Obama’s Mother: Expatriated by Marriage?

The most important, though covert, issue of the 2008 presidential election was that of Barack Obama’s ancestry.  His American ancestors went back hundreds of years.  No, wait.  Make that his African ancestors who went back hundreds of years, -no make that thousands of years, no-wait, -make that tens of thousands of years.   If his father had married an indigenous American, (forever erroneous labeled “Indians” by Columbus) then there would have been a truly colossal clash of ancestries; -different continents, different cultures,  different religions, different races, and different countries.
Instead his significant ancestral clash was not in any of those realms but in that of his parents’ nationalities.  Which citizenship would he be born with?  British? or American? Or both?   If he had been born between 1907 and 1922, the answer was very simply.  It followed the same straight-forward tradition as society and religious teaching & practice.

By Christian tradition and Church Law, the wife was subordinate to the husband who was the head of the household.*  Therefore she was fully a part of his world and belonged to him.
The outward manifestation of that relationship was that upon taking the wedding vow giving herself to her husband, she thereby passed from the jurisdiction of her father to that of her mate.  If he was a foreign man, then her maiden citizenship, inherited from her father via patrilineal descent, switched to that of her husband as she left behind her former family name and her former family citizenship and adopted his and his alone, becoming fully a part of his world and his family.

That tradition is known as “expatriation by marriage”  For many year it was an integral part of the official policy of the American Immigration & Naturalization Service, as well as The State Dept., which is responsible for visas and passports.

But after women gained the right to vote, naturalization law changed to reflect their new status and the Cable Act of 1922 gave them back the U.S. citizenship which they lost due to the Nationality Act of 1907, -at least if they remained within the United States.  Later revisions, particularly the Act of 1940 protected their citizenship no matter where they lived with their foreign spouse.  So that was the law that Congress passed and that one would assume was followed.

But one learns from reading the official Attorney General nationality Interpretations of Supreme Court rulings, that that national policy of expatriation by marriage was only questioned, and possibly nullified after the U.S. Attorney General interpreted a Supreme Court ruling (Afroyim v Rusk) to mean that depriving American women of their citizenship could not be based merely on marriage to a foreigner.  That overturned the policy in theory but not necessarily in practice, -at least that’s the impression that the Attorney General’s interpretation gave.

He states what his extrapolation of the Supreme Court decision means for women marrying foreign men, but then states that nevertheless, it is not the policy of the government to follow it(!) (since it was not a direct ruling?).  That was written about 25 years ago (1969) but there seems to be nothing in the official Interpretations that supersedes it.  Very curious.  It leaves one not sure what the heck the policy was then or is today.  But I digress.

What one needs to know that is of significance is that the court ruling didn’t happen until 1967, -six years after Barack Obama’s mother married his father and gave birth to him.  So what applied to him when he was born?  Was it the law passed by Congress or was it a policy of the INS that was contrary to it?  Did they inexplicably still follow the law that was in force between 1907 and 1922, during which time American women were routinely expatriated by marriage to foreigners?  Judging by the statement of Attorney General Rusk in 1969 it seems as though he said the law was not the policy of the government.  Go figure.

By the time the Supreme Court decision in 1967 was handed down, Obama was already a U.S. citizen (-living in Indonesia and adopted by his Indonesian father).  How then did he become a U.S. citizen, you wonder?  He became one either by his connection to his mother and her citizenship, or via the same legal tradition involved in expatriation by marriage.
After divorcing a foreign man, a former American woman could be repatriated, -regaining her citizenship, which would also apply to any children born to her while married, being known as “derivative citizenship” since it isn’t acquired directly but is derived from her citizenship.  That repatriation was accomplished via a short, easy form of naturalization which essentially was nothing more than signing a piece of paper pledging allegiance solely to the United States, and/or taking an oath.

But by the law, an American woman who married a foreign man but did not emigrate to his nation and live there as her new permanent home,  did not lose their U.S. citizenship during the second half of the twentieth century.
Since her regained citizenship is a form of naturalization, the same was true of her children who received what is naturalized derivative citizenship.

Obama: son of a foreign student and an American female, -devoid of U.S. citizenship at birth?   So it seems because both his mother and foreign father were not subject to the full U.S. jurisdiction and so neither was their child.  In order to be fully subject, women in 1961 would have needed to be subject to military draft registration and conscription, training in boot camp, and two years of service, possibly in a war zone.  But women were and still are exempt from mandatory full subjection to the authority of the central government, -just as are foreign diplomats, visitors and students, and children born to them while on U.S. soil.  So BHO would not only have not been a natural born citizen but would not have been a U.S. citizen at all, -whether born in the U.S. or abroad.

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

The presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution reads either:
A. Any person, including a derivative citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”  or
B. No person except a a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”

Which answer is incorrect?  Answer: A.  And which form of citizenship did Barack Obama possess at birth, -A, or B.?  Answer:  Neither.  Not a natural born citizen, nor a derivative citizen.  He was purely a British subject by birth unless the INS actually followed the law.

Who is a natural born citizen?  It is they who are born as citizens, -by the nature of their father.  Citizen parents produce citizen children.  Parents who are members produce children who are members.  It’s been that way since time immemorial in every clan, tribe, people, and nation on earth.  Foreign fathers produce foreign children.  No foreign national can father a natural domestic citizen.  Only native fathers can father true natives.  And only citizen fathers can father natural citizens.

Understand this: citizenship by any form of naturalization, including derivative citizenship, is NOT natural citizenship.  Natural citizens are not naturalized citizens, and naturalized citizens are not natural citizens.  The Constitution of the United States expressly requires that the President be no one except a natural born citizen, and naturalized citizens are not natural born.  They are man-made citizens even if they are made citizens at birth.

Natural citizens are “nature-made”, and require no law, statute, policy, judicial ruling, or treaty to produce their existence nor legitimize it in any way.  That’s why their citizenship is not found in any law ever passed by Congress.  Congress was given no authority to legislate regarding citizenship except in regard to those where are not natural citizens.  Those who are not natural citizens have direct connections to foreign nations, whereas natural citizens do not.  Their only connections are indirect, -through grandparents, -NOT through parents.

When foreigners become officially recognized residents of America, then any children born to them will be statutory citizens, -citizens by law.  Children born to statutory citizens are natural born citizens, -citizens by nature because they were born to citizen parents.  Any foreign father who becomes a naturalized citizen will father natural born citizens, and any children born to him before naturalization will automatically become U.S. citizens, but not natural born citizens because he was not a citizen when the were born.

For better or worse, the man that the Democrat Party knowingly made their candidate even though he was not even close to being a natural born citizen, is heading for a reckoning some day.  Whatever the outcome will be, it will inescapably be tumultuous.  Perhaps it will be revolutionary in scope, including a full-blown constitutional crisis like the nation has never seen.  But it’s impossible to say which scenario would be worse; -one in which reality comes down like a hammer on a complicit government and the party that committed the biggest election fraud in history, or one in which the only response is like the sound of one hand clapping.  But silence, like action, is a choice when it is the choice of a free citizen with a free citizen’s responsibility to keep their wayward government close to, if not on, the straight and narrow path.

*  This is how a representative government works. The head of the household (the husband/father unless deceased) represents the house as a whole. The house as a whole elects representatives for local, state, US House & presidential electoral college members. The electoral college members represent the state as a whole in the presidential election and cast their vote for the candidate that best represents their state as a whole. Then last but not least we have the states who represent the body of the state as a whole and they were to elect the persons to represent the state in the US Senate. That is until it was usurped by liberals on both sides of the aisle.
by http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

by a.r.nash 1-27-12    http://obama–nation.com

~Obama: A Citizen by Grace & President by Fraud

(-citizenship by Right vs citizenship by Law)

By Adrien Nash  obama–nation.com

Webster’s New World Dictionary:
“Fraud: an intentional deception, or dishonesty; a person who deceives or is not what he pretends to be”
“Usurp/ Usurpation: to take or assume and hold (power, position, rights, etc.) by force or without right, “

The answer to the most important question in the 2012 Presidential election is one on which the eligibility of the candidate for the Democrat Party depends.  That question, which will never be asked, is this: “Was Barack Obama born as a natural citizen of America or a natural citizen of Kenya?”.  But a more illuminating question is this one; “Was John McCain born as a natural citizen of the United States or born as a natural  citizen of Panama?
To answer that question the mind reaches for an understanding of how things should be and how things actually are.  And are things actually as they should be?  And exactly how should they be?  Simple, children should be born as members of the same group as their parents, regardless of where they are born.  That is the principle of Natural Law and natural membership, and it’s followed by possibly every people and nation on Earth.

As a result, John McCain was born as a natural U.S. citizen and not a Panamanian citizen because his parents were Americans and not Panamanians.  Neither were they immigrants to Panama nor owed it any allegiance.  They were outsiders.  But they were not outsiders in regard to America.  They were members, -they were citizens.  They had certain American rights, -as did their son.  One of them was the  unalienable right to possess the same nationality as his parents.  That was not a right bestowed upon him by any law or policy of government.  It was a right bestowed by He who made all things, including the natural order of things, -an order observable in Nature and translatable to human society and national organization.

All things that reproduce create off-spring that are the same as themselves except in the unnatural situation when unlike things pro-create off-spring that are unnatural hybrids.  The equivalent in the political realm is when a couple with different nationalities produce an off-spring that is not a natural member or native of either nation because he is not the issue of solely one, nor the other, but of both, resulting in the creation of a political hybrid which has neither nationality alone, but a combination of  the two.

If you combine two glasses of water in a third glass, the result is a glass of water, -one uniform singular substance.  The same goes for glasses of oil.  But if you combine a glass of water with a glass of oil, the result is an unnatural mixture, -an unnatural combination of substances, -substances that are entirely different and do not combine.  The same with citizenship and the competing authority of two separate governments.  One person with two nationalities creates a conundrum of conflicting authority and national allegiance.  Such a conundrum is an unnatural national government competition.

National allegiance is incompatible with dual citizenship and dual allegiance.  Dual citizenship is never a politically natural thing but rather is an unusual exception to the normal rule of citizenship:
~One  nation, ~one people, ~one government, one language, ~one allegiance, ~one citizenship.

Think of how entire nations celebrate their citizens and teams winning in the Olympic games.  They are all of one mind and one heart.  Cities react similarly when their team wins the Superbowl or World Series.

If one city has two competing teams and they both end up as finalists in their sport, there will be little enthusiasm for the competition because of the unnatural duality which causes the absence of a singular devotion.  Dual or split allegiance mutes and neutralizes the sense of enthusiasm that would normally and naturally be devoted to just one side.  The same with nations, nationalism, loyalty, and allegiance.
Only singularity (uniformity) is natural in the natural realm, -likewise in the political realm.  The union of parents with a singular citizenship results in one born with natural citizenship, not an unnatural dual (or hybrid) citizenship.

Natural citizenship, like natural membership, is not something resulting from any laws other than the laws of nature.  No laws were passed to bestow it.  It goes unmentioned in the body of law that governs the nation.  It’s fundamental.  It’s beyond any need of being legislated.  It can’t be given or bestowed by man because it is an inherent inheritance of every living being.  It is an unalienable right.

But not all citizenship is in that same class.  There is a class of citizenship that is not natural but results instead from national law that allows it.  That class of citizenship, describable as statutory citizenship, or citizenship-by-law, is not an unalienable right.  It is not bestowed via the principle of natural inheritance but instead is bestowed by the choice and will of authorities, be they autocrats, monarchs, dictators, or representatives of free citizens.
Just ask any naturalized citizen about the  nature of their citizenship and they will be totally clear that it is entirely the result of the grace of the government.  But no natural citizen has any impression in the slightest that his citizenship is the result of someone in the government signing something that grants him citizenship.

Only natural citizenship is unalienable.  Only citizenship that is unalienable is natural.  They go together.  But all citizens lacking natural unalienable citizenship are ineligible to be the President of the United States because they were born with foreign parentage rather than purely American parentage.  They have no unalienable right to U.S. citizenship and they have no singular home country, and therefore no unquestionable singular allegiance.

Only those whose only home is America, -whose only allegiance and attachment is to America are natural citizens.  No one born of a foreigner inherits a natural right to be an American.  That privilege is something granted them by law, -by the grace of a nation, -even if from birth, but it is not theirs by an unalienable right.

The man occupying the presidency of the United States is a citizen solely by the grace of the U.S. government via the laws passed by the Congress.   The Constitution of the United States allows all such citizens to serve their country in any elected office in the land, except one.  They are barred from serving as the President & Commander-In-Chief.

That prohibition begins with the exclusionary words: “NO PERSON..” (meaning no citizen) “except a natural born citizen…shall be  eligible to the office of the President,”.
The man elected President always knew about this prohibition, especially being a constitutional scholar and all, but was willingly swept-up into running for the office anyway, putting the social good he imagined he could bring about ahead of any devotion or allegiance to the Constitution.

Thus, upon inauguration he swore an oath which he was immediately in violation of by the mere act of taking it since it was an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States from all enemies, which includes those who would willfully violate it.  He thus had sworn an oath to protect the  Constitution from the likes of himself, -one who had no unalienable right to be an American nor any right to run for the highest office in the land.  Barack Obama knowingly made that choice to violate the clear prohibition of the Constitution, and he means to do it again if given a second chance.

A.R. Nash  Jan. 2012

The Bamboozling of America At The Highest Level

You’re about to read what to many unaware and uninformed Americans will sound like fantastic claims, -like crazy conspiracy theorizing, but sometimes “crazy” conspiracy becomes “factual” conspiracy when the truth becomes known.  Recall the office of President Nixon being involved with covering-up a crude break-in of the Democrat Party office in the Watergate Hotel?  And perhaps the President himself involved?  That’s just crazy talk!  But in the real world, often the truth is stranger than fiction.

Let’s begin.  One of the greatest, if not the greatest travesties ever committed against the American electorate occurred in the presidential election of 2008 in regard to the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.  It involved all five areas of the national election arena, beginning with the Press, -the media.  It’s job is to ferret out the truth about candidates for elective office and share it with the American public.  We all realize what a great job they did in regard to one John Edwards and his mistress.  No one would touch it with a ten-foot pole except the National Enquirer.
Similarly, they stayed ten miles away from the issue of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to the office of the President.  Instead of vetting him they praised and adored him.  Not a peep was heard from any corner of the land on that vital issue, and that included conservative and independent media types alike.  He got a free pass because he was very inspiring, charming and charismatic, as well as being the first party candidate of color in our history.  So his candidacy was attended by only silence on the issue of whether or not he was even qualified to run to the office.
There are guardians in all 50 states whose job it is to guard against ineligible candidates being placed on their state’s ballot.  They constitute the second area in which the travesty took place.  Every single one of the officers, Attorneys General, or commissions that approved the placement of Senator Obama’s name on their ballots was either bamboozled by the DNC or were complicit in the conspiracy because they all went along with it.

The third area is that of the Democrat Party leadership which conspired to alter the traditional constitutional wording of their presidential candidate certification document.  They secretly removed the language stating that their candidate was constitutionally qualified for the office of President, and instead substituted language stating only that he was legitimately certified as the official candidate of their party.  There was only one reason to do that, and that reason was because they knew that by making that omitted statement they would have been making themselves liable for charges of various sorts, including probably some form of perjury for making a false legal certification.
The fourth area that assisted in the conspiracy was the United States Senate.  It had several members running for the presidency and two of them had odd backgrounds.  It authorized a legal investigation, but the results it produced contained both the truth and a huge lie.  The truth was in regard to John McCain and the lie was in regard to one such as Barack Obama, both having quite different birth circumstances.  So the Senate knew the actual truth but remained silent.

The final area in which the conspiracy was allowed to transpire was that of the Supreme Court.  They all always knew the truth about Senator Obama’s constitutional ineligibility to run for the presidency but the buck stopped at no one’s desk so they all were silent en mass during the election period.  No one had the spine to speak out and warn all of the known violation of the Constitution that was a very possible outcome.  Then after it had happened, they continued to remain silent and even complicit by swearing into office a candidate that was not eligible for that office.  The five areas of American society meant to serve as watchdogs to defend the Constitution all failed to do their job, even though many of them had taken an oath to do so.

Like what happened at Chernobyl when the reactor managers illicitly allowed 5 or 6 processes/tests to take place which caused it to explode and its nuclear core to totally melt down, -when avoiding any one of them would have prevented the disaster, so the American political process saw five areas of society lead in unison to a melt-down (when any one alone could  have prevented it) and thus the process meant to elect a legitimate President, instead elected an illegitimate one.
The conspiracy involved three significant falsehoods.  Two are related but the third is completely apart from the other two.  The two related ones were connected to the proof of Senator Obama’s place of birth.  The third was related to the United States Constitution and its restrictions on who is allowed to be the President of the United States.  Efforts were made to falsify facts, manipulate fallacious ideas, promote untruths, and distort the significance of facts in evidence.  Let’s examine the constitutional issue first.

U.S. Constitution: Article Two, Section One, Clause Five reads:  “No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,..”  If we ignore the issue of where Senator Obama was actually born, then we can presumptuously agree that he could be described as “a born citizen”, but the question remains as to whether or not he is a natural citizen. The meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” is not provided anywhere in the Constitution.  That means one of two things, -possibly both, but not likely.

There is no definition for only one reason, -because the author’s, -the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution all knew perfectly well what it meant and assumed that everyone else did also.  If so then there are still two possibilities.  It either had a set, clear legal meaning, or it had a set, clear non-legal meaning.  Or possibly the two were the same.  But it can reasonably be assumed that there was never a need for a distinct legal definition to develop in America because there was as yet no such thing as the presidency to apply it to.  Under British and colonial law natural born subjects had no more rights than naturalized subjects, although appointments to certain critical offices which held authority, assets, or information which a traitor could exploit to great harm, were reserved to natural born subjects, but such an appointment was not “a right” anymore than being President is.

So if the meaning of “natural” isn’t found in American/Colonial legal history then it is found in common English, common sense, and “Natural Law”.  The Constitution was not written to be read only by legal scholars but by the common man whose acceptance was important in order to pass it and maintain national unity.  Therefore it can’t be argued that the meaning of the word “natural” is found only in esoteric, complex legislative and judicial documents, but is found instead in common language.  No one needs to tell you what natural means, anymore than you need a lawyer or legal historian to tell you what “unnatural” means.  Remember, the Constitution was written almost entirely in plain English, not legalese.
So the constitutional legitimacy of Senator Obama’s candidacy was dependent on the meaning of that one word  “natural” -what it means as well as what it doesn’t mean.  A “natural citizen” is also a “born citizen” but not all born citizens are natural citizens because they were born to immigrants, -foreigners, and not to Americans.
America has always had a conflict regarding citizenship from before the founding of the nation.  Some colonies ascribed citizenship to all born within their borders, even if they were born to foreigners.  The logic was that those children were going to live in and grow-up in America as Americans and therefore should be citizens just like those who came before them.
Other colonies required foreigners to become naturalized citizens first and only then would their children be automatically granted citizenship in that sovereign colony.  Which method became the law of the land after the Constitution was ratified?  The later.

That changed forever in 1898 due to a Supreme Court ruling (Wong Kim Ark) in which the State Dept. had declared a native-born son of Chinese immigrants to not be an American citizen. The prevailing court opinion adhered to the citizenship statement of the 14th Amendment (1868) and reversed the government’s position.

But one must not confuse being a natural citizen with being merely a born citizen.  The distinction is best illustrated by two comparisons.  If George Washington was visiting Canada with his wife in 1787 and she brought forth a son while there, what would be the nature of his national status?  Would he be an alien? (-born outside the United States of America) Would he be a born subject of England?  Or would he be a natural born American?  There was no Constitution or 14th Amendment yet.  But that would have no bearing on the status of their natural born child because he would not have been adopted as a foreign national at birth but as a natural American by birth.
Even if Senator Obama truly was a born citizen, was he also a natural citizen?  The answer is “no”, -not by any principle that any imagination can come up with.  But the liberal legal scholars (Olsen & Tribe) hired by the Senate to research the matter managed to invent one anyway.  They rightfully determined that John McCain, having been the progeny of American parents, was therefore an American by birth and as such his citizenship was natural citizenship because he was born with it as his natural right.

But the matter didn’t end there because another Senator was running for the Presidency and he was not born to American parents, -in particular to an American father, but to an alien student here on a visa.  Those two legal “experts”, seeking to mitigate the impact of the accuracy of their McCain finding, therefore concocted the theory that both kinds of citizenship can be viewed as natural since historically both had been citizens from birth.  But that was deliberately fraudulent logic because it’s the circumstances of their births that distinguish the two from each other.  One with citizen parents is by nature a citizen also, but one with foreign parents is a citizen from birth only by the magnanimity of the American voters and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment handed down in 1898.

Barack Obama’s citizenship has the law on his side, but the problem is that no one who is a citizen by law is also a natural citizen since natural citizenship is not granted by any law every written.  Nor by the Constitution, because it was viewed as a natural unalienable right that neither the government nor the people that it represents have any authority to grant or rescind.  It is a natural right that all humans are born with, and which government did not create.

It is a natural inheritance from the parents, just as a baby tiger inherits its nature and species from its parents, so Americans inherit their parents’ membership, -citizenship in the American family.  Just as a natural-born Chinese couple cannot produce a natural-born African child, -just as a natural born Jewish couple cannot produce a natural born Arab, so a natural born American couple cannot produce a natural born foreign child, nor can a foreign couple produce a natural American child
The word “natural” either has meaning solely in relation to ones parentage, or it has no meaning at all.  One who is a “born citizen” via birth in America to foreign parents is a constitutional 14th Amendment citizen, -not a natural citizen because their citizenship, though acquired automatically from birth, is not natural citizenship because it was not a natural inheritance from their parents.
The second significant falsehood is connected to the significance of birth within U.S. borders.  Much importance was place on the belief that Senator Obama was born in America but that importance was a sham.  It had no connection to presidential eligibility nor could it alone convey constitutional citizenship which requires one to be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government at birth.
All natural citizens are subject at birth because their parents are, but not all children born to foreigners are subject because some foreigners are not immigrants but instead are mere transients.  Transients are not legal permanent members of American society and thereby subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but instead are foreign diplomats, visitors, workers, professionals, and students. They are subject to their own government and protected by International Treaty, including Barack Obama Sr.

Therefore Senator Obama was not covered by the 14th Amendment through his father and thus his native-birth was not enough to convey 14th Amendment citizenship from birth.  Consequently he was not a natural citizen through his father, nor an automatically naturalized 14th Amendment statutory citizen through him either.  So the resulting importance of his Hawaiian birth was zero.  It didn’t relate to constitutional eligibility nor fulfill the requirements for 14th Amendment citizenship.
The third great falsehood regarding Senator Obama deals with the extensive evidence that both birth document digital images posted online contain manifold signs of illegitimate creation and the fact that no hard-copies have ever been produced and shown to the public or document experts to verify that the images posted online were results of the scanning of real paper documents.  But even real paper documents cannot be verified as authentic and not counterfeits because of the bastardized nature of the digital reproduction and alteration process used by the Hawaiian Vital Statistics Office which results in an unathenticatible “ABSTRACT” instead of a “TRUE COPY”.

How shall one respond to this, and what measures can be taken to insure that such a travesty is not allowed to transpire a second time?  Challenges to his legitimacy as a constitutionally qualified Democrat Party candidate in each state can be attempted if a legal channel is available for such a challenge.  His backers must get his name placed on the ballots of all 50 states one at a time, and that can be opposed one at a time across America.  Only one successful challenge is needed to get the snowball rolling.  After that things will escalate across the land.

One challenge is already in process (Georgia).  Senator Obama failed to appear as required and thereby may lose by default.  That would block him from appearing on the Georgia State ballot if the Secretary of State in Georgia concurs, unless some underhanded chicanery takes place out of sight. [update: it appears some underhanded chicanery took place because the judge in the Georgia case threw the verdict in favor of the defendant Obama even though he failed to appear and his lawyer failed to appear nor offer any rebuttal to the charges of his client's ineligibility]
[further update: both the Secretary of State and the Appeals Court and Supreme Court of Georgia have followed the same pattern; they gave the appearance of impartiality then threw the case to the defendant that failed to appear, -there’s nothing suspicious about that; move along folks, there's nothing to see here, just move along]

by Adrien Nash  Jan 25, 2012 http://obama–nation.com

Moses & The Half-Blood President

The organization and governance of any sizable group of people must be based on simple rules that are easily understood so there is no excuse for breaking them.  That avoids one being able to claim that they were confused and didn’t understand the rules since the rules were confusing.  An early historical example is that of Moses and the 10 commandments given on Mount Sinai.  They were short and simple and clear.  Anyone hearing them would understand them without the need of a scribe (or lawyer) to explain the nuances of the words and phrases.
All fundamental law since time immemorial has followed the principle seen in that example, including our own United States Constitution of Government.  It was written to be concise, not verbose; simple, not complex; crystal clear, not ambiguous.  It wasn’t enough to just write the document, it had to be easily understood by the literate and illiterate alike because they all were going to have to make a choice as to whether or not they would accept it, ratify it, and thereby make it the fundamental law by which they, and all others, would have to abide for the rest of their lives.

The simplicity and clarity of the Constitution laid out the skeleton of the government.  The flesh would be added later by the Congress in conformity to the skeleton.  Building and administering a government around the wording of the Constitution required that everyone fully understand it.  That universal understanding was not muddied by uncertainty here and ambiguity there.  Its meaning was not confusing, vague, or open to various interpretations (with the exception of the power to tax -having no limits placed on it).  Those problems came later via the amendments added to it.
But in the body of the Constitution there was no confusing language.  The only uncertainly resulted from what was not written, -from the details that were missing and had yet to be fleshed out.  One example would be the elements of eligibility of the Vice-President.  The fact was overlooked that in order to replace an incapacitated President, the VP would have to fulfill the presidential eligibility requirements.  [That oversight was later corrected via an amendment.]

The point of explaining this is to refute the contention that one of those requirements wasn’t exactly clear.  In fact, it is contented that it is downright confusing, vague, and probably ambiguous.  It is contended that only the Supreme Court can interpret and explain the true meaning of the words of the Constitution regarding who is eligible to be President, -when that is false.  The true meaning is evident to anyone with a brain, just as it was when those words were written, read, ratified and adopted.  They were crystal clear when written, easily understood by all, and it is only our distant modern ignorance and bias that prevent the universal acknowledgement of their meaning.
To which words do I refer?  These:  Article II, Section I, Clause V:  NO PERSON,…except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible to the Office of the President…”

It is strongly in the interest of a particular party in American politics to distort, confuse, obfuscate, deflect, and dilute the meaning of the words; “natural born”.  Everyone understands the meaning of “citizen” but if everyone understood the meaning of “natural” and “born”, then a certain sitting President would be found to be illegitimate.  That is a conclusion that the establishment cannot allow because it would result in a constitutional crisis like this nation has never seen and probably would never see again.  But in defense of the truth, let’s examine the facts as they existed when the Constitution was written, -as well as throughout all of human history.

The meaning of “natural” and “born” are derived from natural law.  They are so closely related that together they create a sort of reinforced redundancy.  The meaning of natural is uncontestable, but dishonest minds have worked to completely twist the meaning of “born” thereby creating confusion and an impression of ambiguity.  Their goal is to convince all that “born” and “birth” are somehow synonymous with geography, namely national boundaries, and the magical power of being born within them.  They do this by using false logic.  The concept they push is that anyone, by simply being “born in the United States”, is automatically a citizen “by birth”, -regardless of the fact that there is no basis in American law to support that claim, -and in fact, there is a long history, both administrative and constitutional, that counters and refutes that claim.

The falseness of their logic is exposed by untwisting the concept that by being a citizen at or upon birth, one is therefore a citizen by birth.  Reality is understood by looking at what is natural.  One is not a human being merely at birth, but is a human being “by birth” to human parents.  Being human does not begin at birth but at conception.  One is human by nature, not by the event of birth nor the location of birth.  This relates to the two types of citizenship connected to birth.
One is natural, the other is artificial, otherwise known as statutory citizenship.  It’s dependent upon the laws passed by Congress as naturalization statutes and their interpretation by the Supreme Court.  But natural citizenship is not dependent on any law ever written because Congress was not granted any authority by the Constitution to regulate or legislate in regard to that which is a natural human right.  Rather, we are endowed by our Creator with an unalienable right to our own children and they have a natural right of membership in the family/clan/tribe or nation of which their parents are members.

There’s a principle that pertains to children born to foreigners.  In many countries, (the U.S. included,) such children are only considered to be members of the nation where they are born if their parents are immigrants and not mere visitors or diplomats.  By law they are considered to be converted (naturalized) from the foreign citizenship of their father and/or mother into domestic citizenship and that automatic naturalization begins at birth.  They are natural-ized citizens from/at/ upon birth, but they are not natural citizens because they were born to foreigners.  If foreign parents first become natural-ized, then their children will be natural American citizens because they would be born to citizens and not foreigners.

Now let’s look at the word “natural”.  In every group, whether family, clan, tribe, or nation, the most fundamental element of group association is that of identification.  Is one an enemy or a friendly?  Is one a member or a non-member?  Is one a natural member or an adopted member?  One’s status is determined by the answer to these questions.  Natural membership in the group is the result of being born into the group.  No persons who were not born to group members will ever be describable as natural members.  What is true in a family sense, is also true in a tribal and national sense.  Outsiders become members by adoption.  The group leaders agree to adopt outsiders into the group and allow them all the privileges of natural members except one, and that is that they cannot be permitted to assume the office of the Chief, King, Czar, or Pharaoh.   That is a responsibility reserved solely for natural members because their allegiance to the group is unquestionable.

The case of Moses is instructive.  He, as a Hebrew baby in the land of Egypt, had a death sentence on his head so his mother left him where Pharaoh’s daughter would find him.  She did, and adopted him.  He became a son of the Pharaoh and a Prince of Egypt, but was he a natural son?  Of course not.  If the  Pharaoh had secretly been his father and a Hebrew woman his mother, would he be (a.) a natural Eygptian or (b.) something else?  He would be something else because his geneology wouldn’t spring from only Eygptian sources but from mixed sources.  No Eygptian aristocrat would accept a half-blood prince inheriting the throne of the Pharoahs.  To be Pharoah one would have be not just a prince but also a natural Eygptian.

But what if the daughter of the  Pharaoh was impregnated by an outsider, perhaps a Hebrew, and gave birth to a son?  What will his status be?  It depends on how they choose to deal with him.  They can kill him, or they can adopt him.  Whatever they choose, the result is one that is determined by human choice and not by nature.  If he is adopted, his adoption into group membership is by permission, not by nature.  He would be an adopted member, not a natural member because he was not begotten by a father who is a member.  Only male members can pro-create natural members, natural natives, and natural citizens.  Outside males cannot pro-create natives or natural citizens.

Consider the example of artificial fertilization.  If a woman is married to a King who is sterile and she therefore resorts to achieving pregnancy via another man’s sperm, is the off-spring truly the King’s seed and of his blood-line?  Certainly not.  Such a son would be a half-blood heir but only from a legal perspective.  If later, the King becomes potent and impregnates his wife, the child will be his full-blood heir.  Which will the King choose to inherit his throne?  The half-blood first born or the full-blood son born later?  He would choose the full-blood son because he is his natural off-spring and carries his blood-line.  One is fully natural while the other is artificial, or half-blood.  The same natural principle applies to citizenship.
The citizenship that is natural is never half-blood. Rather, it’s always full-blood.  Any mixture of another bloodline/group membership/nationality results in an off-spring that is accepted by the principle of adoption, not natural creation.  The fact that such an adoption is from birth does not make one a natural member, it only makes one a life-long member with all the privileges of membership except one, -ascent to the Throne.  Or in the case of the United States, -the Presidency.

In 2008 the Constitution of the United States was ignored like it didn’t even exist.  All the powers-that-be remained silent least they be accused of racism for attempting to lawfully block the first mixed race candidate from attaining the American dream.  Now it is too late for them to say what they knew or suspected because they would look like the cowards that they are.  So we as a nation are riding on a giant train that is no longer rolling on the tracks of constitutional restraints because we have been bamboozled into thinking that everyone couldn’t get it wrong, and especially not get it wrong on purpose.  But that is exactly what has happened.

Congress is either stupid or complicit because the Senate passed a resolution declaring that John McCain is a natural born citizen of the United States because he was born to American parents.  They got that right by a vote of 99-0, but what of his fellow Senator and presidential opponent who was not born to American parents but was instead a half-blood statutory citizen?  They and everyone else remained silent as he was illegitimately certified by the Democrat Party leadership to be a presidential candidate in all 50 states -with the exception of Hawaii because they had no evidence that he was born in the United States.  But after secret talks with the authority that blocked the ballot certification, suddenly it became OK.  The fix was in and it was in big time.

And now we will soon be witness to a repeat of this deliberate deceitful travesty against the Constitution and rule of law as he is again certified to be eligible in all 50 states because all of the systems of our society and government have been slowly but surely infiltrated for over 100 years by the enemies of the Constitution and the principles on which our nation was founded.  They can’t get their way via constitutional amendment so instead they resort to simple majority legislation, supreme court decision, and by totally ignoring any fundamental law that impedes their goal of creating a centrally planned and controlled benevolent utopia of sheep who obediently follow the wise orders of their masters, -the elites, the academic and professional class that knows for certain that it is superior to the masses and far more capable of wisely making all the decisions for them.  “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to  govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” –Thomas Jefferson
Welcome to the impending future. -the paradise of a Democratic Marxist Autocracy.

In this Bizarro world, the American people have ignorantly elected the man that spoke with the greatest voice and platitudes even though he is constitutionally barred from serving as President.  Superficiality and self-interest are what gets people elected in contests that in the end boil down to a beauty contest.  Obama was more attractive than McCain and promised more.  Words matter, but ones voice and appearance matter perhaps as much or more.  Would Barack Obama now be President if his voice was similar to Barney Fife’s voice?  One will win any contest in which personal appeal and big promises are combined into one nice big package of Hope and Idealism.

Why shouldn’t such a candidate be allowed to win?  Because he isn’t what he’s supposed to be.  He isn’t a natural American.  He’s an adopted, half-blood, statutory, naturalized American and he isn’t even that if he was born abroad, -in Kenya or Vancouver, because his mother was too young when he was born to convey citizenship to him if born abroad.  So we had an attractive, unvetted affirmative action candidate with Marxist friends and a black hole where a public background should be, legitimized by a concocted Certificate of Live Birth that was never authenticated by anyone, and instead of being a natural American citizen with only Americans for parents, he is the off-spring of a foreign outsider, the product of two disparate continents, countries, empires, societies, and nationalities.

Diversity can be a good thing, but it is not a natural thing.  Just ask the Japanese if they prefer the natural uniformity of their nation to that of the unnatural, chaotic, un-integrated Islamic diversity of say London or Paris.  But even with the politically correct American lip-service toward diversity, no outsider’s son is permitted to become Chief.  No half-blood prince is permitted to become King, and “NO PERSON, except…a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible to the Office of the President”.
Now, what part of “natural born Citizen” do you not understand?

Jan, 2012  http://obama–nation.com   http://photobucket.com/obama_bc


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers