Obama & The Time Machine Revelation
August 12, 2013 3 Comments
~ The debate over the citizenship of Barry Obama is split into three factions. The main two have been dueling for five years and have covered the same ground over and over, each pointing out the flaws in the other’s arguments. But I’ve brought a third perspective to the table, and neither side likes it’s message because it de-legitimizes both of them while supporting half of what they claim. The three views can be described thus:
~ The Jus Soli dogmatists: “The words regarding presidential eligibility found in the United States Constitution (“a natural born citizen”) mean absolutely nothing as individual words and therefore can be contorted and distorted and perverted to mean ‘native-born’ and nothing more. ‘Natural’ means nothing so all ‘born citizens’ can be President.”
~ The Emmerich de Vattelists: “The Jus Soli Dogmatists are right but only half right. The only natural born citizens are those born in America to Americans. Both must be citizens.”
~ The Literalists: “Natural citizenship requires only one thing: birth to parents who are citizens. Americans give birth to new Americans regardless of the borders within which their child’s birth takes places. Like produces like. Children belong to their parents and to the group of which their parents are members (including their clan group, their state group, and their national group). Their membership is natural membership because it comes by birth instead of law.
The falsity of the first two is revealed by an imaginary hypothetical.
The Time Machine Scenario
John McCain wishes to live his life again but in a different era and context, so he signs up to be the subject of a Time Machine event, which sends him back to 1921, -fifteen years before his actual birth date, where he is born a second time, and in the same place: Panama. Nationality Status: natural born citizen. Reason: born of America parents. He inherits their nationality status because it is his American birthright.
Barack Obama wishes to live his life again but in a different era and context, so he also signs up to be the subject of a Time Machine event, which sends him back to 1921 also, (forty years before his actual birth date), where he is born a second time but in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House.
Nationality Status: Alien. Mother’s Nationality Status: Alien. Reason: involuntary expatriation due to marriage to a non-immigrant foreign man per the Naturalization Act of 1907.
Note: The act does not apply to American men and marriage to a foreign woman. The citizenship of American men was full citizenship, while that of American women (like that of American children) was partial or fictional citizenship per a federal fiction-of-law policy. A pretense of equality.
Actual equality does not begin to arrive in any substantial way until the Nineteenth Amendment was adopted a year earlier in August of 1920.
The Expatriation of American women remains law until 1922 when it is repealed by the Cable Act.
FACT: No natural citizen in American history has had his citizenship “revoked” unless he was a she or had committed expatriating acts which constituted the embrace of a foreign allegiance and the abandonment of allegiance to the United States. In such a case he was deemed to have self-expatriated.
Lesson: The citizenship of American men is beyond the authority of Congress to terminate.
The American woman, for well over half of American history, was not a true and full citizen in a literal sense. She was merely a protected subject. A subject of her father, her husband, or her state. She was allowed no major civic rights and the nationality of her children did not descend through her unless she was widowed or became divorced before the birth of a child with a foreign father. For such conditions, and only beginning after 1922, were laws written allowing such a transmission of citizenship from mother to child. In time they became liberalized enough to recognize the transmission of an American mother’s citizenship to children of mix-nationality marriages, thus creating dual citizens, but with conditions attached.
So if Obama was born a mere forty years earlier, his assumed citizenship would be non-existent. No natural born citizen was ever subject to such a law or such a citizenship situation because they all were born as Americans by being fathered by Americans.
American men had always been the spine and skeleton of the nation and its only true and complete citizens. They were the ones who fought to make it free and to keep it free. They were the ones who put their names to the treasonous Declaration of Independence, thereby putting their necks on the line for execution by hanging. The full responsibility of citizenship fell only on their shoulders, -the shoulders of men, -as it does to this day by American law.
The adults defend the children. The young defend the old. The men defend the women. That is Natural Law and that is the age-old tradition of all civilizations that have ever existed, including our own.
It’s the primal obligation of all able-bodied adults, and under that obligation, sons are born in the image of their fathers, and subject eventually to the same responsibility when they are young adults who replace their fathers in the role of defender. By that continuum societies survive and self-defend and self-perpetuate.
Barack Obama was never a part of that continuum as it was manifested in American society. He never registered as required with the Selective Service as a potential draftee to defend the nation. To shield himself from that fact he had his flying monkeys in the government produce a counterfeit registration card that was almost perfect, but has an absurd and unbelievable Post Office date stamp which makes the rest of its seeming validity unravel.
Obama never saw himself as an American citizen and with many good reasons, which I’ve detailed as classifiable in seven different aspects. Instead he thought of himself as a world citizen, with a foreign father from another continent and people and religion, and another adoptive father who was likewise. Such a background does not instill in one a sense of belonging fully and solely to one and only one country and people, especially when he had never lived his life in that country until he was an adult.
[I’m saying that a place as remote as Hawaii is not a part of the country even though it is a part of the United States, and even is a state. Alaska is also a state but it is also not a part of America the country any more than are Guam and Puerto Rico, whose inhabitants are United States citizens. Such places are separate and apart -little kingdoms unto themselves in a geophysical sense.] Just ask yourself, what person have you ever known who was born in mainland America who would have ever referred to “the 57 states”? Or to “Navy Corpseman”?
Obama grew up in Hawaii identifying himself sociologically as a member of Hawaiian society, but not psychologically nor ideologically as an American, much less one first and foremost. That is something that he still is not. He is a world citizen in his own view of himself, and when he leaves office, we will probably see him filling just such a role, (if he isn’t impeached and convicted for his many sins of non-feasance and misfeasance). At least he’s not guilty of malfeasance as far as we know.
So no matter how bad you think he is, it could be worse. At least he’s trying to do what any former pot-head, coke smoking lazy socialist would do in his shoes. What do you expect from him? Fidelity to the Constitution or something?
That became a non-starter as soon as he broke his oath to the Constitution by taking that oath, -one that he was born ineligible to take. Surely you didn’t think that a little trifle such as a solemn oath should get in the way of he and his cohorts just “doing what’s best to achieve social justice”?
If you did then you’ve forgotten that to the heathen and heretical or atheistic mind the ends justify the means, as long as those means do not include treating Islamic terrorists, supremacists, and male chauvinists like the enemies of war that they are (unless they happen to be within range of a Hellfire Predator missile).
Although Barry [bair’-ek] Dunham Soetoro Obama was socialized to be a good socialist American, that does not make him an American citizen, much less a natural American citizen. He is, in fact, neither, and could never have been either throughout American history because his father was neither an American, nor a naturalized foreigner, nor an immigrant to America. He was merely a “non-immigrant alien” and thus not subject to the national defense obligation of citizens and immigrants. The 14th Amendment could not apply to any child he fathered in the United States. It could not bestow citizenship to any such alien-born child even though native-born.
~ ~ ~ ~
Obama’s faithful devotees adamantly believe that he is a citizen at birth (and is therefore eligible to be President), but they fail to grasp that that implies just the opposite. The meaning of a simple preposition can dramatically alter the meaning of a statement when it’s substituted for another.
“In” does not mean “on”. “For” does not mean “of”, and “at” and “from” do not mean “by”. The constitutional implications of being a citizen at birth versus a citizen by birth are non-existent, unless you are the one-in-300 million who is elected president. Then they can be enormous since they could mean that you are ineligible to serve in that capacity.
If a man says to you: “I am still what I was at birth, in four ways. What am I?”, you have a lot of thinking to do. The use of “what” instead of “who” is significant, as is the use of the word “at” instead of “by”. The wording of his question implies that he is four things that could have changed during his life but didn’t. What are they?
Answer: his hair color, his gender, his nationality, and…. He is a brunette male American virgin. All four characteristics could have been changed, but some things can never be changed.
If a woman says to you: “I am forever who I was by birth, in four ways. Who or what am I?”, you have a lot more thinking to do. The use of “who” instead of “what” is significant, as is the use of the word “by” instead of “at”. The wording of her question implies that she is four things that could never have changed during her life. What are they?
Answer: her eye-color, her race, her nationality, and her social position. She is a blue-eyed, Caucasian, British Princess. What she is by birth cannot be changed.
The first person could change his gender (by surgery) and his nationality because he was merely a citizen at birth, which means he was not a citizen by birth, which means he had a foreign father or mother, or both, (making him a dual citizen) and therefore his citizenship was via the authority of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the naturalizing force of the 14th Amendment and nothing else.
He was born with citizenship at birth by constitutional law, but was not a natural born citizen by birth since he was not born of an American father and mother. He was an “at birth” citizen instead of a “by birth” citizen.
As a citizen by American law instead of a citizen by natural law he is free to do and be anything and everything allowed in America with the exception of only one thing. To paraphrase the United States Constitution: “No citizen except one born a natural citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
A citizen-at-birth is one who not only has at least one foreign parent, but is also not subject to any foreign power, (per the Civil Rights Act of 1866) which means he or she not only was born in the United States, but was born to parents who were integrated members of American society and thus not subject to their previous homeland’s jurisdiction.
That means the father, if not an American married to a foreign woman, was, at a minimum, a legal immigrant with a Green Card granting him permanent residency and the right to work. That residency makes all immigrants subject to the full authority of the federal government. That means that if they are men, then they can be conscripted into the military and sent to fight and possibly die in war if Congress so decides.
That is not true of mere visitors or guests of the government, nor children born to them if they are not raised in America.
Thus, with Obama having been fathered by a foreign student with only a temporary Student Visa, it’s fallacious to run the 14th Amendment up the flag pole as iron-clad proof of his citizenship and expect anyone who knows the truth to salute it.
In truth he is not an American at all other than by a national policy put in place in 1898 and never questioned ever since. But its basis is as solid as thin Jello. It has no foundation in American law or jurisprudence. It could be undone with the mere signing of an executive order because native-birth alone does not involve the national defense obligation, and without being born subject to that obligation, one is not born being a true and real and legal American citizen, even if deemed to be one by shear ignorance and status quo consensus thinking.
Those deluded by that policy can claim that it is the law of the land, but they can’t claim that it is the actual written law because it is a figment of everyone’s imagination, and merely presumed to be law. In the absence of anything to substantiate that presumption and that policy, it continues on without end or opposition like a snowball rolling downhill with no resistance. There is no constituency to complain except those who recognize that it falsely legitimizes not only the presumed citizenship of Barack Obama, but even his presidency.
By the notorious Supreme Court ruling in favor of one Wong Kim Ark in 1898, children of legal immigrants (like freed slaves) are made citizens by the 14th Amendment, while children of non-immigrant foreign guests & visitors….hummmm, there doesn’t seem to be anything that covers them. In that case, what is a loyal defender of the Leftist messiah to do?
Well let’s just pretend that there is, and if anyone ever asks, we’ll just say; “well, that’s just the law” and that should shut them up since they aren’t lawyers and don’t know squat about naturalization law anyway”. Question: “What does natural citizenship have to do with naturalization law which only deals with foreigners?”
So what ‘cha gonna do? Believe the status quo delusion that isn’t backed by any law, and have everyone in your corner since they all eat at that trough and all agree en mass? Or acknowledge the truth and have everyone opposing you ’cause yer tryin’ to upset the apple cart?
Thus far no one has stepped forward to acknowledge the truth as herein presented, so either I’m a dunce trying to count the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin, and nothing I’ve written makes any sense, or we’re in a dismally pathetic situation.
Well, I can’t see how I’m the one who’s the dunce, so that implies that everyone else is. If so, how pathetic is that? Answer: Super pathetic.
Adrien Nash August 2013
PS. Presumptive citizenship is like a hot air balloon in a world of self-powered flying machines. Such a balloon is real, it is able to leave the ground and float through the air like a flying machine, and yet it has no power of its own. All it does is float, just like federal policies have no power of their own and just float in the air of national law. But let out the air of presumption and then see what powers them. Nothing. They crash to the ground because they are not powered by the gas engines of real law.
Obama tried to pretend that just such a balloon of presumptive policy was actual constitutional law when he appointed new members to the Labor Relations Board while Congress was still in session although gone on a brief break. The DC District Court unanimously deflated that false flying machine (a clear perversion of the Constitution) and sent it crashing to the ground, over-turning his two appointments and everything that they had ruled on for eight months. Policy is not law and it is a blind and foolish soul who confuses the two.
Obama: citizen by policy.
Obama’s presidency: Invalid.