitgeist in which tradition and royal fiat reign supreme, and natural principles and natural law in effect do not even exist.

In such a world, unalienable natural rights also do not exist and government is supreme.  Government is the all-powerful dictator of all things -beginning with who you belong to.  It dictates that you do not belong to your parents, -to your own your family, you belong to it first and foremost.  Your parents were merely your custodians.

This is true because the government wills it to be so and your place and membership in its organization are of its creation and by its authority alone.  And that is all the result of the POWER and domination of the SOVEREIGN STATE over everyone who enters life within its territory.

It is all based on borders.  Without borders you have no Kingdom, but more notably, without a Kingdom, there are no borders (with exceptions such as islands).  Instead there’s only life.  And life goes on and children belong to those who produced them.

Where there are no man-made borders, where is the principle that borders determine everything, citizenship in particular?  For borders to exist, property ownership must first exist, and land must be categorized as property.  Then a dictator can claim authority over all the lands of the subjugated people that he has conquered or inherited, and all children born to them within the borders of his land.

But what happens when there is no dictator?  -no concept of land being property nor of children belonging to anyone other than their parents?  Was that not the situation all across most of the continent of North America where native empires never reigned?
No one belonged to their tribe because of where they were born.  They belonged to their parents by natural right, and were natural members of the tribe of which their parents were members.
Where were the borders for migratory and nomadic tribes?  They had no concept of land ownership nor settled existence, yet they had a concept of group membership, as do all natural groups.
What was it based on?  A principle.  The principle of natural belonging.  You belong to your family.  Your family belongs to its clan.  Your clan belongs to its tribe.  That is the principle of natural law.
Ownership and belonging based on borders does not follow any principle at all.  It follows the dictate of dictators who own all born on their subjugated land.  It follows the practice of conquest and the practice of slavery where all born on the slave plantation belong to the plantation owner.  That’s not a principle.  That’s authoritarianism.

Would it be “a principle” if a policy existed on the plantation that a slave child who was white enough would be a free person?  That would be nothing other than a policy of the slave owner.  Just because policies have rules does not mean they are principles because principles are not the products of human choice and dictate.  Nor human power and authority.
If an authority does not follow principles then it is a dictatorship and not a model for the United States of America.
England, through the centuries, devolved into a realm that forgot its fundamental principles because of the interfering greed of its dictators.  After many centuries had past, the policy of the crown supplanted the principle that had once been clear and fundamental, and that was possible because of ambiguity of language and the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

The Bastardization of Language & Labeling

When words lose precision of meaning, then dramatic changes can result due to very slight adjustments of definition.  Like the steering gear for a rudder of a great ship.  One little piece determines the direction in which the great ship will move.

When the crown forgot or abandoned the primal principle of natural membership, it changed the rules for who would be considered to be a member.  And even worse it changed the meaning of the words that describe members.
Natural rule #1. “All children of subjects are subjects also.  If born abroad, they still are subject born and are natural members of the nation.
Natural rule #2.  All children of aliens are aliens. [-unless their fathers become naturalized subjects]
No wait, lets’s change that to all children of aliens are subjects.  Okay, there’s no down side to that, and a positive upside.  From henceforth that is the policy of the land, and the old principle is ignored and abandoned.
But lets go one bastardized step further.  Let’s call the children of aliens by the label for children of subjects and label everybody as a natural born subject.  Okay!  No down side to that.  It reaps more power to the king because all natural born subjects belong to him for life and have no right to reject subjection to him and become a citizen of another nation. And that policy of membership now applies world-wide.  On every continent and island on earth.  It’s all very convenient… for the dictator.

By bastardizing the principle of natural membership, the crown also bastardized the truth about the principle of natural responsibility.  In place of the natural obligation of the strong to protect the weak, the adult to protect the child, the male to protect the female, the Kings of England invented a philosophy that justified their dictatorship under the guise of obedience to the crown being the just response toward the king as compensation for his protection.

Instead of the responsibility of Freemen to shoulder the burden of defense of their communities and nation, the authority devolved to the royal dictator because he was the “rightful” leader of the nation, and therefore its military forces also, even though mostly comprised originally of volunteers banding together in a mutual pact of defense and survival during times of great national threat.

It was a very morally seductive philosophy that infected the minds of even the most moral-minded of men, such as Vattel and Blackstone, not to mention all of the church hierarchy, the nobility, and the judiciary.
They could not think outside of the zeitgeist of monarchy and the rule of Heaven through divinely anointed Lords of men.  They were great supporters of royal power to force men to be obedient to the dictates of God and Kings.

But something diametrically opposite to that developed in America because it was founded by people that were sick to death of being dictated to and oppressed for not adhering to the doctrine of the dictators that ruled the lands where they were born and raised.

They, as a rule, were also religiously intolerant toward others who disagreed with their theology, and wanted nothing to do with them, heretics!  But they wanted to live life free from oppression and belief control.
Some of them formed colonies that followed both the principle of natural membership and the practice of membership by policy, and allowed colonial membership for children of outsiders.  But when the colonies declared their independence and union, that union contained no membership policy because that was the business of each sovereign state government.

After the states formed a new nation and formal central government, there still existed no national policy toward membership, but Congress used its authority to write a uniform rule of naturalization for foreigners who wished to become Americans.
But the administration of the rules remained under the purview of the individual states and they all followed the natural principle of natural membership, although at least one (Virginia) allowed citizenship for children of its immigrants (“sons of the soil”).  But the central government never followed the policy of dictators.

If you were born of an alien, then you were an alien also just like he who produced you.  The natural principle was not accompanied by the royal policy which mandated the supremacy of national borders over the principle of natural membership.

(In time the policy was defeated and all children of Englishmen were recognized as members of the empire by birth to British parents (or commonwealth subjects) regardless of birth location.  The king’s bastardized policy was thus repudiated by Parliament, and rightfully so.  They finally re-recognized the supremacy of natural law.

Just as subjects of the crown were required to be obedient to the monarch & government, so citizens of America are required to be subject to the authority of our central government, but for a very different reason.
We don’t owe our government a debt of obedience as pay-back for its protection since we protect ourselves, -as individuals and as volunteers in our military forces.  The People are supreme and the government is meant to be the guardian of that supremacy, -not the other way around.
But we, being the associates of our pact of civilization and governance, are responsible to protect the nation from invasion, insurrection, and anarchy just as we are we are responsible to protect those dependent on us, our families and the defenseless who are not designed for war, or are no longer capable.
It is our duty to obey the necessary orders of those who are entrusted with authority over us by those whom we have elected to govern us.  Not for their good, but for ours.  Not to maintain their power, nor enrich them, but to maintain our freedom and to benefit us.
A problem exists when their power is the greatest threat of all to our freedom.  That is where we find ourselves today.  Back under the yoke of dictatorial fiat which relies on corrupt means to further corrupt motives which sponsor and enforce unconstitutional mandates that plunder freedom and independence from the American people.
We are devolving from the Land of the Free into the land of the hobbled, the bridled, and the saddled. And the elite overlords are happily working toward the day when they can ride us after they’ve destroyed our innate desire to be free rather than broken and dependent.
They have already accomplished most of the task of doing that but we shall soon see just how much residual natural independence we as individuals, and as a people, still retain.  The roll-out of the vast ocean of Health Care mandates and taxes and penalties will reveal just how compromised and conquered our moral character has become.
Hopefully it will result in a whole lot of polarization, with states taking diametrically opposite sides.  If such a situation and war does not result, then we will have clearly been conquered from within, just as the communists had once predicted.
A new nanny totalitarianism will reign and be justified as simply being what’s best for the General Welfare.  That justification entitles the elite overlords to wield nearly unlimited power.  The result will be an unrecognizable nation within just one generation.
When a line in the sand is never drawn by the American people, then the government can never be guilty of crossing it.  The question is whether or not there are enough patriots to draw the lines that our founders would have drawn long before now.

By A.R. Nash  April 2013  obama–nation.com
Principle vs Policy; Obligation vs Obedience

The Christian Conscience: Bedrock of Honest Government

 ~of Oaths & Atheists, Holy Fear & Accountability

The proper functioning of the American government at all levels is predicated on one and only one assumption, and that is the presence of a Christian conscience.   Without that element, it goes off the tracks because of the inherent dishonesty of people who seek power over others without any regard for individual rights and fidelity to the Constitution, -which is meant to guard those rights.

That dishonesty is not limited to only those who seek elected office, but to all those who hold a political philosophy that values the power of government over the rights of the governed.  Many have such a philosophy, -one which holds no belief in unalienable rights.  They feel that government is the great and grand dispenser of all rights, and any thing that gets in the way of that power is an unwanted hindrance, including, and especially the United States Constitution.

Blackstone, the highly respected British jurist and legal author, wrote in his widely distributed Commentaries  19 1 page 156:
The power and jurisdiction of Parliament, says sir Edward Coke, is so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be confined, -either for causes or persons, within any bounds, And of this high court he adds, it may be truly said:  “It hath sovereign and uncontrolable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal: this being the place where that absolute despotic power, which must in all government reside somewhere, is entrusted by the constitution of these kingdoms.”

They, of all backgrounds and cultures, worship their Lord of Lords, their King of Kings, their Great and All-Powerful Government.   It, and only it, should have the ultimate say in deciding what its pawns, its serf, its subjects must do “for the General Welfare”.  And they, the devotees, the submissives, and their exempt overlords who are rightful rulers over others, being the entitled elite, are the natural possessors of the power of such government.

They mean to rule well, -but they mean to rule.  They mean to break you and saddle you and ride you because they were born with spurs and you are just a dumb beast that doesn’t know what is best for you.  They are the closet totalitarians, the covert Czars and little Cesars, the unquestionable and inerrant oligarchs.  Their Priesthood is the highest priesthood, and most of their members are lawyers who are unafraid of being sued, and all others must pay them homage.
And all this without any internal boundaries whatsoever on their conduct, -no moral chains of restraint, no bonds of fidelity to any higher authority, especially a divine authority, no limitations of conscience by faith nor oath.

Why such an absence of limitations within them?  Because they fear no God, no afterlife, no Judgement Day, and no Lake of Fire.  They are unaccountable in this life and the next (which doesn’t exist to them).

They are not limited by law, -only by its enforcement, nor are they limited by the oath they take swearing to uphold the law and the Constitution, both of which they have no regard for.
Why do they have no regard for the rule of law?  Because of what is missing inside of them, -namely, a Christian conscience (or if Jewish, -a Jewish conscience).

A Christian conscience is the foundation on which our entire legal and political system is grounded.  If you have a knee-jerk reaction that that is a gross exaggeration, then you need to ask yourself “what is the basis of honesty, particularly honesty in government”?
Without honesty as the underlying virtue of all conduct by those with power, you have in its place a moral vacuum, -a situation of corrupt, dishonest, self-serving, self-enriching, perjuring political hacks at all levels of “public service” regardless of position, -elected or appointed, whether policeman or President.
What did our founding fathers expect of those entrusted with power if not honesty?  And what did they expect the source of that honesty to be?  Atheism?  Relativism?  Nihilism,  Socialism?  Humanism?  Statism?  Or fear of legal punishment?

The answer is none of those.  The answer is the fear of God.  The fear of divine disfavor.  The fear of Hellfire.  The fear of damnation and eternal suffering.  Fear is the greatest motivator of all, -next to love.  And so it was both.  Both fear of engaging in lying, dishonest, selfish, and oath-breaking behavior, along with love of country, love of freedom, and love of the Constitution.

What was it that was meant to bind men to doing right and rejecting wrong?  It was a Christian conscience, and the holy fear and love that is its substance.
How were men called on and obligated to do their duty faithfully and honestly as their position in government required?
It was by requiring them to swear themselves to it.  It was by binding them to do their duty as they solemnly swore before men, -before holy witnesses in Heaven, and He who sits on the Great White Throne, -the Judge of the living and the dead.  To swear an oath is to offer one’s soul as collateral for the fulfilling of one’s word.  Failure to fulfill one’s oath to the best of one’s ability would spiritually assign one’s soul to the jeopardy of damnation.
If you are not Faithful and True out of fear, then you sure as hell better be faithful out of piety & devotion, because when both are lacking, then government unavoidably becomes corrupt.

Let’s look at the nature of an oath, and how it was not a light thing for a person to perform in a God-fearing world, such as existed in Europe for about 1,500 years before the birth of the United States.
If one were to pledge them self to a Lord, or a King or an Archbishop, or the Pope, one would place their left hand on that which is the most Holy thing in this world; the Word of God (the Holy Bible), and speak his oath: “I solemnly swear to xxx…so help me Satan.”

Wait, I think that’s a mistake.  That might not be right, but in the bigger picture…does it really matter who you swear to?  God, or Satan?  What difference does it make?  Answer: all the difference in the world.
One can’t swear an oath to Satan because he is not the judge of anything.  He, in the universe of faith, is the father of lies, the inventor of deceit, dishonestly, and duplicity.  How could an oath to Satan not be an oxymoron? (unless you swore to lie and deceive to the best of your ability)

If one is not swearing to the Judge of the World then one’s oath means absolutely nothing since human nature is inherently dishonest.  Just pay attention to any young child.  Lying comes quite naturally to them in order to shield themselves from punishment for forbidden behavior.

It’s the Almighty or it’s nothing.  So how exactly can an atheist swear an oath?  And without an oath, exactly how can the public trust that they will do their job honestly and fairly as the oath requires?  The very foundation of honest and fair functional government is the honesty and fairness of those entrusted to its offices.  If we cannot be assured of their character, then we cannot be assured that government will not be unfair, unjust, and dishonest.

If oath takers are not believers possessed of a conscience that compels them by fear or love or both, then how is the oath required of them not their first dishonest action on the day of their assumption of office?  The words of their oath, spoken in public, are a false swearing before man (and God) because they believe in neither God nor demons, neither Heaven nor Hell.  So they start their term in office with a big fat lie to everyone.

Just let one of them finish his oath with: “so help me Satan!” and the whole falsity of the modern world’s oath procedure would be brought to light.

That raises a question about other governments.  What do officials in Communist countries do when taking office?  How could they even have a swearing in ceremony when they have no one to swear to?

The can’t swear to gods, nor angels, nor demons, nor ancestors, nor spirits, nor heroes because they either don’t believe that they exist, or don’t believe in their divinity, since divinity doesn’t exist.  So what is the basis of the expectation of honesty from such people?
Perhaps it’s devotion to the party, or the country, or the people, or to national pride, or family honor, or a combination of them all.  But none of them are equal to Hellfire and Eternal Damnation.  That is personal, that kind of accountability at the End of Days when all souls will be judged by their deeds in this life.  That is a much more powerful motivator behind being a faithful and true servant (or master) in the public trust.

With the power of the oath of office being lost in today’s generation, the power of its restraint is non-existent.  Politicians and their appointed minions will do whatever advances their agendas.  Faithfulness to the law be damned.  Truth be damned.  Honesty be damed.  Damnation be damned.

In a Godless universe, the very foundation of government (a public servant’s oath of obedience to law, fidelity to the execution of one’s duties, and allegiance to the Constitution) is neither grounded by nor anchored to anything, especially a politician’s false and lying oath.  And that is just fine with all of them because it is a tiny price to pay to appear to be that which they are not, namely, humble and honest servants of Man and God and Country.

They put on the fine vestments of sacred trust and wear them proudly, while all along they’re naked underneath, -hiding the lying demons of hypocrisy, dishonesty and self-aggrandizement, -or secret collectivist political ideology.

Their power comes through government power; -particularly the power of the purse and the power to mint money out of thin air.  Keep the constituents contented and you’ll be reelected without any serious competition.  Once in office, one has the power of that office to stay in office, and they use it to their fullest advantage, being reelected about 95% of the time.

They serve their master, -the political power machines that direct, fund, and herd the political parties toward their ultimate goal of a government like that of the Confederacy.  It not only had no opposition parties, it had no political parties at all.  That is what their dream is, even if they don’t consciously know it.  But then there are a whole lot of other things that they don’t consciously know about themselves.

Kind of like Morgan Freeman who in the remarkable Tom Cruise sci-fi film “Oblivion” plays the leader of the human resistance that is in a life-and-death struggle against annihilation at the hands of an alien civilization.  His role as leader is to fight against absolute domination, to fight for the survival of human freedom against merciless power.  Yet he supported Obama whole heartedly, unaware of or unconcerned about his Marxist ideology and statist attitude about all-powerful government.

If people are asleep to what is right in front of them, -people who should be awake to the war that the citizens of the United States are in, then the likelihood of anything awakening them is very small.  They can’t grasp what kind of slippery slope they are on because it is declined at such a minor angle, in their dependent perspective, that it seems practically level.  But that will change for millions of people as the treasonous health care travesty is forced onto the backs of the American people.

It will be a debacle of such enormous proportions that people will be rudely awakened, or…it will run smoothly enough that people will be lulled into permanent sleep.  Only time will tell as it’s implemented state by state, but neither possibility will be good for the late, great, former land of the Free.
We ceased being that a long, long time ago, but when we stop being the land of the Brave, we will become the land of the endlessly bossed.   And we, the mere citizens, sure won’t be the ones doing the driving nor giving the orders.  You may as well learn how to salute, stand at attention, and genuflect, because you’ll then be doing a whole lot of it once the statists acquire their full power.

The only barrier against such an eventuality is the push-back on constitutional grounds by the individual states.  We have only the law and the Constitution on our side, while the statists have the Congress, the White House, and the federal courts on theirs.  It remains to be seen which one will prevail.  We have reason to both despair and yet not lose hope because the high court unanimously ruled against the autocratic power of his excellency sire Obama in the case of the recess appointments.  They adhered to the Constitution, the exact opposite of what they did with something 100 times more important, the Unaffordable Health Care Act.
So, in the absence of a crystal ball, we must hold to hope as our ancestors did in not yielding to the superior power and provisions of the British Army.  Eventually, bravery and patience won the day, -not to mention the aid of the French Navy.  We must hope that aid will come though we know not from where nor when nor how.  Like a great landing pad, the Constitution is ready and waiting for Truth to fly in and take over.

Once the all-powerful central government is wounded by the Constitution, and seen to be shieldless and vulnerable, then the blows from the states may come fast and furious.  Lord, I’d sure love to live to see that day.  The Hallelujahs will rise to the sky and there will be dancing in the streets.

by Adrien Nash  May 2013  http://obama–nation.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers