Those who support Obama blindly, who in most respects are little different than brainwashed cultists, clearly seem to follow and indirectly advance at least a similar (if not the same) same concept that " the United States be removed as a superpower and that the American people be subjected to the will and wants of all the world's people” by their willful support of violating the Constitution and openly breaking the Supreme Law of the Land, it seems to me.
On 03/11/2008, 10 month's before Barack published his open letter to Kenya, the Weekly Standard (of Nairobi Kenya) lamented:
Obama hinted at it in his book:
So where was Barack’s birth certificate in 1995? It was NON-EXISTENT in the United States. So when Barack ran for U.S. senate, he conveniently changed the narrative, and lied about where he was born…and little sister Maya (and until November 2008 many of his pro-Obama bios including his own campaign likewise) passed it on.
On March 1, 2012, there was a Preliminary Findings Report that became part of what Sheriff Arpaio was willing to legally commit to saying about the Obama Birth Certificate as released by the White House on April 27, 2011.
The Washington Times reported at 4:05 p.m. on Thursday, March 1, 2012 that Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, officially said:
before a final theft of all Obama’s documents was “alleged” to have happened by pro-Obama supporters on March 21 or March 26, 2008.
No one can place Obama in the United States any earlier than 1962. If Obama was born in August 4 of 1961...why is it that no one can account for him at all in 1961 in Hawaii or anywhere in the USA in 1961? Why? Unless he was foreign born?
Page 31 The Constitution's text actually has two components. It says ''birth on United States soil'' and ''subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' The ''subject of the jurisdiction'' clause ….means complete allegiance owing, subject to prosecution for treason-type jurisdiction, not the mere territorial jurisdiction that anybody coming here visiting as a tourist is subject to if they exceed our speed limits on our highways.
… Historically, the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which the 14th amendment was intended to constitutionalize, makes very clear that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States.
The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ''When we talk about 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.'' Senator Jacob Howard said that it's ''a full and complete jurisdiction.''
The interpretative gloss given by Senators Trumbull and Howard, adopted by Congress, understood by those that ratified the 14th amendment, was accepted by the Supreme Court in its first two cases addressing the citizenship clause. In the Slaughter-House cases, both the majority and the dissenting justices in that case recognized it meant this more complete allegiance-owing jurisdiction.
That was only dicta in Slaughter-House, but in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins the Supreme Court held that a claimant was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth if he was merely subject in some respect or degree, but completely subject to the political jurisdiction and owing it direct and immediate allegiance.
Now, in 1898, the Supreme Court reversed course. And I can understand the sentiments of the Court for doing so. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court dealt with a child of a Chinese immigrant who was here legally, permanently, but subject to a treaty that we had entered into with the emperor of China that would never recognize the ability of anyone to renounce their prior citizenship. However the sympathy there falls, we should not read that Wong Kim Ark case so broadly as to insist upon the Constitution setting a minimum threshold for conferring citizenship on anyone who happens to be born here, whether here permanently or temporarily, whether here legally or illegally, or the worst case scenario, whether here with a design to cause harm to the United States, to engage in armed conflict against United States.
... Mr. FONTE. America has had more success assimilating immigrants than any other country in the history of the world because since the early days of the Republic, we have pursued a policy of patriotic assimilation. At the heart of patriotic assimilation is the transfer of allegiance. For more than 200 years, immigrants have taken an oath renouncing prior allegiance and transferring sole political allegiance to the United States of America.
We are a civic, not an ethnic nation. American citizenship is not based on belonging to a particular ethnicity, but on political loyalty to American democracy. Regimes based on ethnicity support the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, for one is always a member of the ethnic nation. In 1812, Americans went to war against the concept of the ethnic nation and the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. At this time, Great Britain under the slogan ''Once an Englishman, always an Englishman'' refused to recognize the renunciation clause of our citizenship oath.
Today, some immigrant sending countries appear to be closer to the British position in 1812 than to the American position of a civic nation as opposed to an ethnic nation.
Dual allegiance violates a core American principle of equality of citizenship. Dual citizens are specially privileged, supra citizens who have voting power in more than one nation and special privileges like EU privileges that the majority of their fellow American citizens do not have.
I recently talked to a British immigrant who had become an American citizen while retaining British citizenship. This immigrant dual citizen cast ballots in 2004 in both the U.S. and British elections within 5 months of each other.
.... Dual citizens exist in a political space beyond the U.S. Constitution. As members of foreign constitutional communities, they have different and, in some cases, competing and conflicting responsibilities, interests and commitments. By objective practical necessity, as well as moral obligation, these other responsibilities, interests and commitments dilute their commitment and allegiance to the United States of America.
Page 27... In opposing dual allegiance, we of the Citizenship Roundtable stand with the Founding Fathers, including both Hamilton and Jefferson, those political rivals, and also political rivals, Theodore Roosevelt and Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. We stand with Justice Louis Brandeis and his protege, Justice Felix Frankfurter, and with the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which said, ''Taking an active part in the political affairs of a foreign state by voting in the election of that state involves a political attachment and practical allegiance thereto which is inconsistent with continued allegiance to the United States.'' [Unquote]