Nixon’s Pardon & Obama’s Election

Sec. 1.  A History of Illegitimacy.
Sec.2.  Prepare for The Coming Outrage

Recently I heard an insightful political commentator noting how the illegitimate pardon of Richard Nixon set a tone in Washington that has remained until this day, and has become a kind of underlying mind-set through which controversial issues are now viewed.  In a time when the country was outraged and enshrouded in the negativity of  the fetid stench of a President acting like a petty dictator, the nation’s strongly aroused sense of a sacred trust being betrayed and egregiously violated was met not by a cathartis of justice but by the deflating announcement that President Ford, appointed by Nixon as his Vice-President, had “pardoned” ex-President Nixon for any actions related to the Watergate cover-up.
The effect of that action had a chilling effect on the natural desire to see justice meted out, and replaced it with an unsatisfying philosophy that justice must take a backseat to what’s best for the country.  We all resented that kind of “Father Knows Best” attitude coming from Washington but had to grit our teeth and accept it as a bitter medicine that maybe would be best after all.  That was only acceptable begrudgingly because the nation was tired and kind of “shell shocked” by the whole ugly affair.  But that pardon was to be the first, but not the last, time that Washington “did what was best for the country” instead of doing what was right and lawful.
At that time I saw and felt that a grave mistake had been made from the prespective of respect for the law and the Constitution.  The mistake was not in pardoning a guilty ex-President, but in pardoning an innocent ex-President.  That was a horrible travesty against the whole system of innocent until proven guilty, which is the foundation of our criminal justice system.  Nixon had not even been charged with anything much less convicted and sentenced.  How can an innocent man be pardoned for anything?  He’s not legally guilty of anything therefore there is no basis to pardon him for anything.  Thus the so-called pardon was a form of obstruction of justice because it illegitimately derailed the requisite criminal investigation which had not even started.  That set a precedent that was a terrible demonstration that the Rule of Law didn’t apply to the political elite class because it wouldn’t be good for the country.
That precedent took hold in Washington and came to bedevil us again when the elite political class decided that they would conspire together to insure that the Republican Party would have John McCain as a legitimate candidate.  To ensure that, it was necessary to allay the doubt that he might not be constitutionally eligible because he was not born on U.S. soil but in the American controlled Panama Canal Zone.
In exchange for Democratic votes for the resolution declaring McCain to be a “natural born citizen” (by 99 to 0) the Republicans either knowingly or ignorantly struck some sort of bargain that they would not give any thought or speech against the obviously ineligible Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, who clearly was not a natural born American citizen since he was the off-spring of an alien guest, and not an American citizen father.  Accepting the first black candidate, regardless of his candidacy being unconstitutional, was “what was best for the country”, so making waves and rocking the boat would not happen regardless of the crime against the Constitution.  The “fix was in”.

The media was enamored with him so they failed in their duty to even slightly vet him.  No questions were asked, -no thinking occurred about things that a reporter would natural wonder about if focused on any Republican candidate.  Hence we have the most unvetted high-ranking public servant in American history.  We have as President,  (in charge of all of the investigative and prosecutorial departments of government)  someone who would never be able to pass a simple FBI investigation for a top-security clearance since his entire academic and professional history is a tightly hidden secret.  How could someone who’s life is an obscure mystery be viewed as a transparent, fully acceptable presidential candidate?  Because of two things.

The big lie, and the big voice.  The golden voiced oratory of a demi-god inspired the masses on both sides of the Atlantic to cozy up to the warmth of his rich baritone which radiated inspiration with soaring rhetoric.  Thus all the doors were opened to him as if fate had chosen him as its anointed one.

And the door to presidential eligibility was wide open because of the almost universal American ignorance about the principles of what determines citizenship.  Essentially no one was aware of the fact that within the lifespan of our parents or grandparents, Barack Obama would have been understood to have been born as not an American citizen but as a British or Kenya citizen, or as a stateless person.  That is due to the fact that throughout most of American history, American women who married foreigners lost there American citizenship and assumed that of their husband.  Thus the family and its children would all have one uniform citizenship, not dual-citizenship with competing allegiance and competing national responsibilities.
His birth in Hawaii would have been irrelevant for two reasons.  The first is that the framers of the Constitution (and its presidential eligibility requirements) didn’t place any importance on birth in the States because they only required 14 years residency, which is only two fifths of the age of 35 -the minimum age required to be President. They left the door open to children born abroad to American Ambassadors, children who had grown up outside of the United States but who had been raised by parents who were trusted. politically astute true-blue Americans, -totally solid in their love and respect for their country.   Thus a  John McCain could have been born in and lived in Panama for 56 of his years, then moved to the United States and lived 14 years here, thereby becoming constitutionally eligible to be President at the age of 72 (the age at which he ran).
The second reason is that by the 14th Amendment, even with birth within U.S. borders, citizenship is only conveyed if the child, through the father, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction.  But foreign guests are immune from Washington’s jurisdiction since they are under the umbrella of international treaties and are not held as being required to obey all the orders, laws, and regulations that citizens and legal permanent immigrants are subject to and held accountable to obey.  Thus Obama is not a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, meaning birth in the U.S. is meaningless in his rare case.
Unfortunately the public, the press, and the government are basically ignorant of that simple but significant truth.  Why?  Because it was never highly significant until the candidacy of Barack Obama for the Presidency.  That truth has been lost in a group-think delusion about the principles that determine citizenship.  That delusion is the belief that mere location of birth within U.S. borders conveys citizenship because that is what the 14th Amendment is misunderstood to say.
But in perhaps 99% of U.S. births citizenship is conveyed naturally from American parents to their children, or historically, from father to child.  That is the principle that was never written because it was so fundamental and univerally recognized that it never needed to be codified.  All natural citizens are citizens by that unwritten law.  But all children of aliens and immigrants are citizens by statute.  They are statutory citizens, not natural citizens.
By being the off-spring of an alien father Barack Obama is a statutory citizen since his citizenship is solely due to Immigration & Naturalization law connected to his mother.  Statutory citizens are not eligible to be the U.S. President because they are not natural citizens by birth to citizen parents, in particular, a citizen father.
But the political machine that backed Obama knew that his eligibility could be defended if they played on the common misbelief that a U.S. birth equals citizenship, and that citizenship equals presidential eligibility.  So they focused on his supposed place of birth to show that he was a “native born” citizen, although native citizens are only those born to citizens, i.e.; born to natives, and Obama’s father was not a native of the United States of American.  But their tactics succeeded in pulling the wool over nearly everyone’s eyes, both inside and outside of government.  No one thought to ask any questions.  Truthfully, no one thought, period.  Combine ignorance with certainly about one’s assumptions, and you have a fully deluded population.  The left-wing Obamanites are counting on that not changing in the next election year, and they will probably find that it doesn’t.

Prepare for The Travesty to Come

The unaware American electorate is poised for an election season of  propagandizing based on the perceived issues and desired outcomes without any awareness that the Demcrats are not offering a candidate that is constitutionally eligible.  That fact will go unrecognized and unacknowledged as in state after  state the people responsible for vetting candidates will simply shirk their responsibility and repeat the travesty against the Constitution that took place in 2008 when the National Democrat Party officials acted as the tail that wagged the dog by prevailing on everyone to accept Obama as an eligible candidate even though there was no proof that he was one, nor that he was even born in the United States.   Forged birth certificate images are not proof of anything except that you can fool all of the people some of the time.
As the coming bastardization of the certification of eligibility repeats the same travesty as in 2008, the impact on those who are fully awake and aware of what is happening will be felt strongly as it dawns on them that the nation has lost the appreciation of fidelity, authenticity, veracity, and honesty in our elections, in our media, and in our government.  Prepare to see the inconceivable happen again as an ineligible candidate is offered once more for the Office of the President.  No one in or with any spotlight has the nerve, or has the knowledge, to challenge his eligibility.  Those who know he isn’t eligible aren’t talking because they view the issue either through the biased eyes of accolytes, or as knowledge that is, like strong medicine, worse than the disease.  Thus his candidacy will be shepherded into the election to run against his opponent as if there is nothing out of the ordinary about him and his eligibility.

Prepare for the disappointment to come by resolving to work as an active citizen and voter to see that he and his illegitimate cadre of neo-progressive socialists are shown the exits.  But don’t hold your breath waiting for the dismantling of his illegitimate Presidential orders, appointments, and signed bills because no one in Washington is willing to even think about such a thing, much less doing something that would be embarrassing to the political elites that knowingly, or ignorantly, allowed his election to happen last time.   Afterall, that “would not be what is best for the country”.  And besides, who could serve to questions the 100 Senators who backed the McCain resolution?  Who is there is ask: “Senator, what did you know and when did you know it?”

Sitting Bull & Obama; a Tale of Two Chiefs

(one legitimate, one not)

When someone assumes the role of the leader of a people, it is presumed that before that ascension to the top position that certain conditions must first be fulfilled, and generally they are very simple to state.  To be the Chief one must be a mature and experienced person, experienced in leadership, judgement, and administration.  One must also have lived among ones people for a considerable number of years (as opposed to living with another tribe).  Lastly, but foremost, one must be a full-blooded member, -a natural native member of the group by birth, as opposed to being a member by permission.

In a hypothetical scenario, if George Armstrong Custer had a wife who gave birth on the land of the Sioux nation (which he was warring against) would that child be a natural native member of the Sioux nation?  Would that child be viewed as equal to the sons of Sioux fathers and eligible one day to be the Chief?  “Of course not!” you respond; “that would be insane!”.  Which is true, and yet “insane” is where we find our nation living.  The only difference is that the nation is America, not the Sioux, and the father is Barack Obama Sr.
If makes no difference that he sired a child with an American woman because what is erroneously believed is that the right to be the Chief is based solely on the ownership of the land where the mother delivered the child.  “Sitting Bull, -born on Sioux land, therefore eligible to be the Chief; George Armstrong Custer Jr., -born on Sioux land and therefore eligible to be the Chief;  Barack Obama Jr.; born on American land, therefore eligible to be the Commander in Chief” (even though he is not a natural native member of the American tribe since he was sired by an  alien temporarily in the U.S. as a foreign student).

The authors of the Constitution wrote a prohibition in Article II, Section 1, in which they ordered the rejection of any citizen from being eligible to the office of the President if that citizen was not a natural native member of the American nation.  Their worse-case-scenario would have been an American-born son of King George, growing up under his wicked father’s tutelage, returning to the United States at age 21, and 14 years later running for and winning the office of President.  To prevent that, or any lesser version (son of Benedict Arnold for example), from being a candidate for the presidency they required that only those born as natural citizens, -natives of the American nation, be acceptable.  That required having American parentage, proscribing having foreign parentage, i.e.; an alien father.  Only natural American citizens, born of citizens, or children of natural-ized American citizens could be the President.

The Law That Was Never Written

Sitting Bull, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Joe Biden, -fill-in just about any name you can think of, -except Barack Obama, and one thing will be true of all of them.  That thing is that they were/are members of their group by an unwritten rule.  That rule is so obvious and fundamental that there was never a need to commit it to writing.  It’s the rule of natural membership.  It’s the same rule that’s seen in nature.  Off-spring of any and all species are of the same species.   Off-spring of group members are members also because membership is passed from parents to children.
So it is among nations also.  Citizenship is passed from parents to children.  That is the law that was never written because it was universally accepted as self-evident.
But life in an evolving nation is not as simple as life in a tribe, and eventually unusual situations arise which only the highest judges can decide with finality.  Such a case arose in 1875 (Minor v Happersett).  The Supreme Court was asked to rule that an American woman had the Constitutional right to vote since she was an American citizen, and all citizens are equal.  The court was put in the awkward situation of having to first make a determination as to whether or not she, as an American female, was a citizen.  Only after determining the answer was “yes”, could they proceed to determine if she therefore had a right to vote.
The first thing they had to examine was the United States Law regarding the citizenship of its native members (naturalization law covered only immigrants and their children).  They went to the proverbial cupboard for a recipe for natural citizenship and found the cupboard was bare.  There was no law.  Nothing had ever been written, -except one little mention in the Constitution using just two words -but only in regard to the office of the President.  “No person, except a *natural born* citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,…”.  That was the only thing ever written in law in all of American history that dealt with the subject of the citizenship of 99% of the native members of the American nation.
Out of necessity, and having no alternate choice, they had to resort to ascertaining what that three-word phrase meant, and extrapolate whether or not Mrs. Minor was a citizen or not.  “the Supreme Court held that persons born in the US to parents who are citizens are “natives or natural-born citizens.”  These are referred to as a “class” of persons separate from the class of persons born to alien parents.”  [Leo Donofrio

The court decided that while Mrs. Minor was clearly a citizen of the United States, she was not entitled to vote because the federal Constitution did not delineate any right to vote since it was a State matter.  So the court found that although American women were citizens of the United States, voting was not a right of citizenship.  Even though unfair, it was up to state legislatures or a Constitutional amendment (the 19th) to change things.

Thus, without any written law to follow, the Supreme Court deftly defined the principle beneath the citizenship of all citizens who are not naturalized nor born of immigrants.  They described citizens by applying common sense to the universal principle of membership as seen in natural law.  Citizens were not defined as all those who are born in America, but are those who are born to American parents.  All those who are not born to American parents can only become Americans by the application of laws written for that purpose.  Those laws include immigration and naturalization laws, as well as the application of the 14th Amendment for their children.  Under it they are naturalized at birth if the parents are un-naturalized, or, if the parents had completed naturalization before their birth, they are born as natural American citizens.

No citizen who is a citizen by law is a  native citizen of the American nation because no law was ever written to define them.  All the laws ever written have been for those who are NOT native citizens because they were citizens of another nation (immigrants), or children of such transplanted persons [as well as Native Americans and former slaves].
The meaning of the words used to describe those citizens who alone are eligible to be the President were written with the fathers of presidential candidates in mind.  No son of a foreign father was to ever be entrusted with the reins of power of the Commander in Chief, just as no son of Custer would ever be entrusted with the position of Chief of the Sioux nation.

Only an American father is capable of producing a son who is a natural member of the nation, -a native or indigenous citizen.  The current President was never such a son since he was sired by an foreign outsider who was no more capable of fathering a natural American son than Obama’s maternal grandfather, if visiting Kenya, would be capable of fathering a natural Kenyan son.

By A.R. Nash Oct 2011 http://obama–

Obama & A $40,000,000 Comma

Natural membership & The American Tribe

Before Barack Obama took the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, who was it that verified that by taking the oath he would not be simultaneously violating it by not being constitutionally eligible to be the President?   Answer:  No one.

A centuries old conflict, and the confusion that’s a result of it, led to a misconception in the mind of the American population, and that misconception exempted Mr. Obama from meeting the requirement that the Constitution mandates.  It revolves around the issue of his citizenship, and whether it is of the type that qualifies him to be President.
The confusion is based on opposing philosophies which are expressed in ambiguous ways.  Simple alternate punctuation can produce results that are diametrically opposed.  But when one speaks, there is no punctuation, and so unpunctuated speech can be very ambiguous and that produces confusion.
But listeners normally don’t recognize ambiguity.  They assume that one or the other of two possibilities is what is being conveyed, and the opposite possibility doesn’t occur to them.  Hence they feel certain that their interpretation of what was said is correct, but it may be 100% incorrect, and only careful writ- ten communication can make the truth be known.

That’s the reason behind “legalese”. That’s been the plight of communication regarding citizenship in America ever since the ratification of the Constitution.  People picked-up misconceptions which accompanied them into adulthood, into public office and positions of authority in law and its administration.  Those misconceptions remain to this day because the errors behind them have not been widely recognized.

A startling example of how a minuscule error can produce a disastrous result is one from the 1960’s.  A communication satellite was carefully constructed and placed atop a carefully constructed missile for launch.  It cost $20,000,000 to build (double that in today’s dollars).  The software written to control the launch had been carefully reviewed so nothing would go wrong.  The missile was launched and soon something went horribly wrong and it had to be destroyed.  A total loss.
But they learned after careful analysis that nothing was wrong with the missile.  Instead there was an almost insignificant flaw in the software.

The programmer had accidentally hit a period on the keyboard instead of a comma.  That period ended the process that was meant to continue following a comma.  The result of something so small was a catastrophe so large.  The smallest mistake can have a huge result.  The same is true in the realm of ideas.  Tiny misconceptions are like the small part that controls the movement of a giant rudder which controls the movement of a giant ship.  Nations are like giant ships and their direction is determined by small things such as crucial words and misconceptions.  Consider these examples.
Obama was born as a citizen of the U.S. via birth to an American mother in the United States.   Does that mean the same as:

Obama was born as a citizen of the U.S. via birth  in the United States to an American mother?
What do those statements clearly convey?  Only one thing; the fact stated in the first half of the sentences.  The second half is totally ambiguous.  These are the possible meanings:

Obama was born as a citizen via birth in the United States.
Obama was born as a citizen via birth to an American mother.

Which one is it?  Which is true, or are they both true?  Confusion.  Let’s see it with punctuation. Obama, born in the United States, was a citizen of the U.S. via birth to an American mother.  Or… Obama, born to an American mother, was a citizen of the U.S. via birth in the United States.
By which principle is Barack Obama eligible to be the President?  By birth within the borders of the American government?  Or by birth to an American mother?  Answer:  Neither, -and here’s why.
To be eligible to be President one must be a natural member of the American family.  That requires natural inheritance of membership in the group.  That group membership (citizenship) is passed down to the children of members. They are members by birth.  As in any tribe, outsiders cannot father members of the tribe, only members can do that.  If an outsider marries, or just impregnates a native female member of the tribe and a child results, it will not be a natural member of the tribe because it was born of an outsider.

But the child is accepted as a member because the  mother is a member, -though the child will not be eligible to be Chief because he’s not a full-blood  natural native of the tribe, but is a un-natural hybrid member, -the result of the pairing of an insider with an outsider.
If a tribe lives on tribal lands that contain some special quality, and it draws outsiders to settle on the tribe’s land, the tribe can adopt a policy that grants tribal membership to the children born to the outsiders, but that membership is not natural membership because it is not the result of birth to tribe members.  Those children would not be allowed to be the Chief.

The child of the hybrid will be a natural native tribe member via birth to parents who are members of the tribe.  He will be eligible to be the Chief.  His father, the hybrid, would only be eligible if his father, the outsider, underwent a purification process by which he was purged of his old life and loyalty to his former world, -former “tribe” and was re-made as a new natural-ized member of the tribe after having completed the naturalizing rituals, -rituals handed down from the ancestors for converting men from other tribes into naturalized members so the children of the native women they married would be full- fledged tribe members, -full-blooded instead of half-blood hybrids.
Since Obama’s father was a transient outsider, his off-spring is not a natural member of the American tribe but is instead a hybrid.  Hybrids are not allowed to be the Chief unless their fathers underwent the naturalizing ritual and forsook and rejected all prior allegiance and loyalty.  No transient visitor ever does, nor can do that.  Without that his child remains an un-naturalized hybrid member.
Where I live there are two indigenous tribes and they have boards of directors to govern them.  Seeing a photo of the board is surprising.  One sees faces similar to their own, Anglo-Saxon, with names like McKinsey.  One is hit by the impression that something isn’t right, something isn’t natural.  Even though they clearly are not pure-blooded indigenous members, they are fully accepted as such because of multiple generations of membership.
Such dilution of the tribes blood-line is tolerated because of the decimation of its numbers by  massacre and poverty.  But the principle remains unchanged.  An outsider can father a member but it won’t be a natural member.   Thus, Obama is not an American citizen of the natural type by birth since he was fathered by a foreigner.

So is he eligible to be President because he was born on American soil?   The answer is “definitely not”.   But few Americans are aware of just how definite that fact is.  That is because the mind-set of the American public remains clouded by the smoke of the aftermath of a war between the rights of man and the “Divine Right of Kings”; –the right of individual liberty and the right of ownership of human property.

The origin of belief in attachment to one’s place of birth is rooted in the religious philosophy that arose to justify the absolute power of monarchs.  The principle that gave their reign legitimacy was the belief that since they were ordained by God to be his authority on earth, their will, decisions, and choices were paramount, absolute,  and uncontestable.  The domain over which they reigned was their own personal empire, and anyone born within their dominion belonged to them from the moment they were born until the moment they died.  Anyone who dared to renounce their loyalty and allegiance to the Crown had committed a high crime tantamount to treason, even though it was a natural human right to live in any country one might prefer and be a citizen of that country.
The British men who emigrated to the United States, including those who became new naturalized Americans, remained in the eyes of the King as his personal property, -his subjects for as long as they lived.  The United States, founded on principles of Natural Rights, not King’s rights, bitterly disagreed and in response to the British Navy kidnapping new Americans from American ships and conscripting them into the British Navy, the United States did the only thing that the dignity of its sovereignty could accept; -they declared War on the British Empire in 1812.

Miraculously, the British were defeated again, but the war over who humans belong to continued on, -on the conscious and subconscious level.
The Americans over-threw the despotic monarchy and it’s version of human ownership, but its presence in the minds of the ex-colonists was not eradicated.  It was embedded by a century and a half of imperial governance of the colonies, under which is was understood that anyone born on the King’s lands belonged to him.  That was “the law” in both Britain and the colonies in the eyes of the monarchists and those who were the sycophants of his Highness.
But free-thinking individuals asserted that humans possessed rights of personal liberty and were not the property of any self-serving King or Queen.   Eventually they won the multi-century long disagreement and citizenship by descent was codified into British law.  Englishmen are Englishmen because they are born to Englishmen, not because they are born on the English property of the Monarch.
But Americans are still in confusion regarding the principle by which they are Americans.  Is it by location of birth or is it by natural inheritance?  One thing is certain, the place of one’s birth has no connection to nature, nor to the word “natural” as in “natural born”.  Where an animal gives birth is irrelevant to its membership in the herd, or pack, or flock, etc.  The same is true of birth to members of a tribe.  The same is true of many nations, but those which were once the colonies of kings still think nothing has changed since the days when they were ruled by The Lord & Master of all the inhabitants of all of his lands.  They trace their membership to the soil instead of to their native-citizen parents who gave them both life and their natural connection to their national group.

The Constitution of the United States does not require a President to be a person born in America, rather it requires that one be a natural member of the America tribe, (as was John McCain) -an indigenous native citizen  by nature, -born a natural member of the American group by birth to group members.
With this being so, how can the son of an alien be viewed as being eligible to be the Chief?  Can a native member of the American tribe give birth to a natural Kenyan?  Can a Kenyan give birth to a natural American?   Can the GPS coordinates of one’s birth location really determine eligibility to the most powerful office on earth?  If most Americans believe so, then we need a re-boot as a nation so we can get our thinking straight, and understand the clear and simple meaning of the words of the Constitution: “No person—except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”

by a.r. nash oct 2011 http://obama–


Native-born Citizenship

A New Insight Into An Old Truth /

Why Obama Is Not Native-Born

    I finally realized why the founders used native-born interchangeably with natural-born.  It’s because they didn’t simplistically connect it to place-of-birth.
By natural law one is the same as one’s parents.  Lions don’t give birth to donkeys,   Natural inheritance is an inviolable law of nature.   Members don’t give birth to non-members, nor do non-members give birth to members anymore than donkeys give birth to lions.  If born to a non-member, one isn’t a natural member even if a member by permission.

The most fundamental right in nature is property ownership, which begins with the wives and children of the Alpha male.  Hence the basis of patrilineal inheritance by descent.  The children belong to him and inherit what pertains to him, be it his nature or his name and possessions.

Place of birth is only an issue in regard to “The Divine Right of Kings” and their Lordship over all born within their domain.  One is born where one’s parents live and they live with their group for generation after generation.  Fathering children with a member of another group is not a natural situation.  Such off-spring aren’t natives of the group because they aren’t natural members.
After over 100 years of a colony’s existence, its inhabitants became the new indigenous population, -the new natives, and their colony was their only homeland.  Their children were natives by birth in the homeland to parents who were indigenous members of the colony.  They were the new natural natives through natural inheritance by birth to native parents.

Understand this:   No One who was born of a father who was not a native indigenous member would be a native of the group.  Only those born to natives would be natives, all others would violate natural law and unwritten human membership law.  A transient male outsider cannot father an indigenous native child anymore than a native male could father a foreign child.
Barack Obama wasn’t born of a native father and therefore is not a native born American, but is a hybrid.  Only native indigenous fathers give birth to native sons.  And no non-native person with a hybrid citizenship is eligible to be the President of the United States because he’s not a natural born native citizen.

http://obama–      a.r. nash Oct 2011


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers