A Man Called Horse & A Man Called President

A Man Called Horse & A Man Called President

Almost everyone in this world is a member of a family/ group/ and nation.  There are only two paths to becoming a member.  One is the obvious means of becoming a member of a family, -one is born into it, but that also applies to nearly all groups and nations.  Since time immemorial, groups/ societies have populated their group with their children.  Their children are born as members because their parents are members.  It is their natural inheritance.  Their membership in the group is a natural membership.  No laws exist that declare that to be the case because it is self-evident and is a natural human right.  So it is with citizenship.  There is no law by which natural American citizens have citizenship in the United States of America because no such law was ever needed.  Laws were needed for those who were not born to group members (citizens), and those laws reflect the second means by which one can become a member of a clan/tribe/society/ and nation.

When outsiders wish to attach themselves to a group into which they were not born, there are certain pre-determined means by which to accomplish that.  One could be via a payment, another via marriage into the group, another via an initiation process that must be successfully completed.  All such means require that either rules/laws be fulfilled, or permission be obtained from the group leader(s).  One example of that was depicted in a movie released in 1970 titled: “A Man Called Horse”.  In it, Richard Harris played an English nobleman who spent time living among a Sioux tribe and fell in love with a Sioux maiden who he wished to marry.
Permission could not be granted unless he became a member of the tribe (via naturalization).  To accomplish that he had to pass a number of tests or exercises, culminating it the most grueling test of all, -the Sun Vow initiation.  It involved having long curved claws shoved/hooked through his pectoral muscles and then being pulled up off the ground via ropes attached to the hooks.  He had to hang there for a torturous period of time, and after enduring all of that he was deemed to be a full member of the tribe.
Such a process high-lights the seriousness of ones commitment to their adopted group.  Through such a process it can be assured that no future traitor would be willing to undergo the membership initiation.  Treason is the worst crime that a person can commit against any family/clan/tribe or nation and it’s results are most often deadly.  With the treason of Benedict Arnold still fresh in their minds, the authors of the presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution inserted a requirement that pertained to the President alone.  That was because only he had martial authority as Commander-In-Chief of all federal forces, and if a traitor were elected President he could destroy the union with that power by surrendering to a foreign empire.
The authors of the Constitution trusted their own generation to not be traitors since they had endured the arduous dangers and sufferings of the war so their only requirement regarding citizenship was that any candidate for President had been a citizen when the Constitution was adopted, -whether  or not they were born in America or born to American parents.
But for later generations they required that a candidate for the presidency must have been born with automatic membership in the American tribe.  That membership is via only one of two principles.  Either it is via birth to American parents or via birth within American borders.  If one is the intended principle, then the other is irrelevant because there is only one principle by which one is a natural member of any group.  That principle is the natural principle of being born into a group, -being a natural native member and not a member by permission.
In human groups, as in nature, the land on which one is born is irrelevant to the off-spring’s membership in their parents species/race/tribe or nation.  A Jew is not deemed to not be Jewish simply because they weren’t born in Israel.  One can say the same of any group or people.  And the principle by which one is Jewish is the same principle by which one is a natural member of any group.  They are born as members.  That principle is the one adhered to by the authors of the Article 2, Clause 1 presidential eligibility requirements of the United States Constitution of Government.
Their requirement was that only natural American citizens could be the President and Commander-In-Chief.  The President’s native country must be the United States.  Among the Sioux nation, if one was not born to Sioux parents then one was not a natural member.  Those who endured the initiation process became adopted members, but not natural members, and the Crow Nation was not their native tribe (country).  If ones father was an outsider who stayed among the tribe through the winter and then moved on, then that child was not a natural Sioux but was “a bastard”, -a hybrid, and their membership in the group was not natural membership because they were begotten by an outsider, an alien, a foreigner and not a native of the tribe.  Being civilized, the tribe probably accepted such a child, though reluctantly.  In other societies such a child might have been killed for being a “half-blood bastard”.
If a female outsider gave birth among the Sioux, her child would have been viewed as a foreign child of a foreign mother and father, -and not a member of the tribe regardless of it being born on Sioux land.  Only natives give birth to natural natives.
Similarly,  only Americans give birth to natural Americans.  If one or both of one’s parents are not natives of the tribe/country where one is born, then one cannot be called a natural member of that group.  Mixed parentage can never produce a natural off-spring or group member, anymore than a horse and a donkey can produce a natural horse or a natural donkey, but produce instead an unnatural mule (which is sterile).  One’s native country, by definition, is that of the parents, -the land/nation of which they are members and are domiciled.  If one is born while one’s mother was outside of her native land, it doesn’t alter the fact that such a one’s native country is still that of the parents.

This fundamental principle is complicated by parents with mixed nationality.  Historically, if the mother lived with the foreign husband in his country, then their child would be viewed as a native of that country, -even if born elsewhere.   But what is the native country of one born to a foreign father whose nation confers citizenship upon such a child even though born within the United States to an American woman?  That may be an unanswerable question.  But one thing is certain.  Such a child possesses no natural membership in any group other than the human group.  Its membership is via written law, not fundamental, unwritten natural law.  Such a child can never be considered to be a natural American because that requires American parents.  Just one parent won’t do.  Consider the horse-&donkey off-spring, or an Orthodox Jew & Arab Muslim off-spring.  Of which group is such a child a natural member?  Answer: none.

Conversely, consider John McCain.  What is his native country?  It is America, -because he was born to American parents and thus was a natural American Citizen and declared to be such by a unanimous vote of the United States Senate.  Where does that leave his contemporary who also co-sponsored the resolution that declared that having been born to American parents, John McCain was a “natural born Citizen” as required by the Constitution?  That fellow Senator, knowing full well what was required to be considered a natural citizen, ran for and was elected to the office of the President, and by taking the oath of office to support, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, violated that oath by the mere act of taking it, trashed the Constitution by not protecting it from himself, and proceeded to throw out centuries of American law and civil rights via abrogation of contract law and imposition of an unconstitutional mandate that all Americans must engage in a commercial system of insurance against their will and wishes.

It would be bad enough if such behavior was exhibited by a natural American citizen, but to have such travesties against the Constitution perpetrated by an illegitimate leader is almost something even a fiction writer couldn’t write.  Unfortunately, fact is stranger and more threatening than any fiction.
The man called “horse” proved his loyalty to his adopted people via a grueling process,  but our current ineligible President has proven nothing to the American people except his resemblance to the back end of the animal for which that naturalized Sioux member was named.  His past records remain secret and sealed.  His birth documents appear to be forgeries.

Perhaps he has proven that he will do whatever needs to be done in order to effect the good that he erroneous assumes his policies will produce, along with proving his self-confessed laziness, -which his extensive golf escapes have shown, along with a total absence of any White House produced legislation package to cut the economy- hobbling federal bureaucratic regulations, or his failure to help institute new regulations to prevent the very same sort of national economic calamity that he blames on his predecessor (who was as clueless as he is).  He has amply proven that he is unmotivated, unconcerned, and incapable of making the hard decisions that are needed to prevent America from barreling into the same inescapable swamp of debt that the Greeks find themselves in.

Hopefully, all that he has proven, and failed to prove, will prove to be his consequential undoing after spending a billion dollars to illegitimately usurp the Presidency for a second time.  Then he will rightfully no longer be a man called President.


Incompetence At The Highest Level

Last week I heard President Obama speak words that no President would be expected to speak.  They were words that any competent leader at almost any level would know were incorrect.

The first time I heard those words spoken by a leader was a few years ago.  I was paying partial attention to an African-American TV interviewee
who I believe was identified as the Deputy or Assistant Attorney General of the United States.  Either way, he made a mistake in misspeaking the words;  Attorneys General, which he erroneously spoke as “Attorney Generals”.
Now I’m no lawyer so if I hadn’t heard some talking-head on some TV news discussion panel inform the audience of what the correct terminology is, I certainly wouldn’t have known the difference nor recognized it when hearing it.
But when I learned the correct form, -where to put the “s” when speaking in the plural, I took a mental note of it because I figured that someday I might be in a conversation with intelligent, educated people who otherwise might look at me in a less that equal light if I made such an uninformed error.

I personally wouldn’t expect anyone but attorneys and those who deal in the law to be aware of what is correct and incorrect, but I absolutely expect real attorneys to know the difference.
How could they not?  Wouldn’t that be something that they’d learn in their first year of law school?
How could one make it all the way through law school, pass the bar exams, work in the field of American jurisprudence at the highest level, and make such a mistake?

The first thought that came to mind (and the only thought) was political “Affirmative Action” hiring.

Now I’ve heard the President of the United States make the same unbelievable mistake.  It wouldn’t be so bad but for the fact that he was
previously “a licensed attorney” and university lecturer on the law.  I just described him as “previously” being an attorney, but he no longer is. Why?  Probably for the same reason that his wife surrendered her law license, which very possibly was  lack of adequate competence.
It brings the competence of Michael Jackson’s doctor to mind.  Some people just are not competent in the occupations that they have somehow become licensed in. How does that happen?  Again, what comes to mind is Affirmative Action, along with political corruption in academia.

How could any attorney make such an error if he truly had the intellectual capability that a law license represents?  Even non-attorneys like my- self know better, having learned the correct usage from just one sentence spoken by someone I can’t even remember.
It’s quite possible to misspeak but then one’s mental faculties would catch the error and one would correct himself.  That didn’t happen.

That implies that the speaker didn’t recognize that what he said was an error.  In Obama’s case, that wasn’t the first time.

Who can forget, even though the media totally overlooked it, (except for Fox) that the current President when speaking to a crowd of military personnel pronounced “Navy Corpsmen” as: “Navy Corpsemen“, not once, but three times. Was he really certain that that was the correct pronunciation, or was he just over-confident in his competence as President?

Was he too proud to ask someone which was correct?  While it’s a national embarrassment to hear such a mistake coming from our elected leader, I could only cringe with sympathy for him, remembering the time when I was reading the same words and wondering which pronunciation would be correct.  That was a long time ago, -before I joined the Marine Corps (not the Marine Corpse, -something that no Marxist-friends- &-professors-embracing radical ever came within a million miles of doing).

What’s the point of pointing out this error?  It’s to shed light on the “black hole” nature of his hidden academic record.  If one’s record and writings could garner respect, one wouldn’t hide them.   If one hides them, then its because they would not garner respect, but instead, disrespect.

Incompetence results in results that are not respectable, and that fact is the only reason why this President has kept his academic history in a locked box, -the first phantom president, the only modern President of the internet age who doesn’t live up to his intellectual reputation.

It’s not that he’s not intelligent, because he is, but he is, and always has been, in his words, “kind of lazy”, -and laziness results in academic mediocrity.  Academic mediocrity doesn’t get one very far in the academic world unless some very influential backer(s) open doors for you, write different rules for you, and just “accept you as you are”.  Of course the end result of such support is the first Affirmative Action President.
How did such a man become President of the United States?  Because no one vetted him.
They didn’t investigate his record in government (since he hardly had one), nor in academia, nor his associates (including Reverend Wright who espoused Black Liberation Theology -pro-black Marxism), and worse of all, they didn’t even confirm his constitutional eligibility to be President.

All who ignorantly assumed he was eligible were fooled by a misunderstanding that springs
from an ancient philosophy that was developed to defend and legitimize the autocratic rule of monarchs.  It was known as The Divine Right of Kings, and was based on religious philosophy supposedly supported by the Holy Scripture.

Under its application, the King owned everything grown or born on his lands.  On a national level, that translated to the rule that all persons born in his realm were his subjects for life, and had no right to renounce the allegiance that they “owed” their sovereign by swearing allegiance to another nation (The United States of America).

Everyone born in the King’s foreign colonial territories, belonged to him by having been born on his land.  His claim to them supposedly ended with the Peace Treaty of 1783. But due to violating it by kidnapping naturalized British-Americans from ships at sea, the United States could tolerate such behavior no more and with only 3 naval ships they declared war on the most powerful nation on Earth.
But the idea that remained entrenched in the American psyche was that by being born withinthe government’s domain, one belongs to the government just as one previously belonged to the King even though in a free republic, the government belongs to the people, -not the other way around.
Today, we’re still suffering the effect of that misconception even though it’s not embodied in any law that governs the citizenship of those born
to American parents.  Their citizenship is not a result of any law ever passed.  It’s not found in the Constitution.  It’s not guaranteed by any court ruling.  It exists as a fact that pre-dates the Constitution.  It exists as a natural right of man, -the right of parents to be the one and only “owner” and authority over their own children, and to pass to them that which is naturally theirs by inheritance, -namely membership in the parent’s group/ tribe/ clan/ country/ nation.
Obama is assumed to possess American citizenship because he produced two digital images representing two Hawaiian birth documents, with the assumption being that he “belonged” to the U.S. government (via citizenship) by birth within its borders, -rather than belonging to his parents and their groups by the law of natural membership.
How does the distinction translate in a legal sense?  Simple.  By the 14th Amendment, citizenship is conferred upon anyone born in the United States and fully subject to all the dictates of Washington that pertain to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.  That’s what the 14th Amendment requires, but the problem is that babies aren’t subject to any authority other than their parents, -not the federal government).

Therefore one must assume that federal jurisdiction can only be ascribed to  the child through the father, or single mother.  But if the parent is not subject to the authority  of the United States federal government, then neither is the child.

Such was the case of Obama Sr. And Obama Jr. The father wasn’t a citizen, nor an immigrant, but merely an foreign student who was a guest of the United States via a student visa, and covered by international treaty.  Therefore the 14th  Amendment didn’t apply to his son through him.

Though his mother was a U.S. citizen, her citizenship was not passed to her son by  the 14th Amendment because when it was written the citizenship of American women was not ascribed to their children.  It was the citizenship of the father that determined the citizenship of his children.

It wasn’t until sometime near the middle of the 20th century that U.S. naturalization law allowed the children of American women to have their mother’s citizenship.  That made Obama a statutory provisional citizen as opposed to what the Constitution requires, -which is a natural citizen, -one born as a U.S. citizen via natural inheritance of the father’s political nature, i.e., American citizenship.
So the wide-spread misconception that Barack Obama obtained U.S. citizenship because of where he was born resulted in a situation wherein nobody who believed that, (-who was ignorant, spineless, or indifferent and silent) challenged his eligibility to be the President.  And no one in authority or the media will challenge it in the coming election.
Truly, we’ve become a nation of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” as our Affirmative Action President waltzes into re-nomination for another
unconstitutional run for the office of President of the United States.

His candidacy will be as legitimate as the Solyndra give-away and the Fast & Furious assault weapons transfers and the cover-up that ensued.

Arrogance, incompetence, and a willingness to violate the Constitution and surround oneself with like-minded people is what the Democrat party will once again offer the American people.  They’ll all vote for him again. The question is what will the independents do?

With the nation remaining in the state it’s in, they’ll either judge him on his competence, which will be found wanting, or judge him on his appeal, which remains intact.

Will the election be another beauty pageant, -another coronation determined by his popularity with women voters, or an election determined by the merits of what each candidate offers for solving the problems of the present and the future.  The fate of tomorrow truly is riding on the outcome of who we choose today.

by a.r. nash  obama–nation.com

Jesus & Obama: Two Unnatural Hybrids

Jesus+Obama -Two Unnatural Hybrids  PDF version

Jesus & Obama: Two Unnatural Hybrids

   The most fantastic issue in the long history of American Presidents is the issue of a President who is not even eligible to be the President, -a President who violated the oath of office by taking the oath of office.  That oath requires swearing to support, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.  Yet by taking that oath and assuming the office of the President he violated its clear limitation barring all person from that office except those who are “natural born Citizens”.  Since Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, his ineligibility is unquestionable.
The proof of his ineligibility is revealed by many examples taken from principles of natural law, which translate into the political equivalents that govern human law.   One such example is that of the hybrid nature of Jesus, which is the basis of the Christian faith and the writings of the New Testament.

The four gospels portray Jesus as having been sired by the Holy Spirit, making a virgin young women pregnant with a child that was both human and divine.  That made for a person who was not wholly human nor wholly divine, but instead was both human and divine.   The belief in that hybrid nature is the foundation of a faith that changed the world.  If he had been only one or the other, the world would not have succumbed to the appeal of a divinely human savior.  It was the hybrid nature of Christ that made all the difference.
Similarly, the hybrid nature of Barack Obama directly impacts the issue of his presidential eligibility.  We are not speaking of the racial element of his hybrid nature but the political element.  With Jesus, if he had had a human father then his parentage would have been uniform and singular; -human parents producing a human child.  With Obama, his alien father and American mother produced a hybrid citizen whose parentage was not singular and uniform, but was dual and dissimilar.  He also was a hybrid, a political hybrid born of a mother who had nothing in common with the political nature of the father.  Just as the union of the Holy Spirit and a human female egg did not produce a natural off-spring, so the union of a father having alien citizenship with a mother having American citizenship did not produce a natural American off-spring because it could only result in producing a hybrid, a child with completely dissimilar political parentage.

Just as a pairing of dissimilar races cannot produce a natural off-spring of either race, so a pairing of parents with dissimilar nationality cannot produce a natural citizen of either nation.  Instead it produces a hybrid with dual citizenship and an irresolvable conundrum of competing allegiance.
It was the very real fear of a commander-in-chief of all U.S. military and federal forces having a second allegiance to a foreign power that led to the framers of the Constitution forbidding anyone except a natural citizen from serving as the President, (although they could serve in Congress and even the Supreme Court).  But they were not trusted to hold the reins of Power and command all the forces of the nation in a time of war.  Only those born of U.S. citizens were granted that right.   But of course they had to exempt their own generation since none of them were born to American citizens.
That was not much of a limitation on the field of candidates since 99% of Americans were born to citizen parents.  The few that were barred were those born to unnaturalized immigrants, foreigners who were diplomats, visitors, businessmen, ministers, and students, as well as Native Americans, slaves, women, and children born to alien fathers, i.e. hybrids.  [While it is a fact that American women were natural born citizens, it is also a fact that they had a societal-political status more like that of children and property, as is seen in strict Islamic societies today.]
To the Constitution’s framers, the importance of allegiance solely to the United States was paramount, -indicated by the oaths that they required.

The U.S. “Oath of Allegiance” (8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008) is an oath that must be taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens.  The first officially recorded Oaths of Allegiance were made on May 30th, 1778 at Valley Forge, during the Revolutionary War.
The current oath is as follows:
“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; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;…”
Only citizens born of citizens would bring no competing allegiance to the office of President since a singular citizenship ruled out any possibility of competing loyalty.  Hence, no person born of an alien would be fully trustable as Commander-In-Chief.  All candidates for the office must be 100% American, having only American parentage.  Their citizenship must be singular, not dual, inheriting U.S. citizenship from both parents.
Any deviation from the normal, typical, (almost universal) pattern results in a citizenship that is not natural, but is statutory, and therefore ineligible for the office of the President.  Such persons are citizens due to U.S. law, while natural citizens are not, and have never been citizens via any law, regulation, or court ruling.  The principle of their citizenship is more fundamental than all human law since it’s based on natural law, just like the right to marry, or own property, or have custody of one’s own children.  Such rights are not codified in the Constitution because they were universally accepted as basic rights of man.
Citizenship is one of those rights when it’s based on natural inheritance.  Such natural citizenship is the only type of citizenship that the founding fathers deemed acceptable for the office of President, but they didn’t mandate such a strict requirement for any other federal office.
Such citizens cannot be artificially created via naturalization nor by birth to parents of dissimilar  nationality, especially when the father is not even a legal immigrant but is a mere guest of the government.  Obama Sr. was such a person and it is because of that fact that his son cannot under any sane understanding of natural citizenship be considered to be a natural citizen.
That means that everyone was fooled, the electorate, the media, the Congress, and the courts.  Or, alternatively, many of them knew the truth but didn’t care, or even willfully violated their legal or moral responsibility to the Constitution.  And even worse, they are going to do it again in the 2012 election.  They not only will continue to pretend that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is non-existent, they will challenge, belittle, mock, insult, and reject any assertion that the issue is real and being covered-up by the likes of them due to either their ignorance, stupidity, or willful deceit.
by A.R. Nash   http://obama–nation.com




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers