Jus Soli & Jus Sanguinis Citizenship vs. Obama’s Legitimacy

Understanding Presidential eligibility: To understand the Constitution’s requirement that no one is allowed to serve as President except a natural born citizen it is necessary to understand the fundamentals of citizenship. There are two types of citizenship at birth. One is based on a natural principle while the other is based on a policy. The natural principle is that off-spring are the same as their parents and become upon birth the new natural members of their parents’ group. That is the principle of natural membership, and it applies to all natural social groups, -including families, clans, tribes, countries and nations.
National membership by policy is based on an ancillary fact related to child birth and that is the jurisdiction into which one enters the world. That policy has an ancient name known as “jus soli” or Right of Soil while the natural principle goes by the ancient name of “jus sanguinis” or Right of Blood.
In some nations one or both of those are encoded into the law. That is not the case in the United States although it was true in one or more of the founding States of the Union. The United States only recognizes the Right of Blood in its written code of law but only in the context of foreign birth. In regard to domestic birth there is no specific language which recognizes either of the two.

The Constitution does not use either terms in regard to presidential eligibility so we must discern which of the two it refers to by the words “natural born citizen”. Is one a natural born citizen by jus soli or by jus sanguinis?
Law can make one a citizen but it must be on some basis. It must pick one or the other, -or…a law can be worded so vaguely or ambiguously that everyone is confused, -or instead everyone may be absolutely certain due to bias, applied logic, or misapplied logic. So to solve the riddle we must dissect the amorphous nature of a very clouded issue. We can do that by asking a series of questions, beginning with: “Can one be a jus soli citizen in more than one nation?”

The obvious answer is “no” because borders do not overlap. They are discreet and so one cannot be born in two countries. Next question is: “Can one be a jus sanguinis citizen of more than one nation?” The obvious answer is “yes” if one’s parents are not from the same nation and both of their nations impute citizenship to off-spring of its citizens.
The next question is : “Can one be both a jus soli citizen and a jus sanguinis citizen? The obvious answer is “yes” if one is born either in a nation other than that of the parents, -in a nation which bestows citizenship to children born within its borders (like Canada and the U.S.) or is born in either of those nations but with a parent that was from another nation, -one which bestows citizenship to off-spring of its citizens when born abroad.
The final question is: “Can one be a jus soli citizen and a jus sanguinis citizen in three different nations?” The not so obvious answer is “yes”. Ted Cruz is just such a citizen since he was born in Canada (a jus soli Canadian) to an American mother and a Cuban father (jus sanguinis citizenship twice over).

But the answers to those questions do not shed light on what constitutes a natural born citizen, so we must explore what its parameters are. Firstly, natural born citizens are all born being citizens, but confusion does not end there because some are born being citizens by jus soli and the rest (the 97%) are born being citizens by jus sanguinis. So the question then becomes: “Does jus sanguinis produce natural citizenship or does the coincident location of one’s exit from the womb produce natural citizenship?”

To answer that we only need consider the natural law principle of natural membership. Does the location of a newborn’s exit from it’s mother’s womb result in it being of the same species as its parents and belonging to their same group as a new member? The answer is obvious. A natural citizen, like a natural member, is not the result of where birth takes place but of what citizenship one inherits as their “political” nature. One’s national membership from birth is either the result of natural inheritance or is the result of national law (or policy), -which is a legal determinant, and not a natural determinant.
Being born a citizen can be the result of either but being born a natural citizen cannot, because, unlike birth, there is nothing natural about legal citizenship. It is imposed by the will and rules of rulers, and has no basis in natural principle unless they impose a rule that natural citizenship shall be the law of the land.

We have no such law, nor do we have its opposite, hence the confusion. That is nothing new since it dates back many centuries to eras that were so far removed from the fundamental principle of national membership that confusion arose due to the undue influence of the Crown to extend its umbrella of ownership over all persons born within the King’s dominion. He and his minions imposed the rule of jus soli on top of jus sanguinis thereby creating confusion where none had existed before. The resulting confusion has existed ever since, except where it was created. The British eventually renounced jus soli as the law of the land but that came only long after the power of the Crown was neutered. Eventually they corrected the bastardization of citizenship principle in a major rewrite of their nationality and naturalization law, but that has not happened in the United States and so confusion still reigns.
But the confusion here is even worse because people have no idea that one cannot be a jus soli citizen as well as a foreign jus sanguinis citizen and still be a natural citizen when such a birth circumstance results instead in not being a natural citizen of either nation. Just as one cannot be a jus soli citizen of one’s parents’ nation if the parents are of two nations and one was not born in either, so also one cannot be a natural born citizen of one nation while also being a natural born citizen of another nation through parents of different nationalities. Similarly, a mule is not a natural member of either parents’ breed of equine because it is not a natural horse -like one parent, nor a natural donkey, like the other. It is unnatural because it is a sterile hybrid. Barack Obama is just such a hybrid citizen as acknowledged by all including himself, but what he has never called himself is a natural born citizen. He has claimed since running for President that he is a native born citizen but native born citizens are not eligible to be President unless they are also natural born citizens, which he is not.

But it is even worse than that because Barack Obama is not even a United States citizen by jus sanguinis (since his mother was too young to impart U.S. citizenship to him by law or policy), nor was his father able to not impart Kenyan citizenship to him by Kenyan and British law, nor was Obama Jr. able to obtain jus soli citizenship since that would require that he be born to a father who was a legal immigrant as mandated by the 14th Amendment, -which his father was not.

So his citizenship is non-existent except as a presumption based on an erroneous policy instituted in 1898 which became the de facto law-of-the-land even though it was in fact just an institutionalized error of misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment in that year.
One can argue that Barack Obama absolutely is a U.S. citizen but one cannot argue that they can show exactly where in the U.S. Code that the circumstances of his birth results in U.S. citizenship.

If the “facts” of his birth are as he claims, and he was born somewhere in the United States, then he is not a U.S. citizen by U.S. law, but he would be if his mother had been several months older and he was born abroad, then the Code would cover him and he would be a U.S. citizen. But he is not a citizen by mere location of birth because the 14th Amendment requires more than that, much more, -namely a parent who is potentially subject to the most fundamental obligation of citizenship, -that being the obligation to defend the nation. Immigrant fathers are subject to that obligation but foreign temporary guests are not, and his father was only a temporary guest and not an American nor an immigrant, thus leaving him devoid of citizenship that’s based on birth in the United States and full subjection to its government.
As such, he is a charlatan, a fraud, a liar, a counterfeiter, a fake, a usurper, a deceiver and a traitor to the very Constitution that he took a lying oath to protect and defend. That oath was written in part to protect the nation from imposters such as him.
But he is not the only problem since we are also plagued by an entire government, national media, and State governments that silently and complicitly allowed him to be accepted as a candidate, with charisma, charm, and high hopes nullifying any allegiance to the requirement of the Constitution.

It sounds like a conspiracy. It was in fact a perfect storm of ignorance, indifference, biased preference, broad political corruption, and national conspiracy at the highest level of the Democrat party. We now know that he bolstered his irrelevant claim of domestic birth by concocting a 9-layer counterfeit digital abstract image of a Hawaiian birth certificate. It, like the honesty and integrity of union dominated, self-serving political hacks in the U.S. government give one the realization that it is unlikely that one can be overly suspicious about what those in government are willing to do to protect their well-feathered nests and political agendas.

Hopefully the current confluence of government corruption, over-reach, and conspiracy of cover-up will nudge the closed minds of those with no consciousness of what constitutes ineligibility to begin to suspect that perhaps there is something suspicious about Obama’s citizenship, along with the self-evident fraudulence of his counterfeit so-called “birth certificate” cyber document. But revelations will have to become much more shocking for that to definitely happen. Knowing what we know now, if Congress does its duty, that will eventually happen, and with all the importance riding on the next election, it needs to happen.

The Greatest Fraud in Human History

Americans vs United States Citizens

    I have a simple question for you, one whose answer will fracture your mind.  You will have absolute certainty as to its answer, but you will not know the reality behind your answer because you do not understand the subject asked about.  The question is this:”Are you an American Citizen?”

   That seems like a very straight forward simple question, and yet it is a very complex question at heart because it is a cross-species type of question that is inherently unnatural since it combines the oil of national membership with the water of national citizenship.  Huh?

   Being a member of American society (our country) is not the same thing as being a citizen of our nation.   In various ways you can be one without being the other because nations are something other than countries.
Nations are legal political entities created by the natural members of a country, -or by those who conquer them.  The natural members of the country, the natives,  then become the citizens of the nation.

   When Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait, the Kuwaitis had to flee their country, yet their nation continued to exist in absentia.  Saddam planned to create a new nation of Kuwait with new citizens who were Iraqi but none of them would have been natives nor natural members of the country.  [fyi, actually, he simply annexed Kuwait into Iraq.]

The question of nationality is multi-fold since it involves not only the nature of being a native but also of being a citizen.  Those don’t seem like anything but simple subjects, but reality is not as simple as it seems.
There are different ways to be both, and those differences are enormous.  One can be an American and yet not be a United States citizen.  And conversely, one can be a citizen of the United States and yet not be an American.  Those facts are due to abnormal origins or abnormal environments.

One can be brought into the United States as a toddler by parents who are illegal immigrants, raised in America and acculturated as an American, -knowing no other homeland, possessing American values, and yet not be a citizen of the United States, nor possess any right to become one.

~TAMPA, Fla., Oct 2 (Reuters) – Florida’s Supreme Court on Tuesday grilled attorneys on the implications of issuing a law license to an undocumented immigrant and law school graduate who passed the Florida Bar exam after disclosing he was in the United States illegally.

As 26-year-old Jose Manuel Godinez-Samperio of Mexico watched the proceedings from the gallery, one judge  accused the Florida Board of Bar Examiners of putting the state in an awkward situation.

Godinez-Samperio legally entered the country with his parents when he was 9, but the family over-stayed its tourist visas.  His father and mother, both professionals in Mexico, took farming and factory jobs while Godinez-Samperio became an Eagle Scout, high school valedictorian and a graduate of Florida State University’s law school.
~   ~   ~
Such Americans are loyal only to the United States since it is their only home and only preferred nation, yet they may be raised in an environment where there are many native-born citizens with no loyalty whatsoever to the United States, its laws, its other citizens, nor its Constitution.  They being the criminal class of citizens, the gang class of citizens, and the welfare class of citizens.

But there’s another type of citizen that is equally non-American.  It’s those naturalized citizens who did not mean a word of the oath of Allegiance and Renunciation that they swore.  They, like the younger of the Boston bombers, may have been socialized as Americans, (or as members of Western civilization) but were never philosophically American in their view of human rights, constitutional governance, individual worth and national allegiance.

If their Dagestanian parents had become naturalized, then they would have become derivative citizens through them.  They would have then been United States citizens, but they would still not have been Americans.

So to be an American is an undefined thing except in the general political sense of being a member of the nation.  We have a President who is politically and socially an American, but he is not an American in the most important sense, -that of being an American philosophically.

That involves having a significant sense of respect for the founders of the nation and the values they honored as the fundamental political principles of human governance, -values which they based our revolution on, as well as the government that they later created, -a one of a kind in human history.
Those values, and that charter of government are not honored and respected by tens of millions of people that we have to call Americans because they were born in the U.S. even though their values could be as alien as those of Nazis, Communists, narco-terrorists, and mass-murdering Islamic supremacists.

But those aren’t the extremes we generally face.  Rather, we face those with values, kept under the vest, that are subtle, incremental, progressive promotions of “social justice”, “General Welfare”, “common good”, benevolent authoritarianism, intrusive nannyism, unrestrained and redistributive spending, and all executed as perversions and violations of constitutional limited government that respects the constitutional rights of the States and the citizens that comprise the nation.

Similarly, being a citizen is not the same as being a native of a country.  The government cannot create new natives but it can create new citizens.  Nevertheless, it cannot create new natural citizens, yet it can deem all citizens to be natural citizens by fundamentally embracing the American fiction of law that all citizens are equal to natural citizens and therefore are viewed as being nothing other than natural citizens.

That is the fundamental philosophy of citizenship in the United States, and by it all naturalized citizens become not just legal citizens but also natural citizens because they have been “made natural” by the natural-ization process.  They are not said to be citizen-ized because their citizenship goes beyond simply being legal members of the nation.  By that fiction of law, they are identical to natural citizens in every way except for employment in critical positions involving national security, including the presidency.

Those born as natural citizens cannot be “unmade” because they were never “made citizens” in the first place.  They were born as citizens, just as a lion is born as a lion.  Its lion-ness cannot be rescinded because it isn’t something that it possesses.  It is what it is by nature.  So also, natural citizens are members of their country and nation by nature, -political nature, -not by law.

That truth is  so fundamental, so primal, so origin-al, so “a priori” that law was never needed to declare such an automatic self-evident truth, -and so there is no law by which you are an American nor a citizen, -unless you are Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal.  Then law is absolutely necessary for your citizenship because you were not the natural product of American parents.   They did not inherit American citizenship from an American father and mother.  Their citizenship is purely legal, and not natural.

The “Law” which grants the latter two legal citizenship is the 14th Amendment (1868), or rather, the Supreme Court’s re-interpretation of it in 1898 (US v Wong Kim Ark).  It makes the native-born children of immigrants into American citizens by automatic naturalization at birth, -by the authority of law.  But law cannot make one a natural citizen.  It only makes one a legal citizen.  All naturalized citizens are legal citizens and vice versa but not all naturalized citizens are born with citizenship since not all were born in the United States.

But for those who were, there are two distinct and surprising facts.  The 14th Amendment ["All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..."] does not declare them in plain language to be U.S. citizens [the Supreme Court took it upon itself to do that, and not by a unanimous vote], and they have no proof that they are American citizens.
That puts them into the same category as natural citizens born of American parents in that they also have no actual plainly written and understood law by which they are citizens, nor any proof that they are.*

Those foreigners who are naturalized by process and oath have proof of citizenship in the form of their naturalization papers or citizenship certificate from the federal government, but you, a child of American parents, have no such papers or certificate to prove your nationality.  All you and 14th Amendment native-born Americans have is birth documentation that is accepted as evidence of citizenship even though such documents were not meant to serve that purpose.  They were created as a record of birth registration for things such as inheritance, and proof of ownership or guardianship of one’s own children, -not proof of nationality.

If all nations were equal, there would exist no motivation to do everything that one could do to secure citizenship in another nation.   But nations are not equal, and so there is a very strong reason to seek admission into superior nations, especially when one can find work or go on welfare.

How is admission obtained for legal entry?  By the production of evidence of native birth, even if that evidence is fabricated.  Why isn’t native birth synonymous with citizenship?  Because for 97% of the population, citizenship is something that is inherited.

For the others it’s obtained legally by process or by domestic birth naturalization which only requires that the parents be immigrants and not citizens.  For such citizenship one does not have to present evidence of being the off-spring of American citizens, -only evidence of a U.S. birth location.  That evidence is always in the form of a birth certificate.  But that certificate can’t prove the thing that it is used for.

Its proof of native birth is not proof of citizenship.  Citizenship must be inferred from it, -as a presumption, -a presumption that one was not the child of a foreign diplomat or a foreign tourist.  Their children are born to people who are subject to a foreign power and not to the United States government.  As such, they are, by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, not citizens of the United States.  And besides them, there were the Native Americans also, who were not citizens of the United States until well into the 20th century.

So native birth is not “proof” of citizenship; it’s only evidence of a very high probability.  That probability is so high (following Native Americans being declared citizens) that native birth is accepted as de facto proof of citizenship.  And for that reason, birth certificate counterfeiting became a cottage industry for official but fraudulent  citizenship.  A counterfeit birth certificate can be used to obtain legitimate secondary documents which can then be used to obtain a real birth certificate.   Presto!  Citizenship that is legal while being at the same time criminal.

That perfunctory presumption of citizenship is applied to all native-born persons without distinction; -whether they be children of Americans, children of immigrants, children,  “non-immigrant aliens” or children of illegal aliens.  The presumption of citizenship covers them all.  But the law itself does not.

Alien-born children birthed within U.S. borders to foreign parents lacking a Green Card and its permanent residency permission,  do not qualify by law for citizenship, and yet the presumption is extended to them anyway.  That is the way it’s been done for seemingly forever, -so long that it predates everyone living, –unless born in 1898. It was in that year that a new form of citizenship was created which had never before existed in America.

It was as radical as declaring the children of foreign diplomats to be Americans since it declared U.S. birthed children of foreign visitors to be Americans as well as those of Consular Officers hired as civil service employees (not appointed by their government and given diplomatic immunity).

Why on earth would their children be viewed by any sane person as being Americans?  Their parents may serve in a consular office for a number of years and then return to their own country, perhaps even before a U.S. born child is old enough to enter kindergarten.

But the blanket presumption of citizenship is extended to children of all who don’t have diplomatic immunity.  Why?  Because of ignorance of fundamental principles of citizenship.  That ignorance became institutionalized in 1898 after the Attorney General (John Griggs) misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment when he assumed incorrectly that not only the children of immigrants (like Mr. Wong) are deemed to be citizens, but the children of all aliens of every sort are citizens including Visa Card visitors and illegal immigrants and migrants, (-excepting only those of diplomats).   That error is what created the new form of citizenship; citizenship by a policy based on presumption rather than by the actual law of the land.

We can call them political citizens or national policy citizens because their citizenship was created by and is perpetuated by political appointees who occupy the office of the Attorney General of the United States.  As the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government, his policy is in effect the law of the land even though it is not actual law.  It can be overturned by the federal courts or by the President or by the A.G. himself.
But the 14th Amendment can’t, nor can the unwritten citizenship of natural citizens.

The confusion surrounding citizenship is becoming clearer.  It’s all pretty much based on presumption, usually correctly so, but sometimes incorrectly so because:

1.  Native birth alone is not proof of citizenship.
2.  A birth certificate is not proof of citizenship.
3.  A birth certificate may be proof of nothing since it may be counterfeit.
4.  Natural citizens cannot point to any law by which their citizenship exists.
5.  Native-born children of immigrants have no hard-copy proof of citizenship.
6.  Native-born children of non-immigrants have no legal basis for citizenship
7.  Only naturalized citizens and those born abroad have government citizenship papers.
8.  Citizenship by political policy is not the same as citizenship by actual law.
9.  All citizens are lumped together as natural citizens by a fiction of law.
10.  By that fiction, no citizen’s citizenship can be revoked because all are natural citizens.

How do these facts relate to the Presidency?
If John McCain had lived his whole life in Panama where he was born, he would not be eligible to be President unless he moved to the U.S. and lived here for 14 years (and was 35 years old).  If he never did move to the U.S., then his children would not only not be eligible to be President, they would not even be Americans.
Marco Rubio, born in the U.S. to Cuban exiles, was a 14th Amendment citizen, a legal citizen, a born citizen, but not a natural citizen since his parents were not Americans.
Ted Cruz, born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father was both an American and a Cuban by birth, -and a Canadian by place of birth.  He was a hybrid citizen with triple citizenship.  He may have citizenship papers from an American consulate in Canada.

No dual or triple citizen with a foreign father is eligible to be President.  He is not a natural citizen because his parents had different nationalities, being members of different nations, nor is he a constitutional 14th Amendment citizen since he was born outside of the United States.  He is a statutory citizen only, -and only that if his mother was 19 years old when he was born.

Barack Obama, birth place unknown and unproven by any hard-copy certified official paper document,  eye-witness, natal photo, or released sworn statement by anyone, cannot point to any proof of citizenship via evidence of native birth, nor evidence from a non-forged birth certificate, nor proof via any law ever passed, or Supreme Court decision rendered, nor proof that his mother was single and he therefore inherited her citizenship instead of only that of his father, -which he would have if only she wasn’t too young to legally convey her citizenship to him.

All he has as a basis to claim he is even a citizen of the United States is the presumptuous political policy put in place by Attorney General Griggs.  It promoted the false assumption that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, instead of only immigrants’ children (as was the finding of the Supreme Court that year).
Being the child of a women too young to be eligible to provide him citizenship, and the child of a non-immigrant alien not subject to the full political authority of the American government, his citizenship is purely an American fiction of ignorance and presumption.
He is not a natural citizen, a naturalized citizen, a constitutional citizen, a statutory citizen, a derivative citizen, nor a provisional citizen, but he is a presumptive political policy citizen.  Needless to say, none of those types of citizenship provide eligibility to be the President except the first.

So some clarity can be had as to just what kind of citizenship he actually has, and in a previous exposition (Obama; Fraud to the Core) I explored why he is not what we natural citizens would consider as one of our American brethren from the ideological perspective, making him neither a real citizen nor a true American by nature, by law, nor by attitude and philosophy.

But the purpose of this exposition is to expose a travesty of fraudulence equal to those two, and it concerns his secret and hidden background and story.
I’m not referring to his contrived “autobiography” “Dreams from my Father” which was concocted and cobbled together by Bill Ayers from recollections by Barry O., instead I’m referring to something that has received no scrutiny of any sort since there was no interest, -or no source of information to ascertain the truth.  I’m referring to his professional accomplishments before elected office.

As everyone knows, he was a “community organizer” working for Leftist programs and foundations, including an Annenberg foundation which he co-chaired with former political bomber Bill Ayers, one of his neighbors and the owner of the home where Obama’s political career was launched..
But even before political office he was something else, something professional, something accomplished and reputable.  He was a Harvard Law School graduate, an Illinois lawyer and a Columbia U. law lecturer.  But there was one problem with that history.  There is nothing to support its foundation.

Its foundation is the acquisition of a degree from Columbia University, ** a Law degree from Harvard, and the acquisition of a license to practice law in Illinois by taking and passing the State Bar Exam.
But is there any proof supporting those claims, or was there even a claim of being a licensed attorney ever  made by Obama’s own mouth?  The truth of the matter is not determined by what someone wrote, or what he may have claimed.    Instead it is either provable or it is a deliberate fiction.  I contend that it is absolutely not provable and is in fact pure fiction.

I contend that Obama is worse than an Affirmative Action student given lots of passes but instead was a total fraud made possible by big money and influential backing.  After all, if you are going to be a partial fraud, why would you be adamantly opposed to being a total fraud?  Would honestly and integrity prevent that when you have neither one regarding academic & professional accomplishment and credentials?  Who needs integrity when covert elite sponsors keep opening all the doors for you?
I contend that simple logic and a total absence of evidence to the contrary lead to the conclusion that Barack Obama never earned a law degree from Harvard nor a license to practice law in Illinois, -which (along with Chicago) is home to endemic corruption.   Being awarded a degree and earning one are two different things.

The logic behind that conclusion is based on a few facts, the first of which is general in nature.  It is a fact that our whole corrupt public education system passes failing students on to the next higher grade in spite of failing grades.  In college there are similarly loose standards.  They result in straight A students receiving the same degree as straight D students just as all High School graduates received the same diploma.  Lack of merit is not punished by the system.  All are equal.  In such a system we see talented High School athletes who are semi-literate being given scholarships so they can bring in big bucks to the college or university via sports victories on the court or the field.  Academic integrity does not exist when it is systematically eclipsed by big money.   Think of Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky and how big money influenced that whole scandal, along with the fact that University Presidents across the land are fired frequently.

But big money can come in not only via the public game tickets, but via benefactors who make huge donations to the endowment funds.  Just ask yourself, -How many open doors would a $100 million dollar donation buy?  The answer is: All of them.

But they can be bought for far less in fact.  $10 million would probably buy a whole boat load of accommodation for one future-star student, as would $1,000,000.  By attending classes, or not, and earning all D grades via overly generous faculty grading which allows extra credit for whatever, one would eventually graduate with a degree in something or other, even if at the very bottom of the class, like the spoiled and lazy children of the elites such as George W. Bush and John McCain (who finished 5th from last in his Annapolis class).

College, to many if not most American males, is a time to freely get drunk and do drugs, and one Barry Soetoro no doubt carried his Hawaiian laid-back dope-smoking attitude to Occidental college with him, but those who smoke drugs aren’t big users of booze so he wouldn’t have had a problem of giving up alcohol when he was reacquainted with his Muslim background via his wealthy Pakistani Muslim room-mate who brought him to Pakistan with him in 1981.
He may have been the benefactor that provided Obama with the ring that he wears to this day.  The inscription that circles it in Arabic is identified to say something translatable as “NO GOD BUT ALLAH” or “1 God, Allah”.

“Finally, during the week of 14-18th of January 2010, just on the eve of my winter tour to the US, Rachel picked up a Nile TV broadcast in which Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit said on the “Round Table Show” that he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of a Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda. He asked that the Moslem world show patience.”  (attribution unnoted)

A recent world-wide Pew survey found that around 90% of Pakistanis believe in things like death for conversion to another religion, amputation and beatings for theft.  So it’s for certain that his visit to Pakistan was more than a mere sight-seeing excursion since the pervasive influence of Islam would have been everywhere, and he may have attended a mosque with his host and friend and his family, and might have bowed is head to the ground as they do en mass, and prayed with them.  It’s an expected behavior of such a society.

    Via that trip and experience, which, like his time at Columbia University, he has never discussed, reverence for Islam was deeply re-infused into his consciousness, -and his attitude and comments reflect just that, including bowing to the King of the land of “the Prophet”, his numerous references to “the Holy Koran”, which no Christian on earth would ever so describe, his many direct relatives who are active Muslims who promote, with Saudi backing, the spread of Islam and its influence, -the atmosphere in the U.S. military that made any criticism of anything Islamic so unthinkable that the insane and radicalized Major Hassan was never confronted or challenged regarding his growing and open radicalization which ended with the slaughter of 13 unarmed Americans in the Fort Hood cafeteria, along with 32 wounded, -and the removal of all reference to Islamic terrorism and violent Muslim Jihad in government training manuals.

But Islam was only one of two influences on him.  Indoctrination by “Frank” or “Pop” (as shared in his ghost-written “autobiography) inculcated Marxist ideology into him since he, the African-American Frank Marshall Davis, was his adult mentor in Hawaii throughout his years there from 10 to when he left Hawaii for California.  As a Black adult role-model, Barry’s grandparents regularly drove him to Frank’s home for Afro-American Marxist mentoring.

It’s unknown if they were strong supporters of the American Communist Party as was he, along with being the publisher of a communist periodical [as well as being a photographer who shot nude photos of Barry's mom before he was born and sold them to girly magazines].

Clearly, Barry was born and raised off in the far fringe of society’s edges with no roots in the mainland of America, the history of America, the reverence for American heartland values, and the political philosophy on which our nation was founded and our Revolution inspired.  His roots were somewhere altogether different, -in international third-world consciousness, [Indonesia, as with his anthropologist mother], in Kenyan ancestry, in drug culture, -in island laziness and idleness and, -in Marxism, and Islam. ***

They are all anti-American and diametrically opposed to what made America the nation that it once was.  Those are values to which he is obligated to give lip service, but which he has never personally embraced, just as he has never personally embraced salvation through Christ the redeemer and sacrificial Lamb of God all while pretending falsely to be a Christian convert since that, like American values, gets more votes and neutralizes inquiry into his true background and mind-set.  As a consequence, nearly all Black Christians voted for him though he is known to not hold their values in any esteem  and even holds views diametrically opposed to their Bible-based beliefs.

There is reason to believe that Obama never passed the Illinois State Bar Exam and yet was allowed to pass himself off as a lawyer based solely on his Harvard law degree thanks to big money and big influence being behind him.  But before explaining why, lets make plain the fact that facts are completely missing regarding everything about his professional accomplishments.  Nothing is documented.  No incontestable records are available, and I contend that that is because they would reveal academic inferiority, or because they simply do not exist because he didn’t accomplish anything via the usual academic channels.
When you look for facts to substantiate his background and achievement, you find that there are none, -of any kind.  He has seen to it that they are all kept secret by laws meant to protect the privacy of of private individuals, or they are kept secret by his fellow progressive-socialist admirers in academia.  Or both.  And no one can even say that they still exist.  His history is akin to a black hole.  Nothing comes out and it is invisible because even light can’t escape.

Where is evidence of his accomplishments at any of the colleges he attended?  It’s all secret.  Where is the evidence that hen attended them?  Also kept secret.  Where is the evidence of how he even got into them?  Very, very secret.  Where is the evidence that his entire academic career was not a financially and ideologically motivated fraud?  There is none.

* Those children of foreign parents, or a single foreign parent, are born with United States citizenship and have a law (the 14th Amendment) that they can point to as the source of their citizenship, but natural citizens have no such law.  Their citizenship exists separate and apart from law and the Constitution.  Like the primordial hydrogen gas that coalesces into a star, so also is the mass of native members of a country which coalesce into a nation.  The star does not produce the gas, rather, the gas produces the star.  Similarly, natural citizens are not created by government; government is created by natural citizens.

* *[No One at Columbia Remembers Obama by Wayne Allyn Root  "I am a graduate of Columbia University, Class of 1983. That’s the same class Barack Obama claims to have graduated from. We shared the same exact major- Political Science. We were both Pre-Law. It was a small class- about 700 students. The Political Science department was even smaller and closer-knit (maybe 150 students). I thought I knew, or met at least once, (or certainly saw in classes) every fellow Poly Sci classmate in my four years at Columbia.
But not Obama. No one ever met him. Even worse, no one even remembers seeing that unique memorable face. Think about this for a minute. Our classmate is President of the United States. Shouldn’t someone remember him? Or at least claim to remember him?  http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/barack-obama-the-ghost-of-columbia-university/ ]

****** In a 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani, Obama said, “I believe that there are many paths to the same place.” Obama also said, “All people of faith—Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone knows the same God.”

A Punahou Hawaiian classmate was interviewed by Jesse WATTERS: And, politically back then, did you see any trace of his democratic leanings or any sort of liberal leadership?

BOWERS: Well, you know, we had an incredible background at Punahou because we had an instructor who wove global understandings and perspectives of all countries throughout our entire curriculum. His name was Siegfreid Ramler.

And, he had been an interpreter in the Nuremburg trials and so he wanted to make sure that everything we did whether it was in Christian ethics or history or literature really wove together all these perspectives of different religions and different countries and histories. And, I would say that we all really benefited in having a global view that way. And, I’d say when we first started to hear Barack’s policies and the President’s stance on different issues, it made us so proud to hear a global voice. And that’s what we saw growing up, we were very lucky to have that.

WATTERS: So, you’re saying that the curriculum lent itself to more of a global view, a
world view that you think Obama is encompassing in his policies today?

BOWERS: Well, I certainly think that he and his family really embodied that in the beginning. Whether Punahou added a lot to it or not, but I can say that in particular the Punahou curriculum in the 70s was extremely focused on building GLOBAL CITIZENS. That was the goal.

BOWERS: There were several memories I think that we all had that were very strong and one was when his father came to speak to the 5th grade class. Everybody was really in sort of in awe of him. He came in a suit. He came from the East/West center. He not only looked very professorial, but we all thought that he was, he seemed like an ambassador or a statesman, that made a big impression I think on all of us.

WATTERS: What do you remember that his father spoke about to the class?

BOWERS: It was actually about Kenya. And, you know, it imbued the sense of, again, this world-view that there is a world outside of the United States and a different perspective that started to resonate with what we were being taught.
~  ~  ~

   Having a world view is not as wonderful a thing as it might seem -except for those in international relations.  But for those who sit behind the Resolute desk in the Oval office, it is definitely not a good thing because it comes with a perspective that diminishes the respect that the President must have for the sacrifices that Americans have made for the sake of Freedom, -not only for America’s Freedom but for peoples all around the world.  And, it undervalues American values by rejecting American exceptionalism in favor of a kind of universal equalism.  But no other nation is the father of constitutional democracy in our world, and the proclaimer and defender of unalienable rights.

by Adrien Nash  June 2013   http://obama–nation.com

Slaves, Half-Breeds, Transsexuals, and Obama

Perfect Natural Citizenship Analogies

There are two opposing views of the words the Constitution uses to describe what sort of citizen an American must be in order to be President.  One side lumps them all together and calls them a phrase, -or describes them as the more fanciful: “term of art”.  The other view sees them as what they are, just simple everyday words, -two of which are adjectives that modify a noun, -all of which can be understood perfectly as individual words.

These differences in view can be represented thusly:  Naturalborncitizen  or  Natural-born-citizen  or  NBC,  -as opposed to:  natural,     born,    citizen.
As the individual words that constitute the string are used, the purpose of the whole comes to light.
“No person, except a citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”.  Unacceptable as being overly susceptible to foreign influence since it includes foreigners naturalized into Americans.

“No person, except a born citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”.  Unacceptable as being overly susceptible to foreign influence since it includes children of foreigners naturalized at birth into Americans.

The American Citizenship Fiction of Law

“No person, except a natural citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”.  Unacceptable as being overly susceptible to foreign influence since it includes foreigners naturalized into Americans, -all of whom are considered natural Americans because of a fundamental American fiction of law.

By that fiction, foreigners do not become natural-ized citizens, they become natural citizens.  They then must be treated the same as those born as natural citizens.  That is the regrettable reason why if they become terrorists, their American citizenship (like that of the surviving Boston bomber) cannot be stripped from them.  If it could, then they could be shipped off to Guantanamo prison.  But natural citizenship cannot be revoked because it was never granted in the first place.  It was inherited.

But the fiction of law prevails over the wishes of the American people because it follows the natural law of natural membership, -combined with the fictional authority of government to fundamentally alter a persons political nature via the power of the Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation.

Natural membership is real.  It is something into which one is born, just as one is born into their own family as a natural member, -and not a legal member via adoption.  The power of government cannot replicate such natural membership by birth, but it can and does try to imitate it via the invented fiction of law.
But it is nothing more than a pretense that everyone agrees to for the sake of the equality and dignity of new Americans who are totally sincere and willing to forsake their previous attachment to their homeland and its government in order to become Americans.  There has never been any downside to it until the advent of terrorism and the rise of Obama to the position of presidential candidate.
That fiction of law does not apply to him but it influences the ignorant public’s view of who is eligible to be President.  The common thinking is that everyone born in America is eligible to serve as President because all are equal, but all are not equal, -hence the wording of the Constitution’s eligibility clause.

“No person, except a natural born citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”.  Acceptable because it is free of all foreign influence.  What does the addition of “natural” add to “born citizen”?  The answer is clear by reversing the order of the two words “natural” and “born” (a born natural citizen).
“No person, except one born a natural citizen,..shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”.   Acceptable because it eliminates all possibility of foreign attachment.  Any American born as a natural citizen, and not merely made into a natural citizen by the legal fiction, is 100% American.
President BAIR-ak  H. o-BAM-a (the correct pronunciation) is only half American.  The other half is foreign.  As such he is constitutionally forbidden to serve as the United States President.

Government has the right to support the fiction that all types of natural-ized citizens are natural citizens, but what it cannot do is foster the notion that it has the power to make natural citizen into natural citizens.  That is not a mis-typed statement.  A perfect analogy will explain.

The Transexual:  A Perfect Analogue to Man-made Citizenship

A surgeon has the ability to take a prepared male and remake him into a female, but that female, although apparently identical in every respect, was not born as a natural female, just as naturalized citizens, including those naturalized at birth, were not born as natural citizens.
That is transparently clear, but what is confusing in the minds of some is that government has no power to make something that already naturally exists.  Just as no surgeon has the ability to make a woman into a woman, so also, the government has no power to make a natural citizen into a citizen.

The femaleness of born females is not the result of surgery.  So also, the American-ness of natural citizens is outside of the power of government to grant or alter.  Neither legislation, nor policy can grant nor alter that which already is pre-existent.
For that reason, no such legislation nor policy exists.  Government cannot make natural citizens into citizens because they were born being citizens.  They are the 97% of the nation who are its natural members because they were born of members.  They are citizens by nature and not by law.
It was natives like them that originally created the law which was needed to deal with people who were not natural citizens because they were foreigners or born of foreigners.  -Or…were born of a foreign father.

Slavery:  A revealing analogue to natural citizenship

Some folks have a warped view of citizenship because they have a warped view of the nature and scope of the power of government.  The true nature of citizenship, -as something that is natural in ordinary conditions, is illustrated by the relationships involved in slavery.

The slave plantation is the perfect analogue to the territory of the nation.  The slave owner is a perfect analogue to the government.  The slaves are perfect analogues to citizens.  Now here’s the comparison: suppose that a slave woman gives birth on the plantation.  To whom does the child belong?  To the parents only, or to the slave owner?

By natural rights the child belongs solely to the parents, but by property rights it belongs to the slave owner (the government).  Similarly, citizens “belong” to the nation because they are born as members of the society to which their parents belong.
But what clarifies the nature of citizenship is the case of a slave woman who gives birth in town and not on the plantation.  To whom does the child belong?  To the slave parents only?  To the town?  Or to the plantation owner?
The answer is obvious.  It belongs to Atlantis.  No, wait, that can’t be right.  But it makes as much sense as thinking that it does not belong to the plantation owner, which is analogous to thinking that an American child born just over the border (or even over the sea) does not belong to the nation of its parents, -that it is not a natural member of their society and country.
Such a warped view asserts that government action is needed in order to make an American child into an American citizen due to its birth beyond an invisible boundary line.  Such a view includes the unspoken assumption that the child does not belong to the parents and their nation through them, -that the child inherits nothing from them other than the father’s name.  That’s equivalent to the child of a slave mother belonging to another slave owner because the mother was visiting another plantation when she  gave birth.

Such a view has no place in any logical mind, and yet seemingly reasonable people adhere to it like there is no flaw at its heart. Understand this; just because government has sovereignty over the territory of the nation does not mean that it has sovereignty over the membership of those who created the government in the first place.  They and their progeny are natural members in perpetuity for all generations.

They are outside of the sphere of government authority because they created the sphere in the first place.  Just as God himself is not contained nor confined by the world of his creation, so natural members of a country, by creating a nation to protect their interests, do not become dependent on its authority or permission when it comes to their membership in that created nation.  They are the creators, the government is their creation. The government that they created cannot tell them, -its creators, that their membership in the nation of their creation is dependent upon it.  That would be like God having to ask Adam for permission for Eve to co-inhabit the Garden of Eden with him.

Sally Hemmings:  The Perfect Analogue to Dual-citizenship

What the heck was Sally Hemmings and how does her born status relate to American citizenship?  Sally was a cross of two opposite worlds, -a bridge between two disparate realities.  A hybrid being that was neither exclusively one nor the other.  She was the slave daughter of Thomas Jefferson.
Her mother, a slave, was the half-sister of Jefferson’s deceased wife, having the same slave-owner father.  Her existence provoked the question: “To which world did she naturally belong?”
Well, the question is the wrong question because it presumes that there is an answer when there is no answer since she was not a natural member of either world.  She was not a natural slave because she was the daughter of a freeman, and yet she was not a natural freeman because she was the daughter of a slave.  That made her the perfect analogy to dual-citizens.

Dual citizens, being hybrids, do not naturally belong to any nation because they are the product of two different nationalities.  Another extreme example is that of “a half-breed”.  The child of a white father and an Indian mother was not a natural member of either world.  The Indian tribe of its mother could not accept it as a full-blood brother or sister because it had a whiteman as a father.  Similarly, the white world would not accept it as a natural white person because it was born of an Indian, and those two opposite worlds did not mix.

Similarly, dual-citizens are born of two different worlds and thus are not natural members of either.  A  worse case scenario is when the nations of the parents go to war, as happened in America when the South seceded and went to war against the North, and brother fought against brother.  A mother from the North and a father from the South did not produce a natural member of either society.  Such a son would be neither a natural Yankee, nor a natural son of the South.
[Would the citizens of the United States (the North) have chosen as President and Commander-in-Chief a former slave-owning Southerner with deep roots in southern history?  How would that not have posed a potential national security risk?  When it comes to choosing sides, it's all about which side you're from.  If you are from both, then neither side can trust you.]

Suppose that Abraham Lincoln had exited his mother’s womb on the northern side of the invisible, unmarked Canada-United States border and then mother and child moved back to the south side.  Would that have made Lincoln a national security risk?  Would he have been “more American” if born on the southern side when birth is an event that no child has ever remembered nor felt any innate connection to?

And yet sincere people want us to believe the unbelievable; to believe that it actually would have made a difference, or at a minimum, that the founding fathers were too stupid to recognize that it would make no difference whatsoever.  Why would any sane, thinking person believe such foolishness?

Why would the framers of the Constitution think that only slaves born on the plantation belonged to the slave owner?  Why would they think that only children born within the ever-changing borders of a new nation, carved out of wilderness, belonged to the country of their parents?  Well, they didn’t.  But they failed to state that in the Constitution because the number of people that it would affect was minuscule.  Yet it absolutely could have affected Thomas Jefferson and John Adams who at the time were serving their nation as foreign ambassadors (Paris and London respectively).  Would sons born to them abroad be aliens?  Would they need government permission to even to recognized as Americans?

By such lame thinking, a son born to them abroad would be assumed to not be an American and would need the approval of government to become one.  The absurdity of such a view is self-evident.

The first Congress attempted to remedy that short-coming in the Naturalization Act of 1790 by ordering, in effect, all authorities, -in particular all port authorities, to recognize American children born abroad “as natural born citizens”.  That implied that they were more than merely citizens by government decree.  It  implied that they were citizens by nature and beyond the authority of government to bar or bless with citizenship.

But most importantly of all, it implied that they, like their domestically born brethren, were possible candidates for the Presidency, -something which the Constitution failed to address.
The citizenship of John McCain was not dependent on government authority because it was natural American citizenship since neither of his parents were foreigners.   Therefore, it didn’t matter where he was born or raised.  All that mattered was that in order to run for the office of President he be 35 years of age and 14 years a resident of the United States.

But if Barack Obama had been born in Panama, he not only would not have been a natural born citizen, he would not have even been a citizen at all since his mother could not pass her citizenship to him by law since she was several months too young.  Even native-birth can’t make “a half-breed citizen” into “a natural born citizen” nor make one eligible to be the President.

by Adrien Nash  June 2013

Natural Law versus Natural Rights; Obama vs Genesis

  The Foundation of Western Civilization

When it comes to the legitimacy of the presidency of Barack Obama and the issue of whether or not he is constitutionally qualified to serve, the entire Washington establishment and the American legal community are as silent as a grave stone, but there is a voice that is not silent to the ears of those who hear it, and that voice is found in the book of Genesis.
The origin of Genesis, and its assumed divine inspiration, is not relevant.  What’s relevant is its inescapable impact on Western Civilization through the adoption by Emperor Constantine of the Christian faith as the only state sanctioned faith & religion of the Roman Empire.

By his conversion, the Judeo-Christian scriptures and tradition of the Church became the bedrock of society in fundamental ways.  One of those ways was the relationship between husband and wife.
Before then, Rome had never been under the influence of Judeo-Christian tradition regarding the status of women but instead was under the more liberal tradition of their pagan theology.  When it came to women, Rome followed natural rights to a greater extent than Judeo-Christian tradition & society.  Roman woman enjoyed a slightly higher status in society and marriage than Christian women, with the role of the husband as the head of the family being less strongly established.

The difference between the two cultures regarding women bore a similarity to the difference between the status of Eve before “the Fall of mankind” and her status in relationship to Adam after the Fall.  If you’re unaware of the influence of the Fall on Western psychology, you will not understand the societies that evolved from The Holy Roman Empire.  It’s central to everything.

From it the status of women was determined for all time, -or until the age of the 19th Amendment came along and changed things.  What was that change?  It was a reset back to the original order in Eden, -kind of.

Genesis paints a picture of how originally in Eden Man & Eve lived in perfect harmony and blissful ignorance about good and evil.  They were co-created as equals in one version given in Genesis, while in another Eve was created later from the marrow of Man’s rib.  The two versions aren’t naturally reconcilable so instead of ignoring either one, we’ll look at both because both are part of the story.

Chaper 5:  “This is the book of the generations of Adam.  In the day that God created Man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them and called their name Adam (Man), in the day when they were created.” -(followed by the genealogy of the first born sons)

Chapter 1. verse 26: And God said: “Let us make man in our own image, after our own likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish, over the fowl of the air… (the human species having dominion over all life).

Both mentions agree regarding the simultaneous creation of the human species, like all other lower forms of life that preceded them.  But then another accounting appears in the story, -one in which Eve was created as a kind of after-thought.

Chapter 2, verse 7:  And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.  And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden and there he put the man whom he had formed.
verses 15-17:  And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it.  And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat, for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.

Verse 20:  And Adam gave names to…every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.
Verse 18:  And the Lord God said: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.”

Verses 21-25:  “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and of the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; -she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man’.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

So far we see two pictures; one in which they were created together and as co-equals, and one in which the man was first and the woman was later generated from his DNA, his flesh & bone as a secondary creation.
Then the serpent appeared and invited Eve to try the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

Chapter 3, verse 6:  And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food…and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.  And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked…

verse 13: And the Lord God said unto the woman, “What is this that thou hast done?”  And the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”
Unto the woman he said, “…in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

And unto Adam he said “cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;…in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken, for dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return.”

The elements of that story became the foundation of the husband-wife relationship in Judeo-Christian civilization, including our own.  It structured it in both social and legal ways.  The citizenship laws of our civilization flow from the laws of the Church, -the Church, or the Scripture (depending on whether Catholic or Protestant) being the lone authority in the sacred union of Holy Matrimony and family life.  The relationships adopted from Church Law became the basis of secular law, and remain so today to a significant degree.

Let’s put them in the spotlight.  Before the Fall, Eve was the equal of the Man, but not as a separate entity apart from him, but as a new manifestation of him; she was Adam with the opposite gender.  She was essentially his identical twin but with the tweaking of the gender genes.

That is the original state of mankind, the natural state, but then the Fall changed the relationship and the woman was blamed for her naivete (disobedience) and was thenceforth assigned an inferior role in relationship to her previously equal mate.  From then on, their relationship no longer followed the principle of Natural Rights, but instead followed the principle of Natural Law.

In the natural world, there’s a fundamental principle, and it is that greater force dominates weaker force, -whether it be gravity or energy or biology or psychology.  The stronger will dominate the weaker.  The male is stronger than the female and therefore is responsible to face far greater dangers in life.  The females, as well as children, are the subjects of the males’ protection and provision.
Mothers, sisters, wives and daughters are therefore the subordinate center and highest priority of male lives, -for both natural and biblical reasons.  One could speculate that the biblical story was shaped to fit the physical and psychological reality of the male-female relationship, (to conform to the male ego) but only the relationship itself, and its biblical origin and impact on Western Civilization, is of significance.

Two major aspects of that relationship are the foundation of fundamental citizenship law.  The subordinate role of the wife, and the fact that she and he are one, and not two.  The latter makes the former natural, because if she was not of him, then her subordination would be a stark violation of natural rights.  But the story, and the text of God’s words to her, along with the natural weaker nature of the female body, combine to make her subordination of similar weight to the opposing principle of Natural Rights that requires equality.  The matter was decided by the overwhelming weight of divine authority taking sides.

But at the heart of making it work is the other aspect of the Genesis relationship.  He and she are one, and therefore the rough edges of individuality are not going to rend it asunder.  When two similar elements are combined, they blend easily and naturally, but when two dissimilar elements combine (oil & water) unity is impossible.
The union of marriage was regarded as holy and sacred and spiritual.  A merging of hearts, psyches and bodies that results in a union of identities; she being a part of him and he being a part of her, and the friction of human individuality being modulated by the model mandated by God, as well as the natural pattern (-the harmonious structure of a singular entity).

Having become one in marriage, the couple then modeled the pattern of nature for physical bodies, namely that they have one head, and one body.  A body doesn’t have two heads.  So one of the two must be the head.  And which one that would be was decided by the factors found in the Genesis story and the factors found in the natural structure of male and female.  That appeared to be not only the Divine order but also the natural order, and vice versa.

That order is the basis of Church law, which is the basis of Secular law, including that of the States of America.  Every state followed that model or pattern, and when it came to the federal government formulating national naturalization Law & Policy, it was followed as well.
But both were a reflection of the traditional social structure of the nation.  It contained the  perennial conflicts of what seemed to be Natural Law versus Natural Rights in both the areas of male-female relationships, and also White-Black relationships and the Owner–”property” relationship maintained in the institution of slavery.

But only one side could be the law at a time, and so the struggle went on for a long time before either won a final victory, and the situation was resolved in favor of over-throwing the tradition of the Church-Bible centered society and its unity based model, and switching to the secular, Natural Rights based model built on individualism and Equality.  No one can say for certain which is better, only which one seems more “fair” versus which one is more spiritually supported by divine authority.

Now that the background is clear, let’s examine how it impacted American law.
The strongly patriarchal nature of most civilizations, along with the Judeo-Christian model of matrimonial unity and single-headship, resulted in nationality laws that followed that model.

The issue of one’s nationality was based first and foremost on universal natural law.  Parents of all species produce off-spring identical to themselves.  Dogs don’t produce cats.  Horses don’t produce Zebras.  Like breeds like.  The off-spring are of the same nature as their origin.  That’s the biological reality of natural law, but there is more.  There’s the social reality as well.

The off-spring are not born as members of communities of other species, but of their own.  They are the natural members of the community of their own kind.  They are members because they are born of members and born into the community as its new members.  That is the principle of natural membership.  It underlies all nationality law based on natural principle.

But the realm of natural law is not encoded into the realm of human law, -at least in America.  It is absent altogether.  Law is not needed to proclaim, declare, mandate, or order to be true that which is already naturally true.  Hence there is no law by which 97% of the American population possesses their American nationality.
There is a law (the 14th Amendment) which describes their natural citizenship from the point of legal theory, but does not legislate it.  It merely affirms that which was already true.  A cat is born a cat; you cannot legislate that it be a cat.

That is the alternate-reality truth about Natural Citizenship.  It is not given by nor governed by legal mandates because its origin is from outside of the legal system.  The legal system is a man-made construct designed to maintain order, -but it is not the entirety of the the ordered universe.  The Natural realm is the real universe and has its own order separate and apart from what legislators mandate.

They operate or sail on a lake of man-made mandates while thinking that that vast lake constitutes all of reality, when in fact it is just a superficial thing on the surface of a much greater reality.  Natural membership and its national form known as citizenship is not a part of that great lake of law, but is the bedrock on which it lies.

It is a part of the natural order of things, not the legal order.  The legal order recognizes that fact and thus the framers of our Constitution didn’t meddle in such a fundamental area.  But it was the job of the Congress that the founders created to provide order in situations outside of the natural order.  They had to fashion a legal order to deal with relationships that did not follow the pattern of nature.

Those relationships, American male and foreign female, or American female and foreign male, produced children that could not possibly be from a unified source (single origin) unless the Genesis-Christian pattern was followed to a “t”.  Relationships that didn’t follow it were fully regulated by law determined by tradition, international law, or congressional choice.  It was in fact a combination of all three.

The American male, following the patriarchal biblical tradition of society, was the head of the family.  His children were what he was since they were of him, -just as Eve was what Adam was, because she was of him.
Following that pattern completely meant that the American equivalent of Eve was also a part of the American Adam.  She was of him, part of him and one with him.  They were “one flesh”, one body in the community of society.  Whatever was his nationality was hers also because they were inseparable.  That was not only the theoretical view, but the actual view of the American government.  It followed the inherited Church Law pattern as part of the semi-natural order of things.
How did that play out in real life?  When a foreign woman married an American, she became an American also, just like her new head.  She left the headship of her father, -who gave her away to the headship of her husband, and she took his name and swore obedience to him as the new head of her life, and they became one.  One unit in the eyes of God and man.  United under one nation, one government, one allegiance, one national charter of Liberty, Security, and Civil Rights.

What was the proof of her new citizenship?  It was her marriage certificate and her husband’s birth certificate.  Her citizenship was not a tangible thing because she was not born as an American, but then even those born as Americans had no substantial proof of citizenship.  Rather it was deduced from the location of their birth because that was always an indisputable fact thanks to written records.

One could prove that they weren’t born as a member of a foreign nation since they were born in America.  But that was not what made them Americans.  It was merely the only practical means of showing one’s origin that was tangible and transportable.  They could not carry their parents with them to testify that they were born of American parents, which made them natural citizens like (almost) everyone else.
So birth certificates came to substitute for parental testimony.   It was accepted that if you were born in America then you weren’t a foreigner.  But that view overlooked a very serious problem.  Some persons born in America were born to foreigners, and thus were also foreigners just like their father, the head of their family.

That dichotomy created a problem eventually when the numbers of immigrants (like my great-grand parents) swelled to the millions.  Were their U.S. birthed children also just simply foreigners like their father?  Could their American birth make a difference, or would the fact that they were being raised in America and being Americanized all throughout their upbringing?  Could they be considered Americans and yet not be citizens?

The Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that they were born under American authority and therefore by the words of the 14th Amendment, they were American citizens.  And that settled the matter…-of the children.  But which children?
Children of only married foreign immigrants?  [If the father was subject to the full authority of the American government, then so were his children as required by the Amendment.]

But what about children of foreign non-immigrants?  [tourists and visitors and students]  Their father was not subject to American political authority.  They could not be drafted to fight for America like immigrants could following the court’s opinion.
And what about children of a non-immigrant father (Barack Obama Sr.) and an American mother?  Or children of American mothers married to foreign fathers and born in foreign lands?  Was there some natural law that covered such situations?  Of course not, -because they were not natural situations.

Positive naturalization law needed to be written by Congress exercising its constitutional plenary authority over naturalization.  And so in time laws to cover every possibility were written.  Except one.  That was the situation of one such as Barack Obama, -born of a “non-immigrant alien” who was not subject to the American federal authority that dictated the requirements and responsibilities of American citizens and immigrants.  That authority was extended over foreign immigrants by that Supreme Court ruling in 1898 (The U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark) but the issue of the citizenship of children of non-immigrant aliens was never addressed.

But…the Attorney General at that time, John Griggs, assumed that it had been, and therefore declared that the new policy of the United States government would be that all children born in America to foreigners would be viewed henceforth as being American citizens (except those of foreign diplomats) regardless of being born to a father who was not subject to the full American authority that the amendment requires one to be born under.

His misinterpretation then became national policy under the guise that it was actually national law mandated by the Supreme Court in interpreting the 14th Amendment.  Ever since it has been deeply entrenched as the established American way, though in fact it is merely established policy and not true law.  It is our calcified established institutionalized error.

But getting back to our focus on American women and their role in marriage, nationality, and naturalization law, we find that nationality always flowed from the head of the family, and that was always the father, unless he died or they divorced, or…the mother refused to reveal who and what he was.

If he was not or could not be known, then his child was the flesh and blood of only the mother, and her nationality became that of the child.  Otherwise, it was only the father’s nationality that determined that of their child.  That was the way the law was written and carried out.

But that pattern became even more deeply entrenched in 1907 when the naturalization act of that year stripped American citizenship from women who married foreign men.  Then, not only were her children not Americans, but she was not an American any longer herself, since she became what her husband was, and became a citizen of his nation, since she then belonged to him, and he belonged to his nation, -therefore so did she through him.  That was the law of the land for 15 years, -until it was rescinded by the Cable Act of 1922.

After the passage of the Cable Act and the 19th Amendment which granted women the right to vote, naturalization law gradually came to impute the American mother’s citizenship to her foreign-fathered children.  Those laws came into effect within the life time of many living Americans.

The view that Barack Obama is eligible to be President is based on multiple bastardizations of reality.  It begins with the false assumption that American nationality from before the founding of the nation was based on where one was born, -being based solely on British common law that held that all children born within the one-state nation of England would be considered to be natural born subjects even though they were not, since children of immigrants were in fact alien-born subjects. *
That kind of label and view became politically incorrect because it fostered discrimination, so children of foreigners were given the same label as children of subjects, and that was that.  It became a British “fiction of law” that all subjects were the same.

But in the new United States, there were no subjects nor any King, so no one was a subject, nor a natural born one.  In the real world, English common law had no place or authority once the legislature or Constitutional convention of a state agreed on what the state law would be regarding who is recognized as it citizens.  So state by state, each one determined its own law of citizenship.  Both those whom it recognized and those it naturalized became citizens also of the new nation (by extension).

But the new central government was not in the citizenship business, except for the writing of a rule of naturalization that would make the laws of all of the states uniform.  Under that system, children of foreigners were foreigners also like their father, unless they were born in a state that granted them citizenship from birth as new members of the state society.  That was something that the otherwise sovereign states held control over, -along with  immigration.  At least one had such a law, but whether or not other states did as well, the federal government never had any such law because Congress never passed one.  Why would it since that was the province of the states?

So unless Barry was actually, provably born in one of our States, and that state grants citizenship to children of non-immigrant fathers, then he would not be a citizen of that state nor of the nation through such state citizenship.  As explained, the federal government has no law which grants citizenship to children of “non-immigrant aliens” nor does the 14th Amendment provide it, nor did the Supreme Court opinion which interpreted it.  But it does have the  entrenched Griggs policy by which such children are presumed to be American.

So Barry is not a citizen via adopted English common law since Congress never adopted it regarding citizenship, nor via state “son of the soil” laws, nor via the Supreme Court ruling of 1898 regarding the 14th Amendment, and so his only basis of assumed citizenship was the error of A.G. Griggs which became the policy of the State Department and Naturalization Service, and has remained so ever since.

But let’s suppose that Congress had passed a law that was contrary to their Civil Rights Act of 1866, which required that in order for native birth to convey citizenship, one must be “not subject to any foreign power” (through a foreign father), -and that that law had done what the Supreme Court and the 14th Amendment did not do (make citizens of U.S. birthed children of non-immigrants , -meaning children of foreign guests), then Barack Obama would have been a bona fide American citizen if he was born within the territory of the United States.  He therefore would be a citizen of the nation.  But that would still leave him with a huge problem.

The Constitution prohibits “legal citizens” of the United States from serving as President.  Instead, one is required to be born a natural citizen, -which is something that one Barry Obama Jr. can never be.

What prevents him from fitting that description?  His father.  By American law, by English law, by Church law, and probably by Roman law and Greek law, his nationality was determined by the man who produced him and through whom his primary citizenship was determined, -just as his own election website freely shared in 2008.  It made it clear that the citizenship of Barack Obama Sr. was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, as well as that of his children.  This was in the words of his own ignorant supporters, making it clear that he was a dual-citizen at birth and not 100% American.

He was at best a dual citizen, possessing provisional citizenship in two nations.  But if born outside of the United States, he would have been British only because his mother was several months too young to convey her citizenship to her child according to naturalization law in effect when he was born.

That would be similar to his status if he had been born 40 years earlier.  Between 1907 and 1922, he would have also been British only because his mother would have lost her American citizenship due to a supposed marriage to a foreigner, -a marriage for which not one shred of evidence exists, -of any sort.  No love letters or notes.  No cards, no photographs, to witnesses, no record.  And that is along with there being no photos of his mother pregnant with him, nor photos of her along side her boyfriend and husband.  No proof they had a relationship that led to marriage and a child, -nor that they ever lived together, -while there is proof that they didn’t.

And on top of that is the fact that a month after his son’s supposed birth, he didn’t even know he had a son because if he did, he certainly would have trumpeted that fact to the immigration authorities who were at that time weighing whether or not to extend his student visa or expel him.  Instead, he failed to even mention it in his submission to them.

To be fair, perhaps he knew but was afraid of legal repercussions of impregnating a 17 year old white girl.  But if they were actually married there would have been none.  So either they weren’t married or he didn’t know that a son was being attributed to him at that time.
There is little doubt that he was the father by the fact that he traveled all the way back to Hawaii for a custody hearing regarding the child of their mysterious marriage (for which papers were never submitted).

That reveals that the relationship actually existed, at least the sexual relationship which was kept on the down-low,..very down low; so low in fact that no one even knew about it, -at least until Obama’s mother became pregnant.  But even then, it may have remained a secret since there is no record of her whereabouts between February of 1961 and late August of ’61  three weeks after the birth of Jr. when she registered for college classes in Seattle.  No one can prove where she was or where she wasn’t during that time.

If she spent much of it, or the tail end of it in Seattle, she could easily have decided to have her baby across the border in Vancouver if she found a hard-to-find couple or institution there that would adopt the mixed-race baby that she sought to make someone else’s problem.  That would explain much.
But it wouldn’t explain why in the British Archives, Obama Sr. has been discovered to have an entry for a son born in Kenya in 1961 even though no known Kenyan child was born to him between 1960 and 1963.  That fact gives fuel to the belief that Jr. had been born in Kenya, as his self-authored publisher’s biographical description stated for over a decade and a half.  It also comports with the fact that the INS records for inbound flights into the U.S. between Aug 1, 1961 and Aug 10, 1961 are the only ones known to be missing from the national microfilm archive.

While a Senator, he and his wife openly stated that Kenya was his home.  But that may have been to support his long-standing story that he was a product of two different international cultures, which gave him a unique perspective, -one worth writing about in a biography that was certainly worth purchasing (?) if he ever finally got around to fabricating one (which took years even though he took a huge advance for it).

So neither by Church law, nor English law, nor State law, nor Federal law, nor constitutional amendment, nor Supreme Court opinion is Barack H. Obama Jr. even an American.  His supposed citizenship rests entirely on the institutionalized error of Attorney General Griggs.  He depends entirely on that error.  Well, not entirely because he depends even more on another error, a “common knowledge” error of ignorance.  A false assumption that’s believed to be “common  knowledge” fact.

The American people are ignorant of the fact that the President must be a natural born citizen.

I wasn’t aware of that fact until I got an email from my sister about the issue.  That email changed the focus of my attention for three solid years.  And I was a straight-A student.  So if I wasn’t aware, it’s for sure that it isn’t common knowledge.

That error is the belief that citizenship universally results from being born in the United States, with all citizens being eligible to be President if so born.  That works for him and against him, because his proof of being born in the United States is non-existent.

He has successfully maintained the pretense that the state of Hawaii has officially verified and certified that his original birth certificate is in their possession.  There’s a few huge problems with that.
1.  No one from Hawaii has ever sworn under oath to anything, though they have issued lawyer-crafted statements intended to be ambiguous enough to successfully deceive, -none of which have ever described his birth record as being a Hawaiian birth certificate.

2.  Abercrombi, the newly elected governor of Hawaii, -Obama’s biggest fan, announced that he would prove beyond doubt that the doubters were wrong and that Obama was definitely born in Hawaii by locating the original birth certificate using his subpoena power.  Well, he never brought the subject up again after failing to find it anywhere.  He later told an old friend that they only found something hand written in the State Archives instead of an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate in the files of the Hawaiian Bureau of Vital Statistics.

3.  No hospital in Hawaii has claimed to be his birth location.  Because none of them were.

4.  The White House lie is that the image posted on its web site is that of a scan of a real Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth when no such document has been seen and examined by anyone with an objective eye and an inquiring mind.  Not any news magazine, TV host or producer, respectable newspaper or professional forensic magazine, nor the Enquirer.  It does not exist in the real world, only in the cyber world.  That is why it can’t be scanned and therefore wasn’t, evidenced by the nature of the pdf file and the fact that no scanner in the world would produce the image claimed to be a scan.  Scanners produce one layer images, -not nine-layer files.
5.  The two digital images of supposed birth certification documents are both non-physical digital counterfeits and easily shown to be so.  Besides the manner in which they were constructed, there is the fact that they lack the official seal of the Department of Health.  Along with that omission is the absence of any actual signature, it being substituted with a worthless rubber stamp signature facsimile.
On top of that is the fact that the image is not certified to be a True Copy of anything since the registrar’s rubber stamp text labels it as a True Copy OR an Abstract.

An abstract is not a true copy of anything and so it can’t be certified as being a true copy, and since all Hawaiian vital record documents are superimposed on a security paper background, it is therefore clear that the text of all documents has been digitized in order to be able to do that within a computer program.  That is unmistakable evidence of the creation of an abstract, a manipulatible abstract, and hence the need to mention that possibility in the stamp text, -all while lying that it also might be a True Copy (this OR that…) when they in fact no longer issue True copies since that requires actual photocopying reproduction and not simply computer print-out fabrication.

True copies can be certified by a Registrar’s hand signature & State Seal to be accurate exact copies of originals, but since abstracts are not exact reproductions of anything, they cannot be certified to be anything legitimate since the only thing legitimate is an exact copy that has not been altered in any way.

So because of the ease of digitally altering them, along with their very nature, Abstracts are inherently un-certifiable even though a state government can force all other jurisdictions to have to accept them because of “the full faith & credit clause” of the Constitution.

Much of that would not be a recognized problem if only the long-form digital fake had been flattened into a single- layer image before being up-loaded to the White House website.  But when the counterfeiter hit the save command for the final time, it was saved in the default format of multi-layer Portable Document Format (pdf) instead of in the flattened format of the Joint Producers Group (.jpg). Once people downloaded it and opened it with a pdf reader, all of its nine layers were revealed.  They are the nail in the coffin that seals the proof that it is a computer fabricated fake.  Read my exposition on those layers titled Six Smoking Guns.

And the efforts of numerous experts have uncovered element after additional element of proof of fraudulence hidden in that pdf file which contains a good amount of the history of the file.  And it isn’t going away.
But Obama’s flying monkeys have managed to scare every judge that has been touched by the court cases brought against his eligibility and perpetration of fraud, and forced them to rule in his favor even when his lawyer didn’t even bother to show up.  The travesty of non-justice that took place in Georgia was then repeated all the way to the Supreme Court which declined to hear it, with Obama’s two appointees not recusing themselves from voting against it.
The supremacy of Law was displaced by the supremacy of men, -corrupt men who would resort to any tactic necessary to protect their criminal-in-chief.

The problem is that any judge with children and a spouse is vulnerable to coercion that comes in the night in the form of an anonymous phone call that mentions the safety of one’s lovely children who go to school at such-and-such location, and visit such-and-such establishments.  What husband and father wouldn’t cave to serious implied threats against his own family?
The anonymous communications come in and then they aren’t able to trust that their family can be protected because the message, the threats are  implied, subtle, ambiguous, -not direct, -not deserving of law enforcement protection.

If the courts with pending cases base their rulings on anything other than the law, then you will know that they were reached and dissuaded because their written justification for their ruling will be missing or be full of superficial and inaccurate explanations of the law.

But like the Benghazi events, only the truth will stop the nagging questions and reveal the hidden facts.  Where there is a whole lot of smoke, there is certainly fire, but when it comes to Obama’s legitimacy, the smoke is camouflaged by a whole lot of fog of confusion and ignorance.  That ignorance permeates the entire Congress and military, media, academia, and legal profession.

But it may be inaccurate to call Congress ignorant, -when in fact they may not be.  They may instead be simply complicit in the massive lie and cover-up, -making them cowardly co-traitors to the United States Constitution and the American people.
If anything has become clear in the last half decade, it’s that Washington exists for its own benefit, -not that of the American people.

They certainly can’t be looked to to investigate their own complicity, and so we are at a stalemate.  Until enough men and women of position and authority come forward, we, the pawns in this giant game of chess, are powerless because the big players hold all of the power.
When they are willing to twist, omit, lie, fabricate, hide & destroy evidence, intimidate and threaten those who seek the truth, and bribe those who are their friends and go along with or facilitate the fraud of his counterfeit documents and illegitimate citizenship, and our legal system is compromised, then only a very fearless jurist can open the giant can of worms that is Obama’s legitimacy, -or a strong shift in the sentiments of the voters.

So in case nothing effective is done in our generation, I write this for the future, -for a time after a great national calamity has ripped the rug out from under our current corrupt system and its uninformed and complacent society, and re-set it.  Perhaps in such an age, the truth will be valued once again and sought out.  Perhaps then at a new beginning the nation will start anew with the light of truth shining into their minds and hearts.

If that age ever comes to pass, then I hope that the new American patriots will stand strong against the forces of selfishness and adamant, clever, and insistent deceit that will resort to big and bold lies, as well as subtle and invisible intellectual distortions of truth and reality, using words to manipulate the masses which are vulnerable to such manipulation.

We are all sub-normal specimens of humanity.  Our capabilities (rational and intellectual) are deficient compared to men of the past who built the greatest structures of all time, including feats like mechanical computers that computed Time and the movements of the planets decades in advance, and included the cutting and moving of a block of stone that weighs 4 million pounds, -the cutting and fitting of massive walls of stones so finely shaped and fitted together that a piece of paper can’t pass between them.
Sub-normalness is revealed in contrast by the examples of Secretariat, Leonardo de Vinci, Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, and, in the physical sense, Sergeant York whose vision was so superior that he not only could see German enemies during the first World War from over 1,000 yards, but he could use his standard rifle to take them out.   Annie Oakley was a great example as well.

Such examples are what we must consider to be normal, while the rest of us are sub-normal.  We as a race suffer from deficiencies in the logic center of the mind, -the place from where deduction is drawn.  Our logic ability and our process of drawing conclusions is as defective as the eyes of the color blind, or the hearing perception of the tone deaf.  Something significant is missing, -something vital to its flawless function.  We don’t know how to think in a flawless manner.  We are not Mr. Spock.

And so we are vulnerable to our own delusions which spring from our biases.  We know which conclusion we wish to arrive at, and so we subconsciously distort the facts, the path,  to arrive at the desired destination.
The majority of voters did that in electing Barack Obama.  We can only hope and pray that the swing-vote independent voters will recognize the mistake they made and swing away from the total transformation path that the counterfeiter-in-chief has put us on and kept us on.

But it will require a whole lot of untransforming to fix the damage that a hundred years of statist, socialist, progressive nanny-state, big-government politics and academic propaganda has wrought.  That war may be just beginning, and it may in time be seen as the second American Revolution.

by A.R. Nash  May 2013

* “the English law…clearly held that native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born subject and that native-born children of non-subject parents “are no subjects”, because they would be ‘not born under the ligeance of a subject’.  To the English, ‘aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign’ were in fact subjects by local ligeance.”

It is false to claim that unnaturalized immigrants were within the faith, loyalty and allegiance of the Crown because those attributes were still owed to their own sovereign.  All they were/ are within is the obedience, power, and protection.  But those are temporal and local relationships, and not life-long subject-hood (as was the case with natural subjects).

Being a natural subject was like being a slave.  It was for life with no escape.  But being an immigrant subject was like being an indentured servant.  Obedience is only owed until the debt is paid, just as obedience is owed to the Crown until one ups and leaves the jurisdiction of the Crown.  Slaves can’t do that but foreigners can.  Subjects could also move out of England, but they would still be attached to the Monarch by a life-long bond of belonging, like children who are forever the off-spring of their parents.

No one born of one who owes only temporal obedience would be born owing life-long obedience since such a subject-monarch relationship would not be inherited.
It’s not complicated.  It’s as plain as day.  You are what you inherit.  That’s natural law.
If you are born of natural subjects, then you are one also, regardless of where you exit the womb.  If you are born of aliens, then where you are born is of paramount importance because your national membership is then determined by the rule of law, and not the rule of nature.   AN