Fundamental Errors Obama Depends On Pt. 2

Obama’s Constitutional Fraud

& The 20th Amendment

Article II, Section I U.S. Constitution:  No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President.

Another source of fundamental error in understanding the eligibility clause is a failure to grasp the meaning of the word “person”, -what it doesn’t mean and what it does mean.  It does not refer to the class of beings known as humans. Instead it refers to a particular class of humans, which can be discerned easily by process of elimination, -by eliminating a class it could not possibly include, and that is foreigners.  “No person” does not mean “No foreigner”.  Foreigners would not have been and were not even possibly included in its meaning.   They were universally automatically excluded as understood by all.  It was a given.
So with foreigners not even being in the picture, the only thing left was citizens.  Therefore the meaning of “No person” is in fact “No citizen except a natural born citizen”.

So what type of citizen was excluded by the presidential eligibility clause in favor of only natural born citizens?  Was it strictly naturalized citizens?  If it was, and if natural born citizens were considered indistinguishable from native-born citizens of foreign paternity, then the eligibility clause could have and would have been worded in a much more simple manner; i.e.; “No citizen naturalized after the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”  Bingo.
That is much plainer and simpler than the wording chosen, but it was not employed because it was not what they meant.
The provisional inclusion of the second exception allowing all citizens alive before the Constitution was adopted (who were 35 years of age and 14 years in residence) speaks independently that after that point, any citizen who became a citizen by law via naturalization was not eligible to be President.  So, since that is already stated in that segment of the sentence, it cannot possibly be redundantly focused on as the alternative type of citizen that was being prohibited by the “No person except..” language of the first segment.  The Constitution avoids redundancy and interpreting it requires avoiding it.

So if it wasn’t naturalized citizens that those words were intended to exclude, -since they were covered by the “or” segment, then it had to have been a different type of citizen.  What other types were there?  Only two:
Native-born sons of foreigners who were granted citizenship from birth by some states; or sons who obtained derivative citizenship as children upon their foreign father’s naturalization.  They, -being foreigners because they were born abroad, or being foreigners because they were born to a non-citizen, (-even though native-born) inherited by parentage, -by patrilineal descent via the natural law of inherited nature & and position, the new American citizenship of their father. Whatever he was, they were also since they were a reflection of him.
Those sons were the citizens who were not natural born citizens, and were implicitly excluded, deliberately, even though their number was minuscule as a percentage of American sons, perhaps less than two percent.  But if elected President, they could pose a potential security risk that was avoidable by their exclusion.  And so they were excluded.  But they were accepted during the founders’ generation because no monarch-loving wolf in sheep’s clothing would have gotten past the scrutiny of the founders’ generation, and its press.  Plus, Congress was expected to vet their constitutional eligibility to serve before the electoral college voted, or even after.  Congress was expected to nullify the election of any candidate it found unqualified to serve, i.e., -too young, not enough years of residency, or not an American citizen.
So a more clearly worded version would read something like this: “No citizen except a natural citizen, or a legal citizen of the United States living when this Constitution was adopted, shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”
Bear in mind that every citizen that was born of a foreign father was a legal citizen because their citizenship was obtain solely by the authority of law, and not by natural conveyance.

No natural citizen obtained legal citizenship at or after their birth.  Instead, they were born being a “citizen by nature”.  The native-born sons of foreigners could only obtain state and national citizenship via law.  If a state, like the national government, had no such law, which was most, then the children of a foreigner were not citizens of that state nor of the union.  They were viewed as foreigners also, like their father, until he naturalized, -then they acquired derivative citizenship by law and nature, become the same as what he had become.

~       ~       ~       ~       ~

The Twentieth Amendment versus  Obama’s Election

There’s one other area of Constitutional law that has never been enforced regarding Obama’s assumption of the presidency, and that is the authority and presumed requirement of the Twentieth Amendment.

That amendment deals with the qualification and terms of the President and Vice-President.  It states in Section 3: “, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice-President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice-President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is  to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified.”
Its words “failed to qualify” are unmistakably not figurative but literal.  The President must qualify, and therefore to fail to qualify must mean that he failed a review of qualification.  That implies that there must be a review which one may fail because if there is no review then there is no possibility of failing to qualify.  That means that someone or some group had to be charged with ascertaining whether or not the President elect met the requirements of eligibility for the office.
And who would the congressional authors of the amendment have entrusted to ascertain the facts?  Only the representatives of the people, i.e., Congress.  Therefore it was up to Congress to inquiry as to the constitutional qualifications of the men who sought to hold the highest offices in the land.

If they were to find that they did not met the requirements, then they would have been obligated to bring the facts to the full body of one or both houses and take a vote as to whether or not it was agreed that the President elect and/or the Vice President elect had failed to qualify according to the Constitution for the offices they were elected to assume.  So Congress was expected and obligated to be the gate-keeper for the command of the presidency and the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.
That is clearly what the 20th Amendment is worded to mean and yet do we any recollection of Congress actually carrying-out its duty to protect the presidency and the nation from unqualified persons who had the audacity to run for the office, the good fortune, moxie, chutzpa and persuasive power and/or backing to bamboozle their way onto the election ballots of every state, and then win the election?
Well we don’t because they never have, nor ever encountered (until Obama) an elected candidate that was manifestly unqualified, although Congress did hired a high-profile pair of attorneys [Tribe & Olsen] to research whether or not one born outside the United States, but under U.S. jurisdiction, could qualify as a natural born citizen which is the first and foremost requirement of qualification for the presidency.    They concluded that having been born of American parents made John McCain an American citizen regardless of where he was born and that such citizens are the natural members of the American nation and are therefore qualified for the office of the President as natural American citizens.

They had that opinion in hand before Obama was even elected, and it would seem that in order to secure a unanimous consent vote of the entire Senate (in absentia) that declared the opinion of the Senate was that McCain was qualified, the republicans made the choice to violate their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution by remaining silent about the ineligibility of McCain’s fellow Senate presidential candidate Barack Obama, who in fact was not a natural born citizen, and thus was not qualified to be President.

John McCain and his ilk knew full well that Obama was not a natural born citizen but they traded a chunk of their honor, along with their fidelity to the nation’s foundational charter, for the benefit of great opportunity.   They, and the entire United State government committed treason against the Constitution (for “the greater good”) afraid to appear out of step with the momentum to have a serious black candidate for the presidency.  And so they all remained silent, -both before and after the election.  Then even worse, the chief justice-traitor of the supine court acquiesced to the expectation that he swear-in the usurper and thus make the constitutional treason a perfect trifecta of governmental criminality by misfeasance non-feasance, thereby facilitating Obama’s perjury by his false-swearing as he vowed to uphold the same Constitution that he was violating by assuming the office that it declares him ineligible to hold.

And what made it worse was the fact that not even one voice in the media, including the conservative media (other than the internet) would even acknowledge that there was anything suspect about Obama’s eligibility.  And worst of all, all 50 state governments allowed him on the ballot for a second time (!), -and the government repeated its constitutional treason twice!

Like Humpty-Dumpty, this broken government can’t be fixed because its aggressive entrenched attitude of being superior to and unchained by the limitations of the Constitution is not the exception but is the norm.  That’s business as usual.  The attitude in Washington is that institutional power based on institutionalized error and independence from the Constitution in any and every way which they can get away with is the perfectly natural way of running the country, and anyone who wants to hold them to the limits of the Constitution is insane and living in La-La Land because they will never agree to such limitations.  But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

We shall eventually see the dynamic conservative Edward (Ted) Cruz seek the office of the President with the goal of turning the country back to the Constitution and its limitation on federal power, and when he does we will all be engaging in a huge national discussion about who actually is and isn’t eligible to serve as President because he was not born in America but in Canada, and his father was not an American but a Cuban refugee who fled the growing communist oppression.  Such a person with such a perspective is just what America needs to shine a bright light on what statist totalitarian federal power devolves to when the chickens let the fox guard the hen house.

Will you support his unconstitutional bid for the presidency?  What should your criteria be for deciding?  Simple; the lesser of two evils is best, and a minor violation of the Constitution is far less onerous and destructive of the future than another term or two of socialistic-Marxism-leaning progressive policies being forced on everyone in the country in stark violation of the nation’s most basic tenets, those being independence and liberty, self-reliance, individual  and governmental responsibility, and unalienable rights that belong to the People or to the States.

I would support his candidacy fully, especially after being plagued by the milquetoast Republican candidates of the last couple decades, -men who had no idea of what they stood for, and didn’t quite grasp or embody “the vision thing”.  I’d hold my nose so to speak and mark his name choice instead of the democrat candidate’s name.  A glass half full is much better that a glass that’s empty, and a man working toward the right goals is much better than a man or woman not only not working toward them but actively working against them.

What wouldn’t I give to hear a newly elected Ted Cruz, upon the occasion of his inauguration as he prepares to take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and fidelity to the office, then instead decline the office because he has become aware that he is not eligible to hold it.  That would be a moment like when the thick curtain that separated the common outer area from the Holiest of Holies in Solomon’s Temple was ripped by God in absolute disgust from the top down to the bottom.  That would mark the end of one era and the beginning of another.

That would explode the issue of presidential eligibility like nothing else will ever be able to, and put Obama right in its cross hairs where he belongs.  Short of that the truth might never have a chance of breaking through the thick wall of indifference and resistance put up by the opposition in Congress, the Attorney General’s office, and the courts, along with the sycophantic lame-stream media.  They’re all like Obama’s flying monkeys, and act like the three monkeys that see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

That is perhaps the wisest attitude when your emperor is parading around  without a shred of constitutional clothing to cover his naked ineligibility (nor his counterfeit birth certificate fraud).  No one dares question the emperor, not O’Reilly, or Limbaugh, or Levin, or Hannity, or anyone else.  They don’t want anything to do with that third rail which they fear may fry them good if Obama’s henchmen in SEIU decide to start doing more than making threatening comments anonymously.

They might be aware that he is from Chicago, home of Al Capone and institutionalized corruption by gangsters and unions and politicians.    They might be aware that he has brought that same kind of corruption to Washington and put it into power which is exercised not so much by breaking the law but by ignoring it outright and doing whatever they can get away with that is outside of the law and the authority with which they have been entrusted.

Short of such an action by such a person as Ted Cruz, it would seem that a badly needed revolution in constitutional awareness will never sweep nor creep across this country to a degree that would make a real difference.  Americans will sleep on, focused on their favorite sports or gambling or drugs or music or video games or watering hole and their consciousness will never be raised nor awakened.  “Asleep at the wheel”, we will surely suddenly one day find ourselves sleeping comfortably in our own bed when the floor falls away from under us and we disappear into a giant sinkhole of debt and collapse of confidence in the entire American monetary system.

Have a nice day!

by a.r.nash  march 2013  http://obama–nation.com

The Iron Gate that once protected the Presidency

    ~the source of Obama’s presidential ineligibility

     America is one of the most magnanimous nations on earth.  It was so from the beginning, and that fact was inscribed in the Constitution itself.  It provided that if a man met the age and residency requirements, he would be eligible for election or appointment to every office in the land, regardless of where he was born -as long as he was a citizen of one of the states of the union for the prescribed number of years
Everyone who previously had been a subject of one of the colonies became a citizen of their independent sovereign state along with being a citizen of the union of the States of America via their new state citizenship which began in July of 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was ratified.  So every citizen who met the requirements could serve in every office and position in the land, -they could be a representative, a Senator, -even President of the Senate, the Chief Justice, or a cabinet or military officer, and it didn’t matter how they acquired their citizenship, -whether naturally or by naturalization, -whether foreign-born or native born.

But without regard to length of citizenship, one could become Commander-in-Chief of the United States military forces and the American President as long as they were a citizen when the Constitution was ratified.
That was how it was because that was how the Constitution made it to be.  But the Constitution had two built-in timers that started ticking from the time it was ratified.  They didn’t pertain to anyone except those few rare individuals who might one day find themselves with the option of seeking the unique office of the President.
One of those timers involved an expiration situation for all of the male, Caucasian, Protestant, English-speaking citizens of America who were alive when the Constitution was ratified.  They, and their children would all be eligible to serve as President.
The timer that started ticking in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified was a biological timer counting down to death.  The gate that closed when it stopped ticking set a barrier on who could become President after the lives of all living eligible American citizens in 1788 had ended.
When they were all deceased, the iron gate closed and no one could become President unless they were born as a natural American citizen.  An era then ended, the era in which acceptable and eligible male citizens could serve as long as they were alive when the Constitution was adopted.  From that point and forward, “no person except a natural born citizen” could be the President & Commander-in-Chief.
So thereafter, the sons of non-citizen immigrants could not be President (because they were not citizens either), just as the US-born sons of foreign royalty, or foreign representatives or foreign visitors could not be President, -along with Native Americans, Gypsies, Asians and American women.

After the Declaration of Independence was ratified  another timer began ticking and the other iron gate began slowly closing on some of those who weren’t U.S. citizens at birth because their foreign immigrant father was not a citizen.  They drew their nationality from him and so, like him, they were not Americans.
That iron gate was a restriction relating to the nationality of the President.  It barred anyone living who wasn’t a citizen when the Constitution was ratified, -or was born to such a one, (a foreigner).

The timer that began ticking in 1776  involved the naturalization of the children of immigrants, -and whether or not they were naturalized before the Constitution was ratified or after.  It stopped ticking in 1788 upon the ratification of the Constitution by the 9th state, -New Hampshire.  Then the first iron gate closed on the presidential eligibility of  men naturalized after the Constitution’s adoption.

So if a foreigner had emigrated to America in 1771 with a one-year old son, and that son, upon turning 18 in winter or spring of 1788, had done what his father had not done, and had become a naturalized American, then he would have been a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was ratified in June 1788.  By the Constitution’s 2nd allowance to its restriction on the presidency,  -the allowance requiring simply United States citizenship, and not natural citizenship, he, like all native colonists born as subjects of the Crown, would one day become eligible to be the President.

But if his younger brother, (born in America in 1771) who turned 18 in 1789, then also became a naturalized United States citizen (via becoming a citizen of his home state) -he would not be eligible to be President ever because he was not a citizen at the time that the Constitution was adopted, nor was he a natural born citizen.   The iron gate had closed for him, barring any possibility to be President.  His older brother would one day be eligible but he never would even though born in the United States.

That would have been due to his father refusing to become an American, -which required swearing to totally reject all previous nationality bonds to his homeland and its government, along with the pledge to bear arms for the United States and bear true faith and allegiance to the United States and its Constitution.
By refusing to become an American, he and his household remained beyond the jurisdiction of the obligations, duties, and privileges possessed only by citizens.  All of those would be open to him, (and eventually his younger minor son) by becoming an American citizen, which would have automatically naturalized his son via his son’s blood connection to a new-citizen father.

But if the father had emigrated to a State like Virginia, his son, -by being born in the Commonwealth of Virginia, -even though born to a foreigner, would have been by law accepted as a Virginian citizen, -a “son of the soil” (and therefore a U.S. citizen) even though not born to a citizen father).
Even though a “son of the soil” would be a citizen, and be qualified to serve in Congress or on the federal bench, he wouldn’t be eligible to be President if born after 1788 because the iron gate had then closed on all who were not born as natural citizens.
To Congress, the courts, and the executive branch of the government, it didn’t matter where one was born, but to whom one was born.  If one was born to a foreigner then one was not an American.  One was a citizen of their father’s nation, a member of his society and tradition, and if that society and tradition was not American then a child born to such a person was no more an American than his father.
And it didn’t matter that one or more states granted such a “son of the soil” citizenship.  The Congress did not recognize such citizenship for federal purposes until a case of such a citizen being elected to Congress was settled by Congress in his favor, (but the presidency was always off-limits).
By the federal & state constitutions, the rights of such state citizens were protected, and they continued be eligible for all federal offices with the exception of the office of the President which remained off-limits by its unique restriction.  Being President was neither a civil nor a constitutional right, and only those persons recognized as being natural citizens were eligible after the gate of time had closed on the generations of citizens alive when the Constitution was ratified.

Following a Supreme Court opinion a hundred and ten years later (Wong Kim Ark 1898) the federal government was forced to ascribe U.S. citizenship to children of un-naturalized immigrants.  That didn’t change what the Constitution required of candidates for the presidency, but it changed the public’s and the government’s perception of what was required to merely be a citizen.
The misconception arose that merely being born within U.S. borders conferred U.S. citizenship, and worse still, that the U.S. citizenship of all persons born in the U.S. was the same, qualitatively, legally, and constitutionally.  The first two assumptions are correct, but the last one is patently false.

One form of national membership (-assumed to be constitutional since the Wong Kim Ark opinion) is newer than the other, while the other is the oldest form of membership in human history, i.e., natural national membership via a father who was a member.
So presidential eligibility boils down to one primary factor, -a factor over which no one has any control, and that is who one’s father was.  Where one was born is not relevant.    Barack Obama Jr. having no control over where his father was born or to which nation he belonged, was himself controlled by the supreme authority of the Constitution.  At least he should have been.
Unfortunately, he and his corrupt party chose to completely ignore the Constitution, so he illegitimately ran for, won, and usurped the office of the President in violation of the clear prohibition of the Constitution which directs that  “NO PERSON” shall be eligible to the office of the President “except a natural born citizen”, which excludes children of foreigners.
A similar type of travesty would be allowing a U.S. born son of Osama bin Laden or Fidel Castro to have command over a nuclear bomber, or a MIRV equipped nuclear submarine or ICBM.  No crew person who is not a natural born American is allowed anywhere near U.S. nuclear bombs because the absolute loyalty and obedience of children of foreigners cannot be assured.

No sane nuclear nation on earth has any other policy.  There is no room for mistake.  There is no room for subterfuge, there is no room for disloyalty, disobedience, or treason when it comes to such enormously destructive weapons.  The same goes for guarding the President.
Secret Service personnel and Marines entrusted with that responsibility must also be natural  American citizens, -having no direct foreign connection through foreign parents,-which is what the Constitution requires of the President first and foremost, and that is what Barack Obama violates every day that he occupies the presidency.

He is far less eligible to be President than every single one of the important people that work under his command in the field of nuclear weapons control and use.  He is not qualified to give presidential commands to them, nor to even guard himself.  For Obama to have authority over the  nuclear forces of the United States is equivalent to giving control of the Pentagon over to a buck private who’s half Russian.  Experience & qualification; both totally lacking.

He is an on-going fraud and an American travesty.  A living, breathing violation of the United States Constitution.  But the dependent lemming sheeple of the socialist left have done everything in their power to insure that he serves another unconstitutional four years.  Future generations and the fiscal solvency of our country be damned.
Unweaned, dependency populism led by a cool popular, confident, laid-back pot-loving dude is preferable.
Having succeeded, we’re doomed to a future even more bankrupt than what we already are facing.    We’re doomed to ever greater violations of the Constitution, -as bad as or possibly worse than the treasonous ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the unconstitutional health care monstrosity and its totalitarian “individual mandate”.
It’s bad enough that he is unconstitutionally serving as President.  He could do that and serve the country admirably, but instead his actions and inactions are more likely than not to be bad for constitutional fidelity, rule of law, government transparency, individual initiative, personal & corporate freedom, national fiscal solvency, national energy policy, international relations, and the Tenth Amendment limitation on federal power.

Let’s work to ensure that sane and constitutional policies find preeminence again in Washington.  That’s something we’ve never seen in our lifetimes.  What should be normal would truly be revolutionary, and millions of loyalists who support the statist, nanny, Big Brother government wouldn’t like it one bit.

They not only prefer the status quo, they want even more of it, -big government without end clamping on chains of socialist security while robbing the future, -until we find that the track ahead of us is gone and the credit-trestle spanning the gorge where financial solid ground should be is missing. All of that earth (the presumed wealth of the future) was removed in order to shore-up the track we are running on today.
Then, as the whole fiscal house of cards collapses and the pyramid scheme crumbles, as our credit-based-economy balloon deflates, we’ll fall right  into that abyss whose bottom is unknown.

Today’s “leaders” (with enormous assistance from the Federal Reserve) have stuck an IV line into the vein of the future tax-paying public.  Like vampires, they are draining the life-blood out of the body of the American nation of the future.  When that future finally arrives, we no doubt will find that the patient is not only horribly anemic, but may even be comatose.  Better prepare because actual national fiscal responsibility is about the last thing you can reasonably expect from what we call “our government”, -the one that does things it should not do and does not do the necessary things that it should.

by a.r. nash august 2012    obama–nation.com

 

The Bamboozling of America At The Highest Level

~the biggest political scam of all time

You’re about to read what to many unaware and uninformed Americans will sound like fantastic claims, -like crazy conspiracy theorizing, but sometimes “crazy” conspiracy becomes “factual” conspiracy when the truth becomes known.  Recall the office of President Nixon being involved with covering-up a crude break-in of the Democrat Party office in the Watergate Hotel?  And perhaps the President himself involved?  That’s just crazy talk!  But in the real world, often the truth is stranger than fiction.

Let’s begin.  One of the greatest, if not the greatest travesties ever committed against the American electorate occurred in the presidential election of 2008 in regard to the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.  It involved all five areas of the national election arena, beginning with the Press, -the main-stream-media.
It’s job is to ferret out the truth about candidates for elective office and share it with the American public.  We all realize what a great job they did in regard to one John Edwards and his mistress.  (No one would touch it with a ten-foot pole except the National Enquirer.)
Similarly, they stayed ten miles away from the issue of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office of the President.  Instead of vetting him they praised and adored him.  Not a peep was heard from any corner of the land on that vital issue, and that included conservative and independent media types alike.
He got a free pass because he was very inspiring, charming and charismatic, as well as being the first party candidate of color in our history.  So his candidacy was attended by only silence on the issue of whether or not he was even qualified to run for the office.
There are guardians in all 50 states whose job it is to guard against ineligible candidates being placed on their state’s ballot.  They constitute the second area in which the travesty took place.  Every single one of the officers, Attorneys General, or commissions that approved the placement of Senator Obama’s name on their ballots was either bamboozled by the DNC or were complicit in the conspiracy because they all went along with it.  And they’ll repeat that crime.

The third area is that of the Democratic Party leadership which conspired to alter the traditional wording of their presidential candidate certification document.  They secretly removed the language stating that their candidate was constitutionally qualified for the office of President, and instead substituted language stating only that he was legitimately certified as the official candidate of their party.

There was only one reason to do that, and that reason was because they knew that by making that omitted statement they would have been making themselves liable for charges of various sorts, including probably some form of perjury for making a false legal certification.  But they got away with it for four years, so the second time they’ve fearlessly reinserted that false qualifier.
The fourth area that assisted in the conspiracy was the United States Senate.  It had two members running for the presidency who had odd backgrounds.  It authorized a research investigation, but the results it produced contained both the solid truth but also a huge lie.  The truth was in regard to the citizenship of John McCain and the lie was in regard to one such as Barack Obama.  Both having quite different birth circumstances.  So the Senate knew the actual truth but embraced the lie also, and so remained silent.

The final area in which the conspiracy was allowed to transpire was that of the Supreme Court.  They all always knew the truth about Senator Obama’s constitutional ineligibility to run for the presidency but the buck stopped at no one’s desk so they all were silent en mass during the election period.  No one had the spine to speak out and warn all of the known violation of the Constitution that was a very possible outcome.  Then after it had happened, they continued to remain silent and even complicit by swearing into office a candidate that was not eligible for that office.  The five areas of American society meant to serve as watchdogs to defend the Constitution all failed to do their job, even though many of them had taken an oath to do so.

Like what happened at Chernobyl when the reactor managers illicitly allowed five or six processes/tests to take place which caused it to explode and its nuclear core to totally melt down, -when avoiding any one of them would have prevented the disaster, so the American political process saw five areas of society lead in unison to a melt-down (when any one alone could  have prevented it) and thus the process meant to elect a legitimate President, instead elected an illegitimate one.
The conspiracy involved three significant falsehoods.  Two are related but the third is completely apart from the other two.  The two related ones were connected to the proof of Senator Obama’s place of birth.  The third was related to the United States Constitution and its restrictions on who is allowed to be the President of the United States.  Efforts were made to falsify facts, manipulate fallacious ideas, promote untruths, and distort the significance of facts in evidence.  Let’s examine the constitutional issue first.

U.S. Constitution: Article Two, Section One, Clause Five reads:  “No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,..”  If we ignore the issue of where Senator Obama was actually born, then we can presumptuously agree that he could be described as “a born citizen”, but the question remains as to whether or not he is a natural citizen. The meaning of the term “natural born citizen” is not provided anywhere in the Constitution.  That means one of two things, -possibly both, but not likely.

There is no definition for only one reason, -because the author’s, -the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution, all knew perfectly well what it meant and assumed that everyone else did also.  If so then there are still two possibilities.  It either had a set, clear legal meaning, or it had a set, clear non-legal meaning.  Or possibly the two were the same.  But it can reasonably be assumed that there was never a need for a distinct legal definition to develop in America because there was as yet no such thing as the presidency to apply it to.
Under British and colonial law, natural born subjects had no more rights than naturalized subjects, although appointments to certain critical offices which held authority, assets, or information which a traitor could exploit to great harm, were reserved to natural born subjects, but such an appointment was not “a right” anymore than being President is.

So if the meaning of “natural” isn’t found in American/Colonial legal history then it is found in common English, common sense, and “Natural Law”.  The Constitution was not written to be read only by legal scholars but by the common man whose acceptance was important in order to pass it and maintain national unity.  Therefore it can’t be argued that the meaning of the word “natural” is found only in esoteric, complex legislative and judicial documents, but is found instead in common language.  No one needs to tell you what natural means, anymore than you need a lawyer or legal historian to tell you what “unnatural” means.  Remember, the Constitution was written almost entirely in plain English, not legalese.

So the constitutional legitimacy of Senator Obama’s candidacy was dependent on the meaning of that one word  “natural” -what it means as well as what it doesn’t mean.  A “natural citizen” is also a “born citizen” but not all born citizens are natural citizens because they were born to immigrants, -foreigners, and not to Americans.
All Americans are U.S. Nationals, but not all U.S. Nationals are Americans because they do not possess United States citizenship (being Samoan).  Similarly, all persons born as citizens are Americans, but not all were born as natural Americans.
America has always had a divergence regarding citizenship from before the founding of the nation.  Some colonies ascribed citizenship to all born within their borders, even if they were born to foreigners.  The logic was that those children were going to live in and grow-up in America as Americans and therefore should be citizens just like those who came before them.
Other colonies required foreigners to become naturalized citizens first and only then would their children be automatically granted citizenship in that sovereign colony.  Which method became the law of the land after the Constitution was ratified?  The later.  That was the law of the land for over a century.
That changed forever in 1898 due to a Supreme Court ruling (Wong Kim Ark) in which the State Dept. had declared a San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants to not be an American citizen. The government prevail all the way up to the Supreme Court but the final court opinion altered the meaning of the citizenship statement of the 14th Amendment (1868) and reversed the government’s position.

But one must not confuse being a natural citizen with being merely a born citizen.  The distinction is best illustrated by two comparisons.  If George Washington was visiting Canada with his wife in 1787 and she brought forth a son while there, what would be the nature of his national status?  Would he be an alien? (-born outside the United States of America) Would he be a born subject of England?  Or would he be a natural born American?
There was no Constitution or 14th Amendment yet.  But that would have no bearing on the status of their natural born child because he would not have been registered as a foreign national at birth but recognized as a natural American by birth.

Even if Senator Obama truly was a born citizen, was he also a natural citizen?  The answer is “no”, -not by any principle that any imagination can come up with.  But the liberal legal scholars (Olsen & Tribe), hired by the Senate to research the matter managed to invent one anyway.  They rightfully determined that John McCain, having been the progeny of American parents, was therefore an American by birth and as such his citizenship was natural citizenship because he was born with it as his natural right.

But the matter didn’t end there because another Senator was running for the Presidency and he was not born to American parents, -in particular to an American father, but to an alien student here on a visa.  Those two legal “experts”, seeking to mitigate the impact of the accuracy of their McCain finding, therefore concocted the theory that both kinds of citizenship can be viewed as natural since historically both had been citizens from birth.
But that was deliberately fraudulent logic because it’s the circumstances of their births that distinguish the two from each other.  One with citizen parents is by nature a citizen also, but one with foreign parents is a legal citizen from birth only due to the Supreme Court’s re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment handed down in 1898.

Barack Obama’s citizenship has the law on his side, but the problem is that no one who is a citizen by law is also a natural citizen since natural citizenship is not granted by any law every written.  Nor by the Constitution, because it was viewed as a natural unalienable right that neither the government nor the people that it represents have any authority to grant or rescind.  It is a natural right that all humans are born with, and which government did not create.

Just as a baby tiger inherits its nature and species from its parents, so Americans inherit their parents’ national membership in the American family.  Just as a natural-born Chinese couple cannot produce a natural-born African child, -just as a natural born Jewish couple cannot produce a natural born Arab, so a natural born American couple cannot produce a natural born foreign child, nor can a foreign couple produce a natural American child

Either “natural” has meaning solely in relation to ones parentage, or it has no meaning at all.
One who is a “born citizen” via birth in America to immigrant parents is a constitutional 14th Amendment citizen, -not a natural citizen because their citizenship, though acquired automatically from birth, is not natural citizenship because it was not a natural inheritance from their parents.
The second significant falsehood is connected to the significance of birth within U.S. borders.  Much importance was place on the belief that Senator Obama was born in America but that importance was a sham.  It had no connection to presidential eligibility nor could it alone convey constitutional citizenship which requires one to be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government at birth.
All natural citizens are subject at birth because their parents are, but not all children born to foreigners are subject because some foreigners are not immigrants but instead are mere transients.  Transients are not legal permanent members of American society and thereby subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but instead are foreign diplomats, visitors, workers, professionals, and students. They are subject to their own government and protected by International Treaty, including Barack Obama Sr.

Therefore Senator Obama was not covered by the 14th Amendment through his father and thus his native-birth was not enough to convey 14th Amendment citizenship from birth.  Consequently he was not a natural citizen through his father, nor an automatically naturalized 14th Amendment statutory citizen through him either.  So the resulting importance of his Hawaiian birth was zero.  It didn’t relate to constitutional eligibility nor fulfill the requirements for 14th Amendment citizenship.

The third great falsehood regarding Senator Obama deals with the extensive evidence that both birth-document digital images posted online contain manifold signs of illegitimate creation and the fact that no hard-copies have ever been produced and shown to the public or document experts to verify that the images posted online were results of the scanning of real paper documents.
But even real paper documents cannot be verified as authentic because of the bastardized nature of the digital reproduction and alteration process used by the Hawaiian Vital Statistics Office which results in an unathenticatible “ABSTRACT” instead of a “TRUE COPY”.

How shall one respond to this, and what measures can be taken to insure that such a travesty is not allowed to transpire a second time?  Challenges to his legitimacy as a constitutionally qualified Democrat Party candidate in each state can be attempted if a legal channel is available for such a challenge.  His backers must get his name placed on the ballots of all 50 states one at a time, and that can be opposed one at a time across America.  But that won’t happen because of ignorance and indifference.  The travesty of 2008 will be blindly, stupidly, and deliberately repeated.
One challenge was mounted in Georgia.  Senator Obama’s attorney failed to appear as required and thereby should have lost by default.  That would have blocked him from appearing on the Georgia State ballot if the Secretary of State in Georgia concurred, but some underhanded chicanery took place out of sight. It appears the judge in the Georgia case, without explanation,  threw the verdict in favor of the defendant Obama even though his legal council failed to appear to offer any rebuttal to the charges of his client’s ineligibility. Even worse, both the Secretary of State and the Appeals Court and Supreme Court of Georgia followed the same pattern; they gave the appearance of impartiality and the supremacy of the law, then threw the case to the defendant that failed to appear! -There’s nothing suspicious about that; move along folks, there’s nothing to see here, just move along.

by a.r. nash  2012 obama–nation.com

~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~

The Washington Examiner’s investigative reporting team conducted a four month investigation into Obama’s past, interviewing dozens of people across the country, and studying countless court transcripts, government reports and other official documents. Lead investigator Mark Tapscott summarizes the picture of Obama that emerges, “Beyond the spin and the polls, a starkly different picture emerges. It is a portrait of a man quite unlike his image, not a visionary reformer but rather a classic Chicago machine pol who thrives on rewarding himself and his friends with the spoils of public office, and who uses his position to punish his enemies.”

You can access the whole report from the links below:
Introduction: The Obama you don’t know
Chapter I: A childhood of privilege, not hardship
Chapter II: The myth of the ‘rock-star professor’
Chapter III: The 1997 speech that launched Obama
Chapter IV: Defense attorney for Chicago slumlord
Chapter V: Obama’s sells out to the Daley machine
Chapter VI: The poor people Obama left behind
Chapter VII: Myth of Obama as state reformer
Chapter VIII: Using state pensions to help friends
Chapter IX: Obama’s Arab-American network
Chapter X: Obama brings Chicago politics to Washington

 

The Question All Republican Politicians Fear

Patriotic Americans all across the nation are continually amazed and deeply disappointed at the acquiescence of the Republican party to the endless expansion of federal government power & control, (and deficit spending) by the socialist elites occupying the Congress, the White House, the federal bureaucracy, and the courts.  They not only do not always attempt to block or nullified the expansionist-statist agenda and actions but instead often join the neo-socialists in expanding ever-larger unfunded government.  They are fellow members of the same club and are often loath to condemn the actions of their colleagues and call them what they are; namely the constitutional treason of oath-breaking traitors to our foundational American charter of government.

One of the most glaring examples of the failure of the Congressional Republicans to hold the Democrats accountable for their corruption and constitutional treachery is in regard to the background and documents of someone who holds the office of the President.  Not one single Democrat nor Republican in Washington will dare to raise the issue of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional usurpation of the office of the President.  They all are solidly in the three-monkeys mode of see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil in regard the his violation of the constitutional requirement that the President be a natural born American and not an alien-born American.  Every office of the United States government is constitutionally open to naturalized citizens, and native-born children of foreigners, except the office of the President and its attached position of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military with all of its nuclear weapons.

None will speak the truth if they know it, and most don’t even want to know it because such knowledge would be attended by the obligation to speak out about the most egregious abuse of the Constitution in U.S. history as related to the presidency.  Their silence is not without reason.  It is because they see no up-side to pointing out that the U.S. emperor has no constitutional clothing to cover his naked half-foreign origin.  Having no up-side is accompanied by a very fearful down-side.  They know that if they raise the issue, that they will be subject to either an accusation of being racist, or subject to the question that every Republican politician wants to never hear addressed to them, namely the question thrown in the face of Senator Joseph McCarthy: “Have you no decency, sir?”

Every abuse of power, every unconstitutional act and executive order issue by Barack Obama, and every question raised regarding them, (as well as an impossible Social Security number, and a nine-layer counterfeit birth certificate image) are stifled by the very real fear of having that foul, disrespectful, ostracizing question directed at the person who dares to raise such issues.  Who dares to stick his head up and get it shot off?  What non-flush nail wants to get hammered? -to get smacked down to a flush, conforming, non-threatening position when one can simply stay flush with all of the other silent floorboard nails and not get hammered?
What Congressman wants to be the one to suffer being the target of the most damning question in modern political history?  “Have you no decency, sir?”  Which means that you have no decency or else the question would not need to be asked.  It implies that one is without shame when one should be ashamed to ask about things that bring disrespect to the target of one’s questions.  What importance is attached to the respectability of the person questioned by McCarthy’s questions, or his modern day counterpart?
In McCarthy’s day, the subjects were “honorable public servants” with distinguished careers serving their country.  In today’s world the subject is the guy who got himself elected to the office of president.

More than one of McCarthy’s targets, it has been learned, actually were either communists or communism sympathizers and willing collaborators with the Russian Communist Party and government regardless of their sterling reputations as American public servants.  In other words, they were frauds.  They were closet betrayers of America and her values.  President Roosevelt had encouraged hiring such communism sympathizers during WWII in order to facilitate coordination with our allies the communist Russians.  After the war ended, hundreds of them found jobs inside the State Department.  So McCarthy was not barking up an imaginary tree after all.  His “indecent” questions were apropos after all.

In today’s world, they are the neo-socialists, aka: Progressives.  Is that a bad thing in and of itself?  No and Yes.  It’s “No” because political beliefs & goals are something that everyone is free to hold and work for.  It’s “Yes” because those goals are in direct opposition to the freedom that our founding fathers and every generation since have fought and died to protect and secure.  Those goals are in direct opposition to the United States Constitution & Bill of Rights, and the values that it and the Declaration of Independence convey, which are individual liberty, equality, and justice.
Barack Obama does not embrace those American values nor the United States Constitution which he violates everyday that he retains his hold on the presidency.  But will the Republicans ever even timidly raise their hand and echo the request of Oliver Twist; “I’d like some more, please.”?  -as in “some more answers”, -some more actual truth, -some more transparency, some more release of significant sealed, buried, and hidden facts and records.
No, they will never individually nor collectively ask for more because the light that would be shined would fall not only on the liar-in-chief but on them as well since they were guilty of misfeasance and dereliction of duty for not vetting him, beginning with asking the obvious questions as the only body that has the option to find an elected President to be “not qualified” for the office.  Instead of being the watch dogs for America, the Democrats in Congress were the Obama lap dogs, and the Republicans were their fellow running dogs.
But they were ok with that because at least no one would be asking them: “Have you no decency, sir?”  No one would shine a spotlight in their face and impugn their reputation with the implication that they were boorish, uncouth, redneck simpletons with no sense of respectability and civility toward the American chief executive and the dignity of his high office.  Fear of being shamed insured their silence.  Cowardice assured the triumph of constitutional treason, and falseness over truth, openness, and fidelity to the only thing that binds us together as a nation.  We are not bound together by race, ethnicity, religion, language, royalty, nor philosophy, but by common values and our fundamental law, a document written in stone which every elected official in the land is sworn to defend and protect even though almost all of them are hypocrites to their sworn oath, -and violate it on a frequent basis.

If you were the one in the line of fire of those who seek to defend the indefensible, your answer to the question: “Have you no decency, sir?” should be: “Yes, I do sir, and it compels me to ask the questions that our founding fathers would have asked, -the kinds of questions that they asked regarding his Imperial Highness the King of England.  Thank God they weren’t “too decent” to asks those questions and raise those issues.  Thank God they weren’t too “decent” to be willing to die before giving in to being intimidated and shamed into silence.  Silence, like the silence of the lambs as they are led to the slaughter, is never a good thing when it comes to the issue of the defense liberty, the pursuit of truth, and the quest for justice.  Unfortunately, we will be seeing nothing but such silence because there are few to none with the courage to ask the questions that will antagonize the loyalists to the socialist cause, and thus elicit from them the question that every politician fears.

by a.r. nash    august 2012  obama–nation.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers