How “Lady and The Tramp” Debunks Obama’s Eligibility
January 12, 2012 2 Comments
The greatest betrayal in American history occurred before the independent sovereign states of America became the United States of America. It occurred during the Revolutionary War, and was committed by Benedict Arnold. No instance of treason has ever risen to the heights of infamy that his betrayal achieved. It was a complete stab in the back to George Washington, his generals, his army, the leaders of the former colonies, and the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
The bloody consequences of that betrayal would never be forgotten and would later influence what language was chosen to guard the nation against such treachery ever being committed by the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. That fear,-that an American President could secretly be a turn-coat and take sides with a foreign sovereign with whom we were at war, led to the language of the requirements for presidential eligibility being restrictive for the purpose of barring anyone who could conceivably have a secret competing allegiance to another country.
Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:
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 President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
The authors of the presidential eligibility provision of the Constitution had four choices that they could choose from. They can be divided into two groups. One would have been a competition between restrictive, exclusionary language, -versus inclusionary language, while the other would have been a competition between the initial language offered by Alexander Hamilton, -which granted eligibility to those who were “born a citizen” of the United States, in opposition to what was suggested to replace that language (-with that which was finally adopted); “a natural born citizen”.
They choose the later and incorporated it into language of an exclusionary nature, thereby rejecting the other three possible language choices. Did they realize what they were doing? Does one realize what he is doing when he writes his last will and testament? Certainly, and especially since they were charged with authoring the very foundation document on which the entire American Republic would be based and operated. Every word and point was considered and weighed as to its meaning, impact, and purpose.
Let’s look at what they rejected in order to shed light on what was accepted. They rejected inclusionary language because it would have contained a giant oversight which could only become fixed by more complicated language. They rejected this phraseology; “Any person who is born a citizen of the United States is eligible…”
What’s the flaw in that wording? It’s found in the fact that some colonies/states had the tradition of granting citizenship to anyone born within their boundaries. That was a vestige of a principle found in the philosophy known as The Divine Right of Kings. It held that by the principles revealed in the Holy Scriptures, Kings had the right to be the boss of everything and everyone that was born within their domain, -making them their “subjects” for life.
While the vestige of that ancient philosophy still held sway in at least one colony, the others abandoned it for the principles found in natural law and natural rights. That position was that people have certain unalienable property rights which included their own persons, along with their children, -that they belong to themselves and not to the government, and whatever status they achieve or possess is the natural inheritance of their children, including citizenship.
Avoiding Secret Foreign Allegiance
All is well until it gets complicated by a foreigner fathering a child in a nation which is not his own. To which nation does the child belong, -that of the father or that of the land where the child was born? The founders of our nation followed the principle of natural law which ascribed the citizenship of the father to his off-spring even though the child was born abroad and not in the fathers homeland. Such a child’s father might be a wealthy noble or aristocrat who might return to his own nation and raise his child (son) to be a loyal supporter of our enemy the King of England.
If that child was deemed to be a U.S. citizen merely due to the fact of his birth within U.S. borders, then by the language submitted by Hamilton, he could return to the United States at age 21 and 14 years later be eligible to be the President. Such a possibility was anathema to the founders. They were determined to guard the nation against any possibility of foreign allegiance being held by the commander-in-chief, and so they excluded choosing inclusionary language that would allow anyone born in America to become President.
They also excluded the option of inclusively granting eligibility to everyone who was a natural citizen. Why exclude that inclusionary language? Because such wording would not deal with the subject of who was to be excluded.
Thus, instead of including everyone born a citizen (which didn’t include those born to foreign representatives & visitors) they choose language that excluded everyone, -with two exceptions, namely those native-born Americans who were made U.S. citizens by the Declaration of Independence, or by personal naturalization within the colony/state where they resided, as well as those who were born as natural citizens of the United States after the subjection to Britain was terminated.
That language begins with the word “No”, as in “No person”. The skeleton of that eligibility sentence is this; “No person shall be eligible to the Office of the President”. Then it added the two mentioned exceptions. That is as exclusionary as they could possibly word it, and that is exactly what they meant it to be.
Born Citizens Unqualified to be President
So what kind of citizens were they meaning to exclude? Those born to foreigners. What indicates that? The use of the term “natural born citizen”. Who is born as a natural citizen? The answer is easily found in common sense and natural law. Those who are natural citizens are those who are citizens naturally, by being born as citizens. Just as Cocker Spaniels are Cocker Spaniels by birth to Cocker Spaniels, so Citizens are citizens naturally by birth to citizens.
What if one of the parents is not a Cocker Spaniel? Will the off-spring be natural Cocker Spaniels or be something else? Even a child knows the answer after seeing Lady & The Tramp.
Tramp was not a Cocker Spaniel and thus his progeny were not Cocker Spaniels but were instead hybrid mongrels. No hybrid mongrel is a natural anything since it’s a mixture of two different origins.
Definition of Mongrel: 1. an animal or plant produced by the crossing of different breeds or varieties; esp. a dog of this kind. 2. Anything produced by the mixture of incongruous things. adj. of mixed breed, origin, race, or character.
Obama Sr. produced a son named Obama Jr. They had something in common besides race and that was that they were both subjects of the British United Kingdom & Commonwealth. Tramp produced a son named Scamp. Scamp was by no stretch of the imagination a Cocker Spaniel but took after his father. Similarly, Obama Jr. is by no stretch of the imagination a natural American because he legally took after his father who was a British subject of Kenya.
No citizen with mongrel parentage is eligible to the Office of the President because he/she is not a natural American citizen, just as the off-spring of Lady & The Tramp are not eligible to be registered with the American Kennel Association as pure-bred Cocker Spaniels. What the children are is determined by what the parents are. Mixtures, hybrids, mongrels, half-breeds are not natural anything, just as parents of mixed nationality produce off-spring that are not natural citizens of either nation. Instead they are citizens by law. In America, the Constitution gives the Congress no authority to pass any law regarding citizenship except in regard to naturalization of foreigners and their children.
Those children, if their parents are legal immigrants, are deemed (by the 14th Amendment) to be born as automatically naturalized citizens at birth, but are not natural citizens by birth.
No one whose citizenship is covered by law is a natural citizen because natural citizenship is not covered by any law ever written.
It pre-dates all subsequent naturalization law and is a right that pre-dates the Constitution. It’s a natural right just as those directly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, i.e., the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Natural citizens are citizens by natural right, whereas other citizens (statutory citizens) are citizens by permission of the Congress, the government, the Supreme Court, or a constitutional amendment.
Anyone and everyone who has a foreigner for a parent is a naturalized citizen, even if that naturalization began automatically at birth as mandated by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the opening statement of the 14th Amendment -which granted citizenship to children of alien permanent residents because of their father being subject to U.S. Federal authority (along with the presumption that they’d probably be here for life and their children raised as Americans).
From Bad to Worse, -From Unqualified to Fraudulent
Therefore, Barack Obama fails the test of the requirement that he be a natural American citizen by birth, but it could be worse. His willingness to produce two digital birth document images that bare strong evidence of being forgeries, leads to inescapable speculation that his place of birth was not in a hospital in Hawaii, and may not have been in Hawaii at all. There is no official record of any such birth and even the strongly pro-Obama governor could not find any in the Hawaiian archives though he seriously tried. If there’s a real possibility that he was not born in the state of Hawaii, then there is also the possibility that the location of his birth could be in a place that, as a presidential candidate, would be very problematic. Such a place could be a location outside the United States.
Is there any plausible location that could lend itself to such speculation? Actually there is one. It’s location is derived from the location of the only long-term home that his mother ever knew up until he was born. That location was Seattle, WA. where she lived from the age of 13 to the age of 17 (when her parents moved to Hawaii after her High School graduation).
Those were the most important years of her life, -where her friendships were formed and Junior High and High School experiences occurred.
It was there in Seattle that she returned during the summer of 1961 and possibly where she was located up to near her delivery date. There is no record of where she was between February of 1961 and late mid August of 1961 so she easily could have been living in Seattle if she wanted to get away from a smooth-talking, lying bigamist foreign husband who got her pregnant under false pretenses, and disapproving parents who probably pushed for her to put the child up for adoption. If no prospective
adoptive parents in Hawaii or Washington would accept a “Negro baby” she could have easily traveled the short distance to Vancouver, Canada to deliver her baby for free and try to give it up for adoption there. It’s known from INS records of Obama Sr. that she was contemplating adoption as a solution to her pregnancy.
If she did so, then her son was fathered by a UK subject and born in a UK nation. How then could he be considered to me a natural American? Not in the most contorted imagining could he be seen as being eligible to be President. He probably couldn’t even have passed an FBI background check as an adult.
If her son was born there, his birth certificate problem would be exactly what we have seen. But why would that be worse than not being a natural citizen? Because, in 1961, if his mother, who was not yet 19 when he was born, gave birth outside of the U.S. to a child fathered by a foreigner and not an American, then the child would, by the law then in effect, be deemed to not be an American citizen. So he then would go from not being a natural citizen to not being a citizen at all!
Does anyone think that that would be something that would not be treated as above top secret? Is this all just crazy over-imagining? If only that were true, but it has happened once before in American history.
In 2008 the truth about the background of President Chester Arthur was finally uncovered for the first time. It was learned that his father was a British immigrant who didn’t become a naturalized American until 14 years after his son was born. That meant that his son was born as a natural subject of Britain and not America, -and therefore was ineligible to be the President. No one knew that for over a century because he kept it a closely guarded secret and just before his death burned all his personal papers that would have revealed the truth.
Truth truly is stranger than fiction but when it’s finally uncovered, and all the fog of dissimulation and obfuscation is blown away by facts and reason, we awake to realize that beside Scamp not being a Cocker Spaniel, Obama Jr. was not a natural American citizen by birth and is, by the exclusionary prohibition of the United States Constitution, therefore not eligible to be the President.
by a.r. nash january 2012 http://obama–nation