Tiny Truths with Enormous Significance
September 9, 2012 Leave a comment
~The Unconstitutional Carpetbagger Presidency of one Barry Obama~
-The City-State Deputy Chief Analogy
Some truths are broad and wide, -you might say “huge”, but as facts they are insignificant. The fact that millions of people break certain laws is huge, but the impact of their victimless crimes is insignificant, including driving over the speed limit or not paying taxes on re-sold possessions.
On the flip side, some truths are essentially minuscule, -microscopic, seemingly irrelevant, yet they may carry huge significance in the right circumstance. One such fact is the nature of the citizenship of American individuals.
All Americans possess U.S. citizenship but their citizenship is not all of the same type. Some are the majority and some are the minority, and some are a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction.
What difference does it make which type of citizenship one possesses? Absolutely none. Zip. Nada. But…in extremely rare circumstances it develops that there is a tiny difference that is of some notable significance. That circumstance involves who is the Commander of America’s thousands of nuclear weapons.
Every four years a tiny, infinitesimally small handful of Americans decide that they would like to be the President. A few of them actually have a chance of winning. They might number say….
three people, on average. Using that fairly realistic number we could calculate that they represent one 100 millionth of the population. That’s a rather small percentage, -so statistically they really don’t represent the population as a whole but only themselves.
The type of citizenship that they possess becomes an issue only in the rarest of the rarest of the rarest circumstances because about 97% of the population of the country are perfectly qualified and eligible to be elected to the presidency if old enough. Most of the rest are clearly not eligible, but there’s also a tiny number that are not eligible, -though not so clearly so -even though they are citizens just like everyone else.
There’s a slight issue concerning the type of citizenship with which they were born. The issue doesn’t spring from anything that Congress passed, nor anything that the Supreme Court decided, -instead it springs from the Constitution itself.
The founding fathers wisely chose to prevent the position of the Commander-in-Chief from devolving into the hands of foreigners and citizens with direct foreign roots. To prevent that from happening they prescribed two things. One was a prohibition on who is eligible to be elected to the presidency. The other was expecting the U.S. Senate to shoulder the responsibility of assuring that the elected candidate is constitutionally qualified, -a responsibility they’ve totally shirked.
What does it take to be qualified? Lastly, it requires that one has lived in the United States for 14 years. Secondly it requires that one be 35 years of age. And firstly, it requires that one be a “natural born citizen”.
So the issue that affects a percentage of the population so tiny that it’s statistically invisible, is the issue of how one was born. Was a candidate for the presidency born as a natural citizen or a naturalized citizen? The answer makes all the difference in the world. Or not.
It depends on how ignorant the public and the establishment are about the enormous significance of such a tiny little fact, -an obscure, misunderstood fact that only affected one individual in 315 million. And that individual was the person who had a realistic chance of being elected President and actually succeeded in doing so. That individual was one Bare’ ak Obama, (the accurate pronunciation) or Barry Obama, or Barry Dunham, or Barack Soetoro, or Barry Soetoro, or whatever.
The constitution was, for the first time in American history, front and center in the issue of a presidential candidate’s constitutional qualification, -or so the founding father intended it to be. And it should have been since he was born to a foreign student who had no connection at all to America . But instead of being front and center, the Constitution was totally ignored, thrown down the basement stairs and kept hidden in the dark.
Not by the American people but by those who knew that there was a problem, -who understood that Obama’s type of citizenship rendered him ineligible to be President.
And yet they made like the three monkeys;
See no evil…Hear no evil…Speak no evil. They sat on their hands, zipped their lips, diverted their eyes because they either wanted to see him win because he was the first ethnic minority candidate ever to have a chance of being elected, (-besides being the first Leftist–Progressive ever elected) or out of fear of him being one whose adoring devotees would bring out the daggers to use on anyone who dared oppose him, and stab them with inflammatory charges of racism and bigotry.
They feared that a thousand times more than a “minor” violation of that old archaic anachronistic document that’s almost universally ignored in Washington, -namely, the Constitution of the United States.
How badly does Barack Obama’s type of citizenship violate the Constitution? Not in the worst way for sure. But in a medium way. That means half-way. Half of his required parental origin was of a forbidden type. It wasn’t American. It was foreign.
But it could have been worse, and possibly, perhaps, probably, was worse in at least one of two possible alternate scenarios. One is that of being born to the Kenyan wife of his father. If born in Kenya, what would that have made him? The answer is obvious, but what if she gave birth to him in Hawaii? How would that have affected the nature of his citizenship?
It would have made him ineligible for U.S. citizenship. That is the truth because in order to be eligible for U.S. citizenship based solely on one’s birth being in the United States one must have met the requirement of the constitutional amendment which grants such citizenship, -namely the 14th Amendment.
By it, an immigrant father is unofficially deemed to be subject to the full authority of Washington, and therefore his children are granted citizenship at birth. But if the father is an American, then his children inherit citizenship directly from him. That type of citizenship is not granted by the amendment because it’s natural citizenship and doesn’t need the permission of the government. In fact it precedes the existence of the government because it’s based on an ancient immutable natural principle, which is the principle of natural membership.
If the father is a foreigner then he must be subject to the full authority of Washington. Only one type of foreigner is subject to that authority, -the type of authority that can conscript one into the military and send them to their death in combat, and that type of foreigner is the government-sanctioned permanent legal resident who has obtained a Green Card and become a member of American society.
No other type of foreigner is subject to that authority, -not diplomats, not visitors, not tourists, nor foreign students, (-nor aliens who’ve illegally entered the country).
So was Obama’s father a legal Green Card immigrant? Certainly not. He was merely a guest of the government thanks to a student visa. His government and home were foreign. His national responsibility was to his homeland and therefore by international treaty and the Law of Nations, the U.S. Government had no jurisdiction over him as anything other than a guest whom they could allow to stay longer or force to leave.
Therefore his son, through his parental jurisdiction over him, also was not subject to the authority of the United States since he was naturally subject to the authority of Kenya and Great Britain via the British Nationality Act of 1948. Since his son was born outside of the British Commonwealth, he was born as only a provisional subject.
The other scenario by which Obama’s citizenship situation would have been worse would have been if his mother gave birth to him in Kenya, or in Vancouver, British Columbia. Due to a total absence of records of his mother’s whereabouts from February of 1961 to late August of that year, it’s impossible to know where she was and what she was doing.
She could have traveled to Kenya, -but that’s truly a stretch for a pregnant young woman of only 18, traveling alone half-way around the world while her “husband” remains in school in Hawaii, with no evidence existing that he even knew of her pregnancy.
And why bother if it were possible to find adoptive parents in Hawaii or Seattle, or across the border in Canada? [records of the INS reveal that she was planning to use the Salvation Army adoption service]
Hawaii would not have been a good choice because it would be impossible to avoid the embarrassment of his grandparents since the pregnancy would be evident to all, and they would want to see the baby.
One can arrive at no solid facts because everything about Obama’s birth is hidden or unrecorded, -beginning with a marriage for which there is no record and no eye-witnesses. Evidence of it exists only in the form of their divorce papers.
But like their marriage license, the government records of persons entering Hawaii from foreign points of origin during the week of Obama’s birth are also missing (removed), along with page 11 of the divorce papers. That’s the page that had contained the birth certificate of the child that was the product of the marriage. It may have shown a foreign birth location.
But regardless of his birth location, Obama is still 100% constitutionally unqualified to be President since he was born as the son of a “non-immigrant alien” (as the CIS [INS] describes such persons) and not the son of an American father.
It wouldn’t matter if he was born in the White House, although it does matter that he felt compelled to have a fake birth certificate image passed off as authentic proof of birth in the United States, even though being born in America didn’t help because the founding fathers deliberately required that citizens such as himself be barred from serving as the President.
The element of his citizenship that was disqualifying was his foreign attachments through a foreign father, including his being a subject of a foreign nation. That brings with it the issue of dual allegiance, and the President and Commander in Chief cannot have dual and divided allegiance. He must be 100% American.
It’s not enough to be simply born a citizen because even U.S. born children of immigrants are born citizens. No, being born a citizen was not adequate to insure the unquestionable loyalty of the Commander-in-Chief. He must also be a natural citizen, being the progeny of citizens.
Everyone, from time immemorial, has naturally been whatever their father was. They inherit his nature, his race, his ethnicity, his religion, his language, his name, his social status, and his national identity and group membership.
Group membership is usually determined naturally, -as it is in a family, clan-tribe, city-state, or nation-state, but oftentimes it is not natural. Instead it’s by allowance, -by permission, by pragmatic law. A perfect example is the illustration of the situation of a stereotypical city-state.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The City-State Analogy
The city-state has a Deputy Chief who’s the leader and is chosen by the people. He holds all the power of the government and is responsible for the defense the city. That involves having control of three doors. One is the door which seals the tall city walls. Another is the door to the Castle, and the last is the door to the Armory which holds all of the city’s weaponry, gunpowder, ammunition and cannon balls.
He’s the only person with the key to that door, and that being the case, a very wise decision once had to be made as to whom the people of the city-state would trust with that unique responsibility. It was decided that no person would be entrusted with it unless they were a natural member of the city.
Who is a natural member of the city? Essentially everyone who lives within its walls. Outside of its wall are the outsiders. But like all generalities, there are always exceptions to general rules. The exceptions include children born to members of the city who were outside of its walls when the mother’s water broke and the baby was delivered.
The other exception was the opposite situation involving an outside women who gave birth inside the city’s walls during a visit. The child that is born outside of the walls to city members is born as a new natural member of the city, -having been born to city members.
The child of the outsider who was born inside has no natural right to live within the city because it’s the off-spring of outsiders and inherits only the status and privileges that they possess.
It is not a natural member of the city-state, but if the mother is a city member, even though the father is an outsider, it will be allowed to remain with her if it was born outside of wedlock, and be accepted as a member of the city also.
But without a city father he does not inherit a connection to the city through him because his natural connection is with the inherited status of his outsider father and the city-state to which he belongs, being a place where he might spend many of his teen years with his father.
Those born to city members have a natural connection to the city and no connection to any other, but the child begotten by an outsider does have such a connection. That doesn’t matter at all unless one day that child finds himself capable of being nominated to be the Deputy Chief.
Is one born with attachments to another competing city-state allowed to ascend to that office and possess the key to the Armory?
Reason, tradition, and city law say that one cannot. Not because his loyalty is in question, but because rules are rules. They’re written to apply in a general sense, and not in a specific sense, nor in a specific case.
General rules are not written with allowances allowed for specific cases where discretion gives its ok. Instead they are written to be universally obeyed and followed. So even though his loyalty is not in question, the problem remains, (and was the reason for the general rule in the first place), -that his loyal is something that can be questioned because there is a basis on which to question it.
But the loyalty of natural citizens is unquestionable because there’s no basis on which to question it. They have no attachments to anywhere else, nor to any other group.
They, the natural members of the city, can aspire to one day be the Deputy Chief, and though they won’t be, they can pass that dream on to their progeny who will, like them, also be natural members of the city, -as will the children of the son of the outsider because his children will be born to a father and mother who are both members of the city. But he himself is not eligible for that honor because of his questionable connections to another city-state.
Barack Obama was born with foreign attachments to a foreign nation through his foreign father and that’s why he is not a natural born American citizen. He breaks the general rule, even if he is a loyal citizen.
Rules matter a lot, but people are prone to ignore rules that disqualify them from obtaining the things that they want, and so they lie, cheat, deceive and distort the truth to serve their dishonest means to obtain their righteous and/or selfish goals, because the ends seem to justify doing so, or so they choose to believe.
All of Barack Obama’s life he was surrounded by and connected to natural born citizens. His American mother, his American grandparents and great-grandparents, -his African father, and grandparents, his Indonesian father and his relatives. Even his Indonesian-born half-sister was probably a natural born Indonesian since her mother was either a naturalized Indonesian or at least a legal immigrant married to an Indonesian male. So everyone in his life was a natural born citizen except himself.
Then eventually he married a natural born American woman and had natural born American children. None of his relatives had citizenship in more than one nation by blood except his sister.
His daughters are not dual American-Kenyan citizens. They’re strictly American, -possessing the singular citizenship of their mother and their
Father, and his mother and her father.
But the thing about natural citizens is that they’re always citizens of the same nation as their parents. That’s “nation”, (singular, -not plural).
The fact that that was not true of Obama Jr. is the consequence of not being a natural born citizen. Dual nationality by blood is the premier symptom of not being natural born.
The worst-case example is when both parents are dual citizens and their child is born with four nationalities. If Kenya was a nation that allowed dual citizenship of its foreign-born children with foreign mothers, and the son of such a union, like Obama, married a woman with citizenship in two other different nations, would any child they produce be a natural born citizen of any of those four nations, or simply a citizen, period?
Divided national parentage; questionable birth facts and records; citizenship via nationality statutes and not natural inheritance; missing records; computer-crafted counterfeit birth certificate images; abandonment of Democratic Party certification of their candidate’s constitutional eligibility; Senate Resolution 511 declaring John McCain to be a natural born citizen due to his birth to American parents (in Panama);
-avoidance of any mention of or contact with the fake long-form image of an abstract version of a Hawaiian hospital birth record, -but no publicly shared “TRUE COPY” of the original record in micro-film; lawyers handling all aspects of the pdf fake nine-layer image, thus providing attorney-client privilege and immunity from disclosure of any and all conversations dealing with the conspiracy of its production.
These facts and more spring from being a citizen naturalized by statute based on his mother’s nationality alone and thus rendering him an unconstitutional President. He and we have a problem that can’t be remedied to make it alright. A retro-active constitutional amendment would be required and that is an impossibility.
So with the public being ignorant, and Congress and the Courts being both ignorant and complicit in the cover-up conspiracy of silence, the pretense will continue that nothing is wrong and no problem exists, even though that is a flat-out lie.
But politicians are experts when it comes to lies, and the socialist and atheists in the courts are right behind them. Truth is only of value when it serves their purposes. It has no intrinsic value in itself, and so truth will remain the Cinderella step-child locked in the cellar while the usurpers rule the roost that rightfully belongs to her.
By A.R. Nash April 2012