The End of Eden & the Rise of Obama

Print
15 Comments
Post a Comment
|
Email
Tweet

By Adrien Nash · Friday, January 27, 2012

In today's world, four decades after the women's liberation revolution, it seems very odd to think that women, wives, and daughters throughout American history were treated as inferior to fathers, -to husbands, -to sons, and that that treatment was not only a feature of American and worldwide society but also of American law.

There was a legal tradition that existed for hundreds of years, and that tradition made perfect sense and worked perfectly well even though it was based on the subjugation of wives to their husbands, -as was called for by the Holy Scriptures when God, or the author, says that it shall be so because Eve tempted Adam with the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil and therefore subjection to her husband was her punishment for that offense which led to "the Fall of Man" and their banishment from the Garden of Eden.

In the male dominated traditions of the world, women are not endowed with the many rights that are reserved only for the "adults", meaning the men, -the heads of their household, -the ones responsible for the sustenance and survival of the family and the nation. Those rights include such things as the right of inheritance, the right to own property, the right to vote, (and it gets worse if you live in Saudi Arabia).

But the tradition that is most curious from today's perspective is that American women lost their national group membership when/if they married outside of their national family. Their citizenship was then converted from American, or British, to that of the husband. It's known as "expatriation by marriage". Whatever the husband was, so was the wife and their children. One uniform citizenship. She pledged her obedience, she took his name in place of her own, and she took his citizenship in place of her own. She became his and they became one. No such wife would say; "I'm an American but my husband is British". All she would/could say of her family was; "We're British". That uniform citizenship avoided the problems inherent in dual-citizenship in marriages and in children being born in subjection to two different nations.

What does this have to do with anything relevant? Only this; Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, became pregnant by a foreign student in Hawaii and then became married to him. By the age-old legal tradition described above she would have become a subject of the British Empire at that time and the only citizenship that would have passed to her son (Obama Jr.) from his parents was that of the husband and father. So at birth, by the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama Jr. would have been a British subject, -as his own website has acknowledged that he was, and not an American.

Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization(1840-1950)

Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

"Yes, this is the reason Harvard was still citing the 1859 Buchanan OP when Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkah was born. Obama was 1st & foremost a British subject at birth, just as his father was. This was the law recognized by all nations, that a child born in wedlock follows the nationality of the father, not the mother until such time as a divorce or an adoption may take place or upon the child reaching the age of 21. The only change in the 1950's pertained to children born to single mothers abroad, NOT children born in wedlock."

 But the Supreme Court found the policy of the federal government to be unconstitutional in regard to a similar situation, and the extrapolation from that ruling was that revoking an American woman's citizenship due to her marriage to an alien was unconstitutional. Such a marriage was ruled as not being evidence of her willful desire to abandon her American citizenship. Therefore, by derivative citizenship, her minor children, though possessing the citizenship of the father, would also possess the citizenship of the mother by inheritance and therefore, though they would not be natural born citizens, they would be native-born 14th Amendment dual citizens automatically naturalized-at-birth. Although they would inherit their mother's citizenship as a birthright, her citizenship alone is not sufficient to place them in the category of natural citizens because without an American father they were the hybrid fruit of a branch grafted onto a foreign tree, -attached to a father who was not of the same nature/nationality as their mother and therefore their nature could not be describable as purely American.

Understand this, any citizen whose citizenship is ascribed to them by human law is not a natural citizen but a made-made, half-blood, artificial, statutory, naturalized citizen. But that citizenship is identical to natural citizenship in almost every way with the lone exception of eligibility to the office of the President. All American citizens are equal, except some of them are more equal than others when it comes to being the Commander In Chief.

But for Barack Obama there's one catch to the view that he obtained U.S. citizenship from his mother and was therefore a hybrid 14th Amendment dual-citizen. The Supreme Court made their ruling in 1967, not before 1961 -the year he was born. Before 1967 it did not exist and by U.S. Administrative law the policy of the government was such that Obama Jr. would have received no citizenship through his mother and therefore would have been born as only a British subject.(!) Purely a foreigner at birth. No one born a foreigner is eligible to the Office of the President!

Many will erroneously assume that by being born in the United States, (a "fact" not yet proven by any certified and authenticated hard-copy evidence) Obama obtained American citizenship automatically, but that is not backed by actual U.S. law. The 14th Amendment only declares those born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, to be U.S. citizens. Though the widespread false assumption that a native-born magically imparts a birthright to claim American citizenship, that's simply not legally true. Birth within the U.S. is not attended by any birthright since that right is one that is inherited, -passed from the father, or parents, to their off-spring, or granted as a form of naturalization to children of legal U.S. immigrants by an 1898 Supreme Court ruling on the 14th Amendment.

But since Obama Sr. was merely a visiting student from Kenya and not an immigrant with permanent resident status granted by the State Department, he therefore was subject only to British jurisdiction and International Treaty. He was free from U.S. political jurisdiction and could not be required to register for the draft nor could he be conscripted into the U.S. military because he was only a temporary guest of the government, and not a permanent member of American society. As such, any child that he fathered in the United States, being under his jurisdiction and therefore, (-by proxy through him), under British jurisdiction, was excluded by the 14th Amendment language from U.S. citizenship through him since he was a non-immigrant alien.

But since his mother was subject to U.S. jurisdiction, he was subject through her and thus, a birth in the U.S. would fulfil the requirements of the 14th Amendment for native-born citizenship if he had been born during or after 1967.

But even if born after '67 he would not possess natural born citizenship because his citizenship would have been the result of a Supreme Court ruling on an age-old traditional government citizenship policy and not a result of being born a citizen with only American parents, allegiance, and nationality. No one with dual parentage, dual allegiance, and dual nationality constitutes a natural citizen since natural citizens are saddled with no duality, instead they're the product of only one uniform nationality.

So since he was not an American through his father nor an American through a "native birth", he therefore was not an America native by birth, though he was "native-born", since he lacked having a native of America for a father. Only native fathers can father natives. Only citizen fathers can father natural citizens. Foreigners can not. Consequently, he was not born as a native of any nation nor as a natural citizen of any nation on earth.

Obama's citizenship is a form of naturalization because it's something mandated by human law, not something that children such as himself are endowed with by natural unalienable Right. So just as a Nazi father and a Jewish mother would not produce a natural red-blooded Nazi or a full-blooded Jew, so a foreign father (like a North Korean) and an American mother aren't capable of producing a natural American.

But what about the American dream? -The dream that every American child is entitled to aspire to be President one day? Well that is still true for perhaps 99% of us. Must it be true for 100% of us? The founders of our nation, who experienced the dangers, trials and tribulations of war, -who endured the treachery of General Benedict Arnold and determined that such treason must never be possible by an American President, were determined that no citizen that was born with a direct inherited connection to any other nation should ever occupy the Presidency and they wrote that in stone into the Constitution.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, the 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the new Republic and also the President of the Continental Congress, wrote to George Washington the following:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen."

It is a rule and requirement that cannot be changed except by a constitutional amendment. But it can be ignored, -and it was ignored by essentially the entire nation. No officer of the government, whether elected or appointed, no reporter or TV news operation, no talk-radio pundit, no syndicated columnist, no celebrity, no Judge or Justice of the Supreme Court ever raised an objection to the attempted usurpation of the presidency by an ineligible candidate. Then after he was found to have won the election, it was too late. The damage was done because the people had been allowed to pick an ineligible man for President.

The Constitution was nationally violated and no one who knew it said a word. That is a great enough travesty, but it may be allowed to be repeated even after these truths are now known. Will ignorance, indifference, and cowardice allow the conspiracy against the Constitution to be rewarded a second time? If they do then we may find ourselves irrevocable on the path to mandatory socialism. Socialistic aims and sentiments have dominated American politics and law-making for 100 years and their tentacles are deeply entrenched in nearly every major aspect of American life, so it's very possible for such a powerful influence to win the day next November and thereby slowly strangle tomorrow.

http://obama--nation.com http://photobucket.com/obama_bc

Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.

Print
15 Comments
Post a Comment
|
Email
Tweet

Comments

P. Long

Georgia is doing it's very best to rectify this situation. No one will find it in any msm reports, including this one. It's on American Thinker. Obama was supoenaed and didn't show up.

Posted January 27, 2012 at 6:35:22 PM

Chris

Congress already covered this. Natural born status is not bestowed by the citizenship of the father. You need to read this document. It was written by the nonpartisan lawyer that answers legal questions for the members of Congress. He has to play it straight or he would tick off one side of Congress and be fired. Most of what you say above is incorrect.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

Posted January 27, 2012 at 9:04:46 PM

Adrien Nash

A Presidential Eligibility Primer

Regarding Citizenship

~Guidelines for Presidential Candidates~

~Seven Truths About Eligibility~

1. The Constitution allows only "natural born citizens" to be President.

2. The Constitution bars all naturalized citizens from being the President.

3. The Constitution bars anyone born merely as a "born citizen" from being President.

4. The Constitution bars anyone with foreign citizenship only from being the President.

5. The Constitution bars anyone with a parent who is not American from being President.

6. The Constitution bars anyone not born with American citizenship from being President.

7. The Constitution bars anyone fathered by a transient alien or diplomat from being President.

These facts demolish the legitimacy of Barack Obama as an eligible candidate for the presidency.

All but 2 & 3 apply to Senator Obama who was not born with American citizenship because under the United States INS policy in full force when he was born in 1961, his mother was not an American citizen but a British subject due to the impact of the federal legal tradition known as "expatriation by marriage". By marrying a foreigner, she lost her American citizenship and took on his in its place. The father was the only source of imputed nationality for their child. This policy was in effect for several centuries or longer. It's origin was in British legal tradition, and even may have been the legal tradition in much of Europe and the Roman Empire.

Expatriation by marriage was not nullified as the official policy of the United States government until the Supreme Court ruled that an American cannot lose his citizenship merely by voting in a national foreign election. That ruling was extrapolated by an Attorney General opinion/Interpretation that reasoned that an American woman marrying a foreign national was not a demonstration of a willful desire to abandon her American citizenship. Therefore, after that ruling and Interpretation, American women retained their U.S. citizenship after marriage to a foreigner. But that ruling was not given until 1967 (Afroyim v Rush)

When Obama Jr. was born, it was still the law of the land that his mother's American citizenship was converted into British citizenship, and therefore he was born solely as a British subject and not an American.

He inheritied only a British nationality from his father, he wasn't "a born citizen" by being born in the U.S. because he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States through his father (as required by the 14th Amendment) but instead was subject to the jurisdiction of Britain. Only American citizens and legal "Green Card" permanent residents are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, -not foreign tourists, diplomats, visitors, or students.

In summation: no citizenship from his father, no citizenship from his mother, no citizenship from the 14th Amendment, and no natural citizenship via any of the above. Barack Obama only became an American as a result of his mother dicvorcing his father. After that, U.S. Administrative Law allowed her to regain her American citizenship and have it apply to her child whose citizenship therefore was statutory and thus a form of naturalized citizenship, not natural citizenship.

BORN A BRIT...HE'S NOT LEGIT

Posted January 27, 2012 at 9:50:50 PM

PJA

Clear and Concise explanation! I hope the GA ALJ agrees. It IS creeping into MSM (CBS Atlanta and a few others mention it way down on their pages.)There are too many issues now and way too much finally admitted into COURT EVIDENCE for this to be swept under the rug AGAIN! Kudos for such a well written piece to clarify what so many are having difficulty understanding. GOD BLESS THE USA!

Posted January 27, 2012 at 10:03:06 PM

bastard

Wasn't Obama, SR. married to a woman in Kenya? Then his marriage to Stanley Ann was bigamy and thus invalid. The legal precedent should be that of a child born to a single mother.

Posted January 27, 2012 at 10:38:11 PM

Adrien Nash

With Truth as my Arrow and Logic my Bow

I'll give this Deception a shattering blow

destroying Delusions as Truth hits its mark

so Light can then Shine where once all was Dark.

With Truth as my Arrow and Logic my Bow

Lies will be Vanquished as all come to know

that even Gold Giants someday must pay

for pretending they're solid when inside they're just clay.

by a.r.nash 1-27-12

Posted January 27, 2012 at 10:54:31 PM

Adrien Nash

Chris, thanks for the link and your sincere concern, but you've been duped by a partisan hack whose partisanship the Congress is indifferent to unless it affects something they feel strongly about, and none of those yahoos feel strongly about ascertaining the actual truth of the matter. No one wants to see the circus that will result when Obama is finally found to be constitutionally ineligible.

A few days ago Leo Donofrio Esq. did a devastating expose of Maskell's deviously fallacious assumptions. It's somewhere in his naturalborncitizen.com blog. But I'll destroy his one huge falsehood which I just noticed while scrolling down the page.

"the first Congress in enacting the

Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining [NOT defining, but *expanding*]the term “natural born citizen” to include those

born abroad to U.S. citizens),it appears that the most logical (ILLOGICAL!) inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” ***or “at birth.”*** [*THIS IS THE GIGANTIC LIE I'M REFERRING TO*] Such interpretation, as evidenced by over a century of American case law, would include as natural born citizens those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction

regardless of the citizenship status of one’s parents, or those born abroad of one or more parents

who are U.S. citizens (as recognized by statute).."

The actual truth is that those who are citizens solely "at birth" are not natural citizens because citizens did not produce them, foreigners did. A man-made law (14th Amendment) and supreme court ruling (Wong Kim Ark 1898) made them citizens, NOT natural law by which natural citizens are produced.

No one whose citizenship depends on man is a natural citizen. All those whose citizenship does depend on man are naturalized citizens, even though that naturalization begins "at birth".

Posted January 28, 2012 at 3:45:20 AM

Adrien Nash

bastard; I read an explanation about that conundrum and it explained that by treaty the United States must recognize the marriage laws of a reciprocal nation and since Kenya had legal bigamy...

Two flies in the soup are that bigamous marriage in Kenya is different from a new added marriage in the U.S. which wouldn't be legal I'd assume. Also, since he wasn't a legal Green Card resident of the U.S. but was only a Visa foreign visitor, he wasn't subject to U.S. jurisdiction in regard to marriage law because marriage is not a federal matter but a state matter. It's more likely than not that there was nothing in the INS code book to cover such a situation. Just think how rare it would be. Obama Sr. may have been the only one to create such a situation. Who would have jurisdiction to decide what was what regarding Obama's mother citizenship? Probably a judge or the Attorney General. And even they may not have had any clear precedent to go by. This all reveals the murkiness of Obama's citizenship, which has no "natural born" side to it.

Posted January 28, 2012 at 4:01:47 AM

Adrien Nash

One more point about bigamy. By U.S.-British Treaty it can be assumed that if Britain recognized Obama Sr. polygamous marriages [which was accepted as part of Kenya tradition] then the U.S. was required to recognize the British recognition and view them as legitimate. That's a case of international "go along to get along". It makes sense so I'll assume it's true until I learn otherwise.

Posted January 28, 2012 at 4:13:58 AM

Adrien Nash

"Satan will hide a pint of poison in a lake of truth."

Here's another example of the deceitfulness of Maskell's bastardized work of fact & fiction:

Page 12

The Supreme Court of the United States, in its landmark opinion on birthright citizenship

authored by Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, citing both the common law and

numerous legal precedents in the United States, explained in 1898 that a child born of alien

parents within the country and subject to its jurisdiction is considered a “natural

born” citizen (in the United States) or subject (in England,as that term has been used over the

centuries in England and the United States.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

His illegitimate addition of "natural born" is an outright lie! It's found nowhere in the context he is referencing, and he knew that but he injected it anyway to bolster the falsehood of his previous presumptuous fabricated conclusion in order that his preferred President be shielded from reality. There is no other explanation!

His paraphrasing is all pure truth except for the illegitimate additional "natural born" wordage added to "citizen", but the plain truth would be useless for Obama because the Constitution requires more than simply being a citizen, so he was forced to corruptly add the needed qualifying words so one who was born in the country of an alien parent would appear to be qualified to be President.

This is a really high caliber example of a deliberate subtle change/addition that actually changes everything, and it is so covert that most people wouldn't notice it. The subtlety of a slow-moving camouflaged snake.

Posted January 28, 2012 at 5:37:23 AM

Adrien Nash

I'm wondering if Maskell's quote of Justice Gray's Page 12 quote that includes the words "natural born" with "citizen" might be accurate and not added by him but illegitimately added by Gray. Gray was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Arthur who was not a natural born citizen because his father was a British subject for 14 years after Gray was born. That meant that if Arthur was impeached if Congress learned of his background, then Gray's appointment would have been null and void. So needless to say, he had a strong motivation to call a child born of alien parents a natural born citizen since his position depended on it. talk about a conflict of interest.

Either way, whether added by Gray or added by Maskell, the intent was the same, and that was to distort the truth in order to protect an unqualified president. No one forced Maskell to zero in on the one quote that would have the effect of legitimizing Obama's presidency, when it was a fallacious quote supported by nothing in logic or American law.

Posted January 29, 2012 at 5:09:27 AM

mmccrindle

.......whatever.

Then Obama is either a traitor or a saboteur. Either way he is an enemy to this country.

Foreign or domestic - doesn't matter.

Impeach him. There is enough to prove he has failed his oath of office.

Posted January 29, 2012 at 5:59:21 PM

JAC

This is all a waste of time. NO ONE IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUAT THIS, regardless of the proof or anything else! My only hope is that I live long enough for the truth to come out about the Chicago Cockroach.

Posted January 30, 2012 at 2:24:30 PM

Holmes Simons

What is not "Natural Born" is political cowardice. Cowardice that is demonstrated each passing day by our federal elected officials in Congress and those appointed to the Judiciary, who run and hide behind ignorance and blame, and who, by default, acquiesce to treasonous actions by the Executive branch.

Political cowardice is born within the individual minds and souls of those who lack integrity and courage, those who are willing to falsely swear an oath to protect this nation from all enemies. Once cowardice infects the group, as it appears to have done to the contemporary politicians charged with representing the principles of their constituents, there is little the electorate can do, save drastic civil disobedience.

Over years, the American electorate have been lied to and duped by conniving people who have complete disregard for laws, social mores, and the rights of others, and who apparently lack a conscience to experience guilt or remorse for their acts. Hence, a political class has evolved in America that legislates laws to protect its members from prosecution and financial incentives too great to abandon in favor of a mere oath of responsibility.

Not one recreant has stood on the floor of either congressional house to demand an investigation into the “natural born” qualification of Barack Obama. Not one, despite a plethora of evidence and historical precedents that prove without doubt that he is not eligible to be our President. His actions of the past three years are evidence to why the founders required a person born of two citizen parents, a safeguard against one having loyalty to two or more nations by virtue of birth, for only one elected office in the land, that of President.

America has reached an untenable precipice in its history, when those people charged with upholding the law have abdicated their responsibilities in favor of racism, egoism, and political correctness. Is there not ONE POLITICIAN to demand a look at evidence in this issue? The silence is an affront to all Americans who have fought and died for freedom and disrespect to all who are living through this remarkable display of cowardice, weakness, and dishonor.

It appears they have no shame.

Posted January 30, 2012 at 2:30:32 PM

Adrien Nash

Anyone who ends his remarks with the word "dishonor" must be a fellow veteran. The values instilled via military service cannot be acquired in any other manner, but the cabal of milquetoast men that run our country today have never been tested in the crucible of enduring pain and suffering for their country. They know not of what it takes to perpetuate a people and nation. It takes far more than what we see in American society at large and in the board rooms of Congress, Wall Street, the Executive bureaucracies, and the Peter Principle employment environments throughout every union, school and college, and major business except the high-tech industries that live or die by their creative endeavors.

Can you imagine if it became law that no one can serve in an executive position in the government who had not completed military service? Talk about a turn-around in our country. But only a clean sweep would do. The good-old-boy brotherhood of elected office includes far too many shysters who seduce the neophytes with the clubiness of false friendship which lead to neutralizing them into becoming "ambivalent accomodationists" who will go along to get along when they should be slamming on the brakes.

This has been the situation of all civilizations that knew "too much peace" for too long and everyone became soft. No doubt no civilization ever crumbled from within while it was governed by ex-warriors (unless it was taken down by competing ex-warriors, -but that's not the kind of crumbling I'm referring to).

Posted January 31, 2012 at 5:09:19 AM

Patriot Headline Report

The Right Opinion

More Opinion

Grassroots Commentary

More Commentary

Policy and Analysis

Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher

The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund

Name	(required, displayed)
Email	(required, not displayed)
Comments

Navigation

Options