The Principles of Unalienable Human Rights

The Universe operates on the basis of two things; the nature of its parts, and the relationships between them.  That is true not only of the physical universe but also of the human universe.  Both universes are very complex, but the human universe is the most complex of the two because of the integration of so many divergent and even opposing parts.  Humans are the confluence of completely unrelated elements and those elements are usually in competition with each other.
Those elements include the physical and all of its multiple elements, the psychological, the emotional, the esthetic, the spiritual, the moral, and the inter-relationship between them.
That comprises the nature of humankind, but then there’s the further complication of the relationship between not just the parts but between other humans with like and unlike constitutions, whether those differences be those of gender, culture & tradition, intellect, talent & ability, or religion.

The study of the nature of the parts of humankind is an entire universe in itself, but it’s closely inter-related to the universe of how humans relate and associate with others.  Let’s examine the nature of the latter.
The nature of the relationships between human beings is based on the existence of certain invisible but immutable principles which are describable as Human Rights.  We generally think of them as the rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  But Human Rights can be classified and differentiated by two separate but closely connected categories, which are Survival Rights, and Civil Rights.

Survival rights are those necessary for not just the survival of the individual and his family, but for the survival of nations.  The nature of the relationships of humankind involves more than just the relationship between individuals but also between individuals and the authority that governs their group, as well as the relationships between individual groups or nations.  The principles that apply between individuals also apply between nations, just on a different scale.  Those principles are based on Human Rights and are known as the Law of Nations.
Some relationships are based solely on agreements via treaties, but others are fundamental and require no agreement because they are unalienable, -all nations possess certain rights which other nations have no right to abrogate or violate.  But let’s focus on the rights of individuals.

Survival rights begin with the right to live, followed by the right of self-defense.  If your right to live is threatened, they you have a right to protect and defend yourself.  Government has no moral authority to grant nor deny you that right.   It only has the right to rule as to how you exercise that right.  It’s responsible to protect the right of others to live and not suffer unjustified physical harm or denial of the ability to survive.
Integral to the right to live is the right to obtain that which is necessary for survival, and at the center of that issue is water, and access to it.  It may be the foremost area of conflict and shortage in the coming decades because so much of survival is dependent on it.

While individuals and nations possess the right to the water on their own land, if their water is the only source for those outside their land, then a conflict will exist between the Right to Own Property (including water supplies), and The Right to Survive.
The Right to Own Property is divisible into two classifications.  One includes the type of property needed for survival, and the other includes the type of property needed in the pursuit of happiness.  Survival-supporting property includes the things needed to obtain sustenance and protection against the elements, as well as equipment for protection against enemies, whether animal or human.

The primary elements needed for survival which no man or government has a right to deny one the right to own, are land, the tools needed to exploit it, and domestic animals which supply multiple items vital for survival.  When the State owns restricted land which the people need for survival, then the State is in conflict with their fundamental right of survival.
When survival is not an issue then the next right in the priority list is the Right to Belong.  That begins with every child’s right to belong to its mother and her right for her child to be hers.  That’s closely followed by the rights of the mother to belong to her husband, and the husband & father “to have & to hold”, as belonging to him, his wife and child.
Some States in history have not unequivocally recognized that right, including Sparta, -which removed any newborn that was not normal and perfect and left it out in the wilds to die. That was due to the priority of insuring the survival of the State by avoiding any drag on the society.  It’s said that the only Spartans who had the privilege of having their names carved on their grave markers were men who died in battle, and women who died in childbirth.  Those women were revered as having given everything towards the creation of a new citizen of the State.
The right to belong also applies to marriage and engagement relationships.  Without that right the human race would not exist as we know it.  It’s based on human love and human need which are elements involved in survival and the pursuit of happiness.  Without the bond between parents and children, or parent-substitutes and the young, infants cannot develop into psychologically, and emotionally healthy beings, -whether human or mammal, but instead will die or devolve into a feral state without self-awareness or conscience.

The right to belong does not end at the individual family/relationship level but extends to the group into which one is born.  Families do not exist in a vacuum, -not in the human realm, nor in the realm of social animals.  They exist within a group and the group is usually a natural group, whether it be a flock, a pride, a herd, a clan, a tribe, or a nation.  “Melting Pot” groups are never natural groups and they can only exist because of the express policy of inclusion maintained by an eclectic society through its laws.  All societies and nations possess the right to foster (for practical or philosophical reasons) an unnatural society which accepts, or tolerates to a large degree, persons who are not natural members because they are of a foreign race, ethnicity, tradition, culture, language, and/or religion.

While there is no natural connection between such peoples, other than their humanity, the Right of Belonging, as applied at the group level, is the basis of the principle of natural membership and determines who constitutes a tribe or nation.
All creatures possess a natural membership in the group into which they are born.  It’s almost unnatural to call their membership a “right” because it’s even more fundamental than a right.  It instead involves the two elements of the fundamental structure of the universe, including both the element of the nature of the parts and the element of the relationship between them.
Just as the relationship between parents and their children is a natural relationship, so also is the relationship between members of any natural group.  Their connection is natural in the societal and national sense based on what they have in common.

Being a natural group member results solely from being born to group members.  Geography and boundaries have no connection to it.  Boundaries do not create natural groups, rather, natural groups create boundaries.
The Principle of Group Membership is the web matrix which binds all natural members of a society or nation together.  Some who are not natural members but wish to join a group to which they were not born can be woven into the matrix via a natural-izing process.
They, and their children, are accepted as equal members.  Still, they can’t be entrusted with the power of the Chief, but their children can because they were born to member parents even though that membership was not natural but merely via naturalization.

Fascist, Communist, autocratic and monarchical dictators have always perverted the right of natural membership and distorted it into meaning that the people are the natural members of the State -the entity which possesses superior natural rights.  So under the perverse principle that the state is the legitimate owner of superior and uncontestable natural rights, its power is limited by few bounds or principles.
Regardless of whether or not the dictators that run the state acknowledge the natural rights of its subjects, those rights nevertheless exist as part of the fundamental fabric of the human universe and any philosophy that opposes them will eventual fall to the shear force of the desire of most humans to enjoy the benefits of liberty, even if that evolution toward freedom takes generations or centuries.

While that is true in regard to philosophies that justify oppression, it is not true in regard to religions that do so.  Religions are more powerful, -and like the “Stockholm syndrome” new members of a people and nation can become brain-washed from a young age into not thinking for themselves but surrendering to the power of unquestionable “divine authority”.
The conclusion to be drawn is; since individuals cannot survive and prosper unless they possess certain unalienable rights, so societies and nations must defend those rights because they’re the basis of the derivative rights of the state to survive, defend itself, and seek to prosper.

It all boils down to the matter of how man is made.  Is he made with individual equal rights, or is he made with unequal rights, -or with no rights whatsoever?  And how does the power-elite club view the rights of the many? Are the rights of the many subservient to, or are they superior to the rights of the powerful few?
With human nature being what it is, and with power being a corrupting force, history has proven that as the central elite class gain in power, the people’s rights diminished in direct proportion.  The longer they accept the substitution of State authority in place of their individual and collective rights, the closer they become to being unaware that they even possess certain unalienable rights.

That is the slippery slope that we are in the middle of thanks to a cadre of liberal, leftist, progressive, socialist oligarchs that have been working diligently for 100 years to undermine, erase, nullified, abrogate, and supersede the natural rights of individuals.  They are convinced that the masses are born with saddles on their backs and that they, the masters, are qualified, justified, destined, and obligated to ride them (for their own good of course).
Unfortunately they’ve slowly but very successful implemented their unconstitutional agendas and the way that they’ve succeeded was by simply ignoring the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments.
But that can only take them so far and then they are up against the wall of the Supreme Court, -but only if it’s willing to accept cases involving actions that oppose the overthrow of constitutional principles by Congress, the executive branch, or smaller government bodies.

But simply appearing before the court is no guarantee that the Constitution will be upheld by at least five of the nine justices.  Justices with an affinity toward state power over and against the rights of individuals’ unalienable rights can rule however they want and they have to answer to no man at all.  They are above the law because they can determine what the law is.  They are the ultimate “deciders” and they possess more authority than all of the rest of the government combined.
Consequently, the man elected President has a similar kind of power in that he’s the one to select who sits on the Supreme Court bench for life.  That’s the broadest power that he wields and it will grow in time to be a legacy of constitutional fidelity or of constitutional treason by one or more appointees who follow or ignore the Constitution and the unalienable rights upon which our republic was founded.

by a.r. nash  march 2012

Thomas Jefferson:

He wrote about the expansion of power then by the federal government “towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.”
“Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the president, and the misconstructions of the constitutional Compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities; of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic.”

“Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that [power] also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it ‘regulation’ to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all.

“Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words ‘general welfare,’ a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, (which are specifically enumerated and permitted), but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for ‘the general welfare’.  And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution?”

“Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient [numbers] voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. ” (without a constitutional amendment)

“If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences. [We must] keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.”
“Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them.” –Thomas Jefferson (1775)

“[T]he crisis is arrived when we must assert our rights, or submit to every imposition that can be heaped upon us, till custom and use shall make us as tame and abject slaves.” –George Washington (1774)


The American Citizenship Conundrum

How Forgotten Principles, Mindless Policy, and

Common Misconceptions Elected a President

Nations must be governed by laws and the application of those laws.  Laws must be based on principles otherwise they lack moral legitimacy.  While laws are written down and can be pointed to in courts and administrative offices, principles are different since they aren’t written down.  Their employment in the creation of law and its administration is possible because of a universal understanding of their existence and importance.  But if one’s perspective is solely from within the realm of law, then the principles on which it’s based may be completely unknown to one’s conscious mind.
When that’s the situation which the legal community has devolved into, then in the minds of its members, law is everything and principles are non-existent.  Such is the case in America today when it comes to fidelity to the principles of the United States Constitution, as well as the concepts employed in the legal realm of citizenship.
The problem is manifested in two pronounced ways and they’re closely connected.  One is the nature of citizenship and the other is the proof of citizenship.  The thinking in the American legal community in relationship to those two important areas of national membership has come to be an example of the tail wagging the dog.
The dog is citizenship itself and the tail is proof of citizenship.  Does one exist without the other?  It depends on whether one is asking about legal existence or “philosophical” existence.  Things can exist without any legal recognition of their existence, -beginning with parenthood.  Being the parent of a child is not dependent on the recognition of any law in any society, whether human or animal.  It is a fact of reality in the natural realm, -not the legal realm.  All the legal realm can do is acknowledge the fact, -not make it so or not so.  Citizenship is very similar and is based on the same sort of principle.
Those whose perspective is the product of a devolution of understanding of natural principles suffer from a form of law blindness because they assume that citizenship is the product of the legal realm, -the choices of government, but they fail to recognize that that is only half true.  That means that it’s also half false.  Some citizenship is the result of the necessary choices of government, but other citizenship, like parenthood, is not dependent on government.  All government can do, from a principled standpoint, is to acknowledge that that principle is controlling, not men, (-as in men who are not gods).
Government has a rightful role in certain aspects of citizenship because principle is not the controlling factor in some aspects of the nature of citizenship.  Those cases are the abnormal, atypical cases where natural law has no corollary.   The most pronounced example in American history was the relationship of the United States with those who were the indigenous peoples, -the sovereign native tribes.  There is no corollary in natural law nor common law.  But most situations involve foreign parentage, (-not birth location), because only parentage is connected to the natural realm from which natural law springs.  Birth location is irrelevant to the natural citizenship required of a President.
The problem is that location of birth is accompanied by something of immense importance to government, and that something is proof that is visible and tangible, -whereas principles are neither.  But what exactly is it proof of that is of importance?  That question is at the heart of one of the biggest problems facing America today, and that is “who is an American and what makes them an American?”
A similar problem is that of the nature of the citizenship of the man elected President, and whether or not it’s the type of citizenship required in order to be constitutionally qualified to be the President.
To clear away the confusion we must begin my recognizing that there is a form of citizenship that is natural, -it is something with which one is born; and its counterpart is citizenship that is not natural, -it’s man-made via law.
Man-made citizenship is always the result of atypical, non-normal complexities.  It deals with situations that do not follow the natural pattern, and therefore do not produce natural citizenship.  Natural citizenship is the result of natural inheritance, just as in the natural pattern by which one is a member of the same race, species, family, tribe, and nation as those who produced them.   By that principle we are able to answer fundamental questions such as:
“Can a huge Clydesdale work horse father a natural pure-bred race horse by impregnating a thoroughbred mare?”
“If a Neanderthal and a Homo Sapien engaged in a cross-species mating, would the child  be a natural Homo Sapien or a natural Neanderthal?”  Answer: Neither, it would be a hybrid.
“If a Negro African Muslim impregnates a Caucasian American Catholic, will the child be a natural Negro Muslim of African descent, or a natural Caucasian Catholic of American descent?  Is a hybrid off-spring a natural member of both parents’ groups, or a natural member of neither?”  Answer: Neither.
“Can foreigners, aliens, outsiders -whether immigrants or non-immigrants, father natural members of a group to which they do not belong?”
“During delivery, can merely being present on the land of a group to which the parents do not belong, result in producing a natural member of that group?”
“What does the irrelevant location of one’s exit from the womb have to do with the group with which one has natural membership?”
“Can parents give birth to children who do not belong to them and the group to which they belong?”
“Can a man father off-spring who are natural members of a nation with which he has no connection, and against which his own nation may be at war?”
Such questions have very clear answers but the answers aren’t widely known because the questions are never asked, never considered, never contemplated.  But they need to be asked and answered, along with these questions; “When in human history has the alien bride of a group member not been recognized as a new member of her husband’s group?”
“When in history has a man’s children not been natural members of the group into which he was born?”
“When in human history has a man’s children been born as natural members of a group to which he does not belong, -namely the group to which his foreign wife belonged?”
“When in human history has the birth location of a man’s children been of any significance in determining whether or not they are natural members of his group?”
If you remove the word “natural” from that question, then you come to the source of the problem we face today regarding U.S. born children of illegal aliens, and the presidency of Barack Obama.  The answer is that birth location only became of any significance when civilization reached the point of keeping permanent records.  Before then no one had anything to go by in ascertaining what group one belonged to other than his word or that of those who knew him for a considerable length of time, such as during the years of his birth and childhood.  [Although accents were a dead give-away.]
Permanent birth records changed everything when it came to ascribing citizenship, -or we should say “subjectship” since only members of free democratic nations are truly citizens of their nation and not its subjects.
Permanent birth records, along with census taking, provided royal dictators with a data base of who was born within the dictator’s realm and therefore who belonged to him for life as his “natural subject” (since he was their natural master via the doctrine of The Divine Right of Kings).
There are no subjects in a free democratic republic since there are no masters other than The People, but as government grows larger and more powerful, it becomes more of a master and the people become more like its subjects, -which turns the foundation principles of the United States on their head.  But I digress.
Having the irresistible and irreplaceable utility of birth records, government reasonably turns to them as prima fascia evidence of what nation one belongs to, -just as the despotic monarchs of the mother country did to ascertain who belonged to the King, via the reasoning: “born within my realm?  Bingo, -you belong to me!”  The convenience of such irrefutable proof was relied upon to determine subjectship and citizenship even though it did not rely on the principle by which citizenship is derived.  That natural principle is invisible, intangible and generally unprovable without a blood test.  So something tangible had to be relied upon in its place, and that something was a certified copy of a birth record.
That official certificate shows that one was born in such-and-such State, to named parents, as well as the status of their nationality.  Although the parents and their nationality were what truly determines the citizenship of their off-spring, the birth location was fixated on following the passage of the 14th Amendment which over-road the centuries-long tradition that citizenship was a State matter, and each of the sovereign nations that made up the union known In 1790 as “these united States of America” were the determiners of immigration and naturalization.
Following the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th  Amendments, Washington exerted its authority over the States, the southern states in particular, as it had never been allowed to do before then.  The difference is seen in the wording of the 1st Amendment, which begins; “Congress shall make no law…”  It didn’t mean that the States couldn’t make a law respecting an establishment of religion because they retained that right.  Many civil rights, such as voting, serving on juries, entering into contracts, and owning property had nothing to do with the federal government, but with the passage of federal civil rights legislation and amendments, certain rights were made to be federal rights which no state could violate as they had had the right to before then.
With the passage of the 14th Amendment which reads: “Any person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”, attention focused on the easily provable location of one’s birth, -to the neglect of one’s parentage (which related to both American and foreign parents) and jurisdiction (which related mostly to foreign parents and the issue of whether or not they were subject to American domestic jurisdiction or to the foreign jurisdiction of their homeland.
The State Department, Immigration Service, and Justice Departments ignored the 14th Amendment for three decades until the Supreme Court forced them to accept it when it ruled that an American born son of Chinese immigrants was not an alien but an American.  Ever since it’s been a down-hill road as the government moved from acknowledging that immigrant parents are subject to Washington in the same way that citizens are subject, (and therefore their children are granted citizenship from birth) to the government saying “the hell with it, -we’ll just take the easy way, the brain-dead way, the mindless way and ascribe U.S. citizenship to every living thing born on American soil as long as its recognizable as human.   –We’ll just make the birth certificate and its proof of a US birth location as everything, and the natural principle of natural membership can be simply ignored.  The very foundation of natural citizenship is unneeded in ascertaining and deciding matters of citizenship.”   And you know what?  They were right from a practical stand-point, -until, that is, the presidential election of 2008 and the candidacy of one unnatural citizen who called himself Barack Obama.
Thanks to him, we have not only the problem of the bastardization of the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment as it relates to illegal immigrants, but we also have the bastardization of the presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution itself.  Stupidity and treason are the Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumb of the attack on the foundations of our governing law and principles, both of which have been perverted by bastardized concepts that are diametrically opposed to the original meaning and intent of citizenship requirements that are neither ambiguous nor optional.
The result of the conflation of the 14th Amendment native-birth citizenship concept with that of citizenship being government defined and bestowed has led to the wide-spread assumption that presidential eligibility is based solely on being native-born and not natural born.
The erroneous thinking is as follows: “Since citizenship is bestowed by government and the Constitution, (14th Amendment), and native-birth is all that’s needed to obtain that citizenship, therefore that constitutional citizenship is all that’s required to be President.”  That’s three gigantic errors chain-linked together, and oblivious to the truth that natural citizenship is not bestowed by the government, -place of birth does not have any bearing on natural citizenship, and presidential eligibility is wholly dependent upon natural citizenship and no other type, including constitutional citizenship.
The inconvenient truth is that no one with constitutional citizenship is eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of the American military and nuclear forces.  No one dependent on government, law, or native-birth is eligible to be President.  No one born to a father who was not a member of the American nation is a natural member of the nation either, but is instead a hybrid.
The die-hard supporters of Obama’s presidency cling to the argument that native-born and natural born have been conflated [erroneously] throughout U.S. history and that that is somehow proof that they are one and the same, while they choose to willfully ignore the fact that the INS has always distinguished between the native-born (constitutional) citizen and the natural born citizen who is not dependent on the 14th Amendment nor native-birth.
I’ve share that fact, and the quoted proof from the INS’s own website on my   home page, and in many other commentaries, and won’t repeat it here.  Wishful thinking won’t make it go away, -although the Obama-protecting conspirators in the U.S. government did make it go away by deliberately changing its web address, but thanks to a concerted search I was able to locate its new address.
Natural citizenship is based on the Law of Natural Membership, -a principle of natural law.  I would say that the principle is not based on the law, -that the law is based on the principle, but the problem is that there is no such written natural law.  It was never written and never needed.  The only law ever written is that which covers those who were not born with natural citizenship.  Everyone whose citizenship is dependent on that man-made law is ineligible to be the President because they are not natural born citizens.  The law by which an American is a natural United States citizen was not written in 1790 when the Constitution was ratified and has never been written since, but by that unwritten law Barack Obama is a usurper unconstitutionally occupying the White House.

By a.r. nash  april 2012   http://obama–

No Bast*rd Daughter of an Alien Can Be President!

(Reality Check Circa 1789)

   Do I have your attention? Good, because there’s a very important question you need to think about.  Few others are thinking about it or an answer to it, so you’ll find yourself quite alone when you find one.
The question is this: “What qualifies a person to be to the the President of the United States?  The answer turns out to be based on the vicissitudes of life, -one of those things over which one has no control.  Namely, the circumstances of one’s birth.  The title reflects the limitations of those circumstances, including gender, race, religion, culture, and nationality.
There are basically eight birth circumstances related to the United States and the presidency, and they are:

1. Domestic birth to American parents. 2. Foreign birth to foreign parents.
3. Foreign birth to one U.S. Citizen if (a): legitimate, b: not legitimate, c: male, d: or female.
4. Domestic birth to a U.S. Citizen and: a  non-immigrant foreigner;  an immigrant; a U.S. National; or an illegal alien.  Further distinction is drawn between legitimate & illegitimate birth, and the gender of the parents.
5. Domestic birth to naturalized foreigners.
6. Domestic birth to  non-immigrant foreigners.
7. Domestic birth to non-citizen U.S. Nationals.
8. Domestic birth to legal permanent resident aliens (un-naturalized immigrants).
Those born into the first circumstance (historically about 98% of us) are Americans by nature, but those born into the last circumstance are foreigners by nature, but naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment.
There are three kinds of truth.  There’s the truth that can be spoken openly, and is.  There’s the truth that can only be spoken in private.  And there’s the truth that can’t be spoken at all because it’s of a nature that’s too sensitive.  Half a century ago when many of us were growing up, one couldn’t use the word “pregnant” in polite company.  One would say instead “expecting”.  One was conscious of the need to not offend the sensibilities of others.   Such a concern has been a part of all civilizations, and part of what made them civil.  So it was in 1789 when the Constitution was the new foundation of a new nation.
The founding fathers had agreed that, unlike the Articles of Confederation which treated each State as a mostly separate nation, (-though united in needed ways) the Constitution and the government it would create would provided a single leader of the nation, and that leader, it was decided, would also have another important role, and that was to be the commander of all military forces of the nation.
They wanted the loyalty of the Commander-in-Chief to be unquestionably grounded in the United States and it alone.  Thus they set a limit on who could be President in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which reads:  “No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President, “.  That told us that he could not be a foreigner, -nor born of a foreigner because the child of a foreigner was a natural born U.S. citizen only if fathered by a naturalized foreigner who had become an American.  Otherwise the federal government saw only his foreign citizenship inherited from his foreign father, even though some States granted citizenship from birth to children of their immigrants.
What it didn’t tell us is a truth that was not stated because it didn’t need to be, -and should not have been stated if merely for the purpose of civility.  It didn’t say that those persons who were natural born citizens, but also of the female persuasion, were excluded by the unwritten traditional, scripture-based rule of their purely patriarchal world.
It also didn’t tell us that no natural born citizen who was non-white could run for nor be elected to the office.  Nor any Jew, nor any Catholic since Catholicism was subject to the dictatorship of Rome, and was the enemy of Protestantism which was the father of the concept of individualism, and a direct relationship and responsibility to God.
Peoples from countries that were deprived  of the liberties and rights of free Englishmen, -rights secured over centuries of conflict with the Crown, were “dangerous” embodiments of “alien concepts” of the acceptable power of rulers, and lacking the consciousness of the unalienable rights of man, -which constitute the foundation of a free society.
(Unfortunately for the harassed and victimized colonists, the King of England and his Parliament didn’t view the Americans as being fellow Englishmen because they were not a part of England, and therefore he could treat them any way he chose because they were like his property, -born on his private external unincorporated lands and therefore his to do with as he desired.  His arrogance of power was unrestrained toward them by the laws of England.  But I digress.)
Just as it was unwritten that no natural born American daughter of parents united in holy matrimony could be President, so also no son of an unholy union outside of the sanctity of marriage could represent the nation as its leader.  The son of a mother who conceived in sin and gave birth outside of the blessing of God & the Church and the vows of fidelity for life would be viewed in the light of his conception and never accepted as a candidate by people who looked at the world through clear concepts of right and wrong, sin and righteousness, moral and immoral behavior.  Men tainted by such parental behavior, and men with low moral character and criminal backgrounds would not be conceivable as the nation’s leader.  The sins that one could be guilty of and would reflect poor character were well understood.
The office of the President must be one that is beyond reproach, and so the President must not be one unworthy of the office.  Therefore, in conformity with moral & social standards, male chauvinism & patriarchal tradition, along with racial bias; no bastard son (or daughter) of a foreign non-Protestant, non-northern European, non-white, non-property owning father could ever be viewed as acceptable as President by the descendants of the religious freedom-seeking rejects of northern Europe, -those Protestant immigrant ancestors who founded the American colonies.
What’s the point of relating all that unwritten blatant discrimination that was part of the fabric of their being?  It’s to make it clear that although the American mind set was open to all kinds of immigrants, without limitations other than known criminality, and citizenship was available to most men through the naturalization law, -and that such openness even extended to essentially every office of the federal government, there was nevertheless one exception, and that was the position of the Commander-in-Chief.
Since the Commander-in-Chief was also the President, -combining two positions into one, it was necessary to set a limitation on that office since it was subject to public election   The discrimination instituted on behalf of national security was that no foreigner could be entrusted with the power of the Commander-in-Chief.
That meant that sons of a foreigner could not be President either because, on the national level, they didn’t qualify as natural born American citizens unless the immigrant father first became naturalized in the State in which he lived.
If he never did up until they became adults, then they would have to become naturalized themselves, even if they were born in one of the States of the Union that granted citizenship from birth.
But only those born to American fathers could become President.   How does that relate to today?  Nothing has changed except two significant things, -now American women are viewed as legally and constitutionally equal to men in almost all ways.  They can be elected, or appointed, to every office in the land, including the presidency.  The same goes for all races.  Even those “conceived in sin” are eligible as long as they themselves have not shown poor moral character.  And while religion is still a core issue with tens of millions of Americans, it doesn’t prevent anyone from running for the presidency.
In fact, almost nothing prevents anyone from running for the presidency, -including the Constitution of the United States, even though it still stubbornly requires that the President be a natural born citizen.  While most of the unwritten, unspoken prohibitions or roadblocks are eliminated in the America of today, and that’s a good thing, the problem is that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.
The Constitution has been tossed out by blindly or deliberately ignoring it, or striving to keep voters from being aware of its still-intact prohibition against off-spring of foreigners serving as President & Commander-in-Chief, -which at one time included command over 30,000 nuclear bombs.
But discrimination still exists and it’s written in stone in the Constitution itself.  The prohibition against anyone who is not born to American parents still stands.  The presidential eligibility clause is entirely prohibitive and exclusionary in nature.  It first prohibits anyone from election to the presidency (No person…) and then makes two exceptions, -natural born citizens, and those who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted.  The founders weren’t born as citizens of the United States because it didn’t exist when they were born.
They were mass converted from subjects of the King of England to citizens of America by the Declaration of Independence which ended their connection to Great Britain.   They then became citizens of the individual, separate-but-united States of America, -but children born to them after the Declaration (the oldest of which were only 11 years old when the Constitution was written) were born as natural citizens of the State of their birth, and the nation as well, as long as they weren’t born to foreigners.
If they were, then the only limitation that existed in regard to their citizenship, (-if their State granted citizenship automatically to native-born children of immigrants) was that they would not be allowed to wield the power of the Commander-in-Chief.  That unwritten prohibition meant constitutionally that they could not serve as President since he wielded that power as part of the office.
By the written and unwritten laws & rules that governed the States and the nation at the time that the United States government came into being,  one can state the following:
  The facts regarding citizenship in 1789:
1.  Foreigners were not Americans and  could not be President.
2.  Foreign-born children of immigrants could not be President.
3.  Foreign-born children of naturalized immigrants could not be President.
4.  Native-born children of foreigners could not be President.
5.  Native-born children of immigrants could not be born citizens unless the law of the State in which they were born allowed it.  If it did not, then they wouldn’t be citizens of the United States either.  They’d be citizens of their father’s nation only.
6.  Native-born children of naturalized immigrants were natural U.S. citizens and could be President if they were born after their father became a naturalized American citizen.
7.  Children born before naturalization were natural born citizens of the foreign father’s homeland and therefore dual citizens if their State granted them citizenship also.
8.  Children born with dual citizenship, -with membership in two nations and allegiance required from both, were not acceptable to be Commander-in-Chief because they lacked the foremost quality required for wielding the power of that position, and that was undivided loyalty, allegiance and attachment to the United States and it alone.
9.  Children of naturalized citizens, even though still living in their native land, would enter the United States as citizens due to acquiring “derivative citizenship through their father’s naturalization.
9.  American immigrants were not rightfully subject to the authority of their own nation’s government because they were subject to the United States government since they were members of American society and bore the responsibilities of the citizens of the United States even though they didn’t possess the full rights and responsibilities of State citizens.  The nation with the fullest jurisdiction is the one in which a person lives.
10. Foreigners, and their wives, who were present in any of the States on a temporary basis, -visitors, tourists, businessmen, scholars, students, statesmen, and representatives of foreign governments were subject to the authority of their own government and not that of the American federal government, and therefore a child born to them while within U.S. borders had no natural right to citizenship in the United States, -a nation to which their parents had no political connection whatsoever.
11.  A child fathered by a citizen of a foreign nation (-a nation to which his ties were still un-severed), was not eligible to be President.
Barack Obama was born to such a father, but due to immigration law, since he had an American mother, he was part American by nature.  In 1789 he would have been 100% British because his mother’s citizenship would have had no bearing on that of her child since it was inherited from the father alone.
One hundred years ago his mother would not have even been a United States citizen because she would have lost her citizenship due to the
Nationality Act of 1907 because she married a foreigner.  That may not have been the law in 1789 but it may have been the policy of many or most of the States, and it was the States and local judicial magistrates that dictated who was allowed to obtain naturalized citizenship.
The take-away of these facts is the question: “How could someone whose American citizenship would not have existed when the Constitution was written, or during particular times in U.S. history, be considered to be a “natural born citizen” today?”  Have things changed that much?  Constitutionally speaking, all that’s changed is the end of racial and gender bias in regard to citizenship & the presidency.
But nothing has changed in regard to the type of citizenship which is legally eligible.  That type of citizenship is still natural citizenship, -the type with which one is conceived and born as their natural birthright, -their blood-connection inheritance from parents who are both members of the nation, and Barack Obama was not born with that type of citizenship.
Instead he was born with different citizenship through both of his parents, -two of everything related to national origin.  Two nationalities, -two allegiances, -two heritages, -two cultures, -two government jurisdictions.  His political nature from birth was half & half, 50-50, this & that, apples & oranges, dual and bifurcated, -not 100% organic natural-born American, -but foreigner-born, 50-50 citizenship is not considered natural citizenship by the laws  and traditions of any nation on earth, including the United States.
Barack Obama’s citizenship is as much normal natural American citizenship as transgender sexuality is normal natural sexuality, -as normal as con-jointed twins are normal natural twins, -as bigamists are normal natural married spouses, -as centaurs are normal natural humans.  A two-headed snake is definitely a snake, just as Obama is definitely a citizen, but that fact doesn’t make it or him conform to the  natural pattern.  And being native-born doesn’t change that fact in the least.
It’s all about nature, -not geography.  It’s all about natural inheritance, not artificial borders.  It’s about a natural right to citizenship, -not government granted citizenship.  It’s about a singular, uniform origin, -not a dual, conflicted origin.  It’s about the universal law of natural membership, -not artificial membership by permission of a man-made statute which provides an outsider adoption into the American family. It’s about picking sides in time of war, -not straddling the fence because one belongs to both sides.

Barack Obama’s citizenship is wholly derived from permission of the government via its naturalization statutes.  If he had been born in 1789 to an American father and a foreign mother then things would have been quite different because his mother would have obtained American citizenship as soon as the wedding took place.
But a foreign male has never gained U.S. citizenship by marrying an American woman, and that fact was true in 1961 when he was born to a Kenyan father who was unable to beget a child that was not British by birth and a natural citizen of the British Commonwealth.   Being foreigner-born, (-not foreign-born), is what disqualifies him from being constitutionally eligible to be the Commander-in Chief and the President of the United States.

by a.r. nash  april 2012


Obama’s Eligibility Credibility

~A Stranger in the White House

(citizens by law vs citizens by nature, and what it all means to Obama)

There’s a problem in the White House.  There’s a stranger in the Oval Office and the Secret Service doesn’t know exactly who he is.  They haven’t done any background check to determine whether or not he might pose a threat, but they are restrained from ordering him to leave because he happens to be the President.  They view him through suspicious eyes even though he was elected to office, because they know that any & every U.S. citizen is not eligible to hold the office of the Commander-in-Chief, and it would appear that he is one of those who isn’t.

They know also that any & every citizen is not acceptable to guard the President because they themselves had to pass a deep and thorough Yankee White Single Scope Background investigation to vet all would-be protectors of the President.  They know that they would not have passed that vetting process if they had been born to a non-immigrant alien father.  They had to have an American father.  And yet they’re expected to sacrifice their lives to protect a man who couldn’t qualify to guard himself.

A Half Something President
The stranger in the White House is an anomaly, not because he is half Negro, but because he is half African, half alien, -and spent most of his first two decades of life as an Indonesian citizen via adoption.  Never before in US history have the American people knowingly voted for a man who was half European, or half Russian or half Chinese, or half anything that wasn’t American, and yet his charm and corrupt electioneering tactics allowed him to bulldoze his competition out of the way even though the odds against him were great.   But how was the American electorate bamboozled into thinking that a half-something candidate could be eligible to the highest office in the land?

The answer is that due to wide-spread ignorance, an “urban myth” was swallowed as gospel.

That myth is multi-fold and the first part is that mere birth on U.S. soil automatically imparts
U.S. citizenship.  The second is that such a birth fulfills the constitutional requirement to be President.  In other words, anyone (!) born in the U.S. can be President with only one kind of exception; children born to foreign representatives.   Children of mass-murdering foreign dictators are ok.

Those myths are founded on a perverted distortion of the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.  Barack Obama and his minions used and relied upon that perversion to assert that he was eligible to be President because of his supposed constitutional citizenship which is courtesy of the 14th Amendment.  He even claimed as much on his campaign website “” -now off-line.

The Subject of Jurisdiction
The false supposition is that he was covered by the 14th Amendment, but the truth is that he wasn’t.  The meaning of the 14th Amendment and the citizenship that it bestowed did not pertain to rights possessed by women (mothers), but strictly to men (fathers).  It granted citizenship to children of those men who were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government.
In that era, wives were subject to their husbands, children were subject to their parents, and fathers were subject to the government.  Women could not be called upon to defend the nation, and possibly die doing so, but men could, and that’s one reason why they were the head of each household.  The wives were not viewed as co-heads and equally subject to Washington’s jurisdiction.
The 14th Amendment of 1868 reads:
“All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”.  Everyone understands the meaning of “born in the United States” but everyone does not understand the meaning of being subject to US jurisdiction.

It means two things.  The first, according to the authors of the clause, is that it means the same thing as its predecessor, -the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which requires that those born in the U.S. (covering freed slaves and children of immigrants [two birds with one stone]) not be under the jurisdiction of any foreign power.  Some shallow thinkers leap to the conclusion that babies are directly under the jurisdiction of Washington and therefore all of them born on U.S. soil must be citizens.  But a baby, and all minors, are not subject to the government, -their father and mother are, but historically we would say that only the father was of significance.  In other words, only adult husbands were viewed as being subject to the jurisdiction of Washington.

Then the question is; “What does jurisdiction mean?”  To answer that we have to first answer the reverse question; “what does jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment not mean?”  The answer is of immense importance in combating the urban myth about the nature of the citizenship of Barack Obama and whether it is included or not by the language of the 14th Amendment.  It in fact was not and here’s why.
Though jurisdiction is only one word, it does not have only one meaning because there are several different kinds of jurisdiction.  One is civil, one is criminal, and another is political.  Every soul who walks out of the wilderness into civilization, or flies in from a distant foreign land, or high-tails it through the border desert into American society is subject to both the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the local, state, and national governments to various degrees.  Even foreign Ambassadors, Consuls, and Diplomats are subject to such jurisdiction and are required and expected to follow all the laws like everyone else.
But if they break them anyway, then they are immune to prosecution.  They get a free pass in the same way that a person who’s been involved in a criminal enterprise gets immunity from prosecution when he turns “state’s evidence” and becomes a witness for the prosecution.  He was fully subject to the law, as are foreign representatives, but like them, can’t be prosecuted.

No foreign representative in history has ever been told by his government that the laws of the nation where he would be stationed did not apply to him, -that he can ignore them completely.  He can rob banks? -and rape women? because he is above the law?  Instead, the international agreement is that he is immune from prosecution if he violates the laws that he is rightfully subject to.
So understanding the truth about the difference between political jurisdiction and all other forms of jurisdiction, and between subjection to law and immunity from prosecution, serves to correct the common misconception held even by people who happen to work for the government, -including serving as judges at all levels.  The misconception that that understanding dispels is that merely being born in a country does not automatically make one subject to the political jurisdiction of the central government because political jurisdiction is different from all other kinds.
The Responsibility of Membership
It’s tied to the responsibility of membership.  Capable members of every family, tribe, and nation are responsible in ways that their guests are not.  Their guests, while under the roof of their host, are subject to the rules of the house; -no spitting on the floor, -no gum under the table, -no stealing the silver wear and jewelry.  But they aren’t subject to orders to risk their lives fighting a fire, or defending against attack by renegades or marauders.  If danger arrives, they are free to leave through the back door, -they do not have to confront it because they are not members and don’t have the responsibilities of members.
An excellent larger illustration is that of an ancient city-state like Sparta, Athens, or Troy, which has a strong stone wall surrounding the city and a drawbridge across a moat.  Those who are from outside can enter the city via a walkway alongside the drawbridge, (which remains off-limits to them).
Those visitors, who enter to visit, or shop, or attend classes, or speak to the king as representatives from another city-state, are  the equivalent of Visa Card foreign visitors and representatives.  Those visitors come for the day and then leave at night because their home is elsewhere.  Since they are outsiders, they aren’t allowed to stay longer than guests are allowed because they have no loyalty to the city, no natural connection to it, and therefore have no right to residence in it.
But any outsider who obtains the king’s permission to become a permanent member of the city, after the king’s investigators have determined that he isn’t a threat, is allow to move in permanently.  For him the drawbridge is opened and his big moving cart is allowed to pass into the city.
He is no longer among the excluded outsiders who must leave when their visit ends because he received permission to enter via the drawbridge, and not just the foot bridge.  He received a Green Card that made him a permanent member of the city, and thus became charged with the same responsibilities as all of its other citizens.

If the city is attacked, the visitors can leave like rats escaping a sinking ship, but he can’t leave because he lives there, and therefore is responsible for the defense of the city, even though it’s not the city in which he was born and raised.  If that city-state is the United States, and he’s between 18 and 25 years of age, he must register with the Selective Service in case the military draft is ever re-instituted.

I first learned of this principle of responsibility when an old man in Mexico, who was my host for many visits over many years, told me that during World War II he was tried and convicted for refusing to be drafted and was sent to a federal penitentiary for several years.  He and the U.S. government had a different view about the responsibilities of foreign permanent residents.

The point is that visitors-guests are not subject to the same jurisdiction as the members of a family, tribe, city-state, or national society.  The father of Barack Obama, was not subject to the political jurisdiction of Washington because he was a guest visitor allowed in on a temporary basis in order to attend college.  He could not be drafted and sent to fight in Vietnam or anywhere else.  He was instead subject solely to the political jurisdiction of London, i.e., the British government, and was under the protection of international treaties.
Since he was free from Washington’s jurisdiction, the 14th Amendment had no application to anyone born to him within U.S. borders.  The amendment does not use the word “or”, it uses the word “and” -as in “and subject” in addition to being U.S. born.
It must be both, -not one or the other.  But the perverters of its clear and unmistakable language, whether in government, or courtrooms, are either suffering infection with the urban myth and are ignorant of the truth, or know better but are harboring an agenda to promote ever greater numbers of government-dependent Democrat voters created via “anchor baby” citizenship.  That’s their agenda, -not the intent to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

They despise the Constitution because it’s self-evident words are a giant road-block to national and world domination by the foolishly unwise, naive, and idealistic Marxist elites who know for a fact that they know what’s best for you and should therefore be allowed to make major decisions on your behalf, in other words, -be your master.  They mean to be good masters (by any means necessary) but first and foremost, whether good or bad, they mean to be masters.
Elections are the means to that end, but if an inflexible, out-dated thing like the Constitution gets in the way, then it must be “tunneled under, pole-vaulted over”, or just plain ignored.  And that is just what they’ve done, -and have done for 100 years, -and will continue to do as long as they have breath.

Let’s reword the 14th Amendment to convey its actual meaning, -how about this:

“No person is a citizen of the United States who is understood to not be subject to the political will of Washington, but is subject instead to the political will of a foreign nation.”  That would describe the naturalized, derivative, and natural born citizens, but what of the “native-born?
Obtaining citizenship would be a problem for children of foreigners because it has one short-coming.  It doesn’t bestow citizenship based on birth within the United States.

Children of legal permanent-resident immigrants must be born within the United States or else the 14th Amendment grant of citizenship doesn’t apply to them.  But children of natural citizens can be born anywhere on earth.

American Birthright Inheritance

No one has ever said, nor will ever say, that Barack Obama could have been born anywhere on earth and yet still be an American citizen through the traditional means of being begotten by an American father.  It wouldn’t have been true before nor after the ratification of the Constitution, -nor the 14th Amendment because citizenship was passed from the father to the children.
His children were his property and they were, via birthright inheritance, whatever he was.  It was their natural unalienable right to be a member of the group into which they were born, and that group was the group to which their father belonged.
Welcome To The Jungle

That right is the third natural right that all social creatures are born with.  The first and second are the right to live, and the right to belong to one’s own parents.  If those three unalienable rights could be eliminated, the basis of civilization and social cohesion, whether human or animal, would not exist.  Life would end as we know it because every social creature would not belong to anything or anyone.  All would be individuals.

Membership in any group would not be natural but random.  Cougars being members of wolf packs, lions being members of hyena packs, American citizens being also citizens of North Korea, and vice versa. Somali pirates being citizens of Israel, etc.
Parents would have no responsibility toward
their young, and the young would have no right to have parents or membership in any natural human group.  Those three rights prohibit abandonment, murder, cannibalism, infanticide, genocide, and an “every man for himself” barbarism.

The right to live and the right to belong are the lowest foundations upon which all societies are built.  In addition to belonging to one’s own parents, one also belongs to their group.  That is the Law of Natural Membership, and it conveys a right via blood connection which no man or government can legitimately abrogate.

It’s also the principle by which Barack Obama is not a natural member of the American tribe since his paternal blood connection was to an outsider who possessed no right of membership in the group that owned the land on which he produced a son.  He was totally an outsider, -a foreigner, -a guest in the society to which he did not belong, and to which he had no responsibility of membership.  Therefore his son was, as was declared on Barack Obama’s own website, subject like his father, to the authority of the British Nationality Act of 1948 (not to U.S. jurisdiction).

The Curtains of Silence & Secrecy
But why am I having to figure all this out and share it with everyone? (These pieces of a puzzle were not learned from any book, or instructional website. They were put together piece by piece from scratch).
Why isn’t “the government” telling people these facts?  It’s because thick, heavy curtains of secrecy and silence have fallen across the entire land, including around all of those in the government and the main-stream media.

As far as conspiracies go, this is the biggest one in world history because it involves such widespread complicity (via silence) from those who know the truth but fear it as unspeakable, -almost unthinkable, -failing and refusing to alert, educate, warn, or acknowledge the truth to the vast numbers of ignorant citizens who go about their lives oblivious to the situation of a constitutionally ineligible citizen occupying the White House.
If only Barack Obama was ignorant of the truth…-but he knows it all too well and has unknown supporters who resort to fear-inducing intimidation which their victims can’t resist yielding to.
Barack Obama’s citizenship is totally dependent on his birth place having been within U.S. Borders, and yet if the 14th Amendment did not apply to him through his father, then what is the source of his citizenship?
It is only through his mother’s citizenship, but citizenship being derived from one’s married mother did not even exist a century ago.  It’s existence today is due to immigration law.

If Barack Obama had been born a century ago he would have been born to a British father and British mother because his mother would have been “expatriated by marriage” to a foreigner.  By the Nationality Act of 1907 she would have lost her American citizenship. No children born to her would possess American citizenship.  They would be purely British.
That law was eventually repealed (1922 Cable Act) but what followed it was immigration law that allowed the mother’s citizenship to be conveyed to her children if she divorced her foreign husband.  Later still, she didn’t have to divorce him.  Her children would be born with dual-citizenship, -something that was always antithetical to American principles, just as bigamy is antithetical to American religious values.  Similarly, dual allegiance, like dual marriage, was unacceptable also.  You were married either to the United States, or to another country, -like that of your foreign father.  Both was unAmerican.

Cutting The Ties That Bind
If you truly wanted to become an American, you had to go through a complete severing of all ties of allegiance to your homeland.  In other words, you had to divorce your motherland.  You had to cut the umbilical cord via the Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation.  All naturalized citizens still must take that oath.  It’s no small thing.
It’s like a divorce and marriage on the same day at the same time.  They have to become just like a natural citizen, they have to be natural-ized.  It doesn’t take a genius to know that one who is a citizen via the naturalization process, or naturalization law, is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.

But the ignorant public has been duped by the urban myth that anyone and everyone born on U.S. soil, -except children of foreign representatives, automatically is an American citizen, -and that every American child born outside of U.S. borders is an alien who needs government permission to be a U.S. citizen, (even if born to a father and grandfather who were U.S. Presidents), and therefore would be ineligible to be President one day because without the magical moment of delivery happening within America’s man-made borders no one is a natural member of the American nation and therefore describable by the Constitution’s language as being a natural born citizen.
Transient, impermanent, irrelevant location within abstract, artificial man-made borders is EVERYTHING!  But natural blood-connection birthright inheritance from American parents is NOTHING!

Think about this fact; if a teleportation devise were to be invented in the future, then millions of citizens of India and elsewhere would teleport into American hospitals at delivery time,  and after filling out birth certificate information they’d teleport back home.
That would result in them obtaining a state birth certificate, and that would be accepted as evidence of U.S. citizenship, even though it isn’t.  The teleportation devise is fictional but the rest is totally representative of how the bastardization of U.S. citizenship concepts has lead to us to being the laughing stock of the world.

European nations aren’t laughing though because they’ve been the victims of the world’s most asinine immigration policies for several regrettable decades.  And now Canada isn’t much better.
The punishment we exact against foreign women entering the U.S. to give birth here is to reward them with the greatest gift they could hope for.  It’s like one’s punishment for stealing lottery tickets is to win the lottery!  We truly are living in a convoluted, Twilight Zone of national stupidity.
Where are the men and women who will fix the situation?  Regrettably, there aren’t many, but those who exist are met by an impenetrable wall in Washington where they discover to their frustration that we are ruled by an elite oligarchy of 12 kings who are answerable to no one, nine of whom reign in the Supreme Court, and two of whom rule as gods in the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Nothing happens without their permission.  Nothing is even voted on without their permission.  And so nothing can become law unless they are willing to give their consent.
Maybe democracy once existed, perhaps in the first Congress ever, perhaps for one bright shining moment there existed an American democratic Camelot, but in order to avoid chaos, humans eventually return to the autocratic, monarchical, strong-leader model and that model rules our Congress.  Democracy deliberately prevents democracy, but I can’t recall even one person ever raising a complaint.  We accept such a state of affairs as the sheeple that we are.  We either have a huge problem with rules, or a huge problem with fools, -or both.  But I digress.

The Unspeakable Truth
We have a sitting President (the 12th King), running for reelection, who is constitutionally not eligible to serve, but everyone who should realize that fact either does not or remains silent.  Just as the nation did when 100,000 fellow Americans were ordered out of their homes during WWII and sent off to concentration camps out in the middle of nowhere, and no one complained for decades.

He has sought to bolster his eligibility credibility by posting on the internet a computer-fabricated image (depicting an official abstract representation of birth certificate data supposedly extracted from an original micro-film photo) under the pretense that it’s a scan of a real document when no such document exists, and never has.
No person, panel, commission, authority, or organization has ever received a certified copy of Obama’s non-existent long-form birth certificate because there is no U.S. hospital birth record upon which it would need to be based.  No authority of any type has ever examined what the White House conspirators want us all to believe actually exists, -expecting us to unquestioningly believe based simply on a nine layer imitation image that every national security service in the world knows is a total fake.

The security services of nations like Russia, England, France and Germany do not tell their leaders what they know because they know that they would not want to know such a thing when they have to deal with the American leader as if he is totally legit.  It’s like the butler knowing that the master of the manor is cheating on his wife but his wife doesn’t want to hear such a thing and so he remains silent.  That is the reasonable choice because silence is the path of least resistance, and because of that fact we can be assured that we will see much more of it.

No one will speak the unspeakable.  No one will say that the emperor has no constitutional clothes.  And so powerless voices crying in the wilderness are all that is preventing a total black-out of the truth.  But when it seems there’s no reason to hope, something might happen like what happened with Emperor Constantine when a miraculous sign appeared and changed the whole course of history.

We can’t expect such a miracle to happen but we can work to help to bring it about.  But truth can remain suppressed for eons, -though we have a weapon that didn’t exist in the past.  I speak of the internet.  It helped to elect an unconstitutional President.  Hopefully it will serve to help end his reign.

by a.r. nash  april 2012




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers