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.  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.
Since her regained citizenship is a form of naturalization, the same was true of her children who received what is known as “derivative citizenship” since it isn’t acquired directly but is derived from her citizenship.

Obama: son of an expatriated mother (British) , -devoid of U.S. Citizenship at birth?   Only those who were close to the issue know the true story.

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

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

The Audacity of Fraud; An Unnatural American President -revised

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:  ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1 reads:
“ANY PERSON who is born a citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of the President;…” or it reads:
“***NO person*** except a natural born citizen,..shall be eligible to the Office of the President;…”. (emphasis added)

The section of the Constitution that delineates who is allowed to be President requires only three simple things.   2).   No person is eligible who has not  lived for 35 years,   3). and lived in the United States for at least 14 of those years  (age 21 to age 35 = 14 years),  1). and last, but actually first in the list, is the requirement of one of the two sentences at the top.  Which is it?  Conventional wisdom says it’s the first one.  Liberals/ Progressives/ Socialists choose to believe that it’s the first sentence, but the real wording of the Constitution thwarts their desire that the presidency be so inclusive that almost anyone can be President.

Actually, almost anyone can be President, -but not everyone, because the real wording of Article II, Section I is found  in the second sentence, not the first.  It is an exclusionary statement, not inclusionary, and it bars a tiny fraction of  citizens from being President by requiring that the President be a natural citizen of the United States.  The question pertinent to the present is, “Who isn’t a natural American citizen and is therefore barred?”.  To answer that, an explanation must be given as to what a  natural American citizen is.

A natural citizen is essentially everyone that you and I know.   They (we) are natural citizens because they were born to American parents.  They are citizens by birth.  Similarly, simians are simians by birth, elephants are elephants by birth, humans are humans by birth, foreigners are foreigners by birth, and Americans are Americans by birth.  No simian ever gave birth to an elephant.  No elephant ever gave birth to a human.  American parents don’t produce natural foreign citizens, and foreigners don’t produce natural American citizens.
Legal resident aliens can produce children who are automatically granted citizenship upon birth because aliens are  immigrants, (and covered by the 14th Amendment) whereas foreigners are not.  [Aliens are persons who are not Americans.]  The foreigner’s residence is in a foreign nation and they are citizens/subjects of that nation and owe it their allegiance, just as that nation owes them its protection.
But not all foreigners deliver their babies in their own country.  Some births occur while traveling, visiting, studying, or working temporarily abroad.  Those foreigners, along with foreign diplomats, include entertainers, businessmen, professionals, scientists, engineers, scholars and students.   They cannot produce a child within U.S. borders with the result that American citizenship is legitimately bestowed upon it (even though the policy of the executive branch is to bestow it anyway) because it inherits its citizenship only from its parents, and thus is a foreigner and a natural citizen of its father’s homeland, and will be transported to the land of the parents’ nationality where it will be raised as a natural member of its native country (which is the land of the parents to which it was born).

This is all crystal clear.  Where it gets less clear is when the child is fathered by a foreigner but has an American mother.  Can such a child be considered, constitutionally, to be a natural citizen of the United States  ?  Can a mule be considered to be a natural horse since it had a horse for a father [and a donkey for a mother]?  Can a mule be considered a natural donkey?  The answer to both is: “No”.
Mules are not natural anything because they are sterile hybrids that have no multi-generational lineage nor identical parental genetic character.  Unlike breeds of dogs which  are considered pure-breeds, mules do not come from a long line of identical ancestors.  They come from a one-time mating of two distinctly different breeds of equines.  They, like children born of parents with mixed nationalities, are  hybrids.  Hybrids are not natural members of any group.

We have elected a President who is also a hybrid.  The nationalities of his parents had nothing in common and were distinctly different, thus not producing an off-spring that was a natural member of either nation.  Through his father he was born as a natural subject of the British Empire, while U.S. citizenship could only result from U.S. law that didn’t exist when the Constitution was written & ratified.  At that time, and long after, one’s citizenship was derived from that of one’s father or husband, -not one’s mother.*
So he would have been solely a British subject at birth and could only become an American via naturalization as an adult in the colony or state in which he lived unless his father became naturalized first. Then any minor children would be naturalized automatically, -obtaining derivative citizenship through him.
Regardless of which era he was born in, having a foreigner for a father instead of an American, would result in a citizenship that’s not natural.  Only children produced by an American father and mother are natural citizens.  All others are naturalized citizens, even if that naturalization begins automatically at birth due to the 14th Amendment

No one is a natural member of a family or a tribe unless they are born  into it. All other means of becoming a member, such as adoption or marriage, are not natural.  Natural citizens are born into a society/nation by birth to members, whereas outsiders and their children become members by law or permission of leaders. Natural membership is via blood connection to member parents, which accompanies natural inheritance of race, traits, ethnicity, along with the social inheritance of language and family name.   As in nature, where one is born has no significance.  But to whom one is born is of paramount importance.  It determines whether or not one is a natural member of any group.

Many erroneously assume that if Barack was born in Hawaii then he is automatically an American citizen.  That assumption is false.  If his mother had been the visiting Kenyan wife of Obama Sr. then only fools would claim that he would be an American citizen simply by being born in America.  Such children, -who happen to be born in America, are, like their parents, not subject to the jurisdiction of the American government, but to the jurisdiction of their own government, thus they are excluded by the 14th Amendment from being born as citizens of the United States.  Barack Obama Jr., fathered by a Visa Card foreign student, was such a child.

Obama Sr. was not an immigrant to the United States and thus was not subject to its jurisdiction.  Rather, he was a foreign transient, a temporary foreign student/guest still under the jurisdiction of Britain and international treaties.  The United States could not conscript him into the U.S. military nor require him to obey its political commands, such as not visiting Cuba.  Hence, no child fathered by him would fall under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment, meaning that it doesn’t matter that his son was born inside the United States because his son, through him, would not be subject to the U.S. government.  His son was not a true “native-born” American because he was not fathered by a native citizen of the United State nor by a State Department approved legal immigrant.  No non-immigrant foreigner can father a native citizen of the United States, and no non-citizen immigrant can father a natural citizen of the United States.

So, the answer to the earlier question: “Who is not a natural American citizen?” is: “anyone who is a citizen of a foreign nation by birth, or has a parent who was born in a foreign nation and owes allegiance to that foreign nation and is not a United States citizen”.  Such individuals are not natural Americans and our founding fathers, after they decided that the President should have command of the U.S. Army and  Navy, wanted no such individuals to be entrusted with the reins of ultimate military power which are held by the Commander-In-Chief.

If all this is true, then how could Barack have been allowed to run for and win election to the highest office in  the land?  Simple, no one was minding the store.  No one was constitutionally required to vet presidential candidates.  The heads of the Democrat Party discarded their established protocol to certify that their candidate was constitutionally eligible, and instead simply stated that they certified that he was duly chosen to be their party’s candidate.  The buck was meant to stop at their desk but when they got it they stuffed it into a drawer and locked it away, -pretending that nothing was out of the ordinary even though they knew long before his victory that he was not constitutionally eligible to be the President.

But they also knew that the American people were completely unaware of the issue and the American media was so liberal that they would never raise the subject.  Thus he was swept into the presidency after violating the oath of office simply by taking it and swearing to uphold the same Constitution by which he was manifestly ineligible be the  President.

What can be done about it?  Perhaps a better question is; “what should be done about it”?  If something is to be done, would it not have to include nullifying every law that he’s signed, every executive order he’s issued, and every  appointment that he’s made, including those to the federal bench and Supreme Court?  Not one person within the Washington establishment can conceive of such a course.  It is beyond their capability to think that far outside of the box.

We are no longer a nation that adheres to the limitations of the law or the Constitution.  Informing no one, our law  enforcement officials send thousands of assault weapons across our southern international border straight into the  arms of mass murderers.  Our Congress violates the 10th Amendment more often than not as it legislates to empower (-to ever greater degrees), the giant octopus of the federal bureaucracy which extends its tentacles ever deeper into the social and private lives of more and more American citizens.  How can such an organization, -one that freely violates our most fundamental law, be expected to handcuff itself and chop off its unconstitutional practices, programs, funding bills, and endless borrowing?  It would be the equivalent of a heroin addict voluntarily going cold turkey and handcuffing himself to a bed.  It isn’t going to happen.  The old guard must be replaced with young Turks who are willing to wield an ax, -a chain saw, -call a spade a spade, and  hold every branch of government to the limitations of the Constitution and sane budget limits.

Such men and women will have much in common with our founding fathers who were revolutionaries, but have almost nothing in common with the “politics as usual” socialistic good-ol’-boys who have gone along to get along and have spent our nation into a mountain of debt so high that is can never be reduced, much less paid off and eliminated.

The election of 2012 is truly the most pivotal cross-roads that our nation has seen in decades because we are at a tipping point.  We will either begin to move away from the cliff that liberalism is driving us full-speed toward, or we will become Greece and Italy but with no one to bail us out.  Like the two groups of survivors in the movie Poseidon  (Adventure) in which a giant luxury ocean-liner capsized, one group believes that survival means heading upward, -the other believes that safety comes from going downward.  Only one is correct.   Which direction will we go?  Toward escape or toward inevitable doom?  The wise money is betting on inevitable doom because the entire establishment of the country is protective of the status quo through its ignorance, its silence, and its collusion in keeping illegitimately wasteful, excessive, and unconstitutional government spending and regulation in place, along with an unconstitutional President.

by A. R. Nash Jan 2012  http://obama–nation.com

* The connection between an immigrant woman’s nationality and that of her husband convinced many judges that unless the husband of an alien couple became naturalized, the wife could not become a citizen. While one will find some courts that naturalized the wives of aliens, until 1922 the courts generally held that the alien wife of an alien husband could not herself be naturalized.(3)

In innumerable cases under the 1855 law, an immigrant woman instantly became a U.S. citizen at the moment a judge’s order naturalized her immigrant husband. If her husband naturalized prior to September 27, 1906, the woman may or may not be mentioned in the record which actually granted her citizenship. Her only proof of U.S. citizenship would be a combination of the marriage certificate and her husband’s naturalization record. Prior to 1922, this provision applied to women regardless of their place of residence. Thus if a woman’s husband left their home abroad to seek work in America, became a naturalized citizen, then sent for her to join him, that woman might enter the United States for the first time listed as a U.S. citizen.(4)

In other cases, the immigrant woman suddenly became a citizen when she and her U.S. citizen fiance were declared “man and wife.” In this case her proof of citizenship was a combination of two documents: the marriage certificate and her husband’s birth record or naturalization certificate. If such an alien woman also had minor alien children, they too derived U.S. citizenship from the marriage. As minors, they instantly derived citizenship from the “naturalization-by-marriage” of their mother. If the marriage took place abroad, the new wife and her children could enter the United States for the first time as citizens. Again, if these events occurred prior to September 27, 1906, it is doubtful any of the children actually appear in what is, technically, their naturalization record. The lack of any record for those children’s naturalization might cause some of them, after reaching the age of majority, to go to naturalization court and become citizens again.

Just as alien women gained U.S. citizenship by marriage, U.S.-born women often gained foreign nationality (and thereby lost their U.S. citizenship) by marriage to a foreigner. As the law increasingly linked women’s citizenship to that of their husbands, the courts frequently found that U.S. citizen women expatriated themselves by marriage to an alien. For many years there was disagreement over whether a woman lost her U.S. citizenship simply by virtue of the marriage, or whether she had to actually leave the United States and take up residence with her husband abroad. Eventually it was decided that between 1866 and 1907 no woman lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage to an alien unless she left the United States. Yet this decision was probably of little comfort to some women who, resident in the United States since birth, had been unfairly treated as aliens since their marriages to non-citizens.(5)

After 1907, marriage determined a woman’s nationality status completely. Under the act of March 2, 1907, all women acquired their husband’s nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date. This changed nothing for immigrant women, but U.S.-born citizen women could now lose their citizenship by any marriage to any alien. Most of these women subsequently regained their U.S. citizenship when their husbands naturalized. However, those who married Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, or other men racially ineligible to naturalize forfeited their U.S. citizenship. Similarly, many former U.S. citizen women found themselves married to men who were ineligible to citizenship for some other reason or who simply refused to naturalize. Because the courts held that a husband’s nationality would always determine that of the wife, a married woman could not legally file for naturalization.(6)

Congress was at work and on September 22, 1922, passed the Married Women’s Act, also known as the Cable Act. This 1922 law finally gave each woman a nationality of her own. No marriage since that date has granted U.S. citizenship to any alien woman nor taken it from any U.S.-born women who married an alien eligible to naturalization.(11) Under the new law women became eligible to naturalize on (almost) the same terms as men. The only difference concerned those women whose husbands had already naturalized. If her husband was a citizen, the wife did not need to file a declaration of intention. She could initiate naturalization proceedings with a petition alone (one-paper naturalization). A woman whose husband remained an alien had to start at the beginning, with a declaration of intention.

In 1940 Congress allowed all women who lost citizenship by marriage between 1907 and 1922 to repatriate, or resume their citizenship, regardless of their marital status. Since then, any woman who lost U.S. citizenship in those years by marriage to any alien, even if they remained happily married, could resume her citizenship by applying and taking the oath of allegiance.

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html

~Obama: A Citizen by Grace & President by Fraud

(-citizenship by Right vs citizenship by Law)

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 conumdrum 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 unmention 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, describeable 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 priviledge 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 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.

by A.R. Nash  Jan 2012  http://obama–nation.com  http://photobucket.com/obama_bc

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