Transgender Sexuality & Obama’s Citizenship

Transgendered beauty queen Jenna Talackova competed in the Miss Universe Canada pageant in Toronto, on Saturday May 19, 2012, sparking global attention as the first-ever transgender contestant to compete in the Miss Universe Canada pageant, making it to the penultimate round of 12 out of 61 contestants before losing her bid to win the title.

Talackova was born a male and underwent a sex change four years ago. The Vancouver, British Columbia, native was initially denied entry to Canada’s pageant because she was not born female. Talackova’s drew international attention after being denied entry and hiring lawyer Gloria Allred in her battle to be admitted.
But Donald Trump, owner of the Miss Universe Organization, overruled that decision.

The rules of the contest say entrants must be “naturally born” females. But the Miss Universe Organization said she could compete “provided she meets the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, and the standards established by other international competitions.”  They gave no elaboration on that statement except that transgender competitors are now welcome at all of its pageants around the world.

[Information supplied by The Associated Press.]

The situation of Jenna has very clear parallels to the situation of Barack Obama and his eligibility to be the President of the United States.  He came into life with a similar disadvantage and disqualification as Jenna, -but not in regard to the nature of his gender.  Rather, in regard to the nature of his citizenship.  He was born with a citizenship which no surgeon can alter, -a citizenship which disqualifies him for the presidency by the clear prohibition of the U.S. Constitution, -which states: “No person except a natural born citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,”.
A natural born citizen is one born a citizen, -one who is a citizen naturally, by birth to citizens, -as opposed to one who is born a citizen by law but not nature.  Without the law they would not be a citizen, but natural citizens are citizens by no laws whatsoever.  No laws are needed to make them citizens and none exist because the government was given no authority to regulated or legislate regarding their citizenship unless their citizenship is not very natural because of being born to parents who never lived in the United States.
Jenna was not a “naturally born female”.  By nature “he” could not qualify for the pageant, but he could change that which he was by birth and become something else.  That is a perfect analogy to naturalization.  One born as a citizen of one nation can become a citizen of another by going through a process to natural-ize one into another nationality.
After he was natural-ized into a she then she could be member of a group into which she was not born, but as a naturalized foreigner becomes a member of a nation into which he/she was not born.  But in the case of Barack Obama, his citizenship is the equivalent of a “he-she” or a hermaphrodite since he was born as a member of two different groups, -though it’s possible, and probable, that he was born a member of only one group, -the British group because he was not born in any hospital in the United States.  That’s a conclusion that the evidence makes inescapable due to his inablility to present the birth certificate that accompanied him through life, -the one that he can’t show because it reveals a foreign birth location.  It’s due to the fact that the microfilm record of all foreign arrivals during the week of Obama’s birth was excised from the reel that contained it without any possible explanation.  It’s due to Obama presenting two digitally concocted images of Hawaiian birth documents, including one unintentionally still containing the seven layers of elements combined to make it.  It’s due to there being a record of a birth to an American mother in Kenya in 1961.  It’s due to her being in Seattle two weeks after the reported birth date of her son and not being back in Hawaii (with her “husband”) until he had left to attend Harvard, -never having lived with him even though Obama’s fictional autobiography tells the more appealing tale of them living together as a family for two years.

But Obama could never become a member of the group that’s eligible to be President because one cannot become a naturalized natural citizen.  One can only be natural by birth, not by any process or any law.  Being fathered by a foreigner is the definition of not being a natural American, and it doesn’t matter how may people don’t know that simple unchanging fact, nor how elite their status is in the government hierarchy.  Facts aren’t changed due to the public’s ignorance of them.  Unfortunately, there’s far more people unaware of the facts than those who know them.  And then there are those who know the facts but wish they didn’t, and don’t want you to know them because that would endanger the acceptance of their champion’s supposed eligibility to occupy the presidency.  Not being a natural born citizen, and not being able to change that fact means there is no Donald Trump that can qualify his citizenship for the presidency nor legitimize his election.

When Native Birth Conveys Nothing

Jus Sanguinis (the law of blood) is U.S. Federal law by the Fourteenth Amendment

The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, wrote in 1866: “We must depend on the general law recognized by all nations relating to citizens for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” *

["Temporary sojourners" like transient aliens were a description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such as work, travel, visitation or school,”]
“When children inherit the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs to regardless of where they might be born.  Citizenship through descent from the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.”

Children are subject to the jurisdiction of their father.  If the father is subject to U.S. Federal jurisdiction by permanent residency, then by the principle of jus sanguinis his children are likewise subject through their hereditary connection to him.  That is transmitted two ways.
If he is un-naturalized then children born to him in the U.S. are automatically subject also and are naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment.  They are citizens by automatic naturalization.  But they are not citizens by birth to him because he is not a citizen.

If he becomes a citizen by naturalization, then children born to him abroad, prior to immigration, are automatically naturalized also by jus sanguinis citizenship inheritance.  They are not forced to wait until they are adults and then also go through the process to be naturalized.  Instead that status of the father is applied simultaneously to his foreign born children via jus sanguinis.  When they arrive in American to join him, they arrive as full U.S. citizens even though born as natural citizens of their native country.

If he is naturalized then his children born in America are born as natural American citizens by descent, by inheritance from him.

["The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one alone before finally becoming a citizen."]

The Attorney General of the United States, George Williams, ruled in 1873 that the word “jurisdiction”  under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens…” He added,
“Political  and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”  [excluding all foreign diplomats, visitors, and Native Americans]

Since citizens owe full allegiance to no nation other than their own, and  temporary allegiance to a foreign nation only if they’ve taken up permanent legal residence in it, to argue that one’s mere physical presence within a foreign nation  (thereby being  subject to the universal authority of the nation’s civil law) makes all outsiders subject to the political and possibly military jurisdiction of that nation,  is absurd because being subject to another nation’s civil laws while visiting makes no change to a foreigner’s allegiance and obligations to his own native country.

Obama Sr. was not subject to US jurisdiction since he was a foreign visitor with a student visa, so therefore his son’s birth within the U.S. was not covered by the 14th Amendment because he also was subject to the authority of his father’s nation.  The subjection that one is born under is determined by the status of one’s father, and Obama’s father remained subject to the authority of Britain and its Nationality Act of 1948.

Obama’s native birth (still unproven since no certified, authenticated, physical hard-copy has been shown) is irrelevant because his birth to an alien visitor left him not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Therefore, Obama is subject to these truths:

1. No one born to an alien father was born a natural citizen.

2. No one not in the United States on a legal permanent basis is subject to the full political and military jurisdiction of the United States.

3. No one born to a father who is/was not subject to the full political and military jurisdiction of the United States at birth is a 14th Amendment citizen.

4. No one whose citizenship is outside the 14th Amendment is a natural citizen, nor a constitutional citizen, but instead is a statutory citizen . **

5. No one who is a citizen by statute is a natural citizen. (Obama’s citizenship is solely through his mother, -by naturalization statute.)

6. Citizens like Marco Rubio, born to foreign immigrants, are 14th Amendment citizens, but not natural citizens.  Only those born to Americans are “natural born citizens”.

7.  No one who is not a natural citizen (a citizen by birth, not merely at birth) is eligible to be the President of the United States.

by a.r. nash sept 2011   http://obama–nation.com
http://obamabc.wordpress.com http://photobucket.com/obama_bc

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

*  Chairman Wilson ineptly overlooked an entire third class of persons born in the United States, and that class is those born to foreigners who are not merely visitors, nor foreign representative, but are domiciled new residents and therefore subject to the full political authority of Washington.

He states that “every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen” but then he goes on to explain precisely why they are not natural born American citizens, -an odd display of cognitive dissonance by which he contradicts his previous overly-broad assertion.  Such is the history of confused and confusing statements by “statesmen” on the subject of citizenship.
**  The federal government is oblivious to these facts and blindly assumes and assigns citizenship in a brain-dead manner that only recognizes place-of-birth, and is therefore unconstitutional in the legal application of citizenship authority by ignoring the meaning and requirement of  U.S. “jurisdiction”.

From Subjects of The King To Citizens of The Nation

The legitimacy of the presidency of Barack Obama is predicated on the assumption that he was Constitutionally eligible for the office.  While he fulfilled the 2nd and 3rd requirements for the office, (-the requirements of age and residency), a fallacy has been unquestioningly embraced that he also fulfilled the elements of the first and primary requirement; namely that he be a “natural born Citizen”.
That fallacy is the result of substituting a related circumstance (location of birth) in place of the oldest tradition of all human societies, which is membership via blood connection to member parents.

That error is the result of the historical circumstances of the American British colonies, which were not founded as equal members of the King’s domain, but rather as his separate foreign properties which were outside of the umbrella of legal rights that had been established in England through centuries of “push-back” against royal despotism, beginning with the Magna Carta.
This inequitable relationship with the mother country was not made manifest until England was stuck with the large costs of waging the war against the French & Indians in America.  England was loath to bare the costs to defend others so far away while they (the colonists) escaped from paying a sizable share. And so began a campaign to squeeze money from the colonies even while they were given no representation in Parliament nor before the King’s counselors. The list of the Crown’s injustices against the colonies was extensive.   Those injustices revealed that the attitude of England was that the colonies were the property of England, along with its subjects, not co-equals with all the rights of Englishmen.

The view that the colonists were not true citizens of England, but rather were mere subjects akin to serfs, changed how the inhabitants were connected to the government.  As Englishmen, with all the rights of Englishmen, they would have had to have been treated differently than if they were mere foreign subjects of the Crown.

While English society had gained many legal rights over time, they had not escaped from the prevailing political philosophy of “The Divine Right of Kings” on which the legitimacy of all the monarchs of the “Holy Roman Empire” was based.  Under that philosophy, the aristocracy of the landed gentry and the nobility viewed all off-spring of the plant domain, animal domain, and human domain (soil, sheep, sow, and serf) as being the property of the land owner by the fact of coming into being on his property.

That principle was known as “jus soli”, or “the law of soil”. Children of foreigners who were born within the Kings domain were deemed to be his subjects by his authority, as well as that of his judiciary or Parliament since their parents had abandoned their previous country and resettled in the King’s. They were not “natural born subjects” since their parents were not native subjects of the King but were subjects of a foreign monarch. But since their children were born on his land, he had a right to claim them as his subjects.

But a different principle applied for those with wealth, -those with an estate. They were not viewed as the King’s property but were considered to be citizens, -yet were also subject the their responsibility to their King and nation. They inherited their citizenship and their rights & responsibilities of citizenship from their fathers, and that principle is known as “jus sanguinis” or “law of blood”.

Since the colonies were the property of  the Crown, its inhabitants were viewed as belonging to the mother country by jus soli, not jus sanguinis, because they were born on the land of the owner and were therefore the property of the owner (the Monarch & His Dominion). That’s how the  idea of native-birth came to be seen as the principle that bestowed membership in one or more of the American colonies. It’s concept was; “We were born on the King’s land, -we belong to the land owner” rather than “We are citizens, not subjects, because we were born as citizens by being born to citizens, and we are no one’s property.  We don’t belong to the government, the government belongs to us”.

The founding fathers realized that the colonial model had to be abandoned and the natural model had to be adopted, but some were not familiar with the natural model because they’d spent their entire lives under the colonial model and it was the only tradition that they knew. They thought that citizenship was a result of where one is born since that was the tradition of the common law of their native colony.
The phrase “natural born citizen” is composed of three significant words, each of which represents a different historical reality. Before understanding what they mean as a whole, one must first understand what they mean individually.

“Natural” refers to the natural realm. “Citizen” refers to the political realm. “Born” refers to birth, which is related to two separate and distinct legal concepts (human ownership, and birthright inheritance) as well as the essence of membership. These concepts serve as a bridge to connect the natural realm with the political realm and combine them all into an indivisible unity.

Starting with “natural”, it’s referenced because it embodies a principle that’s directly adaptable to the political realm. That principle has its earliest reference in the book of Genesis and the story of the creation of life, about which it was written that each species reproduced after its own kind, -each kind produces its own kind. Species do not intermingle and produce off-spring that are not like them, instead, they’re identical. That is the natural principle behind the use of the word “natural”. A natural born anything is going to be the same as the parents which produced it.  The analogy in the political realm is that citizens produce citizens of the same nationality. Any combining of nationalities would not be politically natural.

For example, if a mare (female horse) is mated with a jackass (male donkey) the off-spring is not a natural born horse, nor a natural born donkey, but instead is a mule, which is not a natural creature since it’s sterile. In the human realm, if an Eskimo female becomes pregnant by an African male, their off-spring will not be a natural born Eskimo, nor a natural born African. It won’t be a natural born anything other than the greater classification of “Human”.

That, along with cultural shock, is the reason why inter-racial marriage has historically been viewed as undesirable. Similarly, in the political realm, if during the Civil War, a Northern male had fathered a child with a Southern female, the off-spring would not have been a natural born Yankee, nor a natural born Rebel, but a nondescript hybrid. Which brings up the related fact that connects to the word “born”.
While “born” includes the legal implications of place of birth, it also relates to “natural” in that it’s the vehicle that provides one with membership in their natural group. One is a member of a native tribe by birth into the tribe. Without birth to tribal members, one will not be a member of the group. So it is with birth into the political realm, one is a member by birth to members.

Without member parents, one is not a member of the group, i.e., not a natural member or natural citizen. If ones father is not a member of the tribe, then ones acceptance by the tribe is dependent on their adoption rules and how strict they chose to be about maintaining pure-blooded membership. In the political realm, ones citizenship is dependent on rules (Naturalization Law) adopted to deal with such hybrid or hyphenated off-spring. Those rules have to be adopted not to define those who are natural members, but to provide membership for those who are not natural members.

The word “born” also relates to an ancient legal tradition that’s thousands of years old. It’s known as “Primogeniture”, which is the right of the first born male to inherit the estate of the parents (which of course required that there be an estate, i.e., wealth). None of the other siblings were born with such a right, which was known as a birthright. It was his right by birth regardless of who disliked it or him. Any inheritance received by his siblings was based on the parents’ feelings towards the other sons, while the daughters were not a part of the inheritance because they became members of the family of their husbands.

By primogeniture, the family name and estate would be secured for as long as the wealth was retained and the male heir produced a surviving male off-spring. In England, Prince Charles, and his first-born son William were born with the birthright to the throne of England. Their siblings do not have that right.  In the political realm, ones “birthright” is to inherit the citizenship/ membership of the parents.
It’s a right that they’re born with and is theirs automatically, requiring no law to make it so because the tradition is as old, or older, than any written law. That’s why birthright citizenship is not even included in the Constitution, nor is the right to vote, because they were understood by all to be “a given”, -a right so unalienable as to not need to be stated.

“Born” also relates to the land or country in which one enters the world, where one is raised and comes to be a full-fledged member as an adult. Historically, ones devotion to ones county/state/nation sprang from it being ones home, (though that relationship has been greatly altered by urbanization and multiple re-locations). But most peoples have a sense of national identify because of their shared history, language, culture, and perhaps religion. So place of birth, while not instilling national allegiance and a sense of citizenship, may result in the life experiences that produce those feelings.

Since place of birth (from viewed in a vacuum) seems to be an adequate historical explanation for a sense of national connection, or nationalism , the legal profession has erroneous settled on it as the simple sole criteria for ascribing citizenship (-which would not be a problem if we had a second Canada on our Southern border, with its same wealth, language, and birth rate).

The founding fathers and authors of the Constitution understood the national danger that would threaten the survival of the union of the states of North America if the commander-in-chief of the United States Army, Navy, and Marines felt a greater devotion to the Crown, or to the British Empire, than to the United States. The only way possible to prevent that was to make all dual-citizens and naturalized citizens ineligible to the office of the President, (while allowing them to occupy any other federal office -except the Vice-Presidency.
The way that they imposed that limitation was through adding the requirement that the President be a natural born citizen. Those words come as the sum of all of the above historical references. They combine to mandate the following:

1. The President must be a “natural citizen” by birth to citizens, He must not be a hybrid (or hyphenated) citizen but a natural full-blooded member of the national group.

2. His citizenship must not be by statute but by birthright, -the unalienable right of citizenship by inheritance from citizen parents.

3.  By birth he must have had no taint of being subject to any foreign power through natural connection to one or two parents who were.
4.  From birth he must have never had any taint of possible foreign allegiance through being born to and raised by a foreign father in a foreign country after being born on U.S. Soil.

United States Constitution; Article II, Section I, paragraph 5: No person -except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of the President,…”
Our current President knowingly ran for and and was elected to the office for which he is not eligible. And no one in a position of authority or public influence realizes that fact, or they do realize it but are unwilling, or not allowed to discuss it openly.  It’s highly probable that the owner of Fox News has muzzled all of his on-air personnel since they will not even broach the subject. They are free to oppose the President for any reason and any policy they find objectionable, but they do not, and presumably cannot, cross the line into the eligibility territory. There must be a reason for that other than shear ignorance.

Hopefully they aren’t that ignorant. If they are, then we’re in even bigger trouble than if they’ve been muzzled. The issue might be best described as a hornets nest (or killer-bee hive) that is best left un-kicked.  The down side of awakening an American awareness of the issue may be disastrous to any hope of national political civility which is already being sorely tested by the dire circumstances of the national debt and deficit crisis and the magnitude of spending cuts required to right our financial ship of  state.

It appears likely that our illegitimate President will not succeed in being re-elected, but it would be far better for the future of our country if enough people realized the truth and moved to defend the Constitution by preventing him from even being accepted as an eligible candidate of the Democratic Party for the 2012 election.
The leaders of his party deliberately avoided declaring Obama as being the constitutionally eligible candidate of their party in 2008 by removing the wording that had historically stated that fact regarding previous candidates. This demonstrates that theyknow he is not Constitutionally eligible but they care not one bit about fidelity to the document that they have sworn a solemn oath to defend.  The oath of office does not require one to preserve, protect and defend the United States, nor its people, nor its legal system, nor its economic system, but to defend only one thing, and that thing is the Constitution itself.

It appears that the greatest risk to it is no longer foreign, but is domestic. The progressive/ socialist/ humanist/ agenda supersedes fidelity to even the most fundamental law of our nation, and even views it as a dangerous threat to its programs. While pushing compassionate social programs, they also push massive and wasteful spending and social engineering programs which corrupt the political process because that “buys” them loyal voters who will keep them in power.

To defend their ideology and its pervasive presence in modern American life, they will lie and deceive by any means necessary to protect what they have already achieved and to gain even greater power. They will also resort to forging birth documents to deceive those who are contented being deceived.

Only the Tea Party patriots, conservatives, and Libertarians see the damage that has been done and are resisting the ever expanding tentacles of federal power, while most of the country is still asleep, too busy enjoying their sports events, gambling excursions, booze and drugs, video games, HDTV shows, internet entertainment, precious vehicles, music collections and social media interaction. But the days are coming in which everyone will have to choose sides. And it is not very far off. Which side will you choose?

A.R. Nash August  2011 http://obama–nation.com    http://photobucket.com/obama_bc

The Bastard Presidency of Barack Obama

~Natural Citizenship vs Legal Citizenship~

-the black man analogy

Are you an American from birth?  If the answer is “yes”, what significant information can we deduce from that?   Answer: ~Nothing.
That’s due to the fact that the answer conveys two possible meanings, and is therefore ambiguous.

The two possible answers would not have any significance in your life whatsoever, -unless you were one day able to run for the highest office in the nation, -the presidency.  Then it would make all the difference in the world.  How so? Because the citizenship with which you were born is either a barrier to the presidency or it’s an open invitation.

It you were legally born with United States citizenship, with citizenship granted & declared by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
-citizenship which no one can alter or rescind, then you are not eligible to be the President.

But if your citizenship is not granted by anything, -no law, no article of nor Amendment to the Constitution, -nor any Supreme Court ruling, then you are eligible to be the President because you were not born with legal U.S. citizenship but were born as a natural citizen .

The Constitution bars anyone from serving as President except “a natural born citizen”  Do you “legally” qualify to be President?   Not in a technical sense if you’re a natural citizen since your citizenship is not a result of any U.S. Law.  Your qualification for the presidency is not a matter of law but of the Constitution, and by it only natural citizens are qualified.

Neither U.S. Law nor the Constitution grant your citizenship because they do not need to.
Why not?  Because you’re a citizen by natural determination, and not by legal determination.  The Principles of Nature are as high above the Principles of Law as the Penthouse suite is above the ground floor.  Natural  membership (of which citizenship is a form), can’t be altered or canceled.  It exists as a fact of Nature affecting all
social creatures on earth.  One who is born as a natural citizen is not said to “have” citizenship.  Rather “a Citizen” is what they are, -organically.  It’s inescapable.  It’s one’s [political] nature.  It results from being born to parents who were citizens.
You were the product of what they were. Their nationality was the nationality with which you were born, -a born member of their nation.  A member by nature.  But one born “with” citizenship possesses it as a result of a Supreme Court opinion that distorted the meaning of the 14th Amendment, -opining that children of legal immigrants are citizens.  But that decision doesn’t make them natural citizens.  It makes them legal citizens instead because they are citizens by law and not by nature.  Their citizenship is not a natural right but a granted right.
An illustration of the principle is that of a hypothetical white person who wants to be a member of  the black-persons group.  They’re all natural members of their group because they were born black.  But whitey was not.  So in order to be a member of that group he needs to have what they have, which is dark skin.
There’s no way to acquire that naturally because that’s only the result of birth, not human action.  But he can acquire it artificially by skin dye, or excessive tanning, making him thereby a man-made dark-skin person.  He can then be accepted as a member of the group, even though he is not a natural black person.

He can serve the group in every capacity except one, -he can’t be the leader of the group. That’s reserved for only natural members.  But if he never has the opportunity to be the leader, then it doesn’t affect him in the least.  It’s like that glass ceiling doesn’t even exist.

He would be one very rare individual if life presented him an open door to ride the elevator to the top-floor Penthouse suite of the leadership position.  Only then would he encounter the glass ceiling, unless that is, the guardians of the suite had completely forgotten the fundamental rule that no man-made member is allowed to be the leader.

But what if his father was white and his mother was a black member of the black group?
Would he then be a natural member?  Well, would he be considered a natural member of the white group?  Of course not, -so also he would not be a natural member of the black group because he didn’t have a black father.  That requires purely black parentage, -black & white does not produce purely black natural off-spring.

Barack Obama is just such a racial being and also such a citizen being.  His citizenship nature is no more purely and naturally American than his racial nature is purely and naturally white.
He is instead a hybrid blend of two distinctly different backgrounds and national memberships.
No 50-50 mixture can result in a natural replication of just one of the two ingredients that comprise the mixture.  A black paint and white paint mixture doesn’t produce pure black nor pure white.  A mixture like oil & water cannot be natural because they can’t produce a natural combination.
So it is with American citizenship and foreign citizenship.  They don’t mix and don’t produce natural American citizens.  They produce hybrid mixture dual-citizens.  Dual citizens are no more natural than is a hermaphrodite.
Unnatural combinations of competing natures can hardly be called natural.  Possessing the organs of both males and females is akin to possessing dual and competing national allegiance.
It violates the natural order of things, and there- fore is definitely unnatural.  That was the view of our founding fathers who detested dual-citizenship and wouldn’t allow it.

It is no more natural than the European Union. It’s based on economic union but without political union.  How can separate sovereign states with different history, culture, and language ever be a uniform union with central control?  It’s impossible.  Just as it’s impossible for a dual or quadruple citizen to be a natural member of his parents competing nationalities, -especially if they are both dual citizens from four separate nations.

The word “natural” has no connection to such a man-made mish-mash concoction of a political nature.  It’s as natural as saccharin and margarine.  Calling saccharin “sugar” or margarine
“butter” does not make them so.  And similarly, calling a legal man-made native-born citizen a “natural born citizen” does not make one so either.

Bottom line is that Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Obama is no more a natural born American citizen than an artificial flower is a real flower, or Kool-Aid is real fruit juice, or counterfeit bills are real currency, or a female impersonator, or a transsexual is a natural female.

What’s real and produced naturally is what is natural.  Man-made things and man-made citizen- ship are not the real-deal, even though they may appear just as genuine as does a counterfeit Gucci bag, Rolex watch, Armani suit, driver’s license, or birth certificate.

Suppose that a counterfeiter got a hold of real Treasury-printed $100 bills but only one side was printed.  If he counterfeit-printed the other side, what would the bill be?  Completely real or completely fake?  Neither, of course, because it would be a combination of the two, a hybrid.
So it is with dual citizenship, one is not a genuine 100% member of either nationality because one is 50-50, half & half.  Only real natural citizenship can pass the test of presidential eligibility.  That’s a test that Obama’s citizenship fails, and his presidency is therefore illegitimate.

One could say that it’s a bastard presidency because it’s not sanctioned & sanctified by the officiating authority of the United States Constitution.  Not even the unconstitutional benediction of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who incompetently administered the oath of office, can make a bastard presidency legitimate.  Like a child born outside of Holy Matrimony, the presidency of Barack Obama was born outside of the legitimizing authority of the Constitution of the United States., and as a result, Barack Hussein Obama is running an illegitimate, counterfeit, bastardized Presidency.

by A.R. Nash May 2012   obama–nation.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers