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

or How Foreign Women Prove Obama Is Not An American Citizen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com

Obama’s Secret Origin

last revision Aug. 31, 1 PM

The Hidden Past He Can’t Reveal nor Disprove

Barack Obama has been “proven” to have been born in Hawaii by the existence of images of old newspaper birth announcements that included his name.  If those newspaper listings of births are genuine and not counterfeit, then Obama’s birth would have been registered with the Department of Health and a registration number would not have to have been “lifted” from Stig Waidelich’s or Virginia Sunahara’s birth certificates (she having died within days of birth) some 44 years later during the presidential campaign in order to produce a counterfeit for Obama.  Such genuine birth announcements would thereby disprove all of the suspicions regarding the origin of his birth certificate number.

But there are two possibilities that would nullify that logic and require that the newspaper images assumed to have been “found” in the microfilm archives be counterfeit.

1.  His registration was over a year after birth.  His mother, who was not even in Hawaii two weeks after his birth, may have spent the last months of pregnancy in Seattle, and returned to Hawaii over a year later and attended college in Spring of 1963.  Since she didn’t attend either the Fall or Winter quarter of 1962-63, her return was certainly later than Aug 4. 1962.  Consequently only a late birth certificate would have been issued, which, if I recall correctly, would have stated clearly that it was a late registration (-just as amended birth certificates are required to be labeled as amended).

In that case the two images of the newspaper birth-record listings would have to be faked, -doctored.  Since the source of the newspaper images has never been revealed, and no one has come forward to testify that they can be found in the Hawaiian and the Californian and  Congressional microfilm archives, -and that they personally have seen them and therefore verify their existence, -and… since the reel on which the microfilm covering August 1-15, 1961 has been replaced with a reel unlike any of the others,  it is impossible to assume that if there was a need to create a fake birth certificate, that the newspaper records would have simply been ignorantly ignored or overlooked instead of being “fixed” to support a counterfeit birth certificate.  After all, what conspiracy of such great importance would not have been well thought out?

That’s not conspiracy thinking.  That is simply the way that amoral politics works, and, more often than not, politics is completely amoral.

Besides not actually being born in an Hawaiian hospital, the other reason his birth would not have been included in with all the others sent to the newspapers is that the vital event reports (birth, death, marriage), compiled for publication in the newspapers, only listed all accepted submissions to the Dept. of Health, rather than all filed registrations.  All hospital birth certificate submissions would have been immediately accepted as legally valid, while all of the self-reported births would not, but were received and filed pending receipt of corroborating evidence.  It would be logical to not include the uncorroborated births in with the certified births that were reported to the newspapers.   They would first need the required corroboration to make “acceptance” possible.

If his mother only filed a self-attesting Affidavit with the local registrar, which was typed up, (“half hand-written, half typed” as reported by an Hawaiian official who observed what was in their records) but it was not “accepted” because of a need for corroborating evidence as required by law (proof of residency for one year, a statement from a medical witness or attendee, or testimony from a related witness, or documentation from another country), then it would also never have been included in the newspaper compilation list, nor given a Registration Number until documentation was supplied to the Health Dept.

But the affidavit in written and typed form would have been left in a file as a “record”, -a “vital record”, -or what (via perversion of language) was falsely called an “original birth certificate” in their archive, but no actual DoH Hawaiian hospital birth certificate would exist regardless of the impossible-to-prove claim that “the original birth certificate” is bound in a ledger with all the others.
[the official statements do not call what's in their files an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate]  On the other hand, his birth could have been reported to the newspapers even with no corroborating “proof” received and accepted  by the DoH if the lists were composed of all of the filed self-reports and hospital certificates instead of only the accepted registrations.  So suspicions and questions remain unanswered, and probably unanswerable without some serious investigation.

Does anyone have a good reason why such scenarios are inconceivable without resorting to idolizing and sanctifying the veracity of the word of Hawaiian government employees?   One makes sense and debunks suspicions about a need for a stolen registration number.  The other makes sense and raises suspicions of a need for a stolen registration number for a counterfeit birth certificate for one who would seek the presidency.
Neither can be shown to reflect the truth because of a lack of evidence, which mostly remains classified as non-public.  But from what we know and can surmise from bits of information and plausible -or even likely, possibilities, we can construct the following scenario:

1.  Ann Dunham was an only child who was moved across country about 6 times, with Seattle being her only stable roost for a long time (-five of her formative teenage and High School years) and as a consequence, like an “Army brat” shuttled from base to base (like Clint Eastwood) she grew up with more independence and experience than all of her peers who had never moved , -or moved only once in their lives.

2.  Her attitude and thinking were quite liberated in the High School she attended on Mercer Island.
“1956:  They moved to Mercer Island so that 13-year old Ann could attend the high school that had just opened.  She was on the school debate team and graduated in 1960.  Mercer Island High School was a hotbed of radical indoctrination with ties to the Communist Party. Some parents protested the school’s politics, but not the Dunhams. They had abandoned their conservative religious ties and began attending a Unitarian church which the locals called ‘the little Red church on the hill’.”

Mercer Island High School was a hotbed of pro-Marxist radical teachers.  John Stenhouse, board member, told the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee that he had been a member of the Communist Party USA and this school has a number of Marxists on its staff.

Two teachers at this school, Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman, both Frankfurt School style Marxists, taught a “Critical Theory” curriculum to students which included; rejection of societal norms and questioning authority, attacks on Christianity and the traditional family, and assigned readings by Karl Marx.

The hallway between Foubert’s and Wichterman classrooms were called ‘Anarchy Alley.’
Stanley Ann Durham was an atheist and an original believer in women’s liberation.

A “friend” from high school has said that Dunham “touted herself as an atheist, and it was something she’d read about and could argue.”

Barack Hussein Obama Junior said, “My mother…was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position-paper liberalism.”.

3.  After graduation, she / they moved again, -to Honolulu, Hawaii.  There the family connected with Frank Marshall Davis (“Frank” or “Pop” in Obama’s autobiography) a Black Marxist, Communist Party member who published a communist periodical.  He was also a photographer, with his specialty being erotic and nude scenes of young women which he sold to men’s magazines.
He shared his work with Ann during that first summer in Hawaii as a seventeen year old with all of an exciting life before her.  She liked what she saw, was thrilled by the forbidden-ness of it, the sensuality of it, and the visceral appeal to ones erotic desires, and was tempted into participating in some photo shoots in semi & fully nude scenes.

What could have felt more liberating than that?  That was way beyond mere liberated thinking.  That was fully liberated feeling, and no doubt it was kind of intoxicating compared to a boring everyday existence.  The two of them may have taken that excitement to the next level (or depth) of experience, -and desire.

["In Hawaii she started classes on September 26, 1960 at the University of Hawaii in Manoa, having arrived as a full fledged radical leftist and practitioner of “critical theory.” She also began to engage in miscegenation as part of her attack on society.  Susan Blake, one of her friends has stated she never dated 'the crew-cut white boys'  'She had a world view, even as a young girl. It was embracing the different, rather than that ethnocentric thing of shunning the different. That was where her mind took her.'”]

4.  In college Russian Language class she met Barack H. Obama from Kenya [very, very different!]
5.  At the end of October, perhaps on the night of a liberated Halloween party, with the drinks plentiful and inhibitions minimal, she may have wanted to repeat the liberating excitement of her hypothetical encounter the Davis, and so they had an intimate encounter.

6.  In December or January she deduced that she was pregnant.  In February, somehow, someway, somewhere they got “married” to protect her child from the scourge of discrimination that would be directed at it not only for being bi-racially conceived (a crime in many states, along with mixed marriage) but also an illegitimate one who would be stuck with the stigma of being a bastard.

That presumed marriage is believed to have taken place in February of 1961.  After that point, there is no record whatsoever of any kind or form of where she spent the months between then and late August of that year when the University of Washington has her recorded as enrolled in classes on August 19th.

7.  Such a vacant record allows speculation as to where she was during August and July and June and May… She probably spent February and March and April at her home in Hawaii, but if she had been allowed and funded by her parents to returned to Seattle where she was planning to attend Washington State U. beginning in the Fall semester (funded by them no doubt) -where she would be away from their new home with her growing embarrassment while feeling right at home where she had “grown up”, then it would follow that Seattle was the place that she intended to deliver the baby and perhaps hand it over to an adopting couple through an adoption agency working with a home for unwed mothers.

Since a State Dept official noted in his notes about the foreign student Obama that they were considering adoption, that would be a most likely solution to her predicament.  She would have disappeared off the radar if she was residing in a home for young women who found themselves to their embarrassment “in a family way”, -homes such as were run in a socially invisible manner by various charities.

8.  If such an adoption agency was relied on but it could not find any takers for a mix-race baby, she would have to have widened the area of her search.  There was a whole other large pond of potential parents just over the Canadian border in Vancouver, British Columbia.  Along with that as a possible lure, was the fact that Canada may have had socialized medicine, and since the father was a subject of the Commonwealth, as was Canada, the expense for a delivery there may have been little to none.

9.  She is given hope that a Vancouver agency may be able to find a willing couple, so she travels the two hours drive North, and checks-in to a home for such occasions.  But any and all potential takers in Canada decide against adopting her child, or she chose to keep her own flesh & blood for herself after holding and nursing him.
10.  After recovering for two days, on August 7th she flew to Hawaii from Vancouver.  The next day, August 8th, she went to register her child with the local registrar.

In the pre-9-11-world, could she have flown between Canada and the U.S. without a need for a passport?  I drove from Seattle to Vancouver in 1974 and didn’t need a passport at the border, so why would one be needed to make a similar return trip by air?
If she took such a flight, would not all passengers from an international inbound flight nevertheless be required to fill out a U.S. Customs card for items being brought into the country?

Since the section of the microfilm record of the Custom Cards for the first week of August is missing from the reel it was once attached to (without any explanation) could that fact be because the record she filled out on such a flight needed to disappear since it would be evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii because his mother was not even in Hawaii on the day he was born?
Or did she drive back to Seattle, move in with others, register for Fall classes, and remain there until 1963 without either an American birth certificate nor a Canadian birth certificate for her son?  That can’t be ruled out because her mother or father could have completed an affidavit on her behalf, -claiming a home birth or whatever else may have been acceptable.  She could have informed Obama Sr. about the birth via telephone since he knew about it at the end of August as seen in the notes of a State Department Officer.

11.  After giving birth, she may have returned to Hawaii soon after or a year and a half after.  Either way, she needed to obtain a  birth certificate for her son in order to secure his U.S. citizenship.  To do so, did she write out a self-attesting affidavit declaring that he was born in Seattle, or Vancouver, or at her parents’ home in Honolulu?  If she did, what required proof would she have had with her?  None.
If the clerk took her submission, typed it up and filed it, would not the next step have been to return with the needed proof of one year of residence per the law *, or some other official record of the birth from another jurisdiction outside the country, -or a notarized affidavit from a parent or witnesses to the birth event having occurred at home?

[*Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961, and other subsequent Hawaii birth laws that allow registration with no hard proof, or allow foreign birth registration, leaves an opening to claim Hawaii “birth” without it being true.

12.  In Hawaii, with evidence supporting the statements in the affidavit being required but never supplied, would the registration ever have been sufficiently validated to issue a “normal” short-form birth certificate?

13.  If she had returned with some acceptable verification of some birth facts, would that not have resulted in the issuance of a birth certificate?    Such a birth certificate is not what Obama’s campaign nor the White House has shown.  Neither images released are images of True Copies since they are merely standard “Abstracts”  So either that possibility is true and allowed his mother to obtain a “real” Hawaiian birth certificate, or else  Obama’s birth certification and birth certificate are fakes.  But how can we know which is true and which is false?  Just trust and don’t verify.  That’s all they ask.

14.  Was Obama Jr. able to travel to Indonesia with his mother and adoptive father Soetoro at age six without having to provide the State Dept. with a birth certificate because he was traveling as the son of a foreign national and it’s not the job of the State Dept. to care about the birth circumstance of children of foreign nationals who are leaving the country accompanied by their parents?

15.  When, at age 10,  he and his mother returned to Hawaii, did he travel with Indonesian papers only and not an American passport because he lacked an American birth certificate?

16.  Does he even possess an American passport or has his entire sojourn in the United States been one as an Indonesian citizen?  What identification did he use in order to obtain a drivers license?

17.  What passport did he use when he traveled to Pakistan with his Occidental College room-mate in 1980?  Was it a renewed Indonesian passport?  If he had a renewed Indonesian passport, why would that not have served as his primary identification?

18.   If that was his primary identification, and he needed to release an American birth certificate to run for the office of President, would he not have had to obtain a counterfeit birth certificate since he didn’t have one?

We can’t and won’t ever prove what is true and what is false because Obama and the Obamunists who control the State Department and the State of Hawaii will never allow anything to ever be made public beyond their previous statements.  The public display of a digital image of a supposedly real birth certificate will not be treated as permission to make the original papers in the Hawaiian archives public for the American people so that they can ascertain whether or not they illegitimately elected and reelected an illegitimate President (regardless of the de facto waiver of confidentiality or privacy concerns by its public availability).
They cannot be persuaded to do that because they know what is in their archive and it is not what Obama has released.  What he has released is only found in the computer database, (-not in their archive files) having been easily added as a digital file like all of the rest of their digitized records.
Since no one can ever disprove their statements, even if they boldly lie, they can “validate” or “Verify” anything, any claim, and the only authority they need to do so is the fact that they work for the State-established bureaucracy.  They have what is in effect a State-license to lie with impunity and never have to be questioned about it.

That’s because constitutionally we are under the “Honor system”.  Every State must accept everything from every other State as being legitimate.  That is well and fine and no problem, until it comes to certifying the legitimacy of a man that they adore and want to support and maintain in the national center of power as the one-in-300 million President of the United States.  Then the Honor System becomes a giant impediment to the ascertainment of the truth.

How do Obama’s flying monkeys respond to such questions and suspicions?  Their only recourse is to stringently adhere to the pretense that the word of Hawaiian officials is the gods-honest, official, grown-up authority-figure, unquestioningly truthful truth.

In other words, they never lie.  They work for the government so you have no choice but to believe them.  They would not lie.  And yet they have lied.  Not one of them can claim that they have never in their adult life told a lie.  They cannot claim with any veracity that there is nothing on earth that would prompt them to lie.  They cannot claim that even if they do lie, it would bother their atheist consciences.

So there are real reasons that would lead them to lie, but the total collapse of the regime of their favorite native-son and his abject humiliation and possible prosecution is absolutely not one of them.  No, no, never.  Trust them, and stop asking anymore damn questions!

Questions like:  who verifies the verifiers?  Fast & Furious.  Who verifies what or who instigated that mammoth fiasco when the President claims executive privilege in the absence of any such authority in the Constitution?

Similar questions can and should be asked about the FBI spying on journalists in flagrant violation of the law as written and intended, along with the unanswered questions about culpability for Benghazi, the GSA scandal, the NSA scandal, the State Dept. scandal, the IRS scandal (which leads to the brick wall of 5th Amendment silence lest one incriminate herself), and new ones popping up all the time, -all of which are of course “phony” as proven by….?  NOTHING!  No, wait, -proven by Obama himself! -having labeled them all for us so that we know the truth about what they really are.  Phony!

If Christ himself or the angels of God were to so inform us, then we should and would believe it, but Obama?  He’s the biggest prevaricator to ever set foot inside the White House.  His word can be trusted only as far as one can verify it.  And he and his cannot be the ones to do the verifying because they can’t be trusted since the truth is their greatest enemy.

And yet, they cannot be challenged either because all of the evidence that would reveal the truth is kept by them under lock and key, (or under a blanket of intimidation and fear), -or it went up in smoke years ago. But what good is evidence if no one will ever even ask to see it (other than a Congress that gets fed pages of blacked-out text)?  Not the infantile, spineless, lap-dog media, nor the generally silent Congress (which fears the NSA knowing all of their buried secrets) nor any court in the land, -almost all of which are on the side of ever greater government growth and power.

It’s not just the cult of the Emperor, it’s the Cult of the “sure-thing”.  And a great gubmint job is a very secure sure thing, -fer sure, along with Big Government benefits, bail-outs, hand-outs, subsidies, financial guarantees, tax exemptions and protections from non-union enterprises .  Protected by self-serving anti-taxpayer government employee unions no less.

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

PS     The lying liars in the DoH claimed to have witnessed the copying of Obama original birth certificate but they couldn’t have actually done what they claimed,  especially since they never do that for any other birth certificate because all of them are already digitized and in their data base.  Original birth certificates haven’t been “copied” for about two decades, -ever since they were all digitized.  They just call up the record on their desktop computer, and press print.

Also, does anyone really think that the 1961 bound volume is just sitting on a shelf and not under lock & key?  Or if it is on a shelf, that it still contains the affidavit and typed version that constitutes what they have the audacity to call the  “original birth record” -like its some form of authentic official document signed by a doctor and Verna Lee?  Bunk!  or as  Betty Davis once said: “Garbage, pure garbage!”

   Senor Obama does not have an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate and that’s why he can’t show the one that he’s used all of his adult life instead of needing to “request a copy” in 2008.  What idiot would think that he never needed and  never had a birth certificate before running for the office of President of the United States?  You’d have to be the  dumbest person on earth to believe that.
On the other hand, he wouldn’t need one if he had a valid Indonesian passport to use for ID.  We know that no one and no thing vetted his constitutional qualification to run for the presidency, but who or what even vetted him to run for the United State Senate?

   Senators must be American citizens for nine years and yet no one has verified that he is even an American citizen at all.  [everyone just presumes that be must be because they presume that he must have been born in Hawaii, and they presume that that must mean that he is a citizen, and that must mean that he is eligible to be President.

   None of that nonsense is necessarily true and yet everyone assumes that it is.  Mix counterfeit legitimacy with public ignorance and misconceptions and Viola!  You have a perfectly legitimate American Presidente!  What’s there to question?  Inquiring mind do not want to know.  They just want to move along because there is nothing to see here.  These are not the droids we’re looking for.

Check-out my simulation of what is actually in the Hawaiian archive, -namely the half-written, -half-typed affidavit.  Jpeg version: (large file size)  http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/duham_affidavit_simulation.jpg

Pdf version (small file size) http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/dunham_affidavit_simulation-b.pdf

Why Obama’s birth certificate can’t be believed

The reasons to doubt that Honolulu was the location of Obama’s birth are all tied to what is missing.

It begins with the absence of any eyewitness, even the women who gave birth at the supposed same time and place.  No one remembers him or her even though new mothers in that era stayed in the hospital for many days after giving birth.

No photos of proud mother with newborn.  Wouldn’t someone have taken one of an only child with her firstborn?  Not even one photo of pregnancy, -the most dramatic event of Ann’s young life.  No hospital claiming bragging rights as the place that a unique President, a Hawaiian supposedly, was born.  No public hospital admissions log that the public is allowed to examine.

No “half hand written, and half typed” affidavit “vital record” in possession of the H.DoH that anyone has been allowed to examine even though a supposedly real birth certificate image is fully public, nullifying privacy concerns.
No Hawaiian official has ever referred to an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate for Obama.  No Hawaiian official has ever testified under oath as to anything about Obama’s birth record.  No Hawaiian official has released a statement that wasn’t couched in carefully written, legally ambiguous language.

No statement made by any Hawaiian official can be taken as true because of a state and party and ideological bias toward supporting their favorite Hawaiian son, -son of one of the most socialistic, welfare-dependent states of all.
The birth certificate image is couched in mystery, with nothing provable about its origin and legitimacy, but everything cloaked in attorney-client privilege, and deliberately so.  Even Obama himself was careful to never once mention the long-form bc that he appeared before reporters to present.  It was never even allowed in his presence, (plausible deniability).

Not a single unbiased, questioning person was allowed to exam what was supposedly created by the Hawaiian DoH.  No one can testify that it was not merely a color photocopy of a digital file that was fabricated on a computer using original Obama and non-Obama sources supplied by an insider in the Hawaiian DOH.

No one can explain why the birth certificate of Virginia Sunahara, born within a day of Obama, was missing from the database, (and presumably the archive) when inquiry was first made.   Nor why her brother was barred by the DoH and a judge from obtaining a copy of her long-form even though she died just days after her birth, nor why her registration number, seen on her short-form, is totally out of sequence when that would have been impossible under the strict administration of Verna Lee, -the registrar at that time.


No one can explain how ink came to be located in the exact perfect position in relation to the letter “a” of the stamped signature of the Registrar, Alvin Onaka, to result in an unmistakable appearance of a smiling face.  If moved the slightest amount in any direction the effect would not exist.  How great does one’s gullibility have to be to believe in such an unbelievable coincidence when it can’t be dismissed as something other than a forger’s covert signature mark?
How can an image, or a print from it, be certified by any legitimate authority when it is not signed nor embossed and is nothing more than an abstract digital creation from an unknown and unprovable source?

What business or organization in the world would accept a document or contract of major importance without a signature when every legal document created requires one?  Who would buy a million dollar bridge offered by a Nigerian “businessman” based on trusting in a contract stamped with a facsimile of a signature?

Why does unauthenticated “Letter of Verification” from Hawaii regarding Obama not bear the actual signature of a human being?  How can one have confidence that the secretary that wields the registrar’s rubber signature stamp ever even consults with the registrar?   Without the signature from his hand, how does anyone know that he is even alive?

How can Obama’s birth place be assured when Hawaii allows and allowed out-of-state births to be registered for the purpose of obtaining a birth certificate, including foreign nationals with one year of residency?

Why did Obama Sr. not capitalize on having an American child when seeking an extension of his Visa in late August 1961?  Why would one not conclude that he didn’t even know of his birth even though the State Dept. did?

Why is the State Department microfilm record of the Customs cards filled-out by persons entering the U.S. in the first week or 10 days of August 1961 missing from the archive, but no others?

Why is there no evidence of a husband & wife marriage between Obama’s parents, no witness testimony, no photos of the engaged couple, nor honeymoon, nor place of cohabitation?  Why did Obama, or his ghost writer, claim that they lived together for two years when they didn’t live together ever?  If that can be a lie, what can’t?

Where was Ann Dunham between February and August of 1961?  Who can prove or show that she was not living in her familiar preferred home-environment of Seattle during many of the later months of her pregnancy?

Who can show that she did not want to hand her child over to an adoption agency when that is what a note by a federal official in Hawaii states the parents were considering?  Who can show that she didn’t resort to seeking adoptive parents in Canada (Vancouver) because no parents in Washington volunteered to adopt?

Who can show that the Hawaiian witness (and future adoring teacher of Obama) who heard the statement: “Stanley had a baby” did not hear; “Stanley has a baby”, or that either statement indicates the place of birth?  And why would anyone make such a statement to someone who didn’t even know the person being mentioned?
Why has Obama steadfastly refused to present one of his “two certified copies” to any court under any circumstances?  Why has every court folded and caved to Obama even when, in one glaring instance, his lawyer failed to even show up in court?
What naïve fool would assume that Obama-appointed functionaries in the government, including the NSA, IRS, and FBI did not and do not feed his political operatives private information, like that which Harry Reid claimed before the Senate regarding Romney’s supposed non-payment of taxes?
If one cannot assume that they don’t, then what else can’t one assume?

What naïve fool would assume that the revelations of Edward Snowden do not reveal anything about how secrets are uncovered and covered-up by government?  What naïve fool would assume that key Obama supporters in the Hawaiian government wouldn’t justify “the means” used to provide him a way to present the appearance of having a Hawaiian birth certificate by “the ends” of not seeing his presidential legitimacy crack apart and crumble?

Even if none of these possibilities reflect reality, they definitely could, -and you can’t tell the difference between the truth and the lie because none of them have been answered.
By Adrien Nash  july 2013  obama–nation.com

[ Jack Cashill wrote:  Birthers have known for years that there was no Obama family, that the couple never lived together, that Obama campaigned on a lie, and that the major media covered for him every step of the way.  This, ironically, Maraniss confirms in Barack Obama: The Story,..
"In the college life of Barack Obama [Senior] in 1961 and 1962,” writes Maraniss, “as recounted by his friends and acquaintances in Honolulu, there was no Ann; there was no baby.”  Although Maraniss talked to many of Obama Sr.’s friends, none of the credible ones ever so much as saw him with Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham. One Obama friend, a Cambodian named Kiri Tith, knew the senior Obama “very well.”  He had also met Ann through a different channel.  “But he had no idea,” writes Maraniss, “that Ann knew Obama, let alone got hapai (pregnant) by him, married him, and had a son with him.”  Jack Cashill
Having established the facts, Maraniss turns protective.  He refuses to explore the implications of his own reporting.  The most consequential is that Obama grounded his 2008 campaign — his very persona, for that matter — on a family story that was pure fraud.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/maraniss_bio_deepens_obama_birth_mystery.html ]

A Stateless, Unconstitutional “World Citizen” President

The Unnatural nature of dual-citizenship

“Dual citizens are 50-50 combo, half-breed citizens of two different nations.”

“No, you can’t be a “partial” citizen, -a half-American citizen.”

That is true from the perspective of the two governments.  Dual citizens have full citizenship in both nations to which they belong, -either by blood or by blood & borders.  One can’t be born in two different nations but can be born of two different nations when one’s parents are of dissimilar nations with different governments, languages, religions, histories, values or traditions.  The children of such unions, like the children of different races, do not naturally nor fully belong to either group and yet are viewed by both as citizens because of the granting of citizenship via their laws.
Saying that one can’t be a 50-50 citizen, -that one must be a full citizen or an alien, is like saying that one must be fully male or fully female.  One or the other.  But such a view doesn’t take reality into consideration because one can be an unnatural gender; namely, a hermaphrodite.  Both male and female.  Being two things at once is possible but unnatural, and results, in the case of citizenship, in a conflict of nationality.

Citizenship comes with few strings attached, but there are two which many, or most, nations require, and those are the payment of taxes and the obligation of national defense if needed and called.  Both governments have laws governing their citizens and aren’t inclined to provide exemptions for those with a second nationality because that would impinge on their sovereignty, so a tug-of-war exists between one’s obligation to both.  That is an unnatural situation due to an unnatural union of disparate origins.

It’s the civic equivalent to dogs having off-spring with cats. With Nazis having children with Jews.  With Eskimos having children with Africans.  Quite dissimilar natures result in off-spring that do not fully belong to either parent’s group.  But denying the idea of “partial” membership (dual citizenship) resulting from being embraced by both groups is to espouse the nationality equivalent to someone being 200% of a certain thing (political nature).
Racially, it would be like being one hundred percent Negro and 100% Caucasian.  That is impossible, and so it is also politically impossible to be 100% of one nation and also 100% of another because one can only be 100% in total, -not 200% even though proud governments don’t prefer to acknowledge such a bifurcated nature and obligation.
And practically speaking, a conflict never arises for 50% of dual citizens, -those who happen to be female, because they are not subject to the full jurisdiction of two nations since they are not obligated to serve in the military in either (Israel being the only exception).  If neither nation has a universal draft of all young male citizens, then no potential conflict would arise.  The United States was not such a nation (because it had held that the most fundamental obligation of citizenship was national defense) until that historical national policy changed with the abolition of the draft.

Dual nationality is accompanied by another similar form of unnatural citizenship, and that is adopted citizenship, -citizenship that one did not inherit, -citizenship with which one was not born.  There are many analogies to the unnatural change of one’s country and citizenship.  I could use my own background for one example.
I legally changed my name after completing military service.  I adopted a name that I was not born with, -an identity that I was not given at birth.  Such a thing is a right but that does not make it a natural thing since it is purely a legal thing, -a legal alteration.  I had to hire a lawyer and go to court.
Anyone from my past that sought to find me would find that I ceased to exist at some point.  Hence, I’ve never been contacted by my High School reunion committee to announce a class reunion.  I didn’t attend the 10th, 25th, 40th, etc. class reunions because my previous name vanished from their radar.


   Another example would be if one were to change their gender from male to female.  That would not be a natural change but a physical change because one is naturally what they are by birth, -not surgery.
Naturalization is similar.  Naturalization is a form of political surgery.  One must sever their born nature and adopt a new political nature.  What one was born being is rejected via the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation.  That is political surgery that changes one from one thing into another.  It does not add another nature to one’s existent born nature; it replaces it.  Such a citizenship change is a legal-political alteration from one’s natural status.  It provides one with new legal citizenship.  It does not and cannot provide one with natural citizenship.

If one has dual citizenship in two nations that do not allow dual-citizenship for its adult members (while allowing provisional citizenship for its dual-citizen minors) then one must make a choice at adulthood which nation one chooses to belong to.  If neither nation has a policy or law that grants citizenship based on birth within national borders, then one might have provisional citizenship in both nations (if neither recognizes gender difference and the supremacy of the father’s nationality).

If one has only provisional citizenship in two nations, and, upon reaching the age of majority, one  neglects, in both nations, to take the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation (as Kenya required of Barack Obama Jr.), then one’s provisional citizenship would expire in both nations (as Obama’s Kenyan citizenship did two years after reaching age 21)  One would then be a citizen of no nation on earth; -a stateless person.

Barack Obama is neither Kenyan nor British since his provisional membership in both was allowed to expire but his supposed birth within U.S.territorial limits did not fulfill the requirement of the 14th Amendment (which grants citizenship to children of aliens if born in the U.S.) because it only covers children of alien fathers who are immigrants since only they are subject to a citizen’s obligation to defend his nation via military or civilian service if the draft were to be re-instituted.
Foreign guests are not subject since they are guests and not official members of American society.  They aren’t legally obligated to register at 18 with the Selective Service since they are not subject to possible conscription into the U.S. military.

Obama’s mother’s American citizenship was only relevant by law for situations of foreign birth,  -not native birth.  There is no law by which an American mother’s citizenship descends to her children if they are born in the United States.  The nationality law that provides American citizenship to children of American women only applies in situations of foreign birth.  So Obama has no source of U.S. citizenship in actual American law, even if some courts have ignored the law because they didn’t understand it and instead simply followed the erroneous over-reaching policy of the executive branch put in place in 1898 by the Attorney General following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the 14th Amendment.

Aside from applying that established policy which has no root in actual American law (other than “the law” that the Attorney General ignorantly or deliberately created) Barack Obama is in the truest sense, a stateless person; -not an American citizen by actual law or Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and therefore can not be considered what the United States Constitution requires for serving in the office of the President, -namely that he be a “natural born citizen”.  So he is neither legitimately a U.S. citizen nor the American President.  He is instead a stateless fraud.

But some problems are simply too big, too huge, too gigantic to deal with, to handle, to get one’s arms around (such as the national debt, the deficit spending, the uncontrolled bureaucracy, the ocean of federal regulations and unfathomable tax code, the military-industrial complex, the secret intelligence complex) and the Obama conundrum is one of them.
No one wants to touch it because it’s like an electrified fence or the third rail of the subway line.  There are serious consequences to even mentioning it.  It might be like daring to claim in 1940 Nazi Germany that Hitler was actually Jewish by ancestry, or that Stalin was actual a Capitalist, or Mussolini was actually a woman.  No one would dare go there, especially when Obama’s NSA flying monkeys know everything about everyone going back decades.

To correct the travesties that Obama has heaped on America would require pulling out some giant plants by the roots and we have few if any political gardeners with the knowledge, experience, and courage to even contemplate such a thing.

Life usually holds quite a few surprises, but what is also surprising is when there are no surprises when there should be.  Such is the case with the near universal silence regarding the unconstitutional usurpation of the office of President by the Progressive-socialist wing of the Democrat Party via their exalted and adored Marxist messiah whose goal is “to fundamentally transform America” (meaning that it’s fundamentally flawed from the ground up).
How would you feel about a contractor you hired to do some upgrading of your home, who, once you’ve signed a contract, announces that he intends to tear your home down and rebuild it from the ground up?  Would that sound like something you would think he has the right to do just because he prefers it?  What about your rights?   After all, it’s your home, not his, -even though he’s taken it over.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers