October 15, 2013 Leave a comment
PDF: The Duty of the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES (1 Page)
The greatest controversy in American political history
August 28, 2013 Leave a comment
So you’re an American citizen, and quite sure about that fact, and yet do you even know why that is a fact? No doubt you don’t since none of us was taught the truth because of its replacement by a wide-spread “urban myth” about the mechanism beneath the hood that determines one’s nationality.
We, like those who came before us, only know the facts (we are Americans and we were born in America) but do not understand what it is that connects the one fact with the other, or if they are even related. Is there a relationship of Cause & Effect? Or no relationship at all?
We grow up with an impression that seems perfectly reasonable and yet it is wrong anyway. We view the matter like people from bygone centuries would view the “Back To The Future” car of Marty McFly if it were a modern electric car. They would quickly make the assumption the what makes it go is pushing on a pedal on the floor. Push the pedal and it goes, -silently and without hesitation. What could be simpler?
But pushing the pedal is not what empowers it since that would be trunk full of high capacity batteries. So it is with citizenship. It is not empowered by the pedal-pushing equivalent event in one’s personal history, – namely the event and location of one’s birth within American boundaries.
Just as McFly’s DeLorean does not go simply because a foot pushes a pedal, so also, your nationality is not determined by the unrelated fact of where your mother was located when she delivered you. Simple Cause & Effect is not the determinant in either situation. That can be illustrated via:
The Antarctica Scenario
If your mother had been a meteorologist who got pregnant the night before shipping out for a nine month sojourn in a science station in Antarctica, and you were born there since no flights could land due to the extreme weather, what nationality would you possess with Antarctica as your “homeland”? Would it be “none” since no nation owns the continent? Would you be a stateless person? Or would you be born with your mother’s nationality? Would your nationality be determined by national law, international law, or natural law?
The answer would depend on when you were born and who your mother was and whether or not your father was acknowledged openly by her or married to her. If he was not, then you would be a natural American citizen if she was an American. If he was, then that might change the nature of your citizenship.
If he was an alien from a nation that recognizes jus sanguinis citizenship (by right of blood) then you would be born with provisional citizenship in his foreign nation but with legal citizenship in the United States via Congressional statute. The statute that would allow your mother’s nationality to pass to you did not exist about 75 years ago. Back then you would not have been an American citizen, only a foreigner like your father.
If he was from a nation that only recognizes jus soli citizenship (by right of soil) then you would be only an American, unless born before the first statute was passed back in the first half of the 20th Century. In that event you would be a stateless person. A citizen of the world belonging to no nation on Earth.
But if your father was an American, you would be an American also. That would be true automatically, unavoidably, irrevocably. You would be what he is or was because he was your head, your sovereign, your boss and your owner. Every child produced by him would be the same as him, -and even more so if he and your mother were children of the same nation. In that case you would be born as a natural member of their country and a natural citizen of the United States. You would be a born natural citizen, -in other words; “a natural born citizen” (as the Constitution requires of all American Presidents).
In that case, Antarctica would not be your homeland because it was not the homeland of your mother and father. You would be a member of their country because you belonged to them and they belonged to it. The same bond that connected you to them connected you to the People, -the society, -the country & nation of which they were a part. That bond has no connection to geography nor borders. It is a human bond and not an artificial man-made artifice that determines something as fundamental as your identity in this world (vis a vis the people of other nations).
That bond is inviolable. The American government possesses no authority to do anything about it except to protect and defend it against a failure to recognize it. It can not rescind nor abrogate it because it does not “own” any rights to it. You, the citizen, own the full rights to your citizenship, -not the government.
You can abandon it if you wish, and the War of 1812 was fought to defend the right of all men to choose which nation they would voluntarily belong to, but the government does not have the authority to make that decision. Why not? Because the founding fathers understood that the creation can’t be trusted with the power to disenfranchise its creators and bosses, thereby giving it the power to be a god and not a servant.
The American CITIZENS were to be the Lord and ruler over the government, but it hasn’t turned out that way. Nevertheless, the fundamental principle that determines United States citizenship has not changed regardless of the fact that it is no longer recognized by the vast majority of American citizens.
Ignorance does not alter reality anymore than ignorance of what propels the Time traveling car has any effect on its propulsion system. You are an American because your parents were Americans and that fact is not altered by the location of your birth. Treating one’s irrelevant birth location as some hallowed, inescapable power is like placing a Scarlet Letter on one for life, for good or for evil, for benefit or for disadvantage. It’s no different from determining one’s nationality by race or religion or ethnic origin. It takes an observed fact and makes it SUPREME in the bonded relationship that will define one all of one’s normal life, only in a much more ridiculous manner than by using race or religion or ethnicity because they are things that are on-going facts throughout life, but the location of birth is a totally transient thing, and one is not consigned to that spot for life, nor to that nation for life, (-unless born in a dictatorship).
The Apple Analogy
On my property there are four apple trees of three different varieties, and that situation is highly analogous to nationality. Two are analogous to natural citizenship, while the others are analogous to citizenship via naturalization and to native-born citizenship granted to children of foreigners via the 14th Amendment. Two of the varieties of apples are not as desirable as the other one. One is the least desirable, it being only good for cooking with lots of added sugar, -analogous to naturalized citizenship in a sense.
Another is in the middle, good for juicing and cooking but not good for eating. It’s analogous to native-born, alien-fathered citizenship. The other two trees are of the same variety and they are analogous to natural citizenship since they are good for cooking, juicing and eating.
The framers of the Constitution wanted the kind of citizen that was most desirable to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the American military, and that type was one which was all-American. One with no foreign influence, connection, bond, attachment, loyalty, allegiance, affection or affinity acquired through a father who was a loyal subject of his foreign King.
They wanted one born of an American father who would instill in his son strong American anti-monarchy, pro-Liberty values. No foreign father could be assumed to do that and so no foreigner-born son could be fully trusted with the military power of the United States Army.
The two trees of the same desirable type are right at the property line. If one of them was over the property line a bit, I might have run the back fence enclosing my property around its far side putting it inside of my control. No one would care because that property is uninhabited wilderness.
In that case, it would be outside of my territory but within my jurisdiction. That is analogous to the American child of an American mother and father being born over the border line. Under which nation’s control is the child considered to exist? The child belongs to the parents and they belong to their own nation, and so the child also belongs to their nation via its natural connection to them and it.
The property line doesn’t determine who the fruit belongs to when half of it is hanging over my property. The boundary means nothing in that regard, just as a nation’s borders mean nothing when it comes to the children of its members.
Their national membership, or nationality, or citizenship is determined by another factor, and that factor is the parents to whom a child belongs. It is the fruit of that tree and the nature of the fruit does not change based on which side of an arbitrary line it hangs or falls from.
Two trees of the same variety produce apples of the same variety regardless of arbitrary boundaries. Two sets of American parents produce children of the same nationality regardless of different arbitrary boundaries that they are born within. It is all about the source, not the location.
If I were to cut a branch from an apple tree and graft it onto my plum tree (analogous to producing a child with a foreign woman in her country) what would be the nature of the fruit that would result? It would still produce apples because it’s in its nature to do so. So also, the children of American fathers, though born outside of American territory to a foreign woman will still be an American citizen but not a natural American citizen since the circumstances would not be natural.
They would be as unnatural as the grafting from one variety of fruit onto another one that is different. But they would be statutory American citizens because the government recognizes the birthright of a child to inherit his father’s national membership, -to be a citizen of his nation and not be an alien.
Being simply an American is all that the Constitution requires for every elected and appointed office in the nation, with the exception of only one, -that being the position of Command-in-Chief which is occupied by the American President. He or she must be more than simply an American.
The Constitution orders that the office be held by none who are not natural born citizens. That is not a legal, judicial common law term but is from outside of that realm. It relates to the natural realm, -the realm in which relationships are either natural or they are not. If one is not a natural American via natural means, then one is not eligible to serve as President because one would only be a legal citizen, i.e., a citizen by permission, -not by nature nor right.
Barack Obama is not a natural citizen because he is the fruit of a branch from a foreign tree grafted onto an American tree. Such an origin is never natural, -not in the realm of flora and fauna nor in the realm of national membership. His citizenship is not natural and his presidency is not constitutional. He is an illegitimate bastardized substitute for a real natural born American citizen, and as such he is in violation of our most fundamental law everyday that he occupies the office of the President.
People wonder how he can so blithely ignore the Constitution of the United States. They should recognize that his very election and inauguration did the very same thing, and every lame fool politician and judge and pundit and journalist and reporter of the nation (with very few exceptions, -so few you could count them with your fingers) remained silent as the Constitution was kept hidden from view and mention.
He violates the Constitution with every waking minute of his fraudulent life. He is a living, breathing violation just like a car that is always driving over the speed limit is a non-stop moving violation, only unlike a car, no thing can stop him since no one will stop him.
That would take knowledge that is lacking, a will that is absent, courage that is non-existent, and education that is missing from an opposition party that is MIA. What happened to the MIA Republicans? Were they captured by the enemy? Were they lost without a compass? Were they intimidated by the limitless reach of the NSA and FBI and the political functionaries that hold high office in those organizations, -and can learn all of their discoverable secrets?
Whatever the reason or reasons, they as a group are worthless when it comes to exposing the truth since their rising stars include many who are not natural born citizens either. It’s hard to get worked-up to protest a situation that would de-legitimize many of your own preeminent leaders.
Obama’s illegitimacy is thus an unmentionable, unaddressable issue in the halls of power in the nation’s capital. It would be like speaking blasphemy against Allah in the Qaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. It would be like telling the assembled leaders of Islam that their god is a mutation of the pagan Moon god of the Arabic people and that Jesus is the ascended and glorified Lord of the Universe.
Such heresy cannot be spoken without serious consequences to one’s reputation and career. It is unacceptable not just to Democrats but to Republicans as well. And don’t look to a Rand-Paul-independent to step in that pile of stinking offensiveness either. It’s political leprosy that one must avoid completely because there is an entire giant lake of damned-up opposition water just waiting to burst and drown anyone who dares step out of line by declaring that the emperor has no constitutional clothing.
The battle has been lost, -twice! But the same thing happened to the Continental Army as it was overwhelmed by superior British power. It did not start off with any victories but with loses. Yet they did not give up and surrender to the tyranny that confronted them. They fought on. They never quit. They were resolved to never quit because they were fighting for their lives and their futures, and the future of all of the generations to come.
That is where we find ourselves in this struggle to force the enforcement of our fundamental law. We are now adrift without any anchor to the rule of Law since it is ignored at all levels and branches of government. The Statists do not want and won’t accept any limits on their unbridled desire for authority to make everyone obedience to their vision of how the nation and the world should be run.
Their orders are “full steam ahead” regardless of the moonless night, the icebergs dead ahead. All that matters is implementing their utopian oppression and not giving a damn about how the future will definitely be determined by the past, -a past of all of the socialist tyrannies that ruined many a country and now is poised to (and is) ruining ours as well.
We’re witnessing the results of a stealth revolution that is fundamentally transforming America from a society of free and independent individuals into a plantation of controlled, surveilled, obedient and dependent subjects of almighty Government.
Well, that’s not true of everyone even though it is become more and more true of a near majority. We as a people are thus becoming more and more polarized as the paths before us hint of greater and more oppressive government power, or… a revolutionary return to our roots of Liberty and self-reliance, and self-discipline, and sacrifice, and honestly, and courage, and moral values. Even thoughtful atheists should be shocked at the path we are on, -just as some Democrats, with their eyes open, are shocked at the extent of the government’s power to spy on everyone. We are becoming, and must become, evermore split between those with the views of Statists and those with the views of Constitutionists.
People must learn that those are the two paths before us and we are always on the wrong one. They do not run parallel but diverge to very different destinations, -one in which the individual is King, and the other in which the Government is King. Which path do you support?
by Adrien Nash August 2013 http://obama–nation.com
August 17, 2013 1 Comment
In today’s American life, -far removed from our founding, -from the principles of our Revolution, a wide-spread ignorance exists, but it does not exist in a vacuum because knowledge has been replaced by the substitute of misconception. One of the biggest, if not the biggest, is the idea that the 14th Amendment citizenship clause makes it national law that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens.
That is the assumption in everyone’s mind in all walks of American life, and yet it is wrong.
One cannot understand why it is wrong, nor understand the 14th Amendment without understanding history, tradition, natural law, United States law, psychology and the reality that together they establish. The awareness of that reality is lost, and has been lost for a very, very long time.
The heart of understanding that reality is found in the meaning of jurisdiction mentioned in the amendment. Without that understanding, which everyone lacks, it is not possible to understand the amendment. Jurisdiction must be fully understood in all of its implications, -implications for males, for females, and for foreigners.
Citizenship is intimately connection to the issue of jurisdiction in two ways. One is a natural connection and the other is a legal, imposed connection. Both are tied to responsibility, -social and national responsibility. Some are more capable of shouldering a certain responsibility and that made them the vanguard of freedom and/ or survival, and they have been such since the before the dawn of human civilization. They are the males of the species.
The strength of men has always been the spine and backbone of clans, tribes, societies, and nations, and that fact resulted is a greater role in civic life when it came to decision making. From the town council to the national Parliament, men were the only decision makers because men had always been the only warriors. Their membership in councils and communities and nations was a full membership. But those they were responsible for, -their women and children, were subjects of the husbands and fathers who ruled over them just as the King ruled over the men. That was life. That was tradition. That was the way it had always been since before anyone could remember.
So the men-folk were the primary members of the body politic and the women-folk were their supporters. The men-folk had the responsibility to run things and the women-folk had the responsibility to support them and to raise the children. Thus, their membership in the body politic was secondary, ancillary, in effect it was partial and not anywhere near being full membership.
Every generation experiences a period of extended peace, and during that time men are not warriors and so women do not have to support them as such. In that atmosphere of peace, women wonder what the heck the big difference is between them and the men-folk that results in them having all of the power and they having very little.
They, upon reaching a certain stage in life, begin to question the partiality of their membership in the civic life of their community and their nation.
They become aware that their membership, their citizenship, is merely partial, and more of a pretense than a reality and so they press for equality. Equality is what the Constitution requires for them, or not. Some rights are not mentioned in the Constitution of the central government because they were issues of the semi-sovereign States which had their own Constitutions.
The more such aware-women considered their situation, the more they realized just how unequal they were with men. The nature of and reason for that inequality is very significant but to understand the real meaning of the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment, (which is key to citizenship based on native-birth) it is best to not focus first on American women but on foreign men. They provide the starkest illustration of what it was all about.
How exactly do foreign men figure into the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”? That is the question that no one has thought to ask, and thus no one has arrived at the answer, which is very, very, significant.
It provokes two more questions: “what is jurisdiction and how does one become subject to it?” The answers to those questions reveal the truth about the basis of native-born legal citizenship. The answers to those unasked questions have been unearth and can now be shared.
○ A Husband & wife + conception & birth = a natural child of the parents.
○ A citizen husband & citizen wife + conception & birth = a “natural citizen” child.
○ An American husband & American wife + conception & birth = a natural born citizen child.
○ An immigrant husband & immigrant wife + conception & birth = a native-born U.S. citizen.
○ An American husband & “immigrant alien” wife + conception & birth = a native-born U.S. citizen.
○ An American husband & “non-immigrant alien” wife + conception & birth = a native-born U.S. citizen.
○ A “non-immigrant alien” husband & American wife + conception & birth = a native-born foreigner.
Why is the child of a non-immigrant alien father not a native-born U.S. citizen? Because of the meaning of 14th Amendment “jurisdiction” His sons are only subject to the jurisdiction that he is subject to because children are not subject to any jurisdiction (authority) other than that of the father himself. If they are born and raised in their foreign father’s homeland, then through him they are born subject to the same authority that he is subject to, and will grow up to one day be subject to it not just in a latent theoretical way but in a very literal way when and if they receive a draft notice that conscripts them into the military.
There’s a principle that must be understood in order to understand the full implications of federal jurisdiction, and that principle is that those who are young adult male members of a society shoulder the responsibility to defend their family, their society, and their nation. They inherit that responsibility from their fathers who shouldered it before them going back generations. They are under the full jurisdiction of the national government which in order to preserve the nation and its freedom, can use them as instruments of war in contests with foreign enemies.
Their mothers and sisters, -wives and daughters are not under that jurisdiction and do not pass it to their children. But that jurisdiction is not limited to only the natural male citizens of a nation since they are not the only male members of the nation. Foreign immigrants bring their foreign-born children with them to America, and such men, as well as their American-raised sons, share the responsibility to defend their adopted nation and therefore are required to register during their younger adult years with the Selective Service for the possibility of being called into the U.S. military during a national emergency.
But if their foreign homeland suffers a dire emergency of national threat, it may call them to return home and serve their homeland in its defense. It has a right to do that because they are still members as long as they are not Americans. So they have a dual subjection to two nations, with their adopted land and home having the primary right to their service.
But there are adult males in America of military age over whom the national government has no such jurisdiction and the reason is that they are not members of American society since they are merely guests.
They are present in the United States solely by the permission of a visitor’s Visa Card and not a permanent resident’s Green Card. They are not required to register with the Selective Service because they are not subject to American military service.
They are not subject to the conscription authority of two nations because the one that they are currently visiting or temporarily working in or studying in is not their home and so their stay here has an expiration date. Then they are gone, -back to their foreign home.
So, since they are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the American government, they cannot father a son who is subject because subjection flows through the father. The child only becomes subject if it is a son and remains in the United States up to and through its 18th birthday. At that time it becomes a sort of quasi-citizen, or partial-citizen like foreign-born children of immigrants who haven’t become American citizens. At eighteen they are still not citizens but they share the responsibility of citizens when it comes to national defense. They are required to register.
To get the full picture, lets look at the many various possibilities regarding subjection and foreigners.
A young foreign legal-immigrant male resident is required to submit to military conscription if called.
A young foreign-born but American raised son of legal immigrants is required to serve if called.
A young foreign male who is not a resident is not required to serve nor even register. He is a guest.
A young foreign female, even if a permanent resident, is not required to serve nor to register.
A young American female is not required to serve nor to register.
What picture do these facts paint? : The young are required to defend the old. The adults are required to defend the young. The males are required to defend the females.
The young male adult members of American society are the only persons fully subject to the authority of the national government. They bear the fullest responsibility of citizenship. Foreign guests bear no responsibility of citizenship except toward their own foreign nation. Since they are not subject, their sons are not subject either, even if born on U.S. soil since subjection flows from father to son via natural political-social inheritance of the father’s position and role in society.
What did the authors of the 14th Amendment declare as being the meaning of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means? They defined it entirely in terms of its predecessor, -the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which states that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are citizens of the United States.
Obviously, one’s subjection to the authority of their own nation does not end merely due to traveling abroad. Nor, equally importantly, no government on Earth asserts the authority to conscript foreign citizens who are merely visiting and not living as permanent residents in their nation.
Let’s do something one would normally never do, and present North Korea as a civilized example. The North Korean government would never even consider that it has the authority to draft foreign visitors, such as musicians or reporters, into the North Korean Army. Even to North Koreans, that would be insane.
It is equally insane to assert that the U.S. Government retains the right to exercise such authority over its foreign guests thus making them subject in the most fundamental manner possible to its authority. Without that subjection, a father’s son is not subject either because children are not directly subject to government until they are old enough to commit crimes which they know are crimes, but even that is merely civil subjection to society’s laws, which all humans are subject to, including foreign diplomats. [even though they are merely immune from prosecution.]
To summarize: American parents give birth to natural citizen children who inherit their parents’ nationality.
Immigrant parents give birth to legal American citizen children whose citizenship is 100% dependent on meeting the requirements of the 14th Amendment which include native-birth and the real meaning of “subject to” and “the jurisdiction thereof”.
One’s relationship to the United States government at birth is determined by the status of the father.
If he was a foreigner, was he an immigrant or a non-immigrant? If he was an immigrant, was he a legal immigrant or a non-subject illegal immigrant?
If he was a legal immigrant then his children will meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment and by being born in the United States will be granted citizenship from the day of their birth.
Here’s a thought to ponder which I’ve never posed before: “If an assaulter causes the death of a pregnant immigrant’s unborn 8 ½ month old gestating infant, is he guilty of murder? Is the child an American citizen before birth? Philosophically it is not a citizen until it is born, at which point in time it becomes a citizen at birth. But if the same thing happens to an unborn infant with American parents, it is an American citizen before it is born regarding murder statutes. But no doubt, such statutes actually relate not to citizenship but to the issue of “human, or not yet human?”
But consider the fact that in the United States we allow abortionists to commit infanticide as long as it is done before the child fully emerges from the womb.
If the killing of a human infant based on mere inches of occupied space can be so legally arbitrary, it is for certain that legal citizenship can be just as legally arbitrary, and be based on the same authority, -that of a split Supreme Court opinion,-both of which tossed out the court’s own stare decisis, -prior precedence, and made majority rulings that were forced on the nation as the new law of the land without the approval of the U.S. Congress.
No such court holding can affect natural born American children because their citizenship is natural citizenship resulting from natural transmission, and not a legal or constitutional benevolence of law or judges.
Visa Card visitor→Green Card resident →naturalization applicant →Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation →new legal citizen of the United States by statute.
Green Card resident father, → native-born child , → new legal citizen of the United States per the Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
American father & mother → new natural born citizen of the United States per no law but natural law.
by adrien nash August 2013
August 16, 2013 Leave a comment
The “common knowledge” that everyone assumes is true (based on the fact that almost everyone that most people know is a natural American citizen born in America) leads to the certainty that they are Americans naturally by being born in America. That is not illogical nor irrational, but it does not follow that therefore it must be true.
General rules based on assumptions based on observed facts are usually correct, but can also be the opposite of what is correct. Everyone assumes that it’s a rule that if you’re born in America then you must be an American citizen because that is the common everyday apparent fact of life. But such “rules” always fail to take into account the bigger picture, -the picture in which at the peripheral there are exceptions to “the rule”.
An analogy that just presented itself to me while gardening is that of the rule that you always pull out the yellow blossoms of dandelions before they have a chance to turn into wind-driven spore balls. That is something that you always want to do, and which I’ve always done, -until just now. I came across an exception which I had never seen before and was unaware of. My general rule promptly was seen to not be absolute & never-to-be-broken.
What broke the rule and disproved it? The was a big fat bubble bee on top of the yellow blossom. A dogmatic parent who insists that their little children always pull out the yellow blossoms would be requiring adherence to a rule that unexpectedly has an exception, and ignoring it would have a very bad downside.
So it is with the assumption that all children born in America are Americans, no exceptions. Well, there are exceptions, and two of them are openly acknowledged by the purveyors of the “rule”.
They are children born to foreign ambassadors or to foreign invaders. Now when did God himself say that there are two and only two exceptions? Where’s the stone that that is written on?
The authorities that they quote never say that there are only two exceptions. They merely say that there are two exceptions, -but no imposition of the word “only” unless they are a non-authority misquoting a more ancient authority. Such misquotes are the result of presuming something not in evidence.
There is in fact a third exception, and it is the children of foreign visitors with no permanent residence in America nor the permission to establish one. They are merely guests of the government whose home is back in their own nation.
A child born to them belongs to them and they belong to their foreign homeland where they live and will raise their child. So how exactly is such a child an American? In what sense would it be a member of American society?
It isn’t and therefore is the third exception to “the rule” that all children born in America are American citizens. Only our government is too brain-dead to even recognize that there is a problem with the rule, and so the children of every sort of evil person can force the U.S. government to consider his child an American citizen by forcing it to follow its own….its own….law? No, there’s no law that says they are. Supreme Court ruling? No, there’s not such ruling. Federal policy? Yes, there is such a policy, and it has been around for so long that entire generations have grown up and died thinking all along that it was not a policy but an actual law.
But the truth is: THERE IS NO SUCH LAW! NO SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. NO SUCH SUPREME COURT HOLDING. IT IS ALL PURE PRESUMPTION EXECUTED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HEADED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
It is what is known as “institutionalized error”, and such errors are rarely corrected, especially when there are loud and strong forces opposing it and few or none fighting to correct it.
And so everyone goes about their merry way assuming that it is an American law that Barack Obama is an American citizen, when that assumption is based on nothing but erroneous presumption.
He is NOT an AMERICAN CITIZEN. (legally speaking). NOR ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT! (constitutionally speaking) HE IS A FRAUD THROUGH AND THROUGH. (except to his marxist inner circle of oligarch WANNA-BEs. He’s not a fraud to them because they are fully aware of his fraudulence and are fellow keepers of his criminal secrets. To them his contrived fakeness is all part of playing the game of getting elected.
Well now that be has been re-elected, there’s that slight complication of figuring our what to do and how to do it. They already know why they want their way in all things, -they just can’t figure out how to get the American people to go along with their utopian dreams and schemes. If it weren’t for that darn obstructionist House of Representatives, we’d probably all be living in Utopia by now. -or maybe Hell, depending on how cooperative the little people are or aren’t in the elimination of their liberty.)
The Figure Eight Analogy
I lived a half century knowing only one way to spool a hose that wasn’t on a reel, and that was to curl it in circles on top of itself so that it isn’t sprawled all over the ground. Is that not the way that you’ve also always done it? It was the only way known, as far as I knew, but like the truth about citizenship, there was, in fact, another way, -a way that was far superior and made perfect sense instead of creating a big problem.
What problem? The problem of it unspooling in circular spirals when pulled from the end toward some desired location that needs watering. Curling the hose up in circles seems like a perfectly natural and convenient thing to do, just as ascribing citizenship based on place-of-birth is a very, very convenient thing to do, -so convenient that it is irresistible, and yet, like the hose, it comes with unwanted complications.
When a reel of anything of a stiff continuous linear nature, -whether wire, ribbon, fiber, rope, or cable is pulled off its reel sideways without the reel moving (or off the ground without unspooling in a reverse circular manner) then its circular arrangement remains as one loop for every circle of spooling, and when the object is pulled tight those loops can’t untwist themselves and thus result in kinks.
If the object is a hose, it will kink on itself and pinch off the flow of water. If it is a fiber-optic cable, it will damage the cable by fracturing it on the molecular level. To prevent that, a device was invented or appropriated by the U.S. government which all users of such cable are encourage to use. There is an entire extensive web page devoted to it, which depicts a board with two conical-shaped tubes positioned a short distance from each other with the fiber cable looped around them in the form of a figure eight.
[Major advantages of the present invention include, but are not limited to, fiber stowage between spliced components, fiber stowage and pay-out from a missile to form a secure data link with the launch platform, garden hose stowage and payout, fire hose stowage and payout, in-ground or overhead cable stowage and payout, non-rotation sensitive sensing coil wind for the Sagnac Interferometer.]
The patent is dated to only 2005 but I learned of the idea earlier than that when one day I looked at a hose looped on the ground at my father’s home in the shape of a figure eight. I had no idea why someone would do that and so he explained that doing so prevents spiral loops when you pull the hose away from where it is laying.
I had never in my life conceived that there was something very important that I didn’t know about such a simple thing as neatly storing a hose after use, and that kind of view is just the view of “authorities” when it comes to their “understanding” of citizenship. They think it is something so simple that there isn’t anything that they don’t know because place-of-birth-determined citizenship seems like a perfectly natural means of ascribing it, and yet they don’t know the important elements that go into the very basis of citizenship, being unaware of a factor that greatly complicates such a simple thing, namely the presence of illegal aliens having babies, along with the counterfeiting of birth certificates for the foreign born.
The government encourages that excess fiber-optic cable be stored in a figure-eight manner, which is the smart thing to do, but fails to require that the same sanity be implemented in regard to the basis of citizenship even though there is no legal grounds for following the unprincipled policy that it adheres to. Some old dogs cannot learn new tricks.
I once employed the nearby hose of my father’s mobile home neighbor, and thought I’d do him a favor and curl it back up when done in a figure-eight pattern. Next time I saw that hose, it was curled up in the old circular pattern. Lesson: not learned. The neighbor, like myself, had never seen such a pattern for hose storage and so he went on his way by following what had always been the pattern used all of his life, even though in fact it contains a serious flaw. And that is just what the government does when it comes to babies of illegal aliens and foreign visitors, such as the father of Barack Obama.
Nothing in United States law or Supreme Court holdings requires that they continue with their flawed and incorrect policy, but it is the way that things have always been done, just like with “good fences make good neighbors”. No one has to think about it because it is a “settled” issue.
The British Admiralty had a settled issue regarding the seamen that manned its vast fleet. It was a policy of not supplying them with citrus fruit, like lemons and limes, while on long, long voyages at sea. One doctor told them that he had discovered that citrus fruit prevents scurvy, which racked the entire long-voyage fleet (due to lack of something unseen and unknown; Vitamin C).
He was dismissed as a kook by the haughty and prideful oligarchs of the fleet, since no one had ever heard of such a thing (-therefore how could it be true?). Consequence: sailors continued to suffer and die by the hundreds of thousands for two hundred years longer until the truth was finally acknowledged and imposed on the entire fleet, resulting in British sailors being nick-named “Limeys”.
So far, we as Americans have ignorantly adhered to a policy put in place in 1898 by a confused Attorney General who presumed that the Supreme Court had ruled that children of aliens, if born in the U.S., are U.S. citizens, when in fact all that they ruled was that native-born children of immigrants are U.S. citizens. Not all aliens are immigrants and so children born to them on U.S. soil are not covered by that ruling regarding the meaning of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and the state wherein they reside.”
So, over one hundred years later we are still saddled with the policy ignorantly put in place by that Attorney General, and left to wonder if, like with the British Admiralty, it will take a full two centuries before it is corrected. I don’t know about you, but to me that seems like too long to wait. We might all be dead by then (-along with the free and independent United States of America).
by Adrien Nash August 2013 http://obama–nation.com