Demolishing Obama’s Lying Flying Monkey

HistorianDude   wrote:

1. The legal presumption is that Obama is exactly what he claims to be. To challenge that presumption, you must have evidence. That burden of proof is on you, and it remains unmet after more than six years.

“1. The legal presumption is that Obama is exactly what he claims to be.”

Your serpentine logic is right out in the open for all to see. Why did you insert the qualifier: “legal” when you could have shortened your claim and simply said that the presumption is that Obama is exactly… “?

Answer: because that would imply that the focus was on the logical presumption in disregard to whatever is the view in our bastardized and compromised legal system. You are aware of that fact and thus attempt to keep the focus on that which is irrelevant to Truth. Next you’ll spout off about “the legal truth” in place of the actual truth.

“That burden of proof is on you, and it remains unmeet after more than six years.”
That is only relevant in a court room. Does my media room look like a court to you? In the real world, the stranger who proclaims himself the rightful heir to the throne had better have some damn good proof, and what do we get from Obama? Six years of secrecy and lies, silence and obfuscation, along with hacks like you running interference for the usurper.

2. Obama has provided more proof of his eligibility than any other President in US history. He did not have to provide that proof, but he did. You’re welcome. He has also not failed to release every single piece of documentation that has ever been voluntarily released by any previous sitting President.

2. “Obama has provided more proof of his eligibility than any other President in US history.” He has provided no certification for anything that he has “released”. It is all unvalidated by any credible examiner. In your lollipops & rainbows Pollyanna world, no such thing as “counterfeit currency, birth certificates, passports, social security cards, etc., etc. even exist so there is no possibility that his “proof” could be bogus. And yet no one is that ignorant or naive, which means that you are just a Luciferian lying hack for the naked emperor.

3. None of the President’s relevant records are “hidden.” The rest (which are irrelevant to eligibility) are simply protected by the same privacy laws that protect yours and mine.

3. “None of the President’s relevant records are “hidden.”
And yet by your own statement, they in fact are hidden by privacy laws which Obama is unwilling to waive because of the damning revelations that would result. He is nothing but an Affirmative Action, marxist & muslim-supported golden boy of the extreme Left.
Your lies are grand canyon size. Where are his college grades, papers, tests, dissertation, etc.??? Answer: HIDDEN!!

4. Hospital birth certificates are not legal documents. They are souvenirs. The President has twice provided true copies of his STATE birth certificate; the short form on June 12, 2008 and the long form on April 27, 2011.

Now you’re just displaying your ignorance. All Certificates of Live Birth come from hospitals, signed by the mother and the doctor or mid-wife or assistant. What comes from the state is only a copy, or, in the digital age, an abstract.

Before digitization took-over two decades ago, all State-issued copies were certified to be either a “True Copy” or a “True and Original Copy”, meaning it was produced directly by the State, and is not a copy of their copy. The Seal confirms that claim.

After digitization, no birth certificate can be certified as being a “True Copy” of the original hospital Certificate because they are altered by the elimination of the imagery of the original’s paper and its replacement with the the imagery of security paper. So when viewing the Registrar’s stamp that says it is either a “True Copy or an Abstract”, you need to grasp that such a statement is the exact opposite of certification.

“Here is the gold that you are buying from me. I certify that it is 100% pure Gold…, or lead.” Get the point? Unless you know exactly what is being certified, then nothing is certified because a large unanswered question is left hanging in the air. Is is an original, or a digital? If it is a digitally altered abstract image, it can be faked easily on a computer.

” The President has twice provided true copies of his STATE birth certificate.”

Your stupidity is astronomical. The short-form was NOT provided by Obama, but appeared without any attribution as to origin on the Daily Kos, probably produced by its owner, a devoted Leftist. The WH only embraced it after the press was silent on it, ignoring how easily faked it was, BEING AS… it was NOT as you claim; “a true copy” of anything since it was 100% an abstract. No original exists which could produce “a copy”, you idiot.

Even worse is: ” his STATE birth certificate”. States, as I said, do not issue Birth Certificates. They only issue certified copies or uncertifiable abstracts which they certify by state authority, not by certification standards. There are no standards for certification of an abstract because the only standard that can exist is perfect replication of an original.

5. His released birth certificates, both long and short form, have bee declared absolutely authentic by the only authority on the planet qualified to so declare. No birther has ever come up with the tiniest shred of evidence to challenge that authenticity. Under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, no US court or other governmental institution can fail to accept those documents as 100% authentic, absent evidence otherwise. As as we have established (and you have explicitly admitted) you have no evidence otherwise.

5. His released birth certificates, both long and short form, have been declared absolutely authentic [FALSE] by the only authority on the planet [LEGALLY] qualified [NOT FORENSICALLY] to so declare. No birther has ever come up with the tiniest shred of evidence to challenge that authenticity.

AUTHENTICITY?? Wrong word, moron. “Attestation” is the word you mean. They, in various direct or indirect manners, have supported the Obama vital records scam, attesting to the information and the possession of a “birth certificate”. They have NEVER certified (that means under penalty of perjury by written or sworn testimony) a damn thing about the Obama fakes. Their “authenticity” has NOT been established by anything, -not by their sworn statements nor by any document examiner.

“Under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution…,” -back to the damn court room again? You love to run to the security of that clause as applied to a court of law, but you run away from the blinding light that shines in a court of logic. Gee, I wonder why that is?
You: “Obummer is unchallengeable before Liberal, Obama-appointed judges! They all bow to the Full Faith & Credit clause so no one will question his birth certificates.” And yet any judge could question the authenticity of an internet image. And all of them should. No judge should accept a worthless digital image as authentic since there is no chain of evidence to show who produced it.

The full faith & credit clause ONLY applies to real documents, not images on a monitor. Any judge who accepts a challenge to Obama’s birth certificate could order the presentation to the court of the document in question. Then what? Then it would be examined by an impartial expert. Only after passing that examination would it be covered by the full faith & credit clause. You know at least that much, yet run away from openly acknowledging it.

6. Fuddy certified nothing other than the chain of custody for the certified copies of the President’s long form. The only Hawaiian State Authority that has ever certified or verified the President’s birth certificates is Alvin Onaka.

And how exactly did he do that in the real world? HE DIDN’T! He may have never certified anything during his entire time as registrar. That would be true if he never signed anything, relying instead on the fakery and pretense and legal fiction of a rubber stamp facsimile.

You want to pretend that “legal certification” is indistinguishable from actual certification, even though you know that is a lie.
In the real world, if a document is not certified by actual certifying methods, then it is not certified, and one of those indispensable methods is a hand signature. Nothing that comes from Onaka is ever signed. You can’t find anything that he has signed, meaning he has never actually certified anything that you know of!

7. “You have admitted explicitly that you have no evidence that anybody in the [Health] department has ever lied about the President’s birth certificate. We are not at an impasse here. You have objectively lost the argument.”

Now that is almost sad. Poor little HistorianDuffus can’t tell the difference between something being unproven and something being untrue. Everything ever discovered by science was once unproven. I guess we need to throw out three thousands years of knowledge because nothing can be true if it was once unproven.
As for having “lost the argument”, you lamely and stupidly and disingenuously pretend that the issue is one of “legal evidence” rather than objective truth. Your mind is shackled in the arena of legal protection, while outside of it, everyone is looking at you like you’re crazy.

8. As said before, there is no obligation for you to PERSONALLY believe anything. Nobody can demand that you believe that the President is eligible, or that the earth is round, or that the sun rises in the east. Neither the President, the earth nor the sun is obligated to do anything to try and convince you that these things are true. You may therefore believe what you wish and behave accordingly.

8. “As said before, there is no obligation for you to PERSONALLY believe anything.”

Duh!!! I thought there was one… stupid me! Listen, wise-ass, this debate isn’t about beliefs!!! It is about OBJECTIVE  TRUTH. You don’t give a rat’s ass about the truth, -only about what is or isn’t provable in a court. Truth is very often the first victim of biased men in black robes, and lawyers fighting to defend lies. That is what you hope will always be the case regarding your Dear Leader Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama.

btw, did you know that the correct pronunciation of his name is: BAIR-ek o-BAM-uh? That is how the Obama family pronounces it, including his deceased father.

by Adrien Nash ~truth warrior~  March 2015  obama–

Part II

HistorianDude wrote:

1.  All legal questions must have a starting point, and our system (which has served us well for centuries) begins with the honored maxim, “Innocent until proven guilty.”

I always insert the qualifier “legal” because every distinction you ultimately try to make is a legal one. The very concept of “eligibility” for any office of position is excruciatingly and exclusively legal. It is merely another example of ubiquitous birther hypocrisy that you object to the legal resolution of a legal issue.  This is why your arguments are relegated both to ad nauseam repetition on Internet forums, and ad nauseam losses in American courtrooms.

But back to “innocent until proven guilty” and your pathetic distinction between “legal truth” and “actual truth.”You can pretend there is a difference all you wish.  But in more than six years you have been unable to s how it. The evidence supports only one conclusion in this case: that the legal truth and the actual truth are the same.

2.  Let me spell out in detail the horror of your predicament and the futility of your whinging. You can move the goal posts all you want. You can ask for certifications of certifications of certifications and nobody will care. The system created by our Constitution is pragmatic and utilitarian. It draws the line not at the im possible standard of when proof is absolute, but when proof is “good enough.”
This is why (for example) the standard for criminal proof is so much more stringent than that for civil proof. What is good enough in one case is not good enough in the other.

Not only have birthers failed to come up with any evidence to challenge the authenticity of the President’s birth certificates, they have failed to come up with any evidence (under the standards of the FRE) that can challenge the simple statement from Obama that he was born in Hawaii.

That is how pathetic your arguments and evidence are. With that single five word statement, Obama has met the civil standard of preponderance of evidence in any US civil court. That is the LEGAL truth. And birthers have no evidence that it is not also the ACTUAL truth.

3. You really need to stop trying to put words in my mouth. With this comment you are setting up and knocking down straw men. It is a silly argument, entirely uninteresting to me.

4. Your quibble would not solve your problem, even were it true. No… “All Certificates of Live Birth” do NOT “come from hospitals, signed by the mother and the doctor or mid-wife or assistant.”

Until recently most births did not occur in hospitals, and to this very a significant number do not. They still get Certificates of Live Birth, and they get th em without usually signatures of doctors and often without signatures of midwives. And of our 44 Presidents, only four were born in hospitals. Only 8 ever had birth certificates at all, at least three of those not issued until the individual was an adult.

All legally relevant birth certificates come from the government. Some may have had their original data collection in hospitals, but they are not “Birth certificates” until they state accepts them and registers them. And all certified copies are abstracts. 100% of them. Even “long forms” are actually short forms replicating only about a third of the archived original.

Another simple error of fact in your incompetent account; the short form was provided by the Obama campiagn and no one else. It was ultimately published by a number of different outlets to include (but not exclusively) the Daily Kos, and the campaign’s own Fight the Smears website, and the critical release was that over But yes, the short form absolutely WAS released by Obama.

5. You remain completely unclear on why birth certificates were invented in the first place. They were created to be THE LEGAL STANDARD for proof of the information they contain. They are self authenticating and require no additional verification.  You must have evidence that contradicts the State of Hawaii… and you don’t.

As to the full faith and credit clause, here is what the Constitution actually says if you bother to read it. “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

So no, Adrien. It clearly does not “ONLY appli(y) to real documents.”

7. Blah. Blah. Blah. You have admitted you have no evidence that anybody has lied. Until you come up with such evidence your accusations are entirely uninteresting

HistorianDuffus wrote: “All legal questions must have a starting point,”

And once again you run back to the security blankie of what is “legal proof” when constitutional reciprocity throws actual legal proof out the window. Nothing is legally proven until it is actually proven. Legally “accepted” is a whole different thing. Nothing about Obama has been proven by evidence in any court because nothing has been subpenaed.

The theological equivalent would be the Pope telling Galileo that he has [legally] “acceptable” proof that the sun revolves around the earth because it is confirmed by the authority of the Holy Scriptures (Full-faith & Credit authority) along with his own eyes. Now please, oh wise one, argue that the Pope has established the Truth of the matter by invoking the authority of the Scripture (the Law). What a lame-brain illogical logic you employ. You need a whole lot of lessons from Mr. Spock.

He blathered further: “The very concept of “eligibility” for any office of position is excruciatingly and exclusively legal.” “The concept”??? No concept is legal at all except in the case of natural law being conceptual and having legal authority. As for qualifications for office, they are all sociological factors and are totally apart from law.

“35 years of age”… purely a demographic-sociological factor which is inserted into “a law”. It has nothing to do with legal definition or adjudication or case law interpretation. It is a plain and simple true fact of life, or it is a lie someone is attempting to peddle as one. There is no legal reasoning involved. Or are you too dense to comprehend that?

“This is why your arguments are relegated both to ad nauseam repetition on Internet forums, and ad nauseam losses in American courtrooms.”
You moron, my arguments have never even seen the steps of any courtroom. As for the internet, how exactly are you any less prolific than myself as you faithfully defend your naked emperor all over the internet, to a degree that you could fill a large book? Explain that logic, you lame-brain. Again, I refer you back to Mr. Spock and your badly needed lessons.

“The evidence supports only one conclusion in this case: that the legal truth and the actual truth are the same.”

Nixon: “I am not a crook, and the legal evidence does not prove otherwise.” Now, again oh genius, explain how the absence of legal evidence “showed” that Nixon was “innocent”. And don’t go running to your pathetic “innocent until proven guilty” security blankie. Facts are facts. Absence of facts is not proof of innocence. “I’m determined to find the real killer”, OJ Hussein Simpson”.

“Not only have birthers failed to come up with any evidence to challenge the authenticity of the President’s birth certificates,…”

“Not only have rebels failed to come up with any evidence to challenge the authenticity of the King’s birth certificate,…” -with that king being a man made king because the king had no heir, and he came forward claiming to be his illegitimate son and therefore royal by blood and heir to the throne.
His is installed as king. Who dares challenge the legitimacy of the King??? There is no proof that his birth certificate is a counterfeit…. of course it is also true that no counterfeit expert at all has ever been allowed to inspect it. So IT MUST BE LEGIT! ARE YOU BRAIN-DEAD??? Apparently so.

“It is a silly argument, entirely uninteresting to me.” Fraud! If it’s soooooo “uninteresting” then why the hell have you even mentioned it and taken the time to say how uninteresting it is??? oh… because you are sooooo authoritatitvely aloof up in your royal ivory tower, all while avoiding any response that is factual because you have none. You can’t shoot a target when you have no bullets, so instead you just say “bang!, I’ve dealt with it.”

And here’s where you reeeeeally showed what an ignorant fake you are: “No… (quoting me) “All Certificates of Live Birth” do NOT “come from hospitals, signed by the mother and the doctor or mid-wife or assistant.”

That is the most ignorant thing you have ever written, genius! As I already informed you, ALL Certificates of Live Birth come from either hospitals or medical birth attendants. You do not even know what the heck a certificate is! It is documentation of birth, or death. And get this, oh WISE ONE!!! -probably no one who ever lived possessed his or her own Certificate of Live Birth even if they worked for a government dept. that held it.

Here’s the reality: subject: LIVE BIRTH, -facts pertaining to, certified to be true by both the mother and the attending medical person, signed by both as a legal document, thereby constituting a certification and thus making the document a certificate.

That certificate is not the property of the people who sign it but is the property of the State and it takes possession when it is received. If a parent wants a COPY(!!!!), she requests one and then receives a certified COPY, which used to be an exact replica of the pertinent part of the original, and it was signed by the certifier of its authenticity (the registrar), and stamped -embossed with an official seal as further proof that the actual signature was not a forgery.

It could thus be labeled “a True COPY” or “A True and Original COPY” of the actual CERTIFICATE of LIVE BIRTH. Only the State possesses actual Certificates of Live Birth. Everyone else gets only a copy, -certified or uncertified.
A small child can get this, and yet you can’t??? What is wrong with your warped Luciferian brain?

“Until recently most births did not occur in hospitals, and to this very [day] a significant number do not. They still get Certificates of Live Birth,”

What a lie! What is your definition of “recently”? Half a century? A century? I have my long deceased grand parents’ birth certificates from the early years of the 20th century, -from HOSPITALS! If you lived in a city, not too far from a hospital, you were born where it was most medically safe, especially if you were a firstborn.

As for home-births getting birth certificates; so do children who are adopted, and their real parents and their real birth certificate is never seen nor acknowledged. Authenticity is NOT guaranteed by a State dept. “certifying” a so-called “original copy” of a birth certificate. There are about 5,000,000 Americans with fake copies of “original” birth certificates issued by states because of adoption.

“And all certified copies are abstracts. 100% of them. Even “long forms” are actually short forms replicating only about a third of the archived original.”

Now you’ve gotten lost in the sewers of oblivion. How stupid does a person have to be to make such an obviously false statement??? Why, oh genius, does the Registrar’s stamp say clearly: “This is a True Copy OR abstract…”??? It does not say “This is an abstract True Copy” because that would be a total oxymoron.

If it is an abstract then it is not a true copy! They are almost opposites. As for long forms being short forms, THAT is definitely the most stupid thing you have written yet. A “form” is an actual FORM! The short-form is hardly even related to the original certificate except that it contains its information. Nothing more.

It is not even a “Certificate”, numbskull, because its information is not certified by the mother nor the attending physician or attendant. IT IS AN ABSTRACT CREATION made possible by extraction of information. It does NOT include any extracted signature because an abstract signature certifies NOTHING! -just like a rubber-stamp signature facsimile certifies nothing.

The short-form is what it is labeled: “A CertifiCATION of Live Birth”. It is certified by the State to be an abstract of its own creation which certification is proven only by its official seal since a rubber-stamped signature certifies nothing in the real world, especially the worlds of business and wills and trusts and treaties and prison sentencing, judicial opinions, death sentences, etc.

“Some may have had their original data collection in hospitals, but they are not “Birth certificates” until the state accepts them and registers them. You IDIOT! Their registration alters NOTHING! “original data collection”??? Again, mere “data collection” does not require a legally-binding SIGNATURE which is given under penalty of PERJURY.

“the short form was provided by the Obama campiagn and no one else.” Look, you pretender, you are capable of certifying NOTHING! Your lying claim is shoveled out without any evidence at all to support it while just the opposite is readily available at sites such a the The piece of crap first appeared on the Daily Kos without any attribution!

Poof! “Here’s Obama’s birth certificate.” No proof, no name connected to it, no source, no nothing. You know that full well, but it is a fact that is very damning and delegitimizes it completely. No chain of evidence, no proof of custody, nothing other than an image on a monitor and one without any DEPT. SEAL., no signatures, no certification, no legitimacy. Accept it! It has no legs to stand on and can even be faked in about a half hour. And Obama said: “Thank you, oh Photoshop!”

“You must have evidence that contradicts the State of Hawaii.” The “State of Hawaii” has issued no legally valid statement regarding Obama’s fakes. Nothing that could put someone on a legal hook can be traced to any living person (since Fuddy was murdered) because everything has been either a verbal lie, or a “letter” that avoided authenticating the fakes presented by the Obama flying monkeys.
Confirming that the “facts” seen in the fakes “matches” the facts seen in their digital file means only that they confirm that the facts match, -not that the fakes were issued by them.
Please point us to an official, hand-signed statement which attests that the HDoH was the source of the fakes. You cannot do that because they have never done that.
Nothing has been spoken or written in a legal forum so in fact “Hawaii” has so far been silent on the subject.

You pretend that you are knowledgeable about legal matters all while pretending that you do not know all of this? You are totally a fraud. A Luciferian Flying Monkey for your naked Emperor. “Protect the Emperor at any cost, we must!”

“And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records,
and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

Ha ha ha ha! You have invalidated your own pet security blankie by quoting the Constitution. The founders and framers were not Rainbows-&-Lollipop Pollyannas, unlike you, because they WERE concerned about forgeries and counterfeits.

“…shall be PROVED,”. And how exactly have the fakes been literally or legally proven? Where and when did that happen? Gee, I must have missed that,.. along with everyone else! They have only been legitimized in your own corrupted imagination.


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

14 Responses to Demolishing Obama’s Lying Flying Monkey

  1. arnash says:

    bob68 104p · 18 hours ago
    Exactly. I never thought Congress would object to Cruz based on his lack on Article II eligibility. For everyone complicit in the Obama fraud, Congress, the media, the courts, there is nothing more important than reinforcing their contention that Obama is Constitutionally eligible. Both political parties and the Obama media, including Fox News, have a huge investment in insuring Obama is never removed from office due to his ineligibility.
    Congress sees that event, were it to occur, as something that would be so destructive, to both parties, and more importantly to themselves, that they will watch America be fundamentally transformed into a third world shiite hole and still remain silent and mail out those, “Obama was born in Hawaii and is a citizen”, form letters. They consider additional ineligible candidates as insurance against Obama’s ineligibility ever coming back to haunt them.

    After contacting the offices of my members of Congress many times in the first 3 months or so after Obama was sworn in back in 2009, and hearing their responses defending Obama’s claimed eligibility, it dawned on me they would never change that story because they were part of a crime they believe is too big to prosecute.

    Putting the enemy in charge of America’s government and especially her military, nuclear weapons and all, by ignoring the oath they took to, “defend the Constitution from her enemies, both foreign and domestic”, is not something they will ever be willing to admit to doing……and then have to deal with the, unthinkable to them, huge constitutional crisis they were part of creating. Even the, “good ones”, see the truth about Obama as having the potential to cost them their political office and even their freedom, as treason at a higher level than being part of turning America’s presidency over to the enemy is, I don’t believe, possible.

    That was years ago and we are still stuck with Obama, and the enemy has had years to reinforce it’s position by weakening the military, corrupting the election process, rewarding millions of invaders with taxpayer money and special benefits, installing far-left judges and shredding the Constitution. All the while those whose elected job requires them to impeach Obama, have, after running out of excuses not to impeach, just came out and said. “impeachment is off the table”. That is how afraid those complicit in the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people are that impeachment would reveal the truth, no matter what the stated reason is…….so, it will not be done.

    I could go on and on, but I will stop by saying my observation of years ago that, “Congress protects Obama to protect themselves”, has been proven over and over, and still is by the absolute inaction of the Republicans following a historic election victory which the voters thought would remove their excuses for inaction………..instead it pointed out again the root cause of Obama’s ability to do whatever he wants is that Congress bringing him down would fully expose them and the many others who enabled him………and these people will do everything possible to prevent that from happening.


  2. arnash says:

    “The US State Department only recognizes US Citizens at Birth and “Naturalized Citizens”, {which are people who obtain US Citizenship by applying for and being granted US Citizenship through a civil procedure that takes place after a person is born}.”

    There are three categories of parentage related to citizenship: 1. born of aliens. 2. born of one US citizen. 3. born of American parents. Only the third group are born as natural citizens.

    The other two are born as naturalized citizens because they are born with “alienage” from a foreign parent. They are born “with” citizenship, but they are not born “as” citizens by any natural process.
    Only those born as natural citizens are citizens by their innate political nature, having been conceived and born with a political birthright, -the RIGHT of Descent, the Right of natural membership in all groups to which their like parents belong, -from family to clan to state to nation.

    Their membership is not by any law since their kind where the ones who created the law, and they possess the unalienable right to pass their national membership to their progeny without regard to the location of birth. That is a fundamental American right that all American men possessed as American citizens.

    That right is not something that can be abrogated by any law written to deal with foreigners and their children. It is a primal, organic right of nature, and part of the Organic Law of The United States.
    That law of nature is based on blood lineage alone. Nothing else produces natural citizens. Only citizen parents can produce a natural citizen child.
    EVERYONE ELSE (the 3 %) is a citizen by naturalization. They must be made into natural citizens by the exercise of an American fiction of law which recognizes only one class of citizens: the natural class in which all are EQUAL.

    But not all are members of that class by nature, by birth, because a tiny percentage are members by the legal fiction of natural-ization. They are those who were born of foreigners or of one foreign parent. They are citizens “at” birth, -but not “by” birth. They are in all respects identical to natural citizens, except when it comes to the Presidency. The one in 300 million position cannot constitutionally be held by them.

  3. arnash says:

    ““A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized,…” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

    What brain-dead anti-American nonsense. That belief contains a deadly poison to Freedom and is in fact treasonous to fundamental American liberty because it would mean that THE STATE owns you and your national membership, rather than YOU owning the state.

    That would mean that you are a subject of Big Brother and Big Brother is the sovereign, not you, the Citizen. You are its property, and the off-spring of your life is as well. It has no rights that The State does not grant because if national membership is not a natural unalienable right of inheritance, then no such rights exist because rights are not limited by borders, nor are national responsibilities.

    If you are an American, then American law pertains to you even outside of national borders, as do American rights, the first of which is the right of belonging to your own nation, and your likewise for your children as well. You and yours. One family, one nation, one nationality, one allegiance.

    No damn dumb supreme court opinion can overturn the fundamental American principles of NATURAL RIGHTS. They do not vaporize at just across the border. They are a part of what it is to be an American, regardless of the government-supremacist attitude of the cultural and political elites.

    Understand this: naturalization law only applies to those who need to be made into natural American citizens by the allowance of law and legal fiction. Those who are born of citizens have no need of any such allowance or fiction since they are citizens by nature.
    They are mentioned in the Nat. Acts not because such children need citizenship, but because they need PROTECTION from boneheads in government who are ignorant of the rights of all American children regardless of birth location.
    American Citizenship rights are far superior to the mandates of British law over all *subjects*. They abandoned Natural Law due to merging with a foreign nation but the Americans restored the natural order and natural rights for their progeny, and could do so because they were One People, with one language and cultural background, as well as nearly all being Protestant Christians.

  4. arnash says:

    unknown guest:
    8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

    Could one argue that the above is not a statutory granting of the privilege of naturalized U.S. citizenship at birth to at least one foreign national parent?

    Could one argue that a person born on U.S.A. to a mother and father who are U.S. citizens at the time of that person’s birth can be found anywhere within 8 U.S. Code § 1401, or is that the only category missing from U.S. Code?

    How could it be that a person born on U.S. soil to at least one foreign national parent is **naturalized at birth** in 8 U.S. Code § 1401, but the person born on U.S. soil to **two**U.S. citizen parents is naturally born a citizen without process of positive law?
    How is it that this law can be repealed, leaving anyone born on U.S. soil to at least one citizen parent a foreign national of their foreign parent’s nationality only?

    How is it that the government cannot change a natural born citizen’s natural status?


  5. arnash says:

    thinkwell ·
    In an attempt to justify that mere “born citizen” == “natural born Citizen” obots often try to reference the British term, natural born subject.

    Natural born Citizen is NOT the same as natural born subject. The founders very specifically rejected the idea of natural born subjects, a term implying an irrevocable fealty to an elite sovereign. Natural born subject was a term of ownership and was used, among other things, to justify impressing as many able bodied, but otherwise unwilling “subjects” into his majesty’s royal service as possible (typically as sailors). For this reason (gathering up as many able bodies as possible), qualification as a natural born subject was like a logical OR operation, thus being born of either of the blood of a subject or within the king’s realm was qualification enough.

    The founders thoroughly rejected this idea and considered every citizen as sovereign — we were founded as a nation of sovereign Citizens, none higher than any other. Politicians, even up to and including the president, were intended to be the servants of We the People, the exact opposite of the system natural born subjects suffer under. The founders were familiar with the term “natural born subject” and they rejected it in its entirety.

    Furthermore, it is ludicrous on its face to assume that the founders, who were articulately deliberate and elegantly succinct in their writings, inserted an entirely superfluous word into the phrase “natural born Citizen.” If they had meant only “born citizen” that is exactly what they would have written, but they did not. As Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison (1840):

    “In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.”

    The purpose of the presidential eligibility requirement was to ensure that those born with a naturally divided allegiance be excluded from ever becoming our commander-in-chief. For this reason, qualification as a natural born Citizen was like a logical AND operation, thus one must born one hundred percent exclusively American, both of blood (of two citizen parents) and of dirt (within our territorial jurisdiction).


  6. arnash says:

    You were right on target but at the very end flew right off the tracks by adding the unnatural, artificial, arbitrary element of the fleeting, inconsequential, unnatural element of geography, i.e., location of the mother during delivery.

    Birth location has zero connection to birth or anything natural. It cannot be combined with anything natural and produce anything other than a hybrid, Frankenstein, Siamese twin result. It is unknown in every other country on the planet and has never been a requirement for leadership in America, nor Britain, nor any other former colony.
    It is purely a doctrine of sentiment, and not Natural Law, nor American liberty.
    It is a betrayal of America liberty because Freedom means that you do not need the government’s permission. The right to travel abroad? Of course. The right to live abroad? Of course. The right to give birth to American citizen children abroad? Of course!

    What is the alternative? Your children are born as aliens because you (American couples) HAVE NO RIGHT TO INCLUDE THEM IN YOUR CITIZENSHIP because the government owns you and your citizenship so it is NOT something that you can pass to your progeny. You are a SUBJECT of the central government. THAT betrayal of Liberty is the poison in the native-birth soup that your have swallowed.
    If you do not own yourself and your national membership, then the government does. If it does, then you cannot pass your membership to your heirs without any restrictions of any kind. It’s one or the other. It cannot be both.

    • I’m sorry but you are wrong on birth place not being part of the term “natural born citizen”. A good example for rebutal would be the fact that a child born abroad to US citizen parent or parents MUST go through the naturalization process as described and managed by the USCIS. (US Citizenship and Immigration Services) The child “may” become a naturalized US citizen “at birth” IF certain residency requirements are met and the proper paperwork is filed (CRBA) and then approved. You can’t be a “naturalized citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. NBC is based on both “soil” and “blood”.

      • arnash says:

        I’m sorry, but you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid of Donofrio and Apuzzo. What you have been lead to believe is not only incorrect but is actually treasonous to American Liberty, as I’ve fully explain a hundreds over. It is based also on a bad understanding of the relationship of foreign-born American children to the U.S. government as revealed in the naturalization laws.

        As was first stated in the first uniform rule of naturalization, every child of American parents is an American citizen like his or her parents and is an American by the Right of Descent. Only those born abroad to parents born and raised abroad, having never lived in the United States, are denied the Right of Descent due to the fact that they are in fact foreigners. All others, as is clearly stated on a CIS website, are NOT citizens by naturalization. They are Natural Citizens by blood lineage. They are eligible to be President, as was made plain and clear and deliberately so by the first nat. act.

        What everyone naturally gets confused by, without knowing the fundamental American principle of nationality, is that the child of a single American parent is not included in the group of children without any alienage. Only those born of an American couple are born as natural citizens. Those born with a foreign parent are the ones subject to the process of legal formality for securing naturalization because they are not natural citizens.

        They are hybrids, cross-breeds, half-bloods, political chimeras. Not all this nor all that, but an unnatural political combination of the two. Only pure-blood Americans are exempt totally from all government control over citizenship and naturalization. But they are 97% of the population.

  7. John says:

    Nash chops up Frank Arduini. Frank has been DYING for 6 years to entrap some birther to debate with him RC’s Reality Check Radio. Fortunately, no Birther as fallen into the trap.

    • I was asked to be on RC’s radio show…after listening to a one hour show with the Obama attorney I was up against, Barry Ragsdale, I realized this show should have been called the “Fogbow” show. I told them I refused to appear as their guest so they could do a one hour “birther” bashing….RC was pissed.

  8. nychuck says:

    Historiandude is the best liar I have ever come up against.

    But he cannot name one, just one, “major association credentialed certified forensic document examiner” that will authenticate what Reed Hayes stated to Sheriff Arpaio is the “worst forgery I have ever seen”! He came up with lists of examiners but not those having the credentials of Reed. But lets just forget about Reed and let him come up with ONE to authenticate. List his name.

    Why has there not been one agency head deposed or testified in association to the forged documents birth certificate, selective service, or social security? I said deposed or testify, not send trick letters. And also have forensic examiners examine microfiche, indexes, & other archived documents.

    And yes, one most certainly can make a determination of a document’s authenticity, in most cases, just by looking at it.

    • you’re exactly right. I myself have factual evidence in the hands of investigator Mike Zullo that can prove the PDF image cannot possibly represent a physical paper copy. Some of the anomolies on the image would be impossible to create with a manual typewriter in 1961. It doesn’t require a paper document to prove this is a digitally created forgery. In fact I created a digitally created forgery months before Obama released his….mine is much better…LOL

  9. these comments come from an article by Greg Conterio who has published one misleading article after another. He is causing more confusion and damage to people’s understanding of the eligibility issue especially when it comes to Ted Cruz. He and his minions are constantly quoting laws of “naturalization” to claim Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. You can’t be a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen at the same time…it’s not possible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: