The Audacity of Fraud; An Unnatural American President

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

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

4 Responses to The Audacity of Fraud; An Unnatural American President

  1. arnash says:

    Holmes Simons

    What is not “Natural Born” is political cowardice. Cowardice that is demonstrated each passing day by our federal elected officials in Congress and those appointed to the Judiciary, who run and hide behind ignorance and blame, and who, by default, acquiesce to treasonous actions by the Executive branch.

    Political cowardice is born within the individual minds and souls of those who lack integrity and courage, those who are willing to falsely swear an oath to protect this nation from all enemies. Once cowardice infects the group, as it appears to have done to the contemporary politicians charged with representing the principles of their constituents, there is little the electorate can do, save drastic civil disobedience.

    Over years, the American electorate have been lied to and duped by conniving people who have complete disregard for laws, social mores, and the rights of others, and who apparently lack a conscience to experience guilt or remorse for their acts. Hence, a political class has evolved in America that legislates laws to protect its members from prosecution and financial incentives too great to abandon in favor of a mere oath of responsibility.

    Not one recreant has stood on the floor of either congressional house to demand an investigation into the “natural born” qualification of Barack Obama. Not one, despite a plethora of evidence and historical precedents that prove without doubt that he is not eligible to be our President. His actions of the past three years are evidence to why the founders required a person born of two citizen parents, a safeguard against one having loyalty to two or more nations by virtue of birth, for only one elected office in the land, that of President.

    America has reached an untenable precipice in its history, when those people charged with upholding the law have abdicated their responsibilities in favor of racism, egoism, and political correctness. Is there not ONE POLITICIAN to demand a look at evidence in this issue? The silence is an affront to all Americans who have fought and died for freedom and disrespect to all who are living through this remarkable display of cowardice, weakness, and dishonor.

    It appears they have no shame.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Anyone who ends his remarks with the word “dishonor” must be a fellow veteran. The values instilled via military service cannot be acquired in any other manner, but the cabal of milquetoast men that run our country today have never been tested in the crucible of enduring pain and suffering for their country. They know not of what it takes to perpetuate a people and nation. It takes far more than what we see in American society at large and in the board rooms of Congress, Wall Street, the Executive bureaucracies, and the Peter Principle employment environments throughout every union, school and college, and major business except the high-tech industries that live or die by their creative endeavors.
    Can you imagine if it became law that no one can serve in an executive position in the government who had not completed military service? Talk about a turn-around in our country. But only a clean sweep would do. The good-old-boy brotherhood of elected office includes far too many shysters who seduce the neophytes with the clubiness of false friendship which lead to neutralizing them into becoming “ambivalent accomodationists” who will go along to get along when they should be slamming on the brakes.
    This has been the situation of all civilizations that knew “too much peace” for too long and everyone became soft. No doubt no civilization ever crumbled from within while it was governed by ex-warriors (unless it was taken down by competing ex-warriors, -but that’s not the kind of crumbling I’m referring to). ARNash

    borderraven
    The US Constitution is the Law of the land, but it is not a law dictionary.

    The 14th Amendment did not exist in 1787 and it did not amend Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment only defines a “First Generation Citizen”.

    Obama Sr., was under US jurisdiction if he broke the laws, but no court could call him to jury duty.
    Barack Obama is a “First Generation Citizen”.
    A Natural Born Citizen is a “Second Generation Citizen”
    Obama fails POTUS eligibility by one generation.
    He got into the 2008 election by fraud.
    He got through the election by mistake.

    Our Founding Fathers never intended the Executive Branch be open to persons born to a non-immigrant alien.

  2. hazelickes says:

    If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after*.

    Whatever said is absolutely fine. But why all this was not considered while he was nominated or selected as a President. What made people blind?

    • arnash says:

      From what I’ve read, your didn’t get all those fact right. I’ve read that in 1961 the age at which the required 5 years residence began was 14. So he would still have come too soon, but I also read that that requirement only applied to children not born in the United States but abroad. That makes sense because it requires at least one of the parents to have lived a good part of their up-bringing years in American before the U.S. grants citizenship to a child of a foreigner.
      Question a demi-god’s qualifications would have been socially unacceptable, rude, bad manners, odd-ball, out-of-bounds, etc. so no media person dare touch the subject. It was political plutonium. Someday I may write the essay that explains the situation. It would be titled: Thinking the Unthinkable & Speaking the Unspeakable.

  3. arnash says:

    purrl

    From my knowledge of theology it was very evident that Obama had only a “cultural” conversion to Christianity and not a spiritual conversion. I came to that conclusuion, after reading a portion of Audacity of Hope. Obama has stated that his mother SA Dunham was an atheist. In Audacity there is a portion where he is talking to his daughter and alludes to SA Dunham being in heaven and looking down on them. A true christian would never assume an atheist is in heaven.Thus, it became very apparent that Obama had a cultural conversion to christianity for expedience and not a heart felt conversion based on repentence, sorrow for sin, and acknowledgement that Christ is God and was sacrificed for his sin. He clearly doesn’t believe that Christ is “the way,the truth and the life”!

    brendag
    “In response to Ms. Falsani’s inquiry “what is sin?” Mr. Obama replies with “being out of alignment with my values.”
    Apparently he has no thoughts on sin in general, only his.
    “Then there is that famous moment with George Stephanopolis, when Obama spoke about “my muslim faith”, surely a Freudian slip if ever there was one, actually causing Stephie to offer Obama a suggestion that he correct himself.” BINGO! Don’t forget, he bowed to the Saudi Prince.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers

%d bloggers like this: