Native-Born Tadpole Citizenship

The Reality of Native-Born Tadpole Citizenship

As I detail on my home page at obama–nation.com, and in several expositions, I discovered something important that was evidence of what I had been asserting endlessly but without any proof, -my basis being logic alone.  It was the smoking gun that no one knew for sure existed.  It was “buried” in an obscure internet page of the CIS (Citizenship and Immigration Service; formerly known as NIS).  When I discovered it, it was like finding the Holy Grail.

After I made its discovery known on the internet, word of it spread and that was noticed by Obama’s flying monkeys who then sent word to one of his minions with significant authority.  That traitor then surreptitiously changed the URL-web address of the page so that thereafter all of the links to it were broken, resulting in “Page Not Found”.  But I managed to eventually relocate it.

What was the smoking gun that I uncovered?  It was the delineation of citizenship terms into “naturalized, native and natural born”.  “Native” can only mean one thing, which is native-born, (-as opposed to natural born).  It can’t mean Native American -as in “Indian”, and it can’t mean pure native because that would be identical to a natural citizen as only natural citizens are real natives.

There is no such legal term as “Native Citizen” because “native”, like “natural” is not a legal descriptor but a natural descriptor of the legal concept and term “CITIZEN”.  The legal version is “native born”, so “native and natural born” refers to native-born & natural born, -but foregoes the unnecessary repetition of the word “born”.

What’s my point?  It’s that it is, and always has been, the rational and realistic policy of the federal government to distinguish between three very different groups of citizens. The United States government does not confuse the three variations.  The naturalized are not the native-born, and the native-born are not the natural born.  That is reality.
A foreigner is someone born in a foreign nation.  By coming to American he does not become an American, nor do any children he brings with him.  But if he and his wife are immigrants, and she produces a child in America, then the child is a native-born American due to the Supreme Court’s opinion in 1898, (based on the 14th Amendment),  regarding the citizenship of the native-born son of Chinese immigrants named Wong, .
When he, as an adult, produced an American child, it was not only a native-born American, it was also a natural born American, unlike its father.  How so?  Because it was born to an American father and not a Chinese father.
What that evolution describes is a progression from one thing to another.  From initial pure foreign-ness to eventual pure American-ness.  Like the evolution of frogs & toads.  The first stage is entirely different from the final stage.  The first stage, equivalent to a foreigner, is that of the polliwog.  It has no limbs and is like a fat-headed fish.
The human version can become a citizen via an artificial process known as naturalization, -which is intended to make-over, or convert, a foreigner into a facsimile of a natural American.  Naturally, nature can’t do such a thing, and so the polliwog gradually changes by growing arms and legs.
No one would argue that a tadpole is a toad anymore than one would argue that a polliwog is a toad, because its body is distinctly different.
Once it has evolved fully, it no longer has the characteristics of a polliwog.  Those characteristics, -like those of a foreigner, are completely gone.
In national life, just as in nature, it takes three stages to convert outsiders and their off-spring into natural born natives of America.  The immigrant is equivalent to a polliwog.  The children of immigrants are equivalent to tadpoles.  The children of the children are equivalent to toads.  The change is then complete.  The original nature has been completely remade.

Polliwog — Tadpole — Toad ;  Foreigner — Native born American — Natural born American.        Three generations.  The grandchild has no connection to the foreign-ness of the grandparents, but its father does because he was raised by them.
But the grandchild was raised by an American.  So it was with my own natural born mother, her native-born mother, and her foreign born grandparents.  If my grand uncles were born to my great-grand parents before they became Americans, then they would not have been eligible to serve as President even though they were native-born.

When a son of traditional conservative Saudi immigrants looks up at mommy and daddy, he sees people who are very different from Americans.  He sees their foreignness and is exposed to it all throughout his childhood and youth.  If he attends an American school, he becomes Americanized.
But if he attends a Wahabi Islamic school for 12 years, -isolated from exposure to American culture, -for better and for worse, then he will not become what would be described as Americanized.  He would instead be bound to and assimilated into the foreign culture of his parents.  Two very starkly different cultural and national orientations.
He clearly would not be purely American.  He would be like the young tadpole, -barely different from the polliwog.  With only tiny new limbs.  Or, with complete brain-washing, (acculturation) into Saudi cultural and religious values, he might be purely a polliwog like the parents, -but not in a nationality sense since he would be an American citizen.
But if he was schooled in American schools, then he would become Americanized and would one day produce a child that would look up at him and not see a Saudi but see an American, -one who would be steeped in American values if he attended school before the 1970′s (or if he attended a parochial school where he might learn values still).

So it is clear that just as immigrants are not natural Americans, neither are their native-born children.  But the children of the native-born will be natural born Americans.  Their citizenship nature is natural, unlike that of their parents who are the in-between generation,..the tadpole generation,..the native-born generation,..the bridge between total foreignness and total American-ness.

Mere birth within invisible, conceptual American borders does not a natural citizen make, but it does make a native-born citizen.  If a Brown bear gave birth in the Arctic, its cub would not be a Polar bear.  It would have to mate with a Polar bear, and produce a hybrid off-spring, (which was something that seems to have happened in the strange case of a giant slain white bear that could not be identified as any known species) and that off-spring would have to mate with a Polar bear to produce a cub with a close resemblance to a Polar bear.

The change from one thing to another completely different thing cannot be accomplished in one stage of change.  It requires two; -two generations of change in order to go from pure outsider to pure insider.  The middle stage is “tainted” by foreignness, and that is why the founding fathers barred it from the position of Commander-in-Chief.  Only a pure American can serve as President.  Not a naturalized American, and not a half-natural American whose citizenship is totally dependent on the permission of law.  If one’s citizenship is dependent on American law then one is not a natural American but is a legal American only.

So does that mean that Barack Obama is only a native-born American and not a natural born American?  Actually, he is neither due to Congressional misunderstanding of the boundaries of the Supreme Court’s Wong opinion which resulted from a misinterpretation of it by Attorney General Griggs in 1898.

Without an American father, no one is a natural American even if they are a legal, constitutional native-born American.  So Obama is not that, but is he a legal constitutional 14th Amendment native-born citizen instead?  Actually, his situation falls between the legal cracks because, by implication, the 14th Amendment as construed by the Wong opinion, requires parents who are immigrant, and Obama Sr. was not an immigrant.
American mothers are not addressed by the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment since women were not subject to the responsibility of citizenship, although they were the beneficiaries of its civil benefits.  They weren’t obligated to take lives in combat  nor risk their life to protect the nation, * nor allowed to vote nor serve in any high office.  Clearly, they weren’t, as the amendment requires, subject to the (full) federal jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and so, like foreign visitors, were incapable of producing a child that was subject through them.  Single immigrant women were not even allowed to become naturalized citizens except in rare cases.

Thus, the 14th Amendment did not apply to Obama Jr. through his father or his mother, -regardless of a native-birth.  He was an exception to the general rule that applied to all children of all immigrant fathers.
So is he then an American citizen through his American mother?  U.S. citizenship was never transmitted from mother to child by law until years after the ratification of the 19th Amendment around 1920 which gave women the right to vote.  Before Congress passed statutes allowing that, citizenship passed exclusively from father to child, being as he was the head of the household.  Even a foreign wife automatically became an American, like him, by marrying an American.

Citizenship passing from mother to child has never been natural citizenship and the past cannot be erased nor be altered by changes in society in the present.  In 1788 when the Constitution was adopted, no child in any state could inherit its nationality through its mother.  All natural Americans had American fathers without exception.

But for Obama, it’s even worse than that, because the mid-20th century laws that allow citizenship through the mother only pertain to births outside of the United States.  They do not mention the situation of birth to a foreign father within the United States.  So his nationality was not conveyed to him through his American mother nor his non-American father, nor through the 14th Amendment.

So what is the source of his citizenship?  There is none in American law, but that doesn’t rule out administrative policy.  Since Attorney General Griggs’ mistake in 1898, which erroneously assumed that all children born in America are born subject to the jurisdiction of the United State and are therefore 14th Amendment citizens, the policy that he established affirming that error has remained in place and become petrified in essentially all venues of jurisprudence; -from law schools, to the field of immigration law, to the immigration service, the State Dept. and the judicial system.  It is all a massive accretion of precedential error.  It has become as harden as bone.
There is no authority and no court that would dare attempt to challenge it nor correct it.  In fact, they consider it heresy, although without knowing exactly why, other than that’s just the way it is and has been since before they and their parents and grandparents were born.

Yet if the 14th Amendment meant what it has mistakenly been construed to mean, (every native-born person is an American) then its wording is completely superfluous in the sense of the false presumption that every person born in America is subject to the American government; “All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”
-so if everyone was automatically subject, then why the need to require in its wording that which was already always a fact?  Answer: Because of Native Americans and foreign ministers, (and foreign visitors).
Neither they nor their native-born children were subject to the American government as are American citizens.  Although they were born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States, they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Why were foreign minister not subject?  Because they were not Americans, -nor were children born to them in America, because they were not in the role of citizens nor immigrants but were in the role of guests.  Guests are exempt from the duties of residents, and it doesn’t matter if they work for a foreign government or are visiting from a foreign nation for a day, a week, month, or a year.  As long as they are guests, they are not subject to the responsibilities of residents, i.e., citizens and immigrants (who are required to defend the nation, -as every foreigner must swear to do in order to become a naturalized citizen) and thus are not among those whose native-born children are covered by the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment.

So, like the pivot mechanism of a rudder, A.G. Griggs changed the course of American nationality law without the authority of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the President, and it will never be changed back unless and until sanity (i.e., knowledge and wisdom and integrity) returns to the governance of the nation.

That will never happen because it would require the passage of a constitutional amendment similar to the 9th Amendment, which reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

That is similar in nature to the 10th Commandment, -the one unrelated to behavior; “Thou shalt not covet”.  It is an order as to how people are to think, -or not think.  “shall not be construed”, meaning shall not be misconstrued by ones warped, ignorant, misinformed, misguided or dishonest thinking into calling a pig a pony.
A new amendment would have to order the government to change its thinking, to cease and desist from enforcing Griggs’ misconstruence of the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the 14th Amendment and the citizenship of children of non-immigrant and illegal-resident foreigners, and throw out a century old policy not authorized by that limited court opinion.

But it technically would not require an amendment since the Attorney General and the President have the authority to correct administrative errors if they so choose, -which they would never do because the result would be that Obama becomes recognized as not possessing legal American citizenship.  That would be political suicide.  But it would be just that simple to do, -even a judge could do it (though none in American have the nerve) just as a federal court ruled that Obama’s policy of appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board while Congress was still in session was an unconstitutional policy.  Just because the executive branch operates as if their policy is legitimate, does not make it legitimate.  The Law is the law!  And by the Law, -not policy, Obama is not an American citizen.

But…even if his father was an immigrant and thus subject to the full weight of American authority over citizens and immigrants, or even if his mother gave birth overseas and thereby passed her citizenship to him, he still would not be what the Constitution requires of the President, which is that he be “No person except a natural born citizen”.

Having an immigrant father would have made him a real, native-born Legal citizen (1866 Civil Rights Act), and a Constitutional citizen (1868 14th Amendment).  Or if he was born in his probable birth location of Vancouver, Canada, that would have made him a provisional citizen, but nothing at all could have made him a natural citizen because just as a tadpole is not a toad, -so also the 2nd generation is not the third generation.  A half-&-half citizen is not an exclusively-100%-American citizen since only native-born members of American society can produce native natural members such as Obama’s children.  They are real natural born Americans and eventually eligible to serve as President, but their father is not because at best he can only be considered to be a tadpole native-born citizen.

by a.r. nash  february 2013  obama–nation.com

PS  The inability to discern between native-born and natural born is like the inability to discern between fonts with serifs and those without.  They all are the same or similar languages and identical letters, meaning the same thing, but one lacks what the other possesses, just as “natural born” Americans have something that “native-born” Americans don’t, namely American fathers.

 

Believing that everyone born in America is eligible to be President (except children of foreign ambassadors) is as erroneous as believing that first names come first and last names come last.  It seems to be a fact but that view is limited to a narrow ignorant outlook which fails to take all the facts into account, namely the fact that over one billion Chinese, -and perhaps Japanese and Koreans as well, position the surname first and the given name last.  Thus the most famous name in the citizenship debate, Wong Kim Ark, is in the opposite order from Western names, with the surname being Wong, -not Ark.

Thinking that something is true does not make it so, and assuming that one’s assumptions are correct does not make them all correct.  Facts and discernment are essential to finding the truth, and even a child can discern that a tadpole is not a toad, just like a native born citizen is not a natural born citizen.

My final analogy is the comparison between the natural and the artificial.  Image two planes, like two levels of a bunk bed.  The lower plane is the fundamental, organic, natural plain.  On it is found natural foods, drinks, stones, marble, wood, leather, gems, and metals.  On the upper plain one sees artificial restaurant-window foods, plastic imitations of all sorts of things, particle board and plastic-based lumber, Formica, cultured marble, cement bricks and stones, metallic plastics, artificial sweeteners and flavors and drinks; soda, tang, fruit punch, fake hair, teeth, limbs, imitation leather, gems, pearls, etc.
Similarly, artificial citizenship is as unnatural as the imitation items on that plain.  It’s purely man-made via laws and opinions of judges regarding those laws.  But natural citizenship is of a natural origin.  There is no input nor interference of man.  Law and government are not needed for it to exist because it exists anyway.

It would not bear the label citizenship if not connected to a nation, but it would still exist in the form of natural membership because individuals do not exist as individuals but in groups, clans, and tribes.  When the tribes are all consolidated into one union by the choice of the individual tribes/colonies/states, then the members become known as citizens because they all then bear a civic responsibility for the survival of their union and their people.  And more than that, for the creation and perpetuation of their chosen form of government and their selection of representatives to administer that government.
Artificial citizens have no natural right to participate in that government, but by the magnanimity of the natural members, they are granted equal rights to them, -with the one exception that they are not allowed to be their chief or supreme commander.

* The primary responsibility of citizens, as with fathers, is protection of the defenseless, meaning one’s own family members, or one’s own defenseless fellow citizens.  That responsibility is an obligation to be part of the protection and defense of the nation when threatened.  You think that no one in the country has the authority to require you to shoot someone, and yet the government does possess that authority if you happen to be born male.  The two things that are most fundamental to the men of every society and nation are the orders one must obey, unless exempted, to take the life of enemy combatants; -to kill, and to place your life at risk in extremely dangerous situations.  Without that authority, a nation’s preservation cannot be assured.
Foreign guests of the government are not subject to that authority and therefore their sons do not inherit it, -even if they enter the world within the boundaries of the American nation.  They can never be ordered to serve a country that is not their own because they are not subject to its jurisdiction, -unless their status changes by living in America through to the age of 18.  Then they must register with the Selective Service.

The Sandusky-izing of America

The Progressive Agenda:

The Sandusky-izing of America

The hard-core Liberal-Left is possessed by an idealistic religiology.  A religiology is a quasi-spiritual ideology, the adherents of which aim to propagate themselves via their own children, in addition to serving in a life-long effort to infiltrate, indoctrinate, proselytize,  and compromise the membership of American institutions, beginning with the education establishment and its unions, and ending with all branches of the American government and, if possible, all levels of state and national martial forces.

To accomplish their take-over they have engaged in a century long process to bastardize the thinking process of the American people by offering an alternate version of reality, -an alternate version of science, genetics, American history, government, fundamental law, and most importantly; religion.  Religion (faith) is in an eternal tango with science since science both supports and counters the assumed divine perfection of Holy Scripture.
Much of their effort has been effortless since all they had to do was point out the truth about the flaws in American society, government, and workplace.  With truth as their background, they could couch their ideology in intellectual terms based on social justice versus social injustice.
It clocked itself in the trappings of spiritual values co-mingled with the intellectualism of science, a la Christian Science, and Scientology, both of which put up a front of being a religion when in fact they have nothing to do with theism nor the beliefs that spring from sacred writings underpinning actual religions.
The Great Kick-off began with the publication of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.  It was like an infusion of adrenaline into the heart of the anti-theist, anti-free enterprise, anti-individual liberty-&- unalienable rights of religiologists led by Karl Marx, who found it perfectly supported his seminal work Das Capital, thereby kicking-off the advent of international Marxism, otherwise known as Social-ism.  It was in diametric opposition to the foundation of western civilization which is Individual-ism (based on individual worth, individual responsibility, individual merit, and individual reward or eternal punishment.

The Collectivist ideology overthrew the spiritual and scriptural basis of American society and law and in its place offered a Statist religiology that didn’t depend on the unifying force of having one God, one Hope, one Savior, one Holy Book, and one Spiritual Law, as well as one political view regarding the source of government legitimacy & the supremacy of individual freedom.
Instead, it put in place an anti-religion counter-cultural world-view rooted in a quasi-religious collective idealism which saw humankind as one universal spiritual family comprised of inferior and superior specimens which were genetically determined (giving rise to a firm belief in, and government participation in programs of eugenics, {principally involving forced sterilization of women} -the last of which continued into the 1970′s) with little distinction made based on the merit of individual effort and superior accomplishment, -with the exception of the well-educated socially-conscious ruling elites who might (would) be forced to employ strong, (harsh) measures in order to bring a perfect world into being, -measures needed to neutralized (crush) all religious and political resistance.

Those who resisted the transformation to the perfect system of perfect equality, perfect acceptance and obedience, and conversion to a selfless altruistic social attitude toward collective work and reward were necessarily an unacceptable road-block to a perfect world, and therefore would have to be either re-”educated” or eliminated (imprisoned or killed) in order that progress continue.
The human tendency to laud and embrace secular idealism spread far and wide in the western world beginning with the turn of a new century in 1900.  It was spurred by the rapacious greed of the monopolists of industry and commerce and their general disregard for the plight of the working poor.  Their pathetic working conditions gave rise to unions which pushed back and stood-up for the human dignity and value of the working class.
It was also manifested in the political realm as a collectivist-socialist system of government, as well as its enemy brother, a  fascist system of national capitalistic socialism.  They both attracted many people to the Communist Party of America, -and the American Nazi Party as well.
Both systems formed new religiologies that the country and the world hadn’t seen since ancient times when, as acolytes of a cult of personality,  people worshipped their King or Emperor or Pharaoh or Caesar as a demi-god and fully accepted his laws and governance.  The religious leader played by James Earl Jones in Conan the Barbarian comes to mind.
There were two types of embracers of the anti-God, anti-religion, pro-secular humanism religiology.  The overt, public activist, group-member types, and the covert, private, individual types who worked silently for the advancement of their idealistic (but ultimately authoritarian) aims.  The former types lost all favor in the 1950′s with the advent of the Cold War against world-wide communist aggression, -beginning with the acquisition of nuclear bombs by the Russians (thanks to communist-sympathizing spies in the American nuclear weapons programs) followed by the Korean War of communist aggression.

But the socialism sympathizers and communist party adherents did not abandon their idealistic dreams, -instead they simply stayed underground, -working silently, pervasively, as they multiplied in numbers thanks to generational indoctrination by Marxist/ Humanist professors, and gradually entered every sector of American life.
With time, and good behavior, they would rise to ever greater heights of authority, hiring and promoting along the way others who thought and felt as they did, thereby amplifying their presence within American institutions.
The most egregious example of which was the stealth infiltration of American churches and their hierarchies by socialists and homosexuals, -to the point that they enjoyed so much support from their brethren underlings that they could issue decrees that were in total violation of church and scriptural law and tradition, -or they had infiltrated and proselytized to such a degree that they were able to win the changes they sought via democratic votes.
They weren’t cognizant of how in sync they were with the goals and methods of the Marxists; Infiltrate, propagate, indoctrinate, etc.  But they were operating on parallel tracks.  Marxist authorities can tolerate the existence of religion as long as it is not anti-collectivist in its attitude and is totally submissive to human overlords.  That is the nature of Black Liberation Theology (reverend Jeremiah Wright); -Marxist in orientation, collectivist in its view of salvation & social injustice, racist in its view of blame placing, and top-down authoritarian in its governance.

The evidence that Marxism, -and its lesser form of Socialism, are more than a mere ideology is the fact that in spite of the overwhelming proof of its failure to improve human life and society, as seen in the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the dire straits of places like Cuba and North Korea, it didn’t die-out in America but became even more wide-spread.  How can that be?  “Hope springs eternal…” and the purist, most concentrated form of secular idealism is a flame that simply won’t go out because it offers hope and meaning to those who have none.
Its flame, instead of the flame of American values and respect for American law based on those values, still burns strongly in the hearts of constitutional traitor in government at all levels, all the way up to the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court.
We have been deeply co-opted because Leftist Presidents have appointed, and Congress has accepted, liberal (socialist leaning) members to the Supreme Court, and Progressive Republicans have appointed crypto-socialist members whose true stripes were not known when appointed because they kept their socialist, authoritarian leanings to themselves, -being, in effect, wolves in shepherd’s clothing.  Wolves who would ravage the individual liberty and state’s rights that are at the heart of the American experiment.

On June 28, 2012, the Chief Judas of the Supreme Court revealed himself to be the latest progressive traitor to the Constitution and the American tradition of law and self-governance.  With one stroke he essentially decapitated the Constitutional foundation of individual liberty and thereby rendered America as being not the land of the free and the self-governed, but the land of the servants who must serve their masters in the government without disobedience or suffer the consequences.  The conquest of a free people is being accomplished via the simple redefining of words without changing any laws.
A penalty, meaning a punishment, is now all of a sudden, a tax, and the Quislings of the Supreme Court have decided that a tax does not even have to be what the Constitution defines as being a tax.  Instead, the government can make up its own meaning.
Now a “Green job” can be anything the Obama bureaucrats decide to call a Green job, including driving a bus or fixing bicycles.  Now the welfare czar can define “work”, which is required in order to continue receiving benefits, as quitting smoke, -taking music lessons, or any number of self-benefitting activities.
Therefore their head overlord, Sir Barry Obama, through his ministers, has declared in effect that they don’t have to work anymore.  The gravy will keep coming anyway, in violation of the clear, explicit mandate of the law.  Well, hell, who cares about the law anyway?  A President who committed treason against the Constitution by taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution by which he is explicitly forbidden to serve as President?  [No foreigner nor his children can be described as a "natural born citizen" anymore than the off-spring of a dog and a cat can be called a natural puppy or natural kitten, (similarly the off-spring of a donkey and a zebra)].
In fact the ideological orientation of both houses of Congress is firmly in the traitor’s camp and has been for nearly a century.  The Constitution is not something to abide by but something to side-step, to ignore, -to avoid.  And avoid it they do, with nearly every law they pass, evidenced by the most unconstitutional piece of garbage ever passed by any Congress, namely the health care travesty and monstrosity.
But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that it is the greatest thing ever passed by any Congress since the abolition of slavery.  Well how is it different from that legislation?  Simple, nothing that becomes the law of the land (via the will and vote of the American public by the process of ratifying an amendment to the Constitution) is remotely equivalent to something rammed through Congress by one single vote and lots of back-room bribery, arm-twisting, and lying.  It could just as easily be repealed by one single vote, but not a single one of the amendments to the Constitution can be so easily canceled because they require the direct approval of the American people.
That is a process that we will never see again in our lifetimes because the entire legislation process has been bastardized by the deliberate abandonment of the amendment process.  The American people will never again be asked to ratify any fundamental change by either party because both are traitors to the Constitution.
We aren’t likely to see that situation change in our lifetime because the kind of leaders needed to lead a revival of fidelity to the Constitution are relegated to near obscurity by a national media that is equally treasonous to the Constitution and the values of its own profession.  It has been super co-opted by the ignorant, un-questioning lemming sycophants of the socialist left.   When it comes to their crypto-socialist leaders, they are “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”, -just the opposite of the press during the Watergate scandal.
Where did that Press Corps go?  It was replaced in time by children of Sesame Street instead of the hard-nosed pros who had lived through WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, though Marxist-leaning progressives lived and worked as journalists even in those eras, but they kept their leanings to themselves and sought to appear to be entirely objective.  The American public would never have accepted their true ideological leanings and so they were kept under wraps.

But no more.  The progressive ideology of the Press is now on full display.  They serve as a branch of the liberal propaganda ministry.  Their universal failure and unwillingness to report on the issue of the fraudulence of Obama’s fabricated birth certificate image is the clearest evidence that they are co-conspirators or cowards.
Their rejection by the American public at large is seen in the collapse of the ratings numbers for CNN and the meteoric rise of the numbers for Fox News, which also will not report the truth that could bring payback from the federal bureaucracy at Obama’s orders.  Just as was inflicted on Arizona when Holder and Obama failed to win a total ban on the Arizona anti-illegal migrant invasion law.  Within hours the hammer came down as the federal incarceration and deportation cooperation was canceled.
The coastal liberal media elites hold most of the reins to what is seen on the tube but what they dispense doesn’t reflect the political views of over half of the nation.  The other almost-half either has no political views or are dyed-in-the-wool leftists who will willingly take the ship of state to the bottom rather than correct its course in a way that disadvantages them.

What does our nation’s present political situation have to do with one Jerry Sandusky?  Everything.  We got here that same way that he got his victims.  He targeted them, courted them, groomed them to accept his adult supervision over them, he seduced them with gifts and smiles and hugs, and then he finally revealed his true nature when he stripped them of their dignity, autonomy, and their freedom from oppressive violation and unwilling subjugation.
That is a very similar course as that which the progressives have followed for about a century.  They just haven’t yet reached the end goal and end action against the disarmed, sedated, distracted, ignorant and submissive American public.

But as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, if they continue on the accelerated path they’ve been on for the last generation, and especially since Obama took office, one must speculate that they may reach their full authoritarian power within our lifetime, accomplishing the de facto overthrow of the Constitution as it is written, and its replacement with a Constitution as they have redefined.

Will American be a better place to live when that era is finally is achieved?  It depends on who you are.  If you are among the meritorious, you may or may not be happy with your lot, depending on how much of the reward of your efforts and hours of labor are donated to the unmeritorious.  Will you be a good little child of the USSA, or will you be a trouble-making rebel who goes around quoting traitors like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison?  Will you be Loyal to your “rightfully constituted government” or will you wish to over-throw it and replace it with a government based on the consent of the governed?

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who observed that the normal societal progression is one in which government power grows and individual freedom shrinks.  As each generation grows farther from their heroic roots, they become softer and lazier and more juvenile.  They therefore value security, stability, and privilege (along with a prosperous status quo supported by the government) to the insecurity of greater freedom.  Fear and need are the deciding influences, and the cultural elites in government are right there to facilitate their dependency because that is how they remain in power in a democratic republic.

Thanks to the treason of Justice Roberts and his ilk, government power is now at its peacetime zenith.  The question is; “is there such a thing as reversing the direction the nation has been on for over a century?”  Well, forget that question, how about asking if there is even any hope of simply stopping or just slowing the progression, much less reversing it.
Fortunately, there is hope of slowing it on November 6, 2012.  If that hope doesn’t come to  fruition, then there won’t be much hope left by which to sleep peacefully in the land of the formerly free, -in the home of the not-so-brave.

Then it will be time to start locating the life-rafts and life-jackets, because there won’t be much hope that our ship of state will stop taking on water (debt) at an unsustainable rate, and everyone except the religiologists and the somnambulant will be able to recognize what comes next.  (water-logged ships sink!)

by a.r. nash  july 2012

http://obama–nation.com

http://americansod.com

When Experts Are Idiots & Authorities Are Fools

~none dare call it constitutional treason
by a.r. nash  obama–nation.com

The Supreme Court ruling against the illegal migrant law of Arizona was misguided at best and a constitutional travesty at worst.  The court had no basis to rule as it did against the State of Arizona.  Says who?
Says the United States Constitution.  And what makes yours-truly an expert on the Constitution?  Simple, the ability to read.  Anyone who can read can be quite expert on the Constitution because it is perfectly understandable in almost all regards.

If my audacious self-appointed expertness is true, and the Justices of the Supreme Court were wrong, then why were they wrong?

They were wrong because they violated their oath to follow the Constitution and instead followed an accepted conventional “common knowledge” attitudinal position.  The conventional consensus attitude which they relied on is the same as that employed by respectable legal experts and former judges (“senior legal analyst”) who have shockingly declared in a most emphatic manner, that the right to control immigration is not given to the states but to the federal government by the Constitution!

Hearing that statement coming out of the mouth of a respected authority was like hearing that the Earth indeed, as every one can see, is in fact actually perfectly flat.  I wondered in amazement, “if the ‘experts’ get something so simple flat-out wrong, what hope is there for our future?”

I have to assume that there is very little, -if something as simple as the enumerated powers delegated to Congress can be completely misconstrued in an imaginary manner by experts who are great defenders of the Constitution.  That would mean that we’re in big trouble.

What did they all get wrong?  Simple, they didn’t get anything “wrong”, -it’s worse than that.   Instead they simply invented something that doesn’t even exist!
Congress, in Article 1, Sections 8, 9 & 10 is given no authority over immigration!  It’s impossible to misconstrue what the Constitution says about foreign  immigration because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it.

It does mention the slave trade though, -that it can’t be forbidden by Congress before 1808, but it can be taxed.  It states in the Section 9:
“The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress…”

So that leaves only the one single statement related to immigration, and yet even it isn’t.  It’s the  statement; “Congress shall have power…to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

So that’s it.  There’s nothing more.  Congress was only given the authority to write a naturalization rule that would make the rules of the states uniform.  So Congress could decide the over-all nationwide policy for naturalization, period.  But what you may have failed to grasp in that sentence, thanks to conventional thinking, is the part that reads, “the rules of the states”.
What that means is that the states were sovereign over immigration and naturalization, just as they were before the Constitution was finally ratified by all of them.  As formerly sovereign governments, with their own legislatures, governors, courts, and constitutions, the central government had no sovereignty over who the states allowed into them, nor had a hand in their naturalization.  It was strictly a state matter, except the Congress was given authority to ensure that all the states met a minimum standard, i.e.,had a uniform rule.  They remained free to set a higher standard as long as it didn’t conflict with the general nation-wide rule written by Congress.  End of story.

So, when you consider the words of the 10th Amendment; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”, you’re left with only one conclusion.  The states have been robbed.  The federal government has stolen an authority it was prohibited from possessing.

Which leads us back to the authoritative dogmatic statement that immigration was a subject delegated by the  Constitution to the federal government, about which one is left to ask oneself; “In what universe?”  It sure isn’t this one.

Any child reading what the Constitution says and what the 10th Amendment says can come to no other conclusion.   So even in the subject of immigration and naturalization, the central government, as in most other areas of its jurisdiction, is operating totally outside of its legal bounds.  It’s not skirting the border between the granted and the prohibited, -it’s squarely ensconced in the land of the prohibited.

One is left with no other understanding of the situation other than that “the law”, the Congress, the courts, and the experts are all wrong.  Conventional “wisdom”, common “knowledge” and consensus “opinion” is guiding their misguided minds.  It’s bad enough hearing legal experts pontificate incorrectly on the Constitution, but how do you explain the justices of the Supreme Court?

Are they not supposed to know and follow the Constitution?  There is no acceptable answer to that question, because they either know what its limits are on Congress, and the authorities it leaves to the states exclusively, but it doesn’t care and simply does whatever its member want and feel should be the political policy of the nation, or indeed they are actually as ignorant as any child would suspect them of being.  Both possibilities are horrible.  As for operating as “a nation of laws and not of men”, pardon my French but, we’re screwed.

In fact, the inescapable fact is that we essentially are a nation of men and not of laws.  That is born out by the terminology used in law; “the opinion of the court” (not “the facts determined by the court”, or “the constitutional truth of the matter”.
Opinions do not necessarily have to be factual or correct, after all, they are just opinions.  And judges with no regard for our foundational charter nor for the wisdom of the men who labored over writing it, can and do simply substitute their opinion of what the law should be for what the law actually is.
How should one describe such behavior?  Call it what it is; constitutional treason.

Again, that leaves only three explanations; -they either are too ignorant, intellectually lazy or stupid, and therefore are not even aware of what the constitutional law actually is, -or they know but misunderstand it, and choose the wrong side of two possible choices, -or they simply don’t give a damn about fulfilling their oath to follow the constitution whether they like it or not, -as impartial judges.  In most instances, it’s the latter when it comes to the votes of the court’s treasonous liberals.

Allow me one more example of conventional wisdom being totally wrong.  Everyone, including yourself, think that slavery was abolished in the United States.  It’s banned.  Gone forever and can’t come back.  Right?  Wrong!

Slavery, and involuntary servitude are still perfectly legal in in all of the states under proper circumstances, and fully legal without restriction in well over half the territory of the United States.  How can that be true when everyone knows that it isn’t?  Because everyone is wrong.

But, you argue, slavery and involuntary servitude were universally outlawed by the 13th Amendment, which reads:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
That’s about as plain and simple as it could get, right?  That is right, but what’s wrong is that the quote left out its center section, which reads: “except as punishment for crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,”.

So, under proper legal circumstances, slavery and involuntary servitude are still legal in
“the United States and their jurisdiction”.   That second-to-last word makes it even worse, because “their” jurisdiction only covers that of the states themselves, and does not include the jurisdiction of the federal government, -which includes all of Washington D.C., all federal territories and lands owned by the federal government.  That includes perhaps 80% of the land west of the Mississippi river since the federal government owns more of the land of many western states than the states do.

If you follow the logic of state-property versus federal property to its inescapable conclusion, then slavery and involuntary servitude are not banned in perhaps more than half of the area comprising the nation, especially with the vastness of Alaska thrown in, -which one could assume is mostly owned by Washington since the federal government obtained it by buying it from Peter the Great of Russia.

In addition, anyone born on federal land is not a citizen of the state in which they were born because they were not born under its jurisdiction.  States have no jurisdiction over federal lands, anymore than they do on Indian reservations.  They are therefore, like those born in Washington DC, federal citizens only.  They therefore should not be liable for state income taxes if they live and work on federal land, such as rangers for example, and if they are not citizens of the state in which they reside, they probably have no constitutional right to vote on state matters in state elections.

So much for conventional wisdom.  Conventional wisdom declares that I must be off my freakin’ rocker to think that I’ve illuminated some obscure  surprising facts that all of our nations great legal authorities, pundits, scholars, and judges are unaware of.  Well, stating the obvious doesn’t necessarily come with the assumption that others aren’t aware of such elementary facts.  But if they are aware, then where are their voices?  Have you heard any?  I sure haven’t.  But then I’m nobody, with no legal connections whatsoever.  Yet here I am writing about it.  If the experts are experts, why aren’t they the ones writing about it instead of a nobody?
Is “group think” that powerful?  Does no one question the status quo they were taught in law school, a status quo that no one is challenging?   Why aren’t they?  Are they cowards, clueless, or fellow traitors with the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court?  I think we’ve all been conned in a manner too huge to grasp, and not by what the experts have said, but by what they haven’t said.

Missing the Point & Ignoring the Facts

~why blind leaders & ignorant pundits keep missing the point & ignoring the facts

Finally, after Joe Biden forced the President’s hand, he stated publicly that in his personal opinion people of the same sex should be allowed to marry.  So that’s his official opinion and he can look forward to now nailing down the vote of the homosexual community since Romney has expressed the opposite opinion.

The problem with this situation is that both of their opinions are irrelevant.  All that matters is what the law is.  Secondarily is the issue of whether or not the law should be changed.  And lastly, but of foremost importance, is how must the law be changed if it is to be changed?

The consistent talking-heads dialogue that one hears on radio and TV reminds me of an argument that Anderson Cooper had recently with a doctor who had dared to suggest that something might be fishy about Obama’s birth certificate.

To my disgust, Cooper attempted to dishonestly question the presumption of the validity of a Hawaiian birth certificate of an employee of the doctor which he had used as a control for investigating the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.  When it became clear that the repetitive back-and-forth over that lame and unreasonable issue was going nowhere, and both of them were discussing Obama’s birth certificate from the same perspective, I had to turn off the TV.

What perspective was that?  It was the perspective that it actually exists.  The well meaning doctor was clueless as to the fact that Obama has no birth certificate, has not said that he has a certified copy of a Certificate of Live Birth, has not presented one, was not present in the press room while his White House attorney (Baer) shared print with reporters and pretend communications with the Hawaiian government regarding asking for an exception to its “rules” that “forbid” dispensing long-form certificates of live birth.   And when he finally entered the room after the fake letters were removed by his lawyer, he failed to even mention the existence of the so-called birth certificate that was the very reason for him to be there.
Instead he deliberately only referred to the first and previously-claimed “only” birth record, (-the short-form Certification of Live Birth), stating that he had already released his birth certificate in ‘08 and so everyone should just move on and forget about the “silliness” of where he was actually and provably born.

He avoided any mention of the silliness that he had chosen to engage in by posting on the White House website an inexplicable 9 layer PDF digital image of a Hawaiian birth certificate that came from God-only knows where.

We know that it didn’t come from Hawaii because they don’t release PDF images, but even if they did, it would only be one layer, and not the nine that scream of forgery.
And he still has not shown a hard-copy birth certificate to anyone other than one specially selected sympathetic female reporter who was clueless as to what she was looking at since she knew absolutely nothing about authenticating birth certificates.
The only conclusion that can be drawn, -the one totally missed by Cooper and the doctor, is that the item being discussed does not even exist as a real object.  It exists only in the cyber realm as a computer-created digital image only examinable on a computer monitor, -a Photoshopped concoction without any physical reality to it.

They, as well as many others, have completely failed to grasp reality, -which is that just as the internet holds thousands of images  of things that do not exist (digital art), so also the real world contains perhaps tens of thousands of counterfeit birth certificates which are used to obtain things like passports, citizenship, tax returns of other people, driver’s licenses, etc.

So one can, if the stakes are high, have a fake digital image of a birth certificate created, and if everyone is on your side (including those in charge of Hawaiian departments) and gullible, you don’t even need to produce a real hard-copy version of the cyber-realm fake, nor show a real one to anyone.  Everyone just seems oblivious that that reality (-an actual hard-copy)  as if it isn’t even an issue, -just as they are doing with the issue of same-sex marriage.

The rule of law in the United States has become so corrupted that everyone from a lowly representative or reporter all the way up to the Vice-President and President are stupidly discussing the same-sex marriage issue as if it were something other than what it is.  And what is it?  It’s a fundamental issue.  It’s also a State issue and the federal government has no say in the matter.
So why would anyone care what a national politician thinks?  Because the nation is far down a slippery slope on which they habitually look to Washington to solve all their problems, and fix whatever they think might be wrong.  But even if Washington were to decide to take on the issue, how would it go about doing so?

Regrettably, they’d commit the same constitutional treason that they did in passing the the illegitimate health care monstrosity which was written by unknown people, and read by no one who voted of it.  That would mean a simple majority 51% vote of the Congress.

What’s wrong with that?  Well, if you happen to remember U.S. History then you should remember that when fundamental changes are proposed, they must be agreed to by the People, not just by Congress.
Do our current Congressional leaders even remember or acknowledge that fact?  Or do they think that they can pass anything that they want and force it to be law?  Do they, and their constituents, think that Congress has the authority to impose fundamental change?  If they do, and it seems it’s true of many, then we are so far away from our constitutional foundations that we can hardly see them.

To put things in focus, just image this; Congress, by a 51-49% vote ends the legality of alcohol, and tobacco, or driving gasoline-powered cars and eating meat, -or marriage itself.  Why can’t Congress do that?  Why can’t Congress require that anyone over a certain age be married or face a fine?  Why can’t Congress make prostitution and gambling legal nation-wide?
Why can’t Congress make it legal for children over 13 to vote and to drive, and to drink alcohol, and to marry?   Why are the civil rights of youths not defended by Congress via supportive legislation?
For two reasons, the first one being that such matters are outside of the jurisdiction of Congress to legislate since they’re strictly state matters (not that Congress cares about minding only its own constitutional business).

The second is that even if Congress unconstitutionally claimed jurisdiction over such State matters, it still could not legitimately pass legislation regarding such issues because they are all fundamental issues.  That means that Congress would have to abide by Article 5 of the Constitution.  That’s the one that prescribes the means by which the Constitution is to be amended.

Amending the Constitution is not simply altering the Constitution.  Most amendments  do not change the Constitution but instead add to it.  But several important ones grant a right that some sector of the populace once did not possess even though that was not due to any prohibition in the Constitution.
Just as slavery was legal by state law and tradition, so also, women possessed no right to vote by an overwhelmingly firm tradition.  To gain the right to vote did not require repealing a ban on women voting because there was no such ban.  It required that the tradition be overthrown by a clear statement being added to the Constitution.  That overthrow of tradition was a fundamental change.  And fundamental legal change, -as well as fundamental social change, requires the direct agreement of The People.

They give their approval, or not, by passing an amendment to the Constitution.  Congress could not simply pass a bill granting women the right to vote.  Women had to struggle and suffer rejection and scorn for 50 years before Congress was willing to offer the issue to the American people as a proposed and approved amendment to the Constitution.

The men in Congress who voted for that amendment knew that they had no authority to legislate such a fundamental change as a mere Congressional bill.  It was the same with the proposal to make alcohol illegal.  The American people had to approve such a fundamental change before a natural, legal and social right could be abridged.

But what do we hear from both sides?  Do we hear that the federal government is banned by the Constitution from meddling in the matter of marriage?  Do we hear that only States have the authority to decide the issue?  Or most important of all, do we hear that States have no authority to legislate the issue either?

Where are the supporters of the rule of law who are declaring that everyone should shut-up who dares talk about making fundamental changes without changing the Constitution of each and every State that wants to legalize same-sex marriage?  Has anyone heard such calls to defend the American way of bringing about fundamental change?  Listen to the conversation with that question is mind.

There’s another issue concerning same-sex marriage that has seemingly-intelligent people speaking nonsense, missing the mark and being oblivious to reality.  Once you think about it, it will strike you as the height of stupidity.
It’s when reporters and pundits speak of State laws and propositions “banning” same-sex marriage.  Apparently they don’t have a clue as to what a ban is.  No thing can be called “banned” without ever mentioning it.  A ban is a rule or law that specifically outlaws something.
Legally defining something whose definition has been set in stone for thousands of years is in no way a ban on behavior that has never been permitted in the history of the Western, (and probably the Eastern) World.   A State law that simply codifies the everlasting common definition of what marriage is and always has been, (and is described as in every dictionary ever printed)  is not a law that’s in the banning business.

It merely serves to affirm that which already is and cannot legitimately be changed without the consent of the governed, though even with their consent, the meaning of English words cannot be legitimately altered to suit the current direction of the socio-political wind.
If a word like marriage can be redefined then what words can’t be?  Can the word Christmas be redefined to include Halloween?  Can there be two forms of Christmas?

That questions raises another issue.  If marriage can be redefined by a mere majority vote, (or even a constitutional amendment) to include the union of two people of the same sex, then why can’t it also be redefined to include the union of three or more people of either sex, or the union of adults and children, or of immediate family, -brothers & sisters, -parents & children?
What exactly are the rules for redefining words to suit a new agenda that has never been sanctioned in any nation of our Judeo-Christian past?  There are no rules for redefining words, so any attempt to do so is inherently illegitimate and a bastardization of the true meaning of a word.

Will these points be recognized by all the partisan voices that are for or against same-sex marriage as it continues to be an issue across the land?  Will the Supreme Court ever have to ask and answer the questions raised, -questions that are going unrecognized and apparently ignored by all?

With the awareness of the real questions being almost nonexistent, one can’t but fear that it’s more likely than not that in most States their Constitution and its amendment process will be ignored or forgotten and few, if any, will even raise the issues.

But when the People follow proper procedure and support the age-old definition of marriage, as California did with Proposition 8, then the will and choice of the People can be overthrown and cast aside by traitors to the rule of law reigning in the Supreme Court of the State as gods.  They can do whatever they want, including finding rights where none exist and have never existed.

No person in America has a right to alter deeply entrenched tradition by their own personal choice in opposition to the constitutional choice of the people unless that tradition violates an actual civil right, -one that really exists, -not one that simply “should” exist.
Fundamental rights must always be balanced by fundamental prohibitions.  Some things are inherently wrong.  That can be due to a clear condemnation by holy scripture, by the tradition that resulted from that condemnation, or due to a natural revulsion that rejects certain unnatural behaviors.
When all three are aligned against any particular action, “right” or behavior, then legislators and judges alike lack legal and moral authority to overturn the natural social order, -an order that denies no one a right that humans have widely or universally recognized.
Only the People have the right to alter such a social order.  They are the source of the legitimacy of the government, including the Constitution and the courts that interpret it.  But judges can usurp that rightful authority of the People and put themselves in their place, as their gods and masters.  Does any fair-mined thinking person think that that’s right or justifiable?

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers