400 Years of Bastardized Citizenship Ideas

~or how the Calvin case dooms our future~

America’s citizenship predicament is a result of an odd situation that occurred in England three centuries ago. The aftermath of how it was dealt with reverberates in the United States to this day.

Have you heard of or seen a case where an illegal alien woman, or a very pregnant Visa Card visitor gives birth in the U.S. so that her baby will be considered to be an American? Well, the absurd reason that the government mindlessly adheres to a self-damaging and brain-dead policy of citizenship is because of the aftermath of a court decision in the early 1600′s in England. It is known as the Calvin case.

It involved a Scotsman who inherited property in England. But an English law did not allow anyone but Englishmen to inherit English lands (nor, I would presume, to buy them either). But his lawyer found a way around the law and the court of 14 judges bought his argument.

He pointed out that even though his client was not English, he nevertheless was a subject of the English King and therefore a sort of English subject just like Englishmen.  He was a subject of the English King although the King was first and foremost the King of Scotland.

England, without a male heir, was forced to turn to the young King of Scotland in order to supply someone to assume the throne of England. So James VI of Scotland became James I of England.

That’s how Scotsman came to be subjects of the King of England and thereby quasi-subjects of the English nation. But, of course, they were not real, natural Englishman, or natural subjects of the nation of England because they were natural subjects of the nation of Scotland. But they had one King in common.

How did that affect the issue of nationality? It had to affect it in order for a Scotsman to inherit English land, which is what the court wanted to be allowed. It affected nationality by changing the language and the orientation of nationality.

Before their decision, Englishman were not men without a country simply because they were men without a king. They were the natural members of the English nation. It’s native countrymen.

Following it, the court recognized that every Scotsman, who was born after James VI assumed the throne of England, was born being a subject of James I of England, and therefore could be grouped in with the natural subjects of the English nation.  Those born before that ascension to the throne, remained as foreigners, as Scotsmen not born subject to the King of England.

So people in Britain were of three types; those who were still aliens to England, those born as subjects of the King, or “born subjects”, and those who were his natural subjects by being born with the blood of Englishmen. Aliens, born subjects, and natural subjects.

What was the difference in the real world between his Scottish born subjects and his English natural subjects? Well, with the barrier between them erased by the court’s decision that Scotsmen, -not as English subjects, but as royal subjects, could inherit English land, they essentially became equivalent before the law.

That was due to the focus on them and their relationship to England being shifted from England as a nation to the English King as a royal sovereign over both peoples. From then on the concept of nationality became distorted, bastardized from its natural focus on one’s relationship to their countrymen and their country, to one’s relationship solely to their king.

The focus shifted from the natural relationship of national membership to an artificial criterion which applied solely to the Scots.
Englishmen continued to be Englishmen by being born of Englishmen, but in addition, others were added to the kingdom of the king of both nations from the perspective of the English. From the perspective of James, he was the natural sovereign of the Scots and the artificial sovereign of the English.

To the English he was the artificial sovereign of Englishmen as well as the sovereign of new ancillary subjects (Scotsmen) who were now tied to the English in an artificial relationship, -and that relationship was based on where they were born and when they were born, instead of to whom.

They were tied to the English king by having been born within his dual dominion. They were not Englishmen and had no “blood connection” to them but had a connection of also being subject by simply being born under their king’s reign. That gave them a quasi-equality with Englishmen and their rights. So then they had as much in common as not.

The language used when referring to both separate groups was probably “the king’s natural & born subjects”, which in writing was probably shortened in time to simply “the king’s natural/born subjects”, or “natural-born subjects”.

With the new births of Scotsman under the combined reign of their common king, the English had to acknowledge that birth within the king’s dominion, under his sovereignty, required recognition of their “subject” nature and their inclusion based on their birth location, -not their blood.

Their inclusion under English law could not be based on their inheritance of English nationality from English fathers, so it had to be accepted that it was instead based on their birth within the borders of the king’s kingdom, -the new larger royal realm. [Like a father having two separate families in two separate homes.]

Thus appeared the the recognition of place of birth being a substantial co-equal factor in the determination of who were subjects, -not of England, but of the combined Crowns. So, thereafter there existed two means of national attachment and royal attachment.

One’s allegiance was owed not only to one’s English countrymen and nation, along with its laws and government, but also a separate allegiance owed directly to “his Royal Majesty”, the titular head of Church & State of England.
And… you no longer had to be born of an Englishman to be his subject. You could be born of any subject person who was within the boundaries of his domain as long as they were not invaders in possession of national territory, nor foreign ministers.

So other than birth to such men, you had those who were born of Englishmen as natural subjects of the king and nation, and also those who were born as subjects (but non-English) since he was their king also. Since they were his subjects from birth (-and naturally so since their fathers were subject to the king who ruled their country as part of his kingdom) they, like sons of Englishmen, could reasonably be labeled as his natural, born subjects, -even though of a completely different nation with a separate throne, (-but eventually united; -the United Kingdom).

Logic and meaning applied differently to the two separate types of subjects since some were only subjects of England while others were only subjects of Scotland. But those born after James because king of both realms, were in a sort of new fangled unnatural nationality situation.

One could say that both his born subjects (by place-of-birth within his realm, i.e., Scotland) as well as his natural subjects by the blood of Englishmen, were both born as his subjects, and were naturally subject to him, making them, in effect, both natural born subjects, although by different principles and origins.

Did the difference make a major difference in their lives? No, it made no difference whatsoever, -just as it makes no difference in America whether or not one is born of Americans or born of immigrants, -everyone is equal. Almost…
-but some are more equal than others when it comes to one arcane, totally unique, rarely attained but highly visible job. That job is the one held by the President of the United States, -the same man who also commands all of the nation’s defensive and offensive weaponry, systems, infrastructure, and military personnel (including 1000’s of nuclear bombs).
In Great Britain, it did not matter what the origin and source of your subjection to the king was, -whether birth within his expanded kingdom or birth to his Englishmen. He was king of both types of people, and now English law recognized them as subjects of the English king.

The property rights of his foreign subjects (Scotsmen) were thereafter protected from discrimination by English law thenceforth directed only at other foreigners, with the king, -as the head of both states, fulfilling his duty to defend his own peoples and uphold their rights under the laws and charters of the realm.
But in America there was that one, small, unusual, unique rare office that almost no one was capable of being elected to; -the Presidency.

Between America and England, there was only one King, and also there was only one President. Only one of each. The king was not appointed nor elected so there was no legal issue written in stone about what kind of bloodline he was required to have. In fact, he was not even required to be English, Scotch, Irish, or Welch, -not even British by blood. He could be a total foreigner!

Why would they allow such an insane thing? Because they were permanently locked into the monarchical system of government, -and when it failed to produce a male heir, they were forced to look abroad for a king or for a husband for the Queen.

A foreign husband was expected of a Queen because it bound nations together by marriage & blood (via their children) which otherwise might end up in enmity and at war. So having a foreign monarch or royal spouse was the protocol for the royals while it was the exact opposite for the leadership of the Americans. [* see Thomas Paine's explanation at bottom]

For that one single, exceptional, extraordinary position they would allow no royals at all, nor any nobles, nor aristocrats, nor any foreigners, nor… -and here’s the point where almost everyone falls into error, -no son of a foreigner either.

No person from a foreign nation who is not an American can be President, (-nor can he be made eligible by being naturalized), nor can his children be made eligible either since they, like him, are not naturally Americans, even though they are allowed by law to be citizens if born within the boundaries of the American “kingdom”.

As with the sons of Scotsman who were fortunate to be born after their king became the new king of England, the timing of one’s native-birth in America to immigrant parents is critical to whether or not, like Calvin, (born after James assumed the English throne), they could be deemed to be American citizens.

If born while their parents were still foreigners, they would not be off-spring of Americans and thus would not be describable as natural Americans, or natural citizens of America, i.e., natural born citizens, -but if born following their parents becoming Americans, then they would be American children by birth to Americans, but something more; -they would not be alien-born Americans like those born of un-naturalized foreign immigrants; they would be natural Americans, -which would make them eligible to be the American President. So birth timing mattered.

Being eligible to be President involves nothing more, citizenship-wise, than being in the same class with all equally eligible natural American citizens, and not being in the class of all alien-born American citizens. They make-up about 3% of the citizenry.

For those in the natural born citizen group, it does not matter if your father & mother became Americans the day you were born, or are descendents of the settlers who arrived as Pilgrims or Puritans, -because there is no difference since all natural citizens are equal.

Returning to the situation in Britain, a new development followed that of the situation in which Scottish children were the king’s new natural subjects at birth thanks to the adopted legal fiction that they were co-subjects of the English subjects, -into the mix is added…: children of European immigrants.

They were off-spring of foreigners, and at adulthood owed allegiance & obedience to their father’s foreign monarch, unless… the English king claimed them as his from birth. That would cripple the foreign king’s claim to their obedience and allegiance at adulthood being as the foreign English king was claiming them as his from the day they were born, (their whole life) -provided of course that the family were immigrants and not just visitors.

That made quite profitable sense to the English monarch since it increased the number of subjects that he could claim as his own, -all of those children of Europeans fleeing to England from endless European wars. He could not reasonably claim their foreign-born children, but could their England-born children, and so he did just that.

But what did he call such alien-born children of foreign fathers? The answer had already been provided by the Calvin case and the Scottish subjects situation. They simply slapped the same new label on them as on the Scots’ children; calling them also his natural-born subjects.

Using that new appellation demonstrated that they were not second-class subjects since they were known by the same label as his real natural born subjects. And who was going to tell the king, (or Parliament) that he didn’t have any right to attach any old label that he chose to such children?

So no one objected because there was no outward practical difference between them are far as their rights, privileges, and protects were concerned. So not calling them his alien-born subjects seemed like a preferable choice. It wasn’t like a distinction had to be drawn between them in regard to who would be elected (not selected) to command the Royal Army and Royal Navy.

The position of military commander in chief was not up for a vote by the citizenry. It was by appointment only. But those responsible for the survival of the nation kept all high positions of national security and national secrets in the hands of only men born of Englishmen, not born of aliens, nor other Britons.

They did not have an eligibility clause but they had an unwritten eligibility policy, and no doubt they stuck to it, just as we do when it comes to guarding the President, as well as America’s secrets and access to and control over American nuclear bombs. We are stupid, but not that stupid, unlike Indira Gandhi who allowed the hiring of guards for herself (India’s Prime Minister) from hostile ethnic groups, one of whom murdered her.

We are stupid because we fail to understand the background of national membership inherited from the British, how it originally was solely by patrilineal descent, but expanded to include foreigners who were subject to the power and authority of the Crown.

The same sort of dual-system of nationality came to be established by the settlers of the British colonies in America.

Within a century, after civilization was established and cities and towns were built, -along with the creation of needed bodies for self-governance, the Americans no longer saw themselves as British, nor as Englishmen because, they were not their countrymen, -although they were members of the growing British empire and the brethren of the English.

They were neither born nor raised in England as Englishmen, but they were nevertheless tied by charter to the sovereignty of the British king, with each of the individual colonies having its own unique charter, and thus its own unique identity and character.

Within the borders of each of them lived mostly people born in the colony except when a colony was new and populated by new immigrants from England or Europe who arrived en mass to create a new society.

With the passage of generations, the Americans inevitably would see themselves as the native-born natural members of their individual colonial country. Folks who migrated into the natives’ societies from other colonies or countries would in a short amount of time be allowed to participate in the common duties of citizens, whether in a civic role or via simply paying taxes to support the administration of government.

They were not natives but they were valued just like an extra pair of hands helping to push a cart uphill or construct a new barn. They remained deemed to be subject to their European king if not British but children born to them in America, -in the colonies of the king of England, were deemed to be his subjects from birth.

So again you have a dichotomy; the natives are natural members of their colonies by birth to native parents, while the native-born children of foreigners were members by their subjection to the king of the colonies which resulted from having been born within his dominion, -just as had been the Scotsman in the era of the Calvin case long before.

by Adrien Nash April 2014 ~end of part 1 of 4  ~  ~   ~   ~

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-citizen/

The following valuable comment was posted by Political Junkie Too at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2908140/posts?page=18

From The Rights of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791:

If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.

In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.

But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.

The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive.

What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called “the executive”, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.  finis.

~Yes, Paine did use the term “native of the country.” Does this mean “native born” instead of “natural born?” [-or born of natives?] We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.  Paine refers to English examples in order to define this. Paine cites “foreigner” and “half a foreigner” as the opposite to “full natural” connection to the country. So, what is “half a foreigner?”

It seems to me that “half a foreigner” is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have a “full natural… connection with the country.”

Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want “half-foreigners” to be president, and why only people with a “full natural… connection with the country” were allowed to become President.

Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.

Paine’s description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just 2 years after the ratification of the Constitution.

If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.

PJ 18 posted on Wednesday, July 18, 2012 by Political JunkieToo

What if Fuddy’s Death Was A Homicide?

What if Ann Dunham got pregnant by an African student at age 17 and couldn’t have an abortion since they weren’t legal?
What if she sought to have her eventual baby adopted through the Salvation Army but there were no takers on the island of Hawaii?
What is she had to then return to her hometown of Seattle to seek an adoptive couple there, and yet there also were no middle-class, middle-aged childless African American couples who wanted a mulatto baby?
What if she resorted to contacting the adoption agency across the border in Vancouver and they found her a couple? What if she traveled there, delivered the baby that was not white like they were expecting, and so she was stuck with the little ball-&-chain?

What if she returned quickly to Hawaii without any birth certificate but was then unable to procure one from the Dept. of Health because she could prove a claimed home-birth?
What if her child never had a birth certificate from anywhere to show what his nationality was?
What if he had to rely on a passport from the nation of his future adoptive father for his identification?

What if he ascended through the ranks of social standing and politics and was even elected President of the United States?
What if as President he could not show a birth certificate (that he never had) to prove he was born in America and thus satisfy the misconception that mere native-birth makes anyone eligible to be President?

What if he arranged with his best bud the governor for someone to be appointed to the directorship of the Hawaiian Dept. of Health, someone pliable, and persuadable, -a team player, someone single and alone and was not the man who had just been appointed only three weeks earlier but who then mysteriously “retired” to his own surprise and befuddlement?

What if that person (Loretta Fuddy) felt connected to Obama as her President and champion of her party and fellow Hawaiian, as well as through his mother being a member of the same obscure cult that she was a leader of?

What if that new director facilitated access to the digital records of the department for someone to fabricate the birth certificate that had been denied his mother some four and a half decades earlier?

What if her finances were discovered to be unexplainably inflated with about $50-70,000 and that fact was entered in an affidavit submitted to a federal court, and which now is before the Supreme Court, and calls for a Grand Jury investigation that would compel testimony revealing her participation in the greatest case of fraud the world has ever known?

What if within weeks of the filing of that court petition her heart inexplicably stopped beating at the young age of only 65?
What if the coroner’s autopsy report was heavily blacked out in major sections and never reported by the coroner but by a mere public release of the Police Dept containing multiple falsehoods and elements of a death-rationalizing psychological analysis that would never be found in any autopsy ever conducted?

What if no one in the media reported on the situation, as if the Malaysian airplane had vanished and no one reported on that? Would something seem not right? Would something seem underhanded and deliberately and guiltily secretive? Would the reasons for such secretiveness be anything other than to hide criminality?

What if the agents behind her sudden death made insinuations about the health of the police and their families and convinced them if they knew what was good for them, they would go alone and thus get along?

What if tomorrow I were to wake up dead? Would there be no more connection to any of this than there is to any of the supposes that are actually all facts? I’ll let you decide. Murder? Conspiracy? Cover-up? Suppression of the truth? Answers are seen in the unavailability of the autopsy of a public official and the fantastic claims that were said to be found in an autopsy that the Medical Examiner would have never written.

They are also seen in the total silence as to the cause of the engine stall. What made that muffled bang just before the engine suddenly died outright? A bullet? A bomb? It sure wasn’t a bribe but one or more were probably made to keep anything from ever seeing the light of day.
Now I can slink off into the forest and forget about trying to awaken the drunk that is the American media and public, after all, why would anyone care about a few unanswered questions anyway?

 

~a few more “what if”s;  LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER

What if Secrecy Trumps the Constitution?

Andrew Napolitano wonders if the NSA has intimidated and terrified members of Congress
What if the National Security Agency (NSA) knows it is violating the Constitution by spying on all Americans without showing a judge probable cause of wrongdoing or identifying the persons it wishes to spy upon, as the Constitution requires?

What if the Constitution was written to keep the government off the people’s backs, but the NSA and the president and some members of Congress have put the NSA not only on our backs, but in our bedrooms, kitchens, telephones and computers? What if when you look at your computer screen, the NSA is looking right back at you?

~~~~~

What if the NSA missed the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Ft. Hood massacre, the Times Square bomber, the Boston Marathon bombers, the coup in Kiev and the Russian invasion of Ukraine? What if the NSA wasted its time spying on Aunt Tillie in Des Moines and the pope in Rome and Chancellor Merkel in Berlin, instead of Vladimir Putin in Moscow?

What if secrecy has replaced the rule of law? What if that replacement has left us in the dark about what the government knows and what it is doing? What if few in government believe in transparency? What if few in government believe in the Constitution?

What do we do about it?

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/what-if-secrecy-trumps-the-constitution/

 

 

 

 

 

Behind the Fuddy Autopsy Fraud; a Bullet or a Bribe?

revised Friday, 4-4-14

How the Calvin Case Dooms Your Future; pt. 4

Should we be pessimistic about the future of America? A better question is “can we be reasonably optimistic about the future?” The answer is that if the power structure that rules our nation is not overthrown, there will be no future that we would want to see (aside from advances of various sorts).

It is corrupt to the core and both parties are party to it, with one simply pushing harder on the accelerator than the other.
Has history ever recorded any corrupted government and morally vacuous and ignorant population that ever reversed the course they were on toward a destination of decay, collapse and/or conquest? Are we destined to repeat history because we are ignorant of it?

Well, being ignorant is a natural status of human nature it seems. There is no one who is superior in this world, but compared to those who are simply normal, there are a heck of a lot of people who are in many ways sub-normal. And their numbers are growing by leaps and bounds.

So what will come is unknown and unknowable without taking a God’s-eye view of the human race, and the American people in particular. That is probably a frightful view to take, and I, for one, hesitate to take it since I’ve been there, done that, and found you can’t live life in the knowledge of what you see.

But sometimes in the history of man, (like in the Matrix trilogy) something changes everything and this times it’s different from what went before.  That happened in a very good way with the life and legacy of Jesus. It took centuries and lots of corrupt detours along the way, but eventually the vision of God and Man that sprang from his existence produced the natural rights and liberties of Western Civilization, not to mention hope eternal.

The problem is that liberty can become license to live ignorant and self-indulgent spoiled lives, -and that is where a great proportion of the population is today. Just consider one aspect of American life; drug usage. Could it be more pervasive? Could laws against it be more impotent at stopping it? Or a government hand-out mentality.

Entire segments of American society are rotten to the core, personally and publicly. Just consider Detroit and what a nightmare it has degenerated into compared to what it was. There is a cancer and rot spreading in America and it is connected to many negative factors that render the role and duty and privilege of citizenship almost irrelevant in the lives of millions of almost unfixable people. Maybe they can be fixed, but probably not in this life, -not with the resources available to government and the powers it is limited to.

I once read the response of a law enforcement officer or social worker who said that the only way to fix or change the attitude of hard-core criminally inclined teenagers would require measures that would put them in a hospital. A lot of people need to suffer those measures, including many in government who have a different kind of corrupt attitude.

The communists tried a form of reform with their “re-education camps” that threw the academic and government elites down into the mud of real life in labor camps in the countryside, -perhaps cruelly and unjustly in most cases and without discrimination based on real attitudes and character.  But that succeeded at one thing; it changed their view of how important they were in relationship to others who were “nobodies”.

American patriots would rejoice and thank heaven to see our corrupt and isolated and insulated government elite overlord class find themselves face-down in the figurative mud that the rest of the population has to live in because of their damn awful and self-serving governance.

And many of them deserve worse; deserve many years in a cell where they, like Jack Abramoff, can come to realize the magnitude of their betrayal of the American people.

And others still, who pull the extortion levers behind the curtains, -who know the secrets of the hidden lives of public officials and servants, -who intimate harm might come to their children if their agendas suffer because of the choices of those officials, -who weigh threats to the status quo of those in power as well as those who benefit from their largess, and thus arrive at decisions about who must conveniently be silenced via a “natural death” or an “accidental death” that no one can explain.

The people behind those untimely life-ending occurrences deserve nothing less than a bullet to the brain. They are the ones who keep the secrets hidden that need to see the light of day in order for a new revolution to take place in America.

They are the Luciferians of the power complexes that pull whatever strings they can accomplish pulling, -either by bribe or by bullet.

And God forbid if you are ever viewed as a liability, unless you are someone truly not expendable or too high profile and popular to terminate.  Were the Kennedys such victims and yet not immune even though of the highest profile?

The most recent example of their handiwork is the murder of Loretta Fuddy, -the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health. She was a healthy, kindly, lonely, gentle soul who never married or had children, and in excellent health, but was emotionally vulnerable to persuasion exerted by a powerful and charismatic President of the United States who needed the birth certificate that the department had not given to his mother in response to her affidavit claiming she gave birth to her half-Kenyan son in her Hawaiian home but with no medical witnesses present.

The Registrar at that time (1961) was required to see some proof of one year residency. Such proof didn’t exist, so with no eye-witness affidavits supporting her claim, they simply filed her half hand-written, half typed affidavit and that piece of paper became the only vital record in their archive. It was microfilmed, and later digitized when all microfilm records were digitized.

All Barack needed was for her to just allow access to that record so it could be used in conjunction with the record of a deceased child who was born but died at the same time, and he would then be able to acquire a simulated genuine certificate like the one that his mother was never able to acquire for him.

It was important for the nation to get its attention off of such a “distracting” and divisive issue. After all, what good was served by not allowing the nation to be convinced of his birth in Hawaii? He was convinced, but he needed her help in order that others could also “know” the truth.

She loyally and dutifully agreed with his request and went along with it, even allowing the release of the lie that she watched the copying of his “original” birth certificate (as if a real Hawaiian hospital Certificate of Live Birth) in order to make it all seem official and not some mystery like his supposed short-form certification of live birth that appeared three years earlier out of nowhere with no attribution from anyone as to its origin.

The Leftist media bought into its legitimacy and the issue was “put behind us”, …until, that is, Doug Vogt submitted a legal brief to a federal court in Washington State which contained a sealed affidavit which named her as a co-conspirator in the fabrication of a counterfeit birth certificate for Barack Obama, and revealed financial details showing that she happened to have somehow acquired $50-70,000 that could not be accounted for, -money used to make substantial payments on a home mortgage.

Did that secret affidavit stay sealed as Vogt had requested, or did it, like IRS information and NSA information get dropped into the lap of a White House operative who knew someone who knew someone… and voila! -within a month she is suddenly and mysteriously dead?

Could anything be more convenient for Barack Obama and his wealthy puppet-masters than derailing any possible investigation into Ms Fuddy’s Lois Lerner-like role in the production of a counterfeit birth certificate for the “Hawaiian born” President?
That alone would raise anyone’s suspicions if they had a brain (which no one in the media does anymore) but what followed absolutely demonstrated that nefarious machinations were transpiring behind the scenes in order to make Fuddy’s murder appear perfectly natural.

What happened exactly? Did the medical examiner who did the autopsy (which required mysteriously waiting a month -perhaps for toxicology results) come out and present a clinical evaluation of the medical factors that precipitated the failure of her heart to keep beating?

That is what anyone and everyone would expect to happen, and yet nothing like that happened, -not even remotely like that. Instead the police department released “details” of the supposed autopsy which the public was not allowed to see, -including those who sued under the Freedom on Information Act to acquire, since major portions came completely blacked out “for privacy law concerns”. So they were protecting the privacy of the dead? Or protecting the family that she didn’t have?

The reason it was done like that was because what the autopsy actually said could not be the story that was released to the public because it made it clear that either she died by an unknown cause or by a highly suspicious cause (which was reported to the public as “accidental”.

How do you accidentally die while floating placidly in a warm ocean with a flotation vest on without any rescue concerns at all?  No person in history ever died from the terror of such non-excitement.  The only stress from such a situation is the stress of boredom.  And I’m pretty sure that boredom never killed anyone.

The explanation supposedly from the Medical Examiner’s autopsy report was a string of subjective psychological claims about her mental and emotional state, (-things that are NEVER part of an autopsy) including something that is impossible to conclude; that she died from an irregular and inadequate heartbeat, (aka; cardiac arrhythmia).

Well, anyone from a Nurse’s Assistant to everyone who has watched medical investigation programs over the last decade knows that you cannot determine the heart rhythm of a heart that is not beating. That would be like reporting on the pulse rate of a corpse.

How can a claim of an irregular heart beat be substantiated when it leaves no evidence whatsoever?

A heart that goes out of rhythm is not like a train that leaves the tracks and can clearly be seen to not be on the tracks where it belongs. It would be more like a train that disappeared. -Or like a plane that disappeared.

How can you say it crashed if you don’t know where it even went?
If investigators of the Malaysian airliner that vanished  claimed that it crashed, everyone would want to know how they knew that since there was no evidence of any kind.

Same with Fuddy’s death. Reminds me of a book & movie title: “Murder by Death”, -by unexplainable death, as is shared in clear terms in:

Obama. and Hawaiian DoH Director Fuddy’s Convenient Death

( http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/fuddys-convenient-death/)

and… http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/turning-a-blind-eye-to-death-of-loretta-fuddy.pdf

(a re-formated and condensed version of the web post: http://networkedblogs.com/Vr4M7 )

Is anyone going to question the police department that was the facade for the most fraudulent autopsy in American history? Is anyone going to go all Woodward & Bernstein and follow the money (or the extortion-intimidation)?

As was reportedly said to a witness in Roswell, N.M. “its a big desert out there and no one would ever find someone’s bones.” (Same with the Pacific ocean.) -Or ever trace the cash used to buy a condo on Maui.

Either by a bribe or a bullet, or both, they get the job done, and none of the submissive, brain-dead, juvenile children that pass themselves off as journalists ever ask the logical questions, -nor perhaps, even think of them.  We’re so screwed.

by Adrien Nash April 2014 obama–nation.com

 

The World’s Greatest Invisible Political Debate

The Nash Natural Law Principle vs the Apuzzo Nativist Doctrine-Principle

vs the English Common Law Obamanists Dogma

Significant things can go completely unreported by the news media.  Populations and nations can be ignorant of important truths while possessed of foolish or dreadful falsehoods.  Entire countries can be brain-washed by nationalistic and/or religious ideas and doctrines which follow abhorrent bigotries including racial superiority and lie-based hatreds.  That fact is seen in Islamic countries which have the same poisoned view of Jews as did the German Nazis.

They all can be wrong about the Jews and their accomplishments and their worth as human beings, just as populations of “advanced” countries can be wrong about things that they assume to be true.

“Common Knowledge” assumptions can be as wrong as urban myths, along with political and legal and scientific assumptions.  There is no field of knowledge that is immune to error and ignorant misconceptions.

In matters of politics, one would assume that the public media would be a source of information to dispel erroneous ideas, -and yet in America they do just the opposite; they perpetuate utterly erroneous falsehoods about Barack Obama by perpetuating ignorance thanks to their lack of reporting of the truth.  It’s like living in the Watergate era without the two lone voices of Woodward & Bernstein to explode the unreported truth about the President into the public awareness.

That’s where we are in regard to the presidency of Barack Obama, and that’s where we’ve been for six years.  If any Woodward & Bernstein-like revelations are ever come to light, they will have only come through the public exposure given to the investigation of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse in Arizona.

Their efforts have so far been ignored by the media, and to an extent, that has not been a bad thing from the standpoint of the dissemination of the truth, because much of the truth they uncovered has been explained as being the result of the unique software used by Xerox Workstations like one in the White House which presumably was used to scan Obama’s “birth certificate”,  producing a pdf output file uploaded to the internet by the White House.

The genuine/ authentic, or fabricated/ counterfeit nature of the document scanned is a separate issue.  But either way, the issue has been buried, -but not buried nearly as deeply as the issue of the nature and source of Obama’s presumed American citizenship.  THAT is the issue of the Greatest Political Debate of our lives because its impact would be so deep and far reaching that the full effect would be unimaginable if pushed to its rightful limit.

You see, if the public knew the truth, which it probably never will in any foreseeable future, then people all across the land would understand that there are huge issues regarding the birthplace, birth certificates, and citizenship of Barack Obama.  At worst he was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, never had any birth certificate from there nor the state of Hawaii, and was never an American citizen by American law.

At best he was born at home in Honolulu, his mother could not prove it by evidence nor sworn testimony, he never was issued a birth certificate, and also was not an American citizen by actual American law (the 14th Amendment, -which only applies to children born of immigrants, -not guests like students).

Neither of those two possibilities exist in American consciousness, nor in that of the media, academia, nor government.  Instead what exists are two false, erroneous presumptions, the first of which is that mere birth on U.S. soil confers U.S. citizenship, and the second is that mere U.S. citizenship makes one eligible to be the Commander in Chief of the American Military & Nuclear Forces.

Both are untrue, and yet like other ignorant populations, Americans do not know it because of the ignorance and silence of the press, and the decades-long dumbing-down of the population via the ever-degenerating quality and political/anti-religious bias of the people hired to teach in mediocre, amoral, Leftist, union-salaried government schools.

What they fail to learn, to know, to report or to teach is that of the four possibilities determining presidential eligibility, only one is true and the others are false regardless of who or how many people believe in them. Two of them embrace the possibility that the hypothetical Nazi wife of Adolph Hitler could have given birth in an American hospital, received a birth certificate, been deemed to be an American citizen, and further been deemed to be a natural born citizen and perfectly eligible to one day be the American President.

Those possibilities are based on 1.) Natural Law alone, 2.) Native-birth alone, 3.) Natural Law plus native-birth, and 4.) Natural Law or native-birth.   Only the first one is true.  The others are fantasies of human fabrication, and follow no principles since they are based purely on doctrines of human invention.

They are justified under the lie that the constitutional requirement that the President be “No person except a natural born citizen,” refers not to a natural citizen of the nation but to a “definition”, -to a “legal term of art” (as in artifice), -to a legal, fictional idiom determined by men and not nature nor natural language as described by the three simple common words.

That would mean that it can be defined however their dogma dictates, like redefining the meaning of “native born son” or “natural blond” or “natural woman”.  Under their delusions, the use of the word “natural” requires either attaching the added meaning that such persons were born in the United States, or requires no more than simple native birth.

You may think that a bit far-out, but if you ask for an explanation, the ones you will get will not be satisfactory from an evidentiary point of view.  And hence the truth must needs be illuminated, -and so it shall be via the sharing of these few posts and counter-posts at Mario Apuzzo’s NaturalBornCitizen blog http://puzo1.blogspot.com/  ~    ~    ~

Mario said: “As I have told you many times over, the natural born citizen clause is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause which can be understood only through the definition of the whole clause and not its individual parts.”

In fact, if that were true, you would not be unable prove your assertion, as I’ve challenged you to do, which you can’t do because it is false, a fantasy, a delusion, a doctrine, a dogma. UNPROVABLE!!

Those words are common words and not a term of artifice, not a clause, and not an idiom. Just a phrase strung together to describe those born of citizens, -citizens by natural connection and not by legal permission as provided and granted to outsiders and their children.

Does “Mario’s natural born child” really mean: “Mario’s cat” just because he or I say it does?

Slartibarfast propagated the citizenship truth against Mario’s invented fiction, but pointing out Mario’s illogical tranmutation of a statement by the esteemed Vattel in no way validates his own false assumption that native-born citizens are natural born citizens.

He wrote: “The obot theory requires only one simple assumption: the meaning of “natural born” did not change,” (from the bastardized English common law meaning of natural born subject)

That is false in two ways but he conveniently failed to trace the term back to when it was bastardized by the Calvin case, -or in its wake.
Before that case, everyone understood plain English, by which everyone born of an Englishman was naturally born an Englishman also, i.e., a natural born Englishman and a subject of the crown, -a natural born subject by blood-connection to a subject English father.

After Calvin, the focus shifted from the nation of England and its laws and people, to the King alone and his dominion.
From thereon after, anyone born of anyone under the king’s dominion, whether of Englishman or foreigner, was viewed as being (or equal to) a natural born subject because the law applied equally to all, even though of very different origins.

The England-born child of a foreigner was “naturally” born in subjection to the king of the kingdom, and so it came to be in time that they were even referred to as “natural” born subjects, even though they were only alien born subjects. That was change number one.

The mind-set of the bastardized language of the English common law then became the mind-set within the colonies up until the early 1770s (and even ’til today) when the mind-set of Americans began to change drastically.

In time they realized that ALL sovereignty resided in THE PEOPLE, and not the Crown, nor Parliament, nor Great Britain, nor the American governments, -and they completely overthrew the oppression of the British monarchy and its Parliament, along with its basis of national membership, which was the plantation/ feudal estate model by which “anything born on my plantation or in my kingdom belongs to me, -the king, -whether of plant or animal or subject.”

In America, free consent, -willful choice, and a solemn vow of allegiance to the revolution made the colonial traitors to the crown into blood-brothers in a new enterprise of freedom and self governance.

Instead of an artificial criterion (birth location) determining one’s national membership and subjectship for life, they made themselves the semi-united members of 13 new sovereign nations, and they ceded to no one and no thing the right of their children to inherit that membership as the natural born citizens of the new nations.

That was the second time that “natural born” changed, and that fact is illustrated by what John Jay did, -which could not be done with “natural born subject“, -when he underlined the word “born” when suggesting to General Washington (serving as President of the constitutional convention) via a letter that the Command of the American Army not be given to any but a natural born citizen.
That had never, ever been done before because the term “natural born subject” had devolved into a term of legal artifice with a unitarian meaning.

His emphasis was so that only one born as a natural citizen would receive the Command in Chief position, and all men made into natural citizens via the fiction of law known as natural-ization would be barred, along with all sons of foreigners, without regard to where they happened to be born.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said… It is quite evident as to why you are on my blog. You take my analysis and ideas of all that is natural born citizen and then just rewrite them into you own words. Then to cover your tracks, you claim that I am wrong in what I write and never agree with me on anything. But the only difference between us is that you contend that birth in the country is not necessary to make a natural born citizen while I do.

Mr. Nash, just know that I have been on to you for quite some time and that anyone who operates as you do is a despicable human being.

A.R. Nash responds:

“But the only difference between us is that you contend that birth in the country is not necessary to make a natural born citizen while I do.”

That is true, but the difference is worse than that. I contend, based on American principles, that your view about the nature of citizenship is not only non-American but is in fact anti-American.

You cannot respond by illuminating American principles that require native-birth because there are none. Native-birth as a criterion of national membership never was and never can be defined as a principle because it is purely an imposed factor and requirement derived from imperial fiat.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything natural. It is an arbitrary artificial criterion based solely on artificial borders.

 

“Typically, people have very low evidence standards for accepting the validity of things with which they agree, and very high evidence standards for accepting things with which they disagree.”  Sam Sewill

“A new idea is first condemned as ridiculous, and then dismissed as trivial, until finally it becomes what everybody knows.” -  William James

 

It is amazing how political parties, special interest groups, advocacy groups, religions, doctors, nationalists, philosophical schools of thought, and even scientists, are so narrow minded about information that contradicts their particular paradigm.   Sam Sewill

AR.Nash says:

No nation or people or tribe or clan or family before the English has ever based their membership solely on any other factor than blood inheritance.  It is the foundation of all of those groups and has been since man first walked the earth. Membership by natural connection is the only natural membership. Anything added is an unnatural adulteration.

As soon as you add anything to nature, what you get can no longer be called natural. Just because you want to call it natural does not make it so. That is why both the deluded obots and the deluded birthers have their perspectives skewed.
Neither side can dent the Custer analogy which demolishes the basis of their native-birth doctrines.

They can’t explain how George Custer Jr. can be considered a member of the Sioux nation (and eligible to be chief) just because his mother gave birth to him within sovereign Sioux territory, nor why such a birth location is mandatory in order for a Sioux baby to be Sioux. What does his or its birth location have to do with what people and nation one belongs to? Does Jr. “owe” allegiance, and faith and loyalty to the Sioux people and not his own alone?  Is the Sioux baby an alien foreigner to its own natural people because it happened to be born off of Sioux land?

Not long after the discovery of Hawaii, the islands were united into a single Kingdom. Aside from transient whalers, the population was totally homogeneous, -descendents of peoples that had arrive 1,500 and 500 years prior.

All the people of Hawaii were natural members of the the Hawaiian community. After unification by conquest they were all natural citizens of the new kingdom. They all had the same background. None of them were outsiders nor born of outsiders. They were all Hawaiians and nothing else. That’s what natural citizens are.
Yet the Apuzzian doctrine asserts that natural citizens by birth do not exist because if they do then they are competing with “natural born citizens” (quotation marks mandatory in the Apuzzian doctrine because the words cannot be considered to mean what they say and no more.
In fact they MUST mean more. They must mean that the native-birth factor is super-imposed on top of the natural factor of natural membership via blood descent.

By that doctrine, if a Hawaiian woman gave birth out at sea, her child would be a foreigner, an alien, and not Hawaiian since it wasn’t Hawaii-born, even though it was Hawaiian-born and not alien-born.
Thus you have a paradox. The child is a natural Hawaiian citizen by birth and yet is not “a natural born citizen” of Hawaii if you add the quotation marks to those 3 words since that would make them a term of legal artifice which includes the required factor of birth on Hawaiian soil.

So you have to ask yourself which one represents reality; -a natural American citizen by birth or a “natura-born-citizen” of America?

Term of art? -or no term of art? That is precisely what it all boils down to. But the claim by both sides that the words mean something other than what they say cannot be proven by either side.

All we get is distorted interpretations of very simple things. “Natural means native!”

“No, natural means natural PLUS native!”
You’re wrong!
No, you’re wrong!
No, you are both wrong because you both live in Flatland and only see two dimensions. Well why not look up?!!! There is another dimension! And it is one in which there is no term of art. There are only natural citizens by birth, (born natural citizens) versus citizens by legal permission, -including from birth.

Art wrote:”…the original birthers and the mistake some of them made in 1790, (in a Congressional Act) but which was corrected in 1795…”

Your claim is a fantasy, even delusional. The founders in the first Congress, of all the Congresses that have ever convened, were far and away the most attentive to not violate the letter not the spirit of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that they had help to write just a few years eariler, -to not go beyond it in any way, shape, or form. TO MAKE NO MISTAKES WHATSOEVER!

And they did make no mistake. The mistake is in your unAmerican doctrine borrowed from the British dictator. “All souls born on my land belong to me, even if they are alien souls and not natural Englishmen.”

Here’s a thought. The Naturalization Act of 1790 may have passed unanimously. You dare to pontificate that “some of them” made a “mistake”, when it is YOU who is making a gigantic mistake.

Presidential eligibility language (“natural born citizen”) was employed in the act regarding foreign-born Americans precisely to overcome the mistaken dogma that grips your unenlightened mind. When will you finally get it? It is all about NATURAL RIGHTS!

Every American man had and kept his natural right to pass his national membership on to his progeny.
HE DID NOT SURRENDER HIS RIGHT AT THE WATER’S EDGE!

Government is subservient to his natural rights. Were that not true, we would not have the BILL Of RIGHTS, nor the 9th and 10th Amendments.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain RIGHTS shall NOT be construed (by you) to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the People.”

One of us is completely wrong and the other completely right, and it’s determined by RIGHTS, -not dogma.

Art wrote:

“John Jay is starting to roll in his grave as I type, ’cause he’s just waitin’ to tell you to go fly a kite in a lightning and thunder storm and get in touch with original intent reality.”

~What you are saying is that the simple three word combination means something other than what the words convey. You are saying that they are, as the obots insist, “a term of art”.
Great, now you are both on the same page. Congratulations! You’ve managed to reinforce their dogma. And that helps your cause how????

If you were to assert that those words do not constitute a term of art, then you invalidate their entire fallacious structure. You make the word natural to mean nothing other than natural, -booting out the assertion that it also means native-born.
Without that logical and linguistic and legal distortion, their lie vanishes like smoke.

Why don’t you do that? Why don’t you ask them, as I’m asking you, to PROVE that a natural born citizen is truly not that but is instead a “naturalborncitizen” as interpreted via a nativist dogma based on a presumed term of legal artifice?

No one can prove the foundational premise of your nativist religion. So why hang on to it? Why proclaim it as if it were Holy Writ? IT IS UNPROVEN AND UNPROVABLE. All falsehoods are.

~Art redefined and mis-defined Natural Law. The Law of Nature is the Law of Nature’s GOD.

The American doctrine is that He made the universe for mankind, and then made mankind in his own image, -having certain unalienable rights, among which are the right of free will and natural belonging.

All rights and all relationships of belonging exist as elements of natural life. They involve only sentient beings, -not inanimate matter!

A multi-billionaire could create his own new nation in international waters, building on massive floating platforms. What role does soil play in his nation and its membership when there is none?

He might make a law that all who help to build his city-state will be the first generation of members, and all of their children will inherit their parents’ membership. And none who did not help to build it will be considered natural members but only members by investment with Paid Membership which can be revoked for bad behavior.
That is akin to the foundation of the American nation. Soil was irrelevant, but the free-will stand of the parents was determinative for their off-spring.

In the future of The Terminator, the population is replaced by robots and cyborgs. They also have relationships to each other. They also are created on American soil. And yet they possess no natural life.

That is why the Laws of Nature do not apply to them because those laws are the laws of natural life which govern the relationships of humans to each other, -not to inanimate matter.

In the distant future, Americans will be born in outer-space. Their nationality will be American by blood connection. They will still be Earthlings, although not born on Earth. Same with citizenship and foreign birth. It is not by legal permission but by NATURAL CONNECTION.

 

MichaelN errs thusly: Natural membership to the citizenry is not necessarily eligibility to be POTUS which requires a higher allegiance.”

All natural members of the States and nation were those born of natives, (as well as children of naturalized citizens who were loyal to the revolution).  They were born as natural citizens. In English that translates (by compression) as meaning they were “born, natural-citizens”, or “natural, born -citizens”, depending on what you wish to focus on.

There is no mention of nor connection to a test of allegiance which natural citizens could fail or pass in order to be among the male population that was eligible to be President.

Any man born of citizens, who was chosen by the population and electoral college, could be President. Allegiance was not measured by anything other than the man’s record and writings, -not his birthplace. Birthplace would be a cheap, pathetic substitute for real allegiance.

Was Washington’s allegiance assessed by where he was born? How about Jefferson, -and John Adams? How about his 10 year old eldest son, John Quincy Adams, -future President, who accompanied him to Europe, twice, and lived there with him for over a decade? Did he acquired foreign “allegiance” on foreign “soil”?

What if he had been born there?

Would his father, the future second American President himself, have felt he had absolutely no right whatsoever to even think that his son was an American by natural right?  What do you think he thought? How did he feel about his, and his son’s natural rights? Did he kiss them goodbye at the water’s edge?

If you think that the right to belong to your own people is not natural, then you can’t grasp the truth about what natural unalienable rights are.
The American loyalty of his son, if born in Paris or Holland or London would not have been tainted by any attachment to those nations because he was connected only to his father, and through him to his country.

He would have been American by nature, as was his father who had no foreign blood going back to the Puritans. 100% American, -by blood alone.  98% of the population were natural born citizens but less than 1% were among the group of citizens that were actually electable.

leo derosia said…

“The civil rights act of 1866 is one of many things that blow obots out of the water. Children of aliens are subject to a foreign power so barry would not even have been a citizen and was never a natural born citizen.”

Add to that the military conscription laws of the Civil War which exempted foreigners and their of-age native-born sons from the draft because they were not citizens since they were subject to a foreign power.
It’s conceivable that the language was ambiguous and native-born sons were not excluded, but you wouldn’t know it by how they were worded.

The isolated and insulated members of the high court in 1898 failed to understand what “jurisdiction” involves, and thus misconstrued the 14th Amendment’s requirement for it in order for citizenship to attach to the native-born.
By their re-interpretation of subjection to U.S. jurisdiction, Wong could have been drafted into the Army, but that was unthinkable to the U.S. military and U.S. government because of the Civil War conscription laws which codified U.S. policy towards aliens and the alien-born.

“...a child upon birth follows the condition of his or her parents.”   YOU ARE CORRECT SIR! Stick with that! The “condition” refers to the social and nationality status. Nothing else.

If babies do not have, as you advocate, any persona which enables them to have allegiance, loyalty, and faith to the nation…

-Now I know you do not have any children and never did. No father would ever write words so detached from reality.

“Do you think that being born in England was not a big deal?”

If you were born in England then you were an Englishman protected by English rights.

Americans were not Englishmen and had no natural right to those protections since they were not a part of the nation. They were living on the personal foreign property of the Crown.
All rights were apart from the rights of Englishmen except as given by charter. THAT’S WHY THEY HAD CHARTERS!

Like the rights of Puerto Ricans or Guamians or American Samoans. Their islands are not integral elements of the union of the STATES. They are foreign territories. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to them on their own soil except by extra-constitutional means. AN

Mario continued: “does that not sound a lot like Congress’s naturalization acts in which it gave rights and protections…under the Constitution to children born out of the U.S. as though they were born in the U.S.?”

No, it sounds nothing like that. Charters were for all generations to follow, -not for presently living Englishmen who were visiting America with their wife gave birth there. They and their child were under the protection of English law as free Englishmen. Their rights had nothing to do with the American native’s charter rights as non-Englishmen.

As for foreign-born Americans, Congress gave them nothing but the recognition of their natural citizenship, and by extension, their presidential eligibility.

In what dream world do you find in the Constitution any authority for Congress to grant to American fathers the natural right to pass on their nationality to their natural children?  Show it or retract your false and unconstitutional claim.

As I’ve repeated shared, the ONLY REASON Congress mentioned such children was to PROTECT their natural right to “follow the condition of his or her parents” from people with your unAmerican, monarchical view.
There were plenty like you at the time of the founding because they had been indoctrinated all of their lives in the Kings system of human ownership based on birthplace.

The principles of the Revolution went right over their heads, as it seems they have with yours as well.

You enemies hold the same view. They are cheering you on with the native-birth fantasy because it is the very foundation of their fantasy.

Until you focus solely on parentage, you are doing them a favor.   ~   ~   ~

Mario likes to have it both ways.

He valiantly defends (against the obot attack) the truth that fathers were viewed as the source of their children’s national membership, and yet he adulterates that accurate message with the added fantasy factor of a requisite native-birth, thereby combining Natural Rights with the old policy of Royal Rights.

The question is; “How and by what does a father’s natural right to convey his national membership to his progeny get terminated?

The neo-nativist doctrine declares that his natural right gets cancelled as soon as his pregnant wife crosses the border and gives birth on soil other than holy AMERICAN SOIL.

So then the question is “Cancelled? Cancelled by what, or who, or how????”

He can’t explain to us how a father’s unalienable natural right gets cancelled merely by his wife giving birth across some imaginary invisible boundary?

He can’t point out where in the Constitution the People of the United States agreed to surrender their God-given natural right to Almighty Government.

I wouldn’t help to refer to “American common law” being as there were actually 13 separate sovereign countries in America. Hard to show they all were in lock-step and not independent, especially in regard to a term that didn’t even have a need to exist except in regard to the Command in Chief position.

Aside from it, just simply CITIZEN would suffice for everything.

Mario said: “In any event, it does not matter where John Quincy was born, for regardless of the place of his birth, he was a citizen and grandfathered to be eligible to be President”

That is an utterly disingenuous response. The point was the principle of natural rights and nationality by blood. It absolutely matters what the principle is of denying a foreign-born John Quincy the natural status of a natural citizen, regardless of when he was born.

What is the natural principle that denies him that Right?   None.

“…[as son of] an American ambassador, he would have been reputed born in the United States.”

That is some wonderful royal horse manure. “Reputed”? Is that an American concept or hatched out of the back-side of royalist sycophants? IT IS ROYAL CRAP!

It follows natural law but by ignorant human misconception.

Foreigners (ambassadors and tourists and guests) with no attachment to a land that is not theirs are not subject to the government that is not theirs. Their subjection is tied to their homeland, not to a foreign power.  So,.. it would not matter whether or not his father was an ambassador. Only whether of not he was a permanently domiciled immigrant or not.

American Ambassadors, like tourists and guests, are not foreign immigrants when abroad, and that is why their children are not foreigners, just as Obama’s father was a guest (and not an immigrant) and his son therefore was not an American.

Mario wrote: “In any event, it does not matter where John Quincy was born, for regardless of the place of his birth, he was a citizen and grandfathered to be eligible to be President”

Since I failed to spell it out, Mario assumed a single hypothetical, but I’m postulating a double one.
Adams returned to America in 1788 but the Wikipedia source doesn’t say which month. So suppose it was after June of that year, or even the next year, and even following the ending of his Ambassadorship.

The Constitution had been ratified so John Quinsy, being born in England after the month of June would not have been eligible to be President according to the nativist doctrine, and worse, would not even have been an American by birth.

So someone needs to explain why that scenario is irrelevant to real American values and principles. A man who was the United States President, son of a President, whose only ancestors were Americans going all of the way back to the Puritans, should be labeled as being… a foreign born natural alien?  Or if a citizen, not a natural citizen by birth?

Exactly what category are you shoving him into and why? Is it some legal category and not the one and only natural born category?

How could it be a legal category since there was no naturalization law yet? There was no central government yet either.

How would he not have been a natural son of Massachusetts by birth?
-not by birth-location, not by dirt, not by borders, but by the blood conveyance of those who gave birth to him?
How would the month of his birth make him an alien in need of the statutory blessing and allowance of almighty government simply to be what he was born being by natural & Vattelian principles by which the son takes after the father and inherits ALL of his RIGHTS and privileges?

That inexplicable scenario reveals a big fat flaw in the Matrix of your imaginary nativist citizenship theory.
The Matrix wasn’t real, and neither is the elaborate one that you’ve competently constructed. You have managed to convince everyone that it is real, but some know otherwise.

Adams made his now famous quote regarding making decisions based on the evidence: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Sometimes you “know” something that is false even though you can’t see how it could possibly be false.

~I know that can happen because it happens sometimes when my computer’s spell checker underlines a word in red as misspelled. Several times I’ve looked, and looked and looked again as I “knew” the word was spelled correctly because I knew exactly how to spell it.
Well, after giving up and clicking to display alternate possibilities, I’d see one at the top of the list that looked identical to the one I’d typed. I compared them very carefully and could see no difference, but when I finally clicked on it, suddenly a missing letter appeared, -one my mind had seen but my eyes had not since it was not there.

People’s minds are seeing presidential eligibility where it does not exist.  It’s highly questionable as to whether or not they ever will.  The truth can be known but there is no respected teacher to disseminate it, -and equally bad, there is no interest nor curiosity to know it.

 

Obama’s ‘Voter ID’ Scam is Busted!

Feb. 25, 2014
by Wayne Allyn Root

Folks, we are being scammed. Democrats are winning elections through what appears to be massive voter fraud.

There is a saying, “He with the gold rules.” Well, whoever wins elections has the gold. The winner has the power to change everything – so they rule. It doesn’t matter if the win was by a small margin, or if the win was by committing fraud. Winning is everything.

Many citizens may not realize most national elections are won by a sliver of votes in only a few, key battleground states. Change the vote totals by a small bit in a few states and Mitt Romney is the president: Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania.

Why did Obama and Democrats win by just a sliver in those few battleground states? In 2012 it was a powerful one-two punch, both of which I believe were out and out voter fraud.

First, Obama used the IRS as his personal mafia thug enforcers to persecute, intimidate and destroy his political opposition – ranging from Tea Parties, to conservative fundraising organizations, to top GOP donors, to high-profile outspoken critics in the media (like myself).

This widespread Obama-IRS conspiracy killed enthusiasm and intensity, dampened energy, silenced free speech and prevented fundraising through an IRS witch-hunt. This changed the outcome of the 2012 election and Obama should be impeached for it.

If you think impeachment can’t happen, study Ukraine. One day the president is mocking protestors and sending police to kill them. The next day he is abandoning his palace, impeached by Congress, and the military is hugging the citizens in the streets. It all changes quickly.

But still, I believe the IRS scandal is the smaller problem. Impeach Obama and no president will use the IRS for political purposes ever again. Problem solved.

The more widespread problem involves Voter Identification – or the lack of it. Without Voter ID, Democrat voters across this country could be voting four times, five times, 10 times each. There is no way to prevent it and the facts indicate that is exactly what happened.

FILE – In this Sept. 26, 2012 file photo People pass the signs telling of the requirement for voters to show an acceptable photo ID to vote as they head into the the Penndot Drivers License Center in Butler, Pa. Some political momentum could be on the line in a judge s forthcoming ruling on Pennsylvania’s tough new voter identification law. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson is expected to rule Tuesday. That s just five weeks before voters decide whether to re-elect President Barack Obama, a Democrat, or replace him with Mitt Romney, a Republican.Credit: AP

Take Philadelphia as just one example. There were voting precincts in Philly where the combined vote was Obama over Romney by about 30,000 to 0. In those precincts GOP poll watchers were forcibly removed for several hours, until judges ordered them back in. During those hours were the ballot boxes stuffed? Did Democrat voters vote 10 times each? As absurd as 30,000 to 0 is (it’s just statistically impossible), maybe the right vote total was 6,000 to 0.

If I’m wrong, why did the wolves want the chicken coup left unguarded?

Democrats hate Voter ID. It’s one of their biggest issues. But that’s ridiculous. Voter ID is a no-brainer. You need an ID to do most anything: cash a check, buy cigarettes or alcohol, get food stamps, or get any government benefits. You even need ID to get into government buildings!

So why are Democrats so intense and passionate about such a minor issue? Me thinks thou protesteth too much. This is a much bigger issue than meets the naked eye. Democrats are losing their minds over Voter ID because they know they can’t win elections without fraud.

Obama and his socialist cabal are making “a mountain out of a molehill” because this is their edge. This is how they win elections when their policies are a failure; when they’ve ruined the economy; when they’ve spent the country into bankruptcy; when they’ve killed millions of jobs. Voter ID is their secret weapon. They stuff the ballot box. They cheat.
Voter apathy, combined with voter fraud, threaten to undermine the democratic process.

I dare Democrats to prove me wrong. But of course they can’t, because without Voter ID, there is no way to prove voters are voting multiple times, in different precincts, using false names, or the names of dead voters, or the names of voters who have moved, or using illegal immigrants to illegally vote across this country.

But there is proof positive Voter ID is a scam. The Obama-Democratic Party argument against Voter ID because:

A) It’s racist…

B) It’s meant to stop people from voting…

C) It’s too big a burden for poor and minority voters to obtain ID.

I just returned from two doctor visits for a checkup and a follow-up test. These were my first doctor visits since Obamacare took effect. Guess what both medical offices asked me for before any doctor could see me, or any medical test could be done?

You cannot see a doctor, or receive your free Obamacare without ID to prove it’s really you. A health insurance card won’t do the trick, simply because the medical office needs to prove you are in fact the person whose name is on the insurance card.

I questioned the nurses at both offices. They verified no one can collect their “free” Obamacare services from any doctor without showing ID. And since everyone is now required to have health insurance (or is given free insurance), the government is requiring that EVERYONE have a photo ID.

Does that make Obama and the Democrats racists? No, what it makes them is hypocrites who are in total fear of fair elections that they know they have no chance of winning – no chance, that is, unless they cheat. Don’t look now but Obamacare just opened the door for Voter ID.

This is where the younger generation screams, “BUSTED!”

Let’s take the hypocrisy a step further. Every single Democrat voter must be lining up to get their photo ID so they can get their free Obamacare. So the argument that poor and minority Democrat voters don’t have ID, or shouldn’t be “burdened” to get it, is out the window.

I think this is where the younger generation screams, “DOUBLE BUSTED.”

That leaves only one possible reason to oppose Photo ID for voters…the ability to cheat!  The whole Voter ID scam is dead in the water- just like the Obama economy. The argument against Voter ID is killed- just like jobs in this Obama economy. And anyone who tries to argue “most voters don’t have ID” is a liar- just like the president who said, “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”

Obama you are BUSTED.

Wayne’s latest book is: The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide: How to Survive, Thrive, and Prosper During Obamageddon. It hit #1 in bookstores, and is currently the 6th bestselling political hardcover in America for the past year. Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, appearing on over 5000 interviews in the past 5 years. Wayne’s web site: ROOTforAmerica.com.
~~~~~
KennyDee
Feb. 25, 2014

Ya think? Only an idiot or someone who likes the idea of voter fraud is against requiring an ID to vote. Without the ability to verify one person votes one time…elections are useless.

Why would someone so un-civic minded suddenly decide to vote? You have to be completely unplugged from society to have no valid ID. Normal citizens have to have an ID to function in life. Cash a check, register with any government for virtually anything…most people active in civil life use a bank at some point for something…it is federal law than bank transactions be recorded with a valid ID, it’s even part of anti-terrorism legislation.

If a person is so completely disconnected from civilization that they have no valid form of ID tied to something like a social security number or a valid visa or immigration document, why would they suddenly have an interest in voting? They don’t participate in anything else of significance in the structure of the community, but somehow they are so civic-minded that they MUST vote?

Anyone that argues against identifying the voting electorate is an idiot, or is part of the fraud. Simple as that. See them in that light. Have zero tolerance for these people

TomHagen
Feb. 25, 2014
I loved how it shows how delusional this guy is. I also see he took a page right out of Glenn’s playbook. He asks his critics to prove him wrong. Of course, he includes no actual proof of voter fraud, he simply uses conjecture and cites to BLOG POSTS as his evidence that it occurred.

I have a challenge for you, Mr. Root, prove to me you’re not gay. Otherwise, we’ll have no option other than to assume you are. If you can’t prove you are not, you obviously are, that’s how logic works, right?

yohannbiimu
Feb. 25, 2014

I liked it too, but it is pointless to argue the need for fair and honest elections to combat election fraud, if you have the proof of it, and you do not protest and contest the election with that proof. The GOP complained about “fraud,” but they didn’t do ANYTHING ABOUT IT. They could have presented this stuff judicially, and given all of the facts of Democrat criminality to flood votes for Obama as the proven reason why IDs are NEEDED in elections, and they totally DROPPED THE BALL.

We can express this need for IDs, but the Democrats can simply say that “voter fraud isn’t a problem.” They ALL say it, and apparently they are RIGHT. If it were, then the GOP would have made a case against it, and they simply pouted and sat on their stinking hands.

RaydocX
This, sadly,ins preaching to the choir.
Get it on Fox. On Michael and Kelly. On john Stewart’s show.
Get it in op eds across the nation.

It’s the truth, but unless there is penetration to the welfare plantation, the low info voter won’t ever think about the double standard.

Get it on the college campuses!

Show the young both obama’s goal to redistribute THEIR income, and his patent lie, and then you might get to Ukraine style correction here.

gruntjust4u
AGREE! Plus they must have some form of ID to collect their welfare and food-stamps right? ID’s should be the final say in whether a person can vote or not as well as a copy of a utility bill proving where they live!!!!

term limits for congress Feb. 25, 2014

No big deal. Yes, they know they’re busted. Next tricks….

EARLY VOTING and ABSENTEE VOTING. Dead people and people in nursing homes who don’t know their own name are regular voters. Wonder what happens when they get called for jury duty? Nothing. You’d think that if your excuse for dodging jury duty is that you’re dead or you don’t know your name that it should trigger a purge of the voting rolls. Nope.

desertspeaks Feb. 25, 2014

what has voting done for us? it has put us at odds with politicians, they lie and lie about lying then lie some more!
we keep voting but it changes NOTHING! fraud is rampant and anyone who says different, is delusional! these people that get elected “by whatever means” do NOT represent we the people, they stopped representing us long ago.. they represent corporations. Oh sure they give us lip service but only to further their next election..
why are almost all federally elected politicians millionaires ??
How many times do they need to lie to you until you finally get it?? they don’t give a crap about us, it’s all about them and the status quo!
they have outright refused to pass legislation for term limits, why? duhhh
voting gets us no where with a government that doesn’t care what you say or think!
our system is broken beyond repair, it is worse than useless!

Inform  Feb. 25, 2014

There are three laws that should be passed to ensure election integrity in this country and one of them is showing ID.. Who stands to benefit the most from voter fraud – not surprisingly the ones most against it: Democrats. Read more:

http://www.youargue.com/66bz14fb25-three-elections-proposals.html

RadicalforCapitalism
It’s an easy argument to win. Why can’t Conservatives and Republicans DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

I’ll tell you why. Because the left AND the GOProgressives are in on it. And because Conservatives are a wimpy lot.

It’s yet another in-your-face scam that benefits the Communists (Progressives) and is tolerated by the American people.

So, if you’re a Communist (Progressive), why wouldn’t you be against voter ID? It’s the path of least resistance for them–the easy choice.

AmericanByChoiceandProudOfIt
It’s so obvious that Mega-Fraud is the only reason Obama is president right now!

When all of the Dems where screaming that Bush cheated in 2000 in order to win I knew that from now on they will cheat in a massive way to the point that I am considering not even bothering to go vote again since my vote doesn’t count for sheet anyway.

Mitt Romney was outright robbed, but what they do is pick a few small fish each time and prosecute them and then claim that there is no wide spread voting fraud and / or no evidence of it so why do we need voter I.D.?

HarleyDaveATL Feb. 25, 2014

What? Democrats will lie, cheat, steal to get what they want and to stay in power? “I don’t believe that, when did all this start happening” said no one in the world, ever. The left can’t survive any other way. They aren’t winning “hearts and minds” or changing people over to their way of thinking. That’s why they need amnesty. 30+ million new voters.

Publius Duo Feb. 25, 2014
I posted it before and will again. The libs argue that voter ID disproportionately disenfranchises minorities why? Because they are more of the composite of the poor. Based on the Fed. Gov’s. own census report that is categorically false.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

Judge for yourself.

American Pride Feb. 25, 2014

The scam in Florida stemmed from the Census. Once all the spanish and black people were located, mysterious absentee voter packages were sent to these people with the paperwork already filled out. They just had to sign a name and *bam*…one absentee vote.

mikeinchicagoarea
I think there are somethings just as important, if not more so, as medical care, to low income voters that require an ID.
To get a SNAP (food stamps) card, you need an ID.
To buy liquor and tobacco products you need an ID.

Cruelnunusual
I agree. Watching our elections get stolen by lying, commie Democrats is infuriating. And the lying, liberal media pretends it is intimidation to prove who is voting. Unbelievable. There’s no way to be certain, but it appears that Obama wasn’t even reelected! THIS is our country, now?!

yohannbiimu
Feb. 25, 2014

Here is what I do not understand: IF there was such massive voter fraud involved in 2012, then why wasn’t the election contested? Why didn’t the GOP cry “foul,” and protest the whole matter? The fact that they didn’t makes moot any point of how “statistically impossible” voting ratios were, and it destroys any argument that fraud occurred in the first place. IF we’re going to have fair elections with IDs, then making voter fraud a FACT had to happen, and the GOP totally dropped the ball.

Publius Duo
Feb. 25, 2014

“You cite “apparent” examples, though none have been prosecuted”. ????????
Here just one article for Ohio alone. Check other states, I’m sure there are plenty more. Do your research before you troll.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/17/cincinnati-illegal-voting/2530119/

Since you libs like to cite polls, specially Pew. Here’s another for you.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-10/pew-study-inaccurate-voter-registration-rolls/53083406/1

yohannbiimu
Even if there isn’t “massive voter fraud,” or even no voter fraud AT ALL, voter IDs make total sense, Democrat arguments against them are idiotic, and their pathetic protests only give rise to suspicion of fraud in the first place.

PrepperHam
It’s all BS! Change EBT cards to include a photo and any other required personal information, and then use the EBT card as a voter ID. I doubt very much that most of the democratic voters would be able to complain they were being burdened since they have no issue with receiving free money, via EBT cards, from hard working taxpayers.

Willing2fight Feb. 25, 2014

You also can not board a plane with out a government issued ID card. In most cases you can not open a bank account, drive a car, or purchase insurance. I have been saying this for years and am glad someone with a skilled hand and a big mike is saying something.

As for the impeachment issues raised here.. He has a point! It is time for revolution. Its time to stand up and fight to take this country back. Fight fight fight.
I am here and
I am Willing2Fight

dnewton
A Mexican voter ID has a black and white picture, an address, a ten year expiration date, a signature and a finger print. It is also made of heavy duty plastic, not the paper one my county gives me.

TyrantsCallMeTerrorist
No only presenting I.D. but we need paper ballots once again it was nearly impossible to alter voting results without great effort but this electronic ballot system is wide open to voter fraud by a talented hacker as has been proven by a group who posted their video on youtube.

We need a paper trail so the American people can have some confidence in their voting system again!

Ruminant2
I’ve lived in my rural Ohio home for 19 years. In 2012 we started receiving notification cards with instructions where to vote for total strangers who do not live with us but were giving our address as their address so they can vote in Ohio. We brought them to our Board of Elections and asked them to investigate the fraud. Trust me, voter fraud is RAMPANT. They’ve decided to go under the radar in rural communities with few investigatory resources rather than risk being found out in the cities. Once our confidence in elections is gone – so is our country.

conservative4us
Feb. 25, 2014

Voter fraud is a VERY difficult crime to prosecute. Note I didn’t say prove. I think there is a lot of evidence that backs up my contention, but being able to prove it to a jury is where it becomes difficult. The people on the inside of the system are able to cover their tracks to point where evidence is tainted by the time it gets to court. That is why we don’t have a lot of cases making it to conviction and sentencing. Simple as that.

The whole system is full of so many holes that it’s frankly nearly wide open to fraud. It just takes a little effort by the cheats to exploit them. And that is just what they do.

The sheer fact that a Soros owned company counts the votes is in itself suspect.

Bearway64
Feb. 25, 2014
I wonder what WE can DO?

Where I live, we’ve had vacant lots listed as addresses, interviewed the folks who voted, determined them to be illegally voting, some multiple times, yet nobody goes to jail.

Unless we get a strong, nationwide system of voter ID, we have willingly given our Nation away.

It has been proven over and over that there are illegal votes, corrupt polling staff, even reports of buses bringing union thugs in from out of state to vote, and what…. Nothing is done.

RodT82721
Feb. 25, 2014

The reason the left can deny the existence of voter fraud, is their control of the DoJ, that controls the enforcement of the voter laws. If no one is ever found guilty of voter fraud, then according to those tasked with spinning on the cable news debates, it just doesn’t exist. To prove voter fraud, intent has to be proven. Ignorance is an excuse.

The left ignored the exposing of their ACORN voter fraud arm, right up until it was exposed by under cover videos. Then they simply changed the name. Now the old ACORN troops have moved over to Obamacare Navigators, and voter registration activist for the DNC.

The supposed heavy of burden of their low information voters being required to obtain a photo ID, has to be taken as fact, without any proof.
It really doesn’t cost much to obtain a free photo ID, but the cries of racist keep then in the voter fraud game, while Congress hides under their desks.

mtsnj
Feb. 25, 2014

Voter fraud works both ways. My daughter is registered in NJ, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. The problem arises when you register in any state to vote and then move out, you do not get miraculously unregistered. If you want a cleanish election..Voter ID is a must.

southerninfidel
And one more thing. I contend that you can do more damage to this country and the individuals within it with a VOTE than you can with a gun (the election of BO proves that). And I have to have a PHOTO ID to buy and Conceal Carry a gun – but not to vote?

We should add an intelligence test to the requirements you have to vote. Most of these BO voters don’t even know who the VP is, have no idea how many states are in the union, and think the sun orbits the earth. And they are somehow qualified to deicde if this country should be Capitalist or Communist? Our leaders are mental midgets.

TheEndIsInevitable

Come on.. really? This is new info for people?

I knew the democrats were frauds before I got out of high-school decades ago. They are the worlds foremost authority on vote rigging. You could tell how easily digital voting machines could be manipulated just by how much the democrats were salivating over the implementation of the devices years ago.

Fraud is why we’ll never have another republican president without an all out civil war.

Why No Visa-card Alien’s Child Can Be President

or How Foreign Women Prove Obama Is Not An American Citizen

Do you believe that you understand what citizenship is? You probably do. But do you understand what the nature of American citizenship is? You definitely do not.
It is knowledge that has been entirely lost, and can’t be found in anything written in the last century. Even worse, it can hardly be found in anything written in the century before. But it is easily regained and understood simply by connecting dissimilar facts which together create a puzzle picture which reveals the truth. Let’s exam the picture that emerges when those pieces are assembled together.

For two centuries, American women, like indentured servants, were not citizens of the colonies nor the states nor the nation.
Whenever the subject of citizenship might have been raised in mixed American company, no man would have said so but they all would have thought that their womenfolk were not really citizens. They would not have said so because they felt the need to be polite, diplomatic, and avoid the ire of womenfolk whose good graces they desired to be in.

What man who desired his his mother’s approval, or his wife’s good cooking, obedience, and good sex would have uttered the truth in front of her; “women aren’t really citizens at all; they’re merely American subjects.”?
That’s the reality of the situation that couldn’t be spoken. It reminds me of something Greg Guttfeld said about marriage. He said that no one has ever written an honest book about what marriage actually turns out to be and is like by comparison to the notions in single people’s head before they’ve ever been married, -and… that no one ever will have the audacity to write one.

So there it is; the citizenship of American women, as well as children, was strictly a pretense of politeness maintained so as to not ruffle their feathers by making them seem unequal to men.
American principles rejected the existence of more than one class of citizens because they rejected one class being superior over others, and the rest being inferior -as was not the case in Europe with its despicable noble and aristocrat classes.
That fundamental American fact tells you that the women of America were not a lesser class of CITIZEN but were not actually citizens at all.
They were not inferior nor second-class because they were not in the class described by the title “CITIZEN”.
They were in a protected and subservient class apart from citizens, -leaving only the label “American National” to accurately and respectfully describe them.
The inhabitants of Puerto Rico and Guam, -as well as Native Americans, were once American Nationals. That status did not give them the rights of citizenship but gave them membership in the nation.
Now they, like women, are citizens also, but American Samoans and Virgin Islanders are not, -as is stated on their passports. They are American Nationals only.
That historical reality sheds strong indirect light on the very nature of citizenship itself. The direct light is that shed on citizenship via naturalization.
Only when you understand the reality of the mind-set of the past will you understand the truth about naturalization. It is this; since in reality, American women were not real American citizens, foreign women could not be American citizens either, -meaning they could not volunteer for the process of naturalization because it was restricted solely to those who could become CITIZENS, -not merely American nationals, -and only men could become citizens. Consequently only European men could submit to naturalization.

What did and does naturalization still require? Besides the renunciation of all foreign allegiance, it requires that one solemnly swear to BEAR ARMS, to BEAR TRUE FAITH & ALLEGIANCE to America and her Constitution.
How does one “bear true faith” towards a country? Only one way; by being true to the orders that one is given, -showing that true faith to one’s allegiance by showing full obedience in battle as the bullets are ripping into one’s companions and fellow CITIZENS (all of whom are male only). That is the obedience that is requisite to citizenship.

That oath is a living reminder of what naturalization actually entailed. In today’s bastardized devolved version of the system of the past, foreign women ridiculously swear to the very same thing by the very same words, with the words now meaning absolutely nothing.
If they actually meant something in any way, then one would have to assert that the United States government asserts the right to conscript women into the combat forces and to send them into battle.

Is there any man alive who is willing to make that assertion on behalf of Congress? Could anyone elected to Congress ever even think about making such subjection of women national law?
That will never happen because it is unthinkable even if the nation “allows” strong, aggressive and ambitious women to serve as combat or medic soldiers and Marines. They will never be made subject to that authority involuntarily because the men of the nation are the guardians of the women and children of the nation. Women are the protected class, not members of the protector class.

So foreign men were the only Europeans who underwent the naturalization process, and through them, as heads of their family unit, their wives and children became Americans automatically; -not by authorization of law, but by operation of American principles, one of which was that nationality was attached and flowed through the family head, the father, unless he were dead.

If the head became something new, then those under him became the same thing because they were of him and by him and possessed the same family blood as one living cohesive unit. Law was not needed to make that so because that was basic American Natural Law philosophy and attitude. But lawmakers felt obligated for the sake of openly protecting those who were not directly naturalized to state on the record that natural fact, -that those attached to him, his children, were also Americans, -although they did fail to include mention of the foreigner’s wife.

Divorce was allowed in America under Biblical law although it was rarely allowed in Britain under the National Anglican Church. Perhaps if a naturalized foreigner’s wife committed adultery, she could not only lose her husband and children, but also her right to be considered an American.

It no doubt was so because her only proof of being an American was through her husband, -by showing her marriage certificate and his naturalization certificate, connecting herself to him and his new citizenship procured her her membership in the American nation. Without those documents, she became a foreigner once again.

But how would that have actually changed anything about her life being lived in America? It would have changed nothing because her fellow American women had no citizenship rights either. They all were subject to the status quo of the patriarchal male-dominated society, -like subjects and not CITIZENS.  In fact you could label them as American subjects, like the Native Americans were a sort of subject, in a way, but not the real common law way because they were not subject to the full sovereign authority of the American government since they retained their own sovereignty.

Their relationship was described as “unknown to the common law”. But the relationship of women was known to the common law since it was one of subjection to the authority of the head of the family, -her father or her husband.
But like American women, like American Indians, like migrant Canadians & Frenchmen, and like American Negroes, foreign women were not subject to the requirement and natural duty of CITIZENSHIP which included the obligation to bear arms for the nation with true faith, and allegiance in battle if ordered.

There was, and is, two other classes of people who also are exempt from that obligation, and they are all foreign ambassadors & representatives, and all foreign guests of the U.S. government.  They cannot be drafted into the American military because they are not subject to American authority over its own. Since 1898 and a Supreme Court opinion in the case of Wong Kim Ark, “its own” includes not only its citizens but also its domiciled immigrants who’ve joined themselves to American society and are under American laws and protection.

Such foreign men, even though not naturalized into citizenship, are subject to the full requirement of the male duty to defend one’s own country even though it is not the nation of one’s subjectship or citizenship. But being as it is in reality one’s actual home, one has an actual duty to defend it.

That was not the view before that court opinion, -the one that declared that by the 14th Amendment, children of immigrants are born with American citizenship. Before that opinion, there was no settled national rule that anyone could point to that determined whether or not alien-born children were citizens of the nation, even though they were accepted as citizens within and by some of the individual states.

So today, foreign men and their foreign-born sons can be drafted, and thus are required to register with the Selective Service System between 18 and 25 even though they are not Americans.
That is because they are Americans in the sense that they are members of American society, even though not citizens, just as American women were also members of their own society but were not citizens in any real sense.

Another group are also not Americans in any real sense and they are foreign guests. They are those visiting America or serving their government in America on a temporary basis. Such foreign guests bear a Visa Card or diplomatic credentials while foreign immigrants bear a Green Card and are permanent-resident members of the country without being citizens.

A Visa-bearing foreign man might produce a child while within American borders but through the child’s head, its father, it is not subject to the duty that he is not subject to either, which is American military service. His child is exempt because it is subject to its father’s nation, -the one where he lives and has his home. He belongs for his father’s society and may be raised there as soon as his visit to America ends.

Such a foreign father was one Barack Obama from Kenya; foreign student. He fathered a son who was subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948 but who was not subject to American sovereign authority over American citizens and immigrants.
Neither the father nor the son at birth were under any obligation to serve a nation that was not theirs and was not their home. In time the son became obligated because Kenya did not become his home, -Hawaii did and it was an American state when he was born.

Did he register with Selective Service at 18 years of age? No, he did not. He did not feel obligated to do so since he was only partly American, -but also Kenyan, and Indonesian by adoption.

But when he was born, by the 14th Amendment and its true meaning of what being subject to the United States was when the amendment was written, -or even by what it meant under the illegitimate expansion of its meaning to include immigrants by the Supreme Court in 1898, Barack Jr. was not born possessing 14th Amendment citizenship because his father was not an American nor an immigrant but merely a foreign guest.

And as far as anyone knows, his status has never changed, although he may have gone through the naturalization process, -unbeknown to everyone since it would remove all ignorant doubt that he was not born as an American citizen, and as such could not possibly be considered to be a “natural born citizen” as the Constitution requires of all Presidents and Vice-Presidents.

Why No Visa-card Alien’s Child Can Be President  pdf 3 page

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com

The Damnable Doctrine of Nativist Citizenship

In the view of Americans who honor the Constitution, Barack Obama is an on-going violation of its presidential eligibility restriction which bars all who are not natural born citizens, but while together in recognizing Obama’s ineligibility, they are not together in recognizing what a natural born citizen actually is.
Natural citizens result from birth to citizens; new Americans result from birth to Americans without regard to any Earth coordinates or political boundaries, -just as new family members result from birth to married parents without any regard for whether or not they were born in the home that the parents own, or born in a place that others own.

The place and time and duration and difficulty of birth are all irrelevant factors in the immutable right of the mother and father to own their own child. Owning one’s own is a Natural Right, -a right of nature by a law of nature; -the law of natural membership. That is derived from the fact of how nature, -including human nature, is intrinsically wired.
The right to own what is ours is as elemental to the nature of sentient beings as the physiological demand for air is to the nature of the lungs.
No one has a right to take from us that which is rightfully ours, whether it be our things, our children, or our lives.
Our innate sense of that right is not something that is acculturated into us. Rather, it is an element of our primal nature. It does not spring from the granted permission of government or laws. It springs from the core structure of our being.

So we humans innately recognize our right to own what is ours, while governments work to erode that right by making laws and regulations which take that which is ours from us. But that’s another subject.
Just as families have the right to belong to each other, to own what they produce, including their children, so also, countries are cast in the same mold and have a similar right to own what is rightfully theirs.

The ruler of Russia recently demonstrated that in the clearest manner possible by annexing the Crimean peninsula away from the Ukraine and into Russia, based on its right to own the Russian people of Crimea. Russian people belong to mother Russia which is their national homeland and family. Its all based on natural rights although in violation of another nation’s sovereignty.

Sovereignty is based on natural rights also, the same natural right of ownership of one’s own territory, but a right based solely on artificial man-made borders is naturally trumped by a right based on blood, -which is not man-made but is elemental. That is why Germany was allowed to annex territory of its neighbors by the counter-powers of Europe without them feeling a need to go to war.

War only came when Germany invaded and conquered lands that were not occupied by ethnic Germans. That was a violation of the natural rights of the people and governments of unrelated lands. What right did Germany have to steal that which it had no right to own? None. And so war was declared against the aggressor.

The connection to citizenship is that nations, like parents, have a right to include their own within the national family, and that right is also based on blood, -as it has always been except in the history of imperial, colonial powers which based national membership also on the related factor of the location where the new blood-relative happened to enter the world. The place of the birth event.

The event of transition from womb to world is a very brief event when measured by the span of one’s life. In the life of one of 80 years, it could be viewed as a single, initial hour in a span of 175,000 hours, or equated to one foot in a span of about 133 miles. If one could erase that first hour or foot of their life, it would not change in any significant way other than by man-made rules regulating one’s life-long national membership; -rules focused on where that initial event happened to transpire.

Such rules, customs, or policies have only that one brief event in common with the natural right by which one belongs to their own family and country, and yet in the minds of some, it must follow them all the days of their life as an on-going determinative factor in what country they belong to. I don’t say to which country they “naturally” belong to because the location of that event is unrelated to nature, -but altogether connected to and elevated by arbitrary human law left over from an imperial, colonial mandate.
So we see that by nature, families have a right to own their own, and countries and nations do as well. Families have natural members and nations have natural members. In families they are known as “my natural child”. In nations they are known as “our natural citizens”. In both cases they are what they are because they were born that way; a born natural child or a born natural citizen, aka; a natural born child and a natural born citizen.

But in the Matrix of the neo-nativist doctrine of citizenship, the reality of natural citizens is replaced by “naturalborncitizens” or “natural-born citizens” which is viewed as a unitary legal term of artifice not defined by a natural principle as something elemental, but by an artificial, contrived combination of the natural and the man-made resulting in an unnatural compound or amalgamation that unites by human fiat the two factors related to birth; namely where it occurred and to whom it occurred.

But the Matrix of that citizenship doctrine has a built-in conceptual flaw, an internal contradiction which reveals its artificial nature to any person with an unindoctrinated mind. That contradiction is revealed by the word “natural” and its proper meaning and use.
“Natural” does not include an assumed added element of adulteration by an unnatural substance. If your child has a pet white rat and you buy it some natural food to eat, you do not include in your concept of what natural food is the addition of .01 warfarin (the powerful blood thinner). If something so unnatural is added, then the food is no long 100% natural food but is instead poison that will kill the poor creature.

So it is with the addition of the factor of place-of-birth to one’s natural right to belong, and a nation’s right to embrace their own. Nations, like Germany and Russia, disregard where their ethnic own might have been born and focus entirely on the issue of “to whom” they were born.
That is pure natural law with no adulteration by adding the factor of human recognition of the transient birth event’s location. No added factor is relevant to nature, -not on the family level nor on the national level.
Requiring the addition of the factor of birth location is equivalent to requiring that every child be accompanied for life by the placenta of its birth.

The placenta was a factor of birth, just like birth location, -actually far more so since life couldn’t exist without it, -which can’t be said about soil or borders.
One could be born in or on the ocean, in the air, on arctic or antarctic ice or in outer space. The location is irrelevant to life and to exit from the womb. So requiring every child to be accompanied through life by its mother’s placenta would be just as much an artificially imposed rule as that of being accompanied by the even more irrelevant-to-nature location where the event transpired. The placenta was connected to birth but is not an on-going element of life, -as natural bonds are; -the bonds of natural belonging which follow one throughout their life.

A similar comparison would be like parents requiring their children to eat not just the nut or the peanut inside its shell, but to eat the shell as well. The shell came with it but it is not an element of life. The life is in the nut, not the shell. The shell becomes irrelevant as soon as the nut emerges from it, just like the placenta or the place of birth are irrelevant to the life that comes into the world due to the event of birth.

And yet the neo-nativists insist that government and the citizens of the nation must be bound by a rule that the shell must be eaten along with the nut, -they must both be taken together, -the shell must accompany the nut since they have a connection, -regardless of how irrelevant that connection is.

Just ask yourself; “how relevant is birth location to the parents of the royal heir to the throne?”

If the newborn heir was delivered from the womb on foreign soil, would that make him a foreigner and unqualified to be king one day? Of course not?
Well if your child is born heir to the treasure of your American nationality, then why should it be viewed as an alien if its mother didn’t happen to be located on her own country’s soil when the blessed event happened to happen?

Would that make the factor of her blood connection to her own child irrelevant?

If her child belongs to her and its father, and they belong to their country, how could the child belong to them but not to their country as well?

How is their child’s national connection and status any different from the royal heir?

Blood is blood and natural belonging trumps everything else, including man-made borders. Borders aren’t God, borders aren’t nature, borders aren’t natural.

How can they be attached, like a Siamese twin, to the natural factor of natural belonging?
These questions lead to the conundrum of the neo-nativists’ inherent logic error, -the contradiction in their Matrix, and it is seen in the concept of natural rights. As you are probably aware, natural rights are not issued by government but are part of how sentient social creatures are constituted.

We have an innate sense of what our natural rights are, -our nature tells us, -and we know that no one else was created superior to us and endowed with some authority to determine our rights for us.
In other words, there is no element of human-granted privilege as an added factor in what our natural rights are. They are solely 100% natural, (or God-given) and zero percent law-given.
We can see the nature of natural rights, and that nature is identical to the nature of natural membership.

No human-granted element is a part of it. And yet the nativist doctrine asserts that the human-added element of birth location must be added to natural membership or else natural membership can’t exist without it, -or doesn’t exist without it because it is not recognized.
The problem with that is that it is recognized, universally, in every country on Earth. The children of a nation’s citizens are citizens also via blood connection, regardless of birth location. It is written into the laws and constitutions of nations,-not as a stated principle but as a consequent fact.

But those who are indoctrinated with the nativist doctrine of blood-plus-borders are forced to take the position that natural membership doesn’t exist. Only contrived membership can exist, -contrived via the combination of the natural factor with the artificial factor of recognition of man-made borders.

If natural membership exists without the added factor of birth location, then contrived membership is not needed.
If the elemental is sufficient, then the supplemental is superfluous.

In their fantasy doctrine, both are necessary to create what they define as a “natural born citizen”, (quotation marks mandatory) -which is a status that exists in a world without any natural citizens.
They view the common language words “natural born citizen” like some sort of proprietary trademark enshrined in the Constitution and defined by a philosophy of citizenship which pre-dated it but which can’t be found anywhere in any writing.

They claim it is found (but by misconstruence) in the writings of Emmerich de Vattel (The Law of Nations, 1758) but he explicitly stated that the nationality of the child naturally follows that of the father (since he is/was the natural head and defender and provider of the family, along with the owner of both his own children and his wife -who “gave herself” to him in holy matrimony, -accepting his headship under God and vowing obedience upon taking his name for the rest of her life).

If you remove the false foundation of their miscontruence of what Vattel wrote, then their doctrine is left adrift with no basis in anything. That is because the supposed constitutional authority of their (false) interpretation of Vattel’s writing, -an authority which they claim comes via the Supreme Court mentioning* Vattel’s observation that “the natives (or natural born citizens) of a country are the children born in it of parents that are citizens” evaporates when it is seen to not mean what they claim it means. *(Minor v Happersett)
Their whole doctrine hinges on the false assertion that the words “natural born citizen” are a term of legal artifice with a “legal” meaning, and not the simple meaning of what the words themselves convey.

But ask yourself: does this have an assigned, legal meaning: “a natural born heir to the throne”? Or does it simply mean what the words themselves convey, i.e., someone in the line of succession?
Does one need to put those words in quotation marks each time they are written? One does if they have an artificial meaning, like; “a male, first-born son of the monarch, or his heir, -who was born within the royal palace to a mother of royal blood and fathered by the King or the Royal Prince”.

That would be a contrived meaning, -a legal “term of art”

Is one who is a natural born citizen defined by a legal term of art, or by simple natural law? That is the central question and that is where their doctrine flounders because it cannot be both. It will be one or it will be the other.

So, can the words be defined without resort to contrivance, -to combination, to amalgamation, to supposed Supreme Court reference or solely to what they meant when they were first penned by John Jay, (president of the Continental Congress).

He suggested in a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention) that the position of the Command in Chief not be given to nor devolve on (by succession) any but a natural born citizen.

That was to avoid what was his stated concern; -the inherent foreign influence threat that would spring from that power being given to one with a secret foreign loyalty, -having been born as a foreigner, -or born to a foreigner.

Those two possibilities were apposed to being born of Americans only and having no direct foreign ties, bonds, connections, loyalties, or allegiance.

With that as his stated concern, it becomes an absurdity to embrace either the doctrine of the native-birth-and-nothing-more crowd, or its sister doctrine of native-birth-plus-citizen-parents. Neither addresses his concern because neither exclusively address foreign influence.
Mere domestic birth alone does not work to instill American values and allegiance, nor keep one from being raised indoctrinated with a violent, totalitarian and/ or anti-American ideology, especially if raised in an foreign land with alien values.

That fact has not changed between 1787 and today, but what has changed is the mind-set of American fathers. During and leading up to the Revolution, Americans became very polarized against tyranny and in favor of natural rights, and they knew that American fathers valued liberty, equality and self-governance very highly, and would raise their sons to appreciate the sacrifices made to secure their rights and liberties.

Those ingrained American priorities and values did not vanish from their hearts and minds simply because they needed to spend some amount of time in Europe, or elsewhere, -for college, business, or representation of their country.

They were Americans wherever they went, and the locals all knew it, -knew that they were different, -that they bowed to no king and treated no freeman as their inferior.
Americans whose wives gave birth abroad would never have conceived that they lacked the natural unalienable right to pass their national membership to their sons and daughters, -that under an alien nativist doctrine their children would be labeled ALIENS and not Americans, and would be dependent on the beneficence of some government bureaucrat or rule in order to be viewed as that which they naturally were by birth.

And yet that is exactly what the nativists believe and claim is what the founding fathers accepted and embraced, -with the abrogation of their own natural rights of belonging. Why would sane free people surrender their natural rights to a doctrine of government that would disenfranchise their children based purely on the arbitrary criterion of political borders?
The nativists are forced to assert that Americans born abroad cannot be American citizens except by the permission of the U.S. government. Their natural rights cease to exist past the border’s edge.

Hmmm,.. does their natural duty cease to exist also, or are they required to serve their nation’s self-defense in its hour of need regardless of where they were born?

One’s natural national responsibility does not cease to exist past the nation’s borders but is intrinsic to one’s national membership. But is that national membership a natural thing or a government-given thing determined by birth location? The nativists falsely claim that it is government-given and that without government permission, one is an alien to their own natural country.
They claim that that permission is given in naturalization law which does something that they misinterpret. It states for the record, for the ignorant and misinformed, the natural fact of the citizenship of American children born outside of American sovereign territory.

It states that they are to be recognized as being citizens of the United States (and that is because that is what they naturally are). It protects their natural right to belong, -to belong to the group to which those who created them belong, -their natural group.
That language of declaration and clarification is not remotely connected to language of decree, or mandate, or grant, or assignment, or permission.
It is purely language of protection, -as a government is expected to do for all of the children of its citizens no matter where in the world they are born.

Governments do not make laws to limit or usurp the natural rights of their foreign-born natural citizens but to protect them. But the neo-nativists assert that American natural citizens lose their natural rights as soon as they move past American borders. Then Big Government becomes god over their right to belong to their American parents’ own country.
To illustrate the absurdity of that view, just imagine you are a prospector in the early 1800s. You have migrated far West beyond the borders of the American States and found an area rich in mine-able gold. So you set up camp and establish your living accommodations and begin to dig.
Suddenly beside you appears a U.S. government bureaucrat with his pencil and paper in hand, and announces to you that you have his permission to dig. He will allow it.

Your reaction to the absurdity of his “permission” might be extremely impolite. What right does he have to give you permission that you don’t need and is not his to give?

It’s exactly the same with the natural right of Americans who give birth beyond U.S. borders. The right of the child of natural American citizen parents to be an American also is not a right that Americans ever gave, nor would ever give, to government. But the government has the right and responsibility to protect your “God-given” right to pass your national membership to your children.

If a government bureaucrat appeared where you were mining for gold, his only acceptable role would be nothing other than to proclaim and protect your natural right to dig, (-not to supposedly grant it). That would be a defense of your liberty.

Naturalization acts that state for the record the U.S. citizenship of American children born abroad are a defense of their natural right to be recognized as Americans. They are not statutory exercises of Congressional authority over the natural citizenship of Americans.
That would not only be wrong but would be unconstitutional. That’s because the framers of the Constitution, the founders of the nation, did not give to government any authority over their natural membership in their own country, nor that of their children. They only assigned the new future central government the task of making the 13 separate State rules of naturalization of foreigners uniform across the new nation so the period of required residency was consistent, -and the personal qualifications as well (-all white free men of good character).
So there you have it. Fiction needs to give way to fact. Supposed government permission needs to give way to natural right. Supposed government law needs to give way to natural law. The supposed government-controlled assignment of belonging needs to give way to the right of natural belonging.

The nativist doctrine is in direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. They proclaim that the rights not given to the government by the Constitution are retained by the People. One of the foremost of those rights is the right to belong to your own people and nation. If that right is usurped or surrendered, then we are not free men and women, -and do not own ourselves and ours. We are just cogs in the machine who must operate by its rules and force. Which one do you think you are?

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com

The Damnable Doctrine of Nativist Citizenship   PDF

addendum:

Both Obots & nativist Birthers face multiple conundrums of conflicting

facts.

FACT 1. By the 1866 Civil Rights Act, those born subject to a foreign

power are not citizens.

FACT 2. U.S. born children of foreign ambassadors and foreign guests are

subject to their father’s foreign government, -just as he is.

FACT 3. Those subject to a foreign government are NOT subject to the

U.S. government.

FACT 4. The U.S. military draft laws of the Civil War exempted those

foreigners subject to a foreign power, whether they were immigrants or

their unnaturalized native-born sons.

FACT 5. The U.S. Government did not recognize dual-citizenship nor

dual allegiance. It was akin to bigamy. One could not be responsible for

the defense of two different nations. That is unnatural and was

unacceptable.

FACT 6. American families were unitarian units with a single nationality;

that of the father.

FACT 7. Wherever an American father’s children were born, their

nationality was inherited from him and was none other than the family

nationality.

FACT 8. No U.S. Ambassador, with children born in multiple countries,

had a family of divided nationalities because they all had his nationality.

FACT 9. No American, with children born in other countries, had a family

of divided nationalities because they were all his nationality from the

perspective of the U.S. Government. See Fact 5.

FACT 10. The nationality laws of foreign nations could not confer a

second allegiance or recognized nationality to one born of an American

father. An American by blood was first and last an American, -unless his

father never lived in the United States and was not born there either.

FACT 11. Every other son of every American father was born with a

birthright that held open every office in America to him.

FACT 12. The unalienable right by the American blood of every American

son was the qualification to one day be eligible to serve as President.

Taken as a whole, these facts can’t be refuted nor disputed. They pop

every imaginary eligibility balloon.

neither soil, nor gravity, nor the planet Earth are an element of life and the new life that it produces. Nothing is a part of natural life that is not living.

Soil is not living and has no effect on life. Membership is not an element of matter nor borders but is an element of life. Natural Law is about Natural Life, not natural matter.

Membership is either natural or artificial. It is artificial if conveyed by government. It is natural if conveyed by blood inheritance as an immutable, unalienable Right of Man.

Why can’t you grasp that the Freeman of a liberated America would never, ever, ever, ever have surrendered their Natural Right of belonging to their families and to their people and to their country and to their nation.

That right was reclaimed from the bastardized British system of national membership, -which based it on subjection to the Crown at birth within sovereign British territory.

Americans threw out both parts of that system. They were Americans by choice, by volition, by allegiance to the revolution and the American principles of liberty and Natural Rights.

They never surrendered to the government they created any right for it to tell them if they were or were not citizens of their own state and nation, NOR whether or not their children were either.
They were members by blood inheritance. No one could take that away from them, including the inconvenience of foreign borders.

They were Americans by nature, not by laws.

Time to smash your Golden Calf of US Soil and stop worshiping it. Life trumps law. Blood trumps borders. Natural born trumps native-born. Just ask the Kuwaitis circa the Iraqi invasion.
Natural membership trumps legal membership based on soil. It’s high, high above it.

When you need government permission to be the father of your own children, then the government’s soil will matter. Not until.

nbc is in and of the same family of phrases as “my natural born child”.
What part of that phrase involves borders?
What part of the natural process of life is dependent on borders?
By what law are you NOT your children’s father because of birthplace?
By what law ARE you your children’s father?
None, -for both questions.
The matter is outside of the realm of government law.
Why? Because you have a natural right to be their father since you are their source and mold.

You do not give up that right merely by crossing borders.
And neither does your unborn child. He or she is born with the right to belong to you and to yours, including your whole greater family and whole greater society. That belonging, that membership at the national level is known as citizenship.

The supremacy of natural law guarantees something of immense value, and that is the absolute right of all Americans to have none of their children disenfranchised of their natural right to be equal to all of their siblings and peers and equally eligible to seek the presidency one day.

If you cross over to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls while your wife is just a couple weeks away from delivery, you do not have to worry that the son or daughter for whom you have great hopes, will be forbidden to ever be allowed to rise above Congressmen or Judge.
You are FREE! because of American values of equality and natural membership.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers