Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Glenn Miller music remembered, and a call to all US Military Veterans to help win the PEACE and "Cold War 2"

Many silent film snippets involving trains, set to Glenn Miller's Chattanooga Choo-Choo:

From Glenn Miller's Biographical Motion Picture, re-enacting real events that happened; starring Jimmy Stweart as Glenn Miller, the band playing "in the Mood":

Glenn Miller's take on revving up Ragtime Music in the Bugle Call Rag:

Vocals with the World War 2 years Glenn Miller Orchestra singing "People Like You 'n Me":

The World War 2 "American Patrol" lives on, as does the Glenn Miller band some 6 decades after its founder's death.

I FIRST ACKNOWLEDGE AND GIVE THANKS TO ALMIGHTY G-D, Who has given us this nation and our freedoms and privileges. ALL our cherished "rights" come from Him, whether through the means of or whether in spite of Governments.

To all American Veterans who served the Republic of the United States faithfully in War and in Peace...in remembrance of those who are alive now, and those whose names and/or memories we shared in some way in (but now having passed on)...

...to those whom we have never met and don't know, including all US Veterans of all times, going back to the Founding of this Nation, the United States of America: I THANK -- AND AM GRATEFUL TO -- ALL OF YOU.

Whereas following his Firing in Korea, General MacArthur said "old soldiers never die, they just fade away"...in our era, we need those of you still living to help win the Second Cold War that the Communist-Socialists are NOW winning here back home.

The Communist-Socialists have literally reached into the very heights of the echelons of power, and have robbed our US Treasuries of hundreds of billions of unaccounted for dollars under the guise of Stimulus and Pork Dollars. They have even successfully installated an unConstitutional and Foreign Natural Born Citizen, one Barack Hussein Obama, to the office of the Presidency and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces by fooling and conspiring to deceive the American electorate and the American General Public. They have used every means at their disposal to block, hinder, and discredit any who have discovered or suspected the illegality of the de facto Usurpation of Barack Obama.

America needs the LEGAL and PEACEFUL arrest, removal, and reversal of his illegitimate Presidency by any and all LEGAL and PEACEFUL means at your and our disposal. That means may only be available by accessing authorization via the US Supreme Court, as the Senate may be disqualified from impeaching a Foreign Natural Born Citizen USURPING the Office of the US Presidency.

We NEED now, to win the PEACE.

AMERICA NEEDS YOU!!! Like George Washington, these times require that America's Finest to NOT retire, but to perpetuate the good, and use their expertise to preserve and fortify the Republic and our precious Constitution, before America's enemies do away with it all together.

Let us as a nation return to the L-RD G-D, and honor G-D the Father through His Son Jesus Christ as the Holy Spirit guides us to do. Let us do so with the same and even greater reverence than that which has been intertwined with our devotion to Duty, Honor, Country, that the Almighty enable and empower us to victory in His Name.

Let us continuously speak truthfully, and avoid all lies. Let us be not as those who howl upon their beds for deliverance from times of evil, and then go out and rebel by neither being preservers of the good conduct, nor speak well of those who try and are trying to be the salt (preservers) and light (exposers of evil and consciences) of our Republic.

Let us preserve and reinstitute the Gospel of Jesus Christ in our public places, in our Governance, in our schools, that the nation be not cast in derision in denying Him who guided the forefathers of this nation, and gave them the Divine Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, and the Republic that has been handed down to us. Let us return the Bible, first passed by Congress and issued to our schools since 1782,
while the US was but a Confederacy and had yet to form a Constitution. Literacy to the ideals and principles to "not steal" and to "not covet someone else's stuff" and to "not murder" as if frivolously and without just cause...these are all good things to teach. The most quoted work of the Founders, the great majority of whom were devout Protestant Christians, was the book of Deuteronomy. Therefore that book, as well as the Gospel of Matthew ought to be essential to the education of all Americans of every age level that G-D be appropriately honored and remembered in our consciences as a people and a nation. Those who wish any other god than the G-D of our nation's forefathers, have other venues, preferably at home and their own places of worship. The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible has been a part of our military since before the very founding of this nation...it alone is the sanctified message betwen this nation, with its people & its military & its Governments and G-D.

G-D grants us liberties that allows the freedom of a man to believe or to not believe, and go about his business and be left alone. The Communist-Socialist intrudes and invades all privacies, and demands that you be a slave, and a mouthpiece repeating whatever mantra they tell you...to be abused, to suffer, to starve, to lose all human dignity, that their select few might rule as masters, and kill or imprison or have beaten into the dust based on their whims and their high looks. Our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and even to frely pursue having any measure of lawfully and morally gained property and wealth), comes from G-D...but the Communist-Socialists prefer the rule to covet and steal thy neighbor's property and wealth, that all may be slaves of a plantation society, while the masters laugh and take that which the slaves steal from each other, and beats down the masses with the whip and the rod, and lives lavishly themselves; while they slaves are forced to work harder for less, and less, as their masters become more cruel as time goes on.

I say that we were NOT born for enslavement, but G-D grants us Liberty, and it is G-D who through the actions of His Servants -- and those willing to be picked up and used as His Instruments -- that makes men free.

Take up the Flag and join the cause in Peace, to preserve the Peace, and stifle the outbreak of violence that must come if the Communist-Socialists are allowed to remove the US Constitution, establish a new Czar Government, and order the purge of tens of millions they deem a threat to their power. While we have a Republic, let us by the laws of the Republic so preserve and perpetuate it. No matter how good the enemy makes a POW camp sound, the experience NEVER matches their rhetoric. So should we NOT yield to the Communist-Socialists, and their promises of humane treatment either.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Ancient Greek examples of how "Natural Born Citizens" were at those times defined.

Ancient Greek Historical Aids to the Natural Born Citizen Issue

Yesterday, I was checking back with the writings of the ancient Greeks and how they would have viewed the citizenship issue with regards to the NBC, and how certain of the Founding Fathers may have been influenced in regards to their writings.

But let me start with how Liddell, Henry George ; Robert Scott; A Greek-English Lexicon, (Revised by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie) Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940...defines the ancient Greek word autochthon αὐτό-χθων as:
"Sprung from the land itself"
and as the adjective "indigenous, native".

Herodotus, in his "Histories", uses autochthon in the sense of both original and ancient. Hence, one who is native and of long standing in the land...often in the sense of ages and many centuries before others came and attached themselves or pushed out those that preceded them.

Herodotus, The Histories, 1.171.5
A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920, translates as:
“…the Carians themselves do not subscribe to it, but believe that they are aboriginal inhabitants of the mainland and always bore the name which they bear now.”

The relevant Greek text reads αὐτόχθονας for the English translation of aboriginal. Later in the same translation of Herodotus, The Histories, 4.197.2, the Greek text reads:
αὐτόχθονα and αὐτόχθονες for the below translations as aboriginal

[2] I have this much further to say of this country: four nations and no more, as far as we know, inhabit it, two of which are aboriginal and two not; the Libyans in the north and the Ethiopians in the south of Libya are aboriginal; the Phoenicians and Greeks are later settlers.

When looking to Plato for advice, we see that he places the emphasis on a plural of fathers (2 forefather generations or more) that are required to be born in the land as well as the one born, or 3 generations born on the soil, to be called indigenous or "natural born" stock. It is a nuance most people miss in the first reading.

Plato, in Menexenus 237b - 237c, states:
[237b]: "… thereafter we shall exhibit the character of their exploits, how nobly and worthily they wrought them. Now as regards nobility of birth, their first claim thereto is this -- that the forefathers of these men were not of immigrant stock, nor were these their sons declared by their origin to be strangers in the land sprung from immigrants, but natives sprung from the soil living and dwelling in their own true fatherland; and nurtured also by no stepmother, like other folk, but by that mother-country [237c] wherein they dwelt, which bare them and reared them and now at their death receives them again to rest in their own abodes.

W.R.M. Lamb translates autochthon as a native sprung up from the soil in 1925. The immediate above passage comes from: Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1925.

The SAME translation was consitently done in the following year with Demosthenes, when the equally credentialled team of C.A. Vince and J.H. Vince translated the Greek of
μόνοι γὰρ πάντων αὐτόχθονες ὑμεῖς ἐστε κἀκεῖνοι
"for you and they are the only indigenous peoples in Greece—“

The passage comes from Demosthenes, On the False embassy, 19.261; but it is in 19.260 that we learn that it is the "men of Athens" who are the only indigenous people...not in the specifically mentioned Land of Greece...but in the place or region in which they found themselves at. Hence, the translators infer Greece by the context of the speakers words of implication and apparent intent.

Perhaps it would have better been read to something after this effect:
“…men of Athens…for alone sprung up from the land itself you are in the manner and place of this region [Greece].”
(Demosthenes, English translation by C. A. Vince, M. A. and J. H. Vince, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1926).

In his Funeral Speech, 60.4,7 Demosthenes in the English translation from Norman W. DeWitt, Ph.D., and Norman J. DeWitt, Ph.D. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1949, states:

4] The nobility of birth of these men has been acknowledged from time immemorial by all mankind. For it is possible for them and for each one of their remote ancestors man by man to trace back their being, not only to a physical father, but also to this land of theirs as a whole, a common possession, of which they are acknowledged to be the indigenous children.

For alone of all mankind they settled the very land from which they were born and handed it down to their descendants, so that justly one may assume that those who came as migrants into their cities and are denominated citizens of the same are comparable to adopted children; but these men are citizens of their native land by right of legitimate birth.

7] For the ancestors of this present generation, both their fathers and those who bore the names of these men in time past, by which they are recognized by those of our race, never at any time wronged any man, whether Greek or barbarian, but it was their pride, in addition to all their other good qualities, to be true gentlemen and supremely just, and in defending themselves they accomplished a long list of noble deeds.

Note the pattern:
It is the father, the lineage through the father, and the name of the father that determines one's indigenous or "natural born identity", in conjunction to the land from which they and their father spring from. If the son is not born in the land of his father, he is a foreigner of the land of his foreign father, even when born in a foreign land.

In regard to Barack Hussein Obama, the ancient Greeks would rule that it is impossible for Barack Hussein Obama II to be anything other that an indigenous or natural born KENYAN, and that this is proven by the nationality and location of his forefathers.

Again, Plato seems to place an indigenous stock to that of great-grandchildren born in the land...so that if a third generation is born to the soil, only then can we apply the term native, indigenous, natural born, autochthon. Is there some validation in the Greek for that? Yes.

παλαίχθων palaichthon has also found use in ancient Greek to help us identify and define what a "natural born citizen" is, or at least was, in the mind and interpretations of the Greeks.

παλαίχθων palaichthon means to the effect of: "an ancient or long-standing inhabitant of a country or place", inferring that indigenous is multi or many generations in the nature of the word.

Hence, "natural born" in the sense of how it was understood from the time the Middle Age monks and other duplicate copied, and/or translated the Greek Historians like Herodotus, or great thinkers like Plato, is likely to have been passed on as those who are of the stock of the first national identity and ethnicity of the land through their fathers, and are able to
MULTI-GENERATIONALLY trace such a lineage in the soil through the father.

Even the Minor Attic writer, Hyperides, offers a solution for when a society is multi-cultural:
[7] To do so would, I think, be foolish. Granted, if one is praising men of a different stamp, such as have gathered from diverse places into the city which they inhabit, each contributing his lineage to the common stock, then one must trace their separate ancestry.

But from one who speaks of Athenians, born of their own country and sharing a lineage of unrivalled purity, a eulogy of the descent of each must surely be superfluous.

(Hyperides, Funeral Oration, 6.7;
Minor Attic Orators, vol. 2
English translation by J. O. Burtt, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1962).

And we must remember, that when one traces his ancestry in Greece and among the Hebrews in the Bible, it is the father who is prominently counted. In Biblical genealogy, in regard to Luke's, the daughter only matters effectually when she can trace her paternity back, and then pass that tribal and ethnic lineage on to her son. Luke recounts Mary's paternal lineage back to Adam and the time of the prophecy of a unique one of a kind seed of a woman, hence a virgin's preternaturally fertilized egg, bears forth Messiah. Even so, in order to have credibility and legitimacy, the paternal lineages of society were what mattered in determining one's indigenous status, be you a citizen of and in Greece or Israel.

The 4 earliest tribes of Greece from the times of the Cataclysm and in the generations before Ceres/IO married Osiris of Egypt and enjoined Attics with Egypt by becoming benefactor Queen Isis, were: Cecropis (Κεκροπίς), Autochthon (Αὐτόχθων), Actaea (Ἀκταία), and Paralia (Παραλία).

Ceres appears to have been attached to those of the Autochthon tribal origins, and eventually, it was this same lineage that was able to survive another millenia fairly intact because of her and the cemented relationship she has as Queen Isis of Egypt
At or about the time of Egypt pumping money into Athens, establishing commerce, and sharing the wealth of its education with ancient Athens... we see that the name of Autochthon (for whatever reason) first changed to Atthis (Ἀτθίς), and later on Atthis was subsequently later changed to Athenaïs (Ἀθηναΐς). Athenaïs, as you may well know, designates both those of the city and of the ethnic tribal race derived from those who first settled what we now call Athens, having first settled there after the Cataclysm (destruction by water et al.) tidal wave, earthquake, and other destructions of 1551 B.C. I discuss this at:

Refer to the Timeline: Ceres / IO / Isis is likely involved in Egypt from the 1410s - 1390s B.C.

Ceres as Isis is deified in ca. 1271 B.C., about 120 years after the death of her husband Osiris when also her son Horus (aka. Apollo) ascended to the throne of Egypt.

see also:

In Latin, a like term as Autochthon (Αὐτόχθων) is "terrigena": "born of and sprung from the earth" implies a permanency of residence from birth to a single soil and a single people.

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus infers this in regard to discussing who were the indigenes of Britain:

"Who were the original inhabitants of Britain, whether they were indigenous or foreign, is, as usual among barbarians, little known."
(Cornelius Tacitus, The Life of Cnæus Julius Agricola, 11).

The Latin reads:
Ceterum Britanniam qui mortales initio coluerint, indigenae an advecti, ut inter barbaros, parum compertum.

In regard to the founding of this nation, those who swore legience to it at the beginning from July 4, 1776 to the ratification of the US Constitution, were ruled as "indigenous" by rule of law. And by a correct interpretation of US Law, we must follow those guidelines as to what allows for how a natural born citizen in the United States is defined. The one extreme may argue that a perpetual paternal lineage to the founders must be required, while the other extreme allows what Senator Bayard argued with A.P. Hinman about in regard to Chester A. Arthur...that a man who emigrates to the US and becomes its citizen, and has a son born here, as long as the father naturalizes to the US by the child's 21st birthday, the child born here might be ruled a US NBC. But no matter what lenience we allow, Barack never makes the cut. Even with the ancient Greeks there was an apparent unspoken prerequisite involving both one's socio-awareness and intelligence in civilized societies as to one's own ethnic and national /familial identity among these ancients that seems to have been forgotten and almost lost to us in our own Day.

An indigene is from the Latin, “indigena”: in (in) + gen (to beget).

Someone who is “indigenous, is defined as someone who is born of a particular race that is associated or attached to the country he/she is born in. They are produced and arise naturally in the locale they are brought up in, generally most always by two domestics...but most certainly always by the paternal atachments to the land and peoples. Barack Obama has NO such "natural born" or "indigenous" attachments here in the US...they are in Kenya alone.

In nature, a crossing of a foreign and a domestic produces a Hybrid…it is not an “indigenous” species, so neither is Barack Jr. an indigenous or US natural born citizen, even if he were born in the US (which two high officials in the nation of Kenya, and Nairobi’s own media disputes, citing Kenya as the place where Obama Jr. was born).

Thus, the Obama ancestry and natural born or indigenous attachment follows the father, and Barack Obama (regardless of what his forged short form Birth Certification says) is US Constitutionally INELIGIBLE to the US Presidency, and is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors as a USURPER of the office which he now possesses and/or occupies.

I hope I have helped readers to 'discover" or "rediscover" what "natural born citizen" meant and was understood as by the Founding Father's of the United States of America, some of whom very likely read such Greek works as mentioned and cited above.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

In Support of the Arizona's Statehood Right to demand a secure International border for safety

A few words, opinions, thoughts regarding the Arizona Legislation to help secure its borders. I believe they have that right. In the mid 1980s, I was writing my Congressman on this very issue. 26 or so years later, I can only shake my head at the politicians of both parties.

The population explosion of illegals in non-Agricultural fields and restaurant industries has generated a jobs recession in America for those of all other industries they have occupied for those who are legal. We are reaping joblessness amongst our citizens because the issue has never been seriously taken to task. It is a factual statement, even though some will be insulted with the truth.

I am of a mind that all employers caught with an illegal alien on or after a given date, must pay them each 2 months wages at $10 an hour, the cost of sending them by bus or by Coach plane travel, and INS processing home (in place of a usual fine). This would include up to the liquidation of all employer assets and properties, both business and personal, to depreciate the former employer to within a value of no less than $20,000 of personal properties and assets. In that way, all illegal aliens sent back to their home countries have cash on hand, and a fighting chance to get re-established and thrive where they came from...and the taxpayer is NOT stuck with the tab for it.

Those promoting illegal labor, who have been given a deadline date to lay off by, would be given an amnesty credit to issue a two week paycheck and airfare or busfare to send the individual back to his or her home country, and the Department of State would pay the host nations a fee of up to $1,000 a head for each singular individual received...cleared by fingerprinting to validate no duplications (those illegals being duplication rounded up from employers, especially after a first program deportation, being subject to arrest, incarceration, and 6 - 24 months of hard labor). Hence the option of 2 weeks voluntary with non-punitive IRS credits, versus 2 months mandatory charges with added charges, and mandatory jail time of employers serving 3-6 months hard labor, and personal and business property devaluations of assets...would clearly create the climate for a voluntary emigration of illegal aliens back to home countries from the US, and revitalize this ecomony, and drastically reduce US Unemployment in a matter of weeks.

The illegal alien would also necessarily be electronically finger printed into a National Alien and Criminal data base, either at the cost of the employer who hired him or her, or to the Federal Government if no employer is found; and checked against outstanding felonious crimes. If they return to the US and their fingerprinting reveals they have participated in a prior deportation on or after the labor awards date, they will be then given 6 months to 2 years hard labor in an labor camp conditions.

That is my sketch offer of a plan...and if we had a legal President, we could implement such a plan by Act of Congress (making such a bill, and voting it into law, and being signed by a legal US President, etc.).

The Obama Administration...pre-occupied with self, slander, Communist-Socialism, and NOT READING LEGISLATION. In the case of Arizona's Immigration Law, the claim that it effectually mirrors existing Federal Law appears to be quite correct.

But rather than have the ability of engaging in intelligent discussion, we must assume either a purposely evil intention with an intelligence behind it to that effect, or we must assume that top Obama officials suffer from a a diminished capacity as possibly currently practicing pro-drug liberals, who idiocy on policies and answers should make journalists ask if they are chronically stoned. If the later is true, we can only hope that little videos like this "Imitation Sesame Street for Stoned Grown-Ups" has an impact.

Eric Holder, in my opinion, is an incompetent who never should have been a Deputy Attorney General, let alone THE US Attorney General. When one sees an officer of the Court accuse Arizona in the Press on its Law, and then speak to Congress and answer that he has never read NOR been briefed upon the Law, he has assumed more irresponsibility than a first day on the job Law School Graduate.

REP. TED POE: So Arizona, since the federal government fails to secure the border, desperately passed laws to protect its own people. The law is supported by 70 percent of the people in Arizona, 60 percent of all Americans and 50 percent of all Hispanics, according to The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll done just this week. And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. It seems to me the administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them and that the administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it. I have not read it.

POE: It's 10 pages. It's a lot shorter than the health care bill, which was 2,000 pages long. I'll give you my copy of it, if you would like to -- to have a copy.

Even though you haven't read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it's constitutional

HOLDER: I have not really -- I have not been briefed yet. We, as I said, have had underway a review of the law. I have not been briefed by the people who have been responsible -- who are responsible for that review.

POE: Are you going to read the law?

The Transcript of the Arizona Law is at:

So how did Eric Holder get appointed? It's the political correctness of Social Justice and Affirmative Action that puts a moron (based largely on his skin color and Leftist political associations) in place of someone more qualified. Illegally placed by an illegal President and Usurper, why should Holder be any viewed by the People of the United States as any different than any Communist-Socialist Party aparatchiks Obama illegally appoints?

I sympathize with many illegal immigrants who simply want to work and live here and join America as otherwise lawful denizens. I have tried to be especially generous to these because the Bible speaks of showing kindness to those foreigners in your Land...and does not specify any less to those foreigners living among you as those who are but tourists. We are to show all courtesy, kindness, and generosity unless met with arrogance, violence, or something so immediate a threat that it snaps us back on our heels and switches us instantaneously into a combat mode. So many of these first generation illegals that I have met, have shown proper civil manners...but because they have not learned to love America first, those that follow grow up both as spoiled with what America offers, and as hating America for their parental homelands...because they are not natural born American Citizens, but ever conscious of their alien status and wanting to remain apart out of cultural and ethnic loyalty.

Therefore, I do not sympathize with many of the second generation (citizen by jus soli birth only) brats of illegal alien parents...children who as teenagers and adults get caught up in Atzlan and Latino Racism, where (to them)they insist California to Texas belongs to Mexico, and they are "the northern front to take that land away from the United States" (or words to this effect),
(et al.)

and become land barons or to seize the wealth and assets of others through greed, murder, and covetousness.

I personally have no pity or sympathy for such violent ones who threaten riots, mayhem, and murder with absolutely no provocation other than beholding a Caucasian skin color. Those who are so inclined to violent Revolutionism, be they 18 years old and stupid, or Collegiate Educators, they are the ones that must be weeded out in the Arizona and other protests and incarcerated for prosecution. And if they are so adamant in their treason and sedition to actively seek to overthrow US States like Arizona and give them to Mexico, then they as individuals should lose their US Citizenship, and be deported to Mexico or the nation of their heredity and go live there.

For those who wish to live here, there must be a legience to this nation, to its flag, and its Constitution (never to any politician of any office).
If I were to hypothetically go to any other nation, be it Australia, Britain, Canada, I would make the same demands of myself if I chose to emigrate from the US into their respective societies.

Cultural Heritage is one thing...occupation for the purposes of committing or fomenting violent Revolution is another thing entirely. And sadly, 80% of America probably is unaware that such racial hatred as that of Hispanic Revolutionaries wanting to seize US States and adjoin them to Mexico even widely exists in the Hispanic Communities via Leftist Communist-Socialist Radicals with Obama Administration sympathizers.
California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas are all states that Atzlan claims belongs to them as their homeland...and they mean to "take it away" from the United States by any means neccessary. And the Obama Administration sides with these? Will Canada or Russia be given Alaska by concession after that?

No TEA Party left huge trash littering messes. No TEA Party (except for the intruding SEIU mafia-style goon attackers swarming and beating an innocent vendor half their sizes) had any known or reported arrests, nor rioted, nor threatened violence. But for now, we return to the beginning, where we have those who either refuse to read the bill by evil intent, or by incompetence that may or may not be drug related...while certainly it must be a lower intelligence quotient related difficulty if the former is not so (it seems to me).

Ginsberg in Nguyen v. INS validates my statements that pre-May 1934, it was the father who specifically passed NBC status to the child in US Law

(Hat tip to Roberts the Man and Trip)

Mr. Kneedler: Absolutely.

Once a person is a citizen, they are a member of our national community and entitled to all of the rights of any other citizen.

Justice Ginsburg: But you think he might be denaturalized, the way a naturalized citizen could be?

Mr. Kneedler: There would have to be, certainly as a statutory matter and perhaps as a constitutional matter, some defect in the original naturalization or the original...

Justice Ginsburg: But there was no naturalization.

Mr. Kneedler: No, but that's why I think the prospect... I mean, I suppose if in a situation like this the child was recognized as a U.S. citizen on the ground that the parent was a U.S. citizen and then it turned out that the parent was not a U.S. citizen after all, then the child's citizenship could be revoked on the ground that it was fraudulently or improperly procured, so it would be a situation with a factual predicate for the grant of citizenship in the first place.


Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, I have this problem with it.

You would surely have a huge statelessness problem if you didn't recognize that the child born abroad to U.S. citizens is a U.S. citizen because, as you point out in most countries in the world, they go by blood, not by land of birth.

So... but you don't have that situation with... an alien coming to our shores is a citizen of someplace.

So the... you call the child born abroad an alien, but in most places in the world that child would not be a citizen of the place in which that person is born; isn't that so?

Mr. Kneedler: Well, again, that may depend.

I mean, if you have a child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents, that may be true, it may not be true, depending on the country.

Justice Ginsburg: Well, I thought you said in your brief that in most places, and I think it's right, they do not go on just solely, they go on the parentage.


Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.

That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.

I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so.

Mr. Kneedler: It would be subject to judicial review, and under the facially legitimate bona fide standard of Kleindienst v. Mandel and Fiallo, it would be necessary to ask what Congress was up to in a situation like that, so we are not suggesting that there is...

Justice Ginsburg: Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our Nation's history, that the father's citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother's?

Mr. Kneedler: Given the developments of equal protection under the law in this country, this Court might well conclude that it would not be facially legitimate for Congress simply to decide to go back to as you described it, the bad old days where all rights were thought to derive from the father or the husband.

So we are not suggesting that.

The transcript and tape is available at:

And don't forget to read the Nguyen v. INS decision @ 54 and 62.


Obama Sr.'s paternity was validated in divorce proceedings by Ann Dunham-Obama when Barack Jr. was but an infant (allegedly).

In those two passages of Nguyen v. INS decision @ 54 and 62, we see that Obama is required by Supreme Court Law to produce his Long Form Birth Certification showing WITNESSES to the birth, and the computer fraud his campaign produced is ILLEGAL and UNACCEPTABLE based on Supreme Court Law.

@ 62: "The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records AND THE WITNESSES who attest to her having given birth." [emphasis mine]

Hence, Obama has FAILED to show his citizen identity to the Presidency, and in fact...by the Oral arguments in the case, we can state that Obama could possibly hold as many as 4 nationalities, 3 retroactive to his birth OR be a birth alien to the United States (depending solely upon what the Supreme Court decides). Until such a time, we must consider him in ALL CASES as NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen (of 2 US Citizen parents)...and by International Law, as the child of a foreign national alien father (since the Communist-Socialists love International law and want the US to follow it) , Obama must be recognized as irrevocably a Kenyan Natural Born Citizen forever, and unConstitutional and ineligible to the US Presidency. Barack Obama in US Law and in International Law, must be ruled as a Usurper to the US Presidency and denounced.

At any time, Obama's usurpation Presidency can legally be brought before the United Nations by America's enemies (North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.), and they can singularly or collectively call for a vote of nonrecognition. With but a single vote, US diplomatic relations and all treaties could be suspended or even indefinitely cease. The USA, with the stroke of the diplomatic pen, could be ruled a rogue nation, and not only must all our troops be returned to the US from all bases abroad...but all our overseas assets subject to seizure, and we could legally be fired upon and lose in International Courts and at the UN. Virtually overnight, this fraud Obama can still create an external (not just internal) cataclysmic reaction that can reduce the United States from being a Superpower, to being an isolated medium power with a no-confidence stock market crash that would settle possibly as low as 3300 on the Dow Jones in as little as a week, while overseas markets soar with the seizure of foreign US assets and US owned companies. The world can change overnight that quickly, becuase we are now losing the Second Cold War, and America is oblivious to such an event even being waged.

Whether he and his co-conspirators do it or the UN does it...I personally believe that the Usurper Obama personally joys in any destruction of America he can bring about, regardless of his archilochean thespian antics. America's last best hope is a Supreme Court nullification of the Obama Presidency based on his unconstitutional status as NOT being a United States NBC of 2 US Citizen Parents (jus sanguinis) as well as born here (jus soli), if he even was.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Pastor Manning Press Conference on his "Obama Eligibility/Ineligibility Trial"

Live Broadcast by Ustream.TV

To study American Originalism, we must parallel study 1600s English History

History, the depth of Law in its proper context, and proper background, is something liberals and communist-Socialists fear. They depend on ignorance of a subject, and the ability to intimidate their victims with emotion or pseudo-intellectualism which is often exposed as both fraudulent in its presentations (motive) as well as erroneous (substance).
In delving back into the "Original Intent" of the Founding Fathers who wrote and voted on the Natural Born Clause of Article 2.1 in the US Constitution, we find ourselves having to go back into the English and American History of the 1600s in order to see how English Law and American Laws ran parallel, and were marked by their own distinctions. America's Colonies placed their own peculiar brand of English Law upon the Colonies...as if pulling for self-sovereignty while being loyal to England. In fact, in the immediate years prior to the Revolution, in the 1760s and 1770s, the Founding Fathers were of a mind as if they were more often than not, that left to their own devices, the United State Colonies owed England and its king merely a payment of Tribute to the monarchical Governance across the seas, and that such a preset taxation royalty would have suited them just fine.

The United States was birthed by persecuted Protestant Christians, who, while they saw that the owed some legience to the nation who laid claims upon the lands they would settle, and clear, and plant, and build upon...that they were a free and independent people, subject to the Crown deserving of respect as equal to that accorded any province and its citizen inhabitants in England. The vast majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence, and that of the US Constitution were devout Protestant Christians…and quite a few were pastors or deeply involved in personal and/or public Christian evangelism. Therefore, any “Natural Born Citizen” definition that is placed in the US Constitution is to be interpreted in it Protestant Biblical context, and requires the paternal lineage to identity be followed.

In Barack Obama’s case, that makes Barack not only a son of the soil of Kenya, but a Kenyan natural born citizen regardless of who the mother was. Now if we wish to treat Barack the son of Barack and Ann with the same disdain as Ishmael, we see that Ishmael was unable to claim the nationhood of his mother and though he was a type of nomadic drifter at the first, he still was able to lay claim to inheritance from Abraham, though not with full status. The national status of the mother was considered as irrelevant. Ishmael made his inroads by marriage and compacts with local peoples, and received an inheritance of wealth from his father; but not anywhere near that given to Isaac, the son of 2 Chaldean parents, and those of the same familial bloodline. Isaac was effectually a natural born citizen and a true Hebrew …Ishmael was not counted worthy to carry on the name, and faith (religious belief system) and the peculiar family ritual customs of Abraham. The apostasy of the descendants of Ishmael being Muslims, worshiping an alien deity that Abraham would violently disapprove of, and whose mission in life is to destroy the natural born citizens of Abraham (those seeds of Isaac) testifies to that fact.

For those of us looking to the relationship of Colonial American and British Law, the American view and application was strongly in favor of following Lord Coke, in spite of whatever was happening back in England. In the years before the American Revolution, we see that 1760 appears to be the swinging of the pendulum of legal scholarship in England where England’s Universities removed themselves from Lord Calvin Coke's fundamental law emphasis and to the view of Blackstone's push of his legal theory of Parliamentary supremacy. The Colonies were in disagreement to that theory, and were of a mind to continue to be Fundamentalists of the Law in both theory and practice.

Fundamental Law and Divine Law were to be combined from our very beginnings. Not just by those who signed the Mayflower Compact, but when America boomed as a colonial settlement also. In 1629, King Charles dissolved Parliament, declaring he would never call it forth again; and immediately the first major exodus to America of 1,200 ships followed King Charles dissolving Parliament. Representation of the people had been removed from England, and an age of tyranny had begun.

On June 7, 1628, Parliament decreed 4 basics to the people and to King Charles, decrees that mirrored the American Experience in the pre-Revolution early 1770s:
1. No taxation without representation and the consent of Parliament.
2. No one was to be imprisoned without show-able cause.
3. It ruled the forced billeting of soldiers and seaman upon unwilling homeowners as unacceptable.
4. Martial Law, and the deployment of domestic military forces, could not be used to punish or be in reaction to ordinary offenses.
But less than a year after Parliament rightly stood up for the rights of its English populace, on March 10, 1629, Parliament was dissolved by King Charles own decree;

and thereafter, until 1640, the Laws of England often became seen by the people as if it were whatever the will of King Charles and his underlings was at any given time. While some saw the decade as an era of peace from wars with Spain and France, as Commerce was restored, and fortunes were made; many of the elite opposition and the masses faced the revivification of the Star Chambers. (You became kidnapped; no one had the right to know where you were or even if you were alive; you were tried and convicted in secret -- hence, no juries -- and without any right to counsel, witnesses, or even the right to know what you were charged with; and you dealt with judges and thugs who could care less that you were even breathing. It appears then, for the 1630s to have been viewed by some as a "golden age", it depends on what side of the political spectrum you were, and if you were a giver or a taker of other people's gold, by whatever means that meant.

From 1629-1640, during England's Economic recovery and sporadic Civil Wars...King Charles' tyrannical underlings were loosed on Protestant Christianity, forcing droves to flee to the Colonies to rather face a wilderness and savages, and to thrust themselves by faith into the Arms of G-D. In effect, Roman Catholic persecutors of Englishmen who trusted in Protestant Christianity haunted English high offices until 1688/1689, and this played well upon the psyche of the transitional American Colonies as they broke away from England just 88 years after the reaffirmation of England's New Bill of Rights. Many of England's collective Constitutional Laws, never found in one document, would be gathered and laid out by the New Republic of the United States in the Constitution that England had failed to provide. And that collection of English ideas were Americanized, made unique, and part of our debate about the Usurper Barack Obama in our own day.

The two greatest oppressors that probably set upon the American Psyche at its founding was likely that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud; and the Earl of Strafford, Sir Thomas Wentworth.

Lord Treasurer, Sir Richard Weston who died in 1635, could have been a third man, had he lived longer. Weston was a clandestine Roman Catholic. who virulently hated Protestants, especially Puritans. Weston and several other high officials of the British Governance in the 1630s thought it was their duties as clandestine Roman Catholics to sorely persecute Protestant Christianity, and supported the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Strafford to that specific end.

In these years, (and significant to the more than a century later United States Founding Fathers), King Charles levied fines in the United Kingdom that were placed even upon somewhat modest landowners having a real property value of as little as 40 Pounds. King Charles further made a law that if land owning parents were killed, the king's representatives could merely say they claim adoption of the orphans in the name of the king; and in the name of the king then immediately sells the land, have the Monarchy pocket the proceeds, and kick the orphans to the curb. In effect, there was no right to life, liberty, or neither property, nor the pursuit of happiness during these times...and this reign of terror was one of the historical precedents in British History that the Founding Fathers in 1776 would have had in mind in the writing of the Declaration of Independence.
Almost a century and a half after the horrors and nightmare years of the 1630s, in New York, Founding Fathers John Jay (who graduated from New York’s King’s College in 1764), and Alexander Hamilton (who graduated from New York’s King’s College in 1775), by example, probably learned to hold a bias to Coke's view to hold Law under the spectacles of Fundamentalism, rather than to accept Blackstone's Progressivism in his elevating Parliament to the legislative equivalence of the King (as William Laud and the Earl of Strafford had previously done).

John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, by example in college in the 1760s and early 1770s, would have had to learn about and cite “extension rules” in English and Colonial English Law when looking to legalities and precedents in the cases and discussions of law they were to participate in. The extension rule was related essentially to the recognition of those charters and laws that were jurisdiction, province, or colony (later called “State”) specific at the time they were governed over by an officially / royally recognized Legislature for that jurisdiction, province, or colony.

In New York City, the case law and charters, etc., by "extension rules" in a 1764 Court of Law in the Colony of New York, by example, could only go back as far as 1664, when New York was taken from the Dutch a second time by the British. However, it was generally accepted in the New York Courts that since 1691 was when British Royal Authority was the official year of establishment of the Royal Legislature of His Majesty the King of England in the Colony of New York, that the extension rules for New York in terms of citing legal precedents were to generally not precede 1691, and specifically were to halt by 1664 at the resumption of British final occupancy when citing precedents in New York.

In contrast, we could cite that Virginia’s extension rules went back to 1607, but would generally not precede the Virginia Treaty of March 12, 1651, when the Virginia Colony’s House of Burgesses entered into a Free Trade Treaty (et al.) with Great Britain (cf. Thomas Jefferson’s “A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA”), and the relationship with Britain for that Colony via the House of Burgesses was amended. Following this Treaty, those in Virginia would next look forward to that (then New) English Bill of Rights of 1689, by which America governed itself in obeisance to the King of England and England’s Constitutional Laws.
Such followed the example of the precedent of the 1646 Massachusetts Declaration of Liberties: which in and of themselves were prone to Americanize English Law in the Colony, and reject any non-Constitutional laws of England, public or private. Massachusetts and other of America’s Colonies instituted Natural and Divine Law to supplement and fill in where Magna Charta (et al. Constitutional) and Common Law allowed. Natural Law politicized was taken from Grotius' et al., and later Vattel.
In effect, Natural Law in the Body Politic was the Law of Nations in much of its body, but Divine Law had an equal sway...the same Divine Law which says that a natural born citizen is the seed or male of the father who held and passed citizenship in the manner one passes inheritance by primogeniture and entail.

By example of co-equality of Divine Law, for one to be a publicly practicing non-Christian in 1647 Massachusetts made one susceptible to execution by the Community (cf. “The Book of the General Lawes and Libertyes Concerning the Inhabitants of the Massachusets” of 1647):
“Capital lawes.
If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other God, but the lord god: he shall be put to death. Exod. 22. 20. Deut. 13.6. & 10. Deut. 17. 2. 6.

2. If any man or woman be a witch, that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit, they shall be put to death. Exod. 22. 18. Levit. 20. 27. Deut. 18. 10. 11.

3. If any person within this Jurisdiction whether Christian or Pagan shall wittingly and willingly presume to blaspheme the holy Name of God, Father, Son or Holy-Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous, or highhanded blasphemy, either by wilfull or obstinate denying the true God, or his Creation, or Government of the world: or shall curse God in like manner, or reproach the holy religion of God as if it were but a politick device to keep ignorant men in awe; or shal utter any other kinde of Blasphemy of the like nature & degree they shall be put to death. Levit. 24. 15. 16.

For the ACLU and tmany hundreds of professors with tenure to argue about the godlessness and atheistic origins of this nation, is not only disingenuous, it is purposely hateful and an Orwellian attempt with the hope that the masses will believe them and be too damn lazy to research the facts for themselves. That is why Communist takeovers must eliminate Conservative Historical scholarship and others who can refute their lies about the past...but the Media fels it owes political correctness the same rights as truth tellers. If Goebbels were a modern Communist-Socialist, and alive today, he would lead MSNBC and the other news outlets as the Media Messiah to be used to proclaim Obama against the "Conservative Right".

The Book of the General Lawes and Libertyes Concerning the Inhabitants of the Massachusets of 1647 was written in that period following the mass migrations to the American Colonies by those English families persecuted by the Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud, who from 1634 until February 1641 took upon himself ever increasing and finally tyrannical powers in both Church and State, until his arrest on February 26, 1641. His pre-Reformation Arminian brand of Calvinistic faith was accused of being de facto as Roman Catholic more than a Protestant Faith. He sorely persecuted great numbers of Puritans to flee to the American Colonies. This was especially so during the years 1634 to 1637: during which period he especially attempted to make everyone of the masses in the geographical provinces of England to conform to his will. His persecutions is thought to have actually began when he was bishop in 1630, when the publication of Puritan Doctor of Divinity Alexander Leighton’s “Zion's Plea Against Prelacy” accused bishops like Laud of theologically falling away and acting as if the tools of the Anti-Christ. And with the ensuing years, it seemed as if Leighton, whom was sentenced to have his ears cut off, and be publicly flogged and then branded, was the more correct in his assessment and accusations.

Laud, saw NO rights to the masses, such as “freedom of speech”, “freedom to petition grievances”, “freedom of self-will” of any kind (it seems).

When we had the TEA Party petition Congress in town halls in August 2009, Pelosi and other Communists howled virtually the VERY SAME verbatim...the American Conservatives were to be stepped on as fake turf: they were to be treated as if they had no "freedom of speech" rights; as if they had no “freedom to petition grievances”, had as if they had no “freedom of self-will” of any kind.

We can identify, as did the Founding Fathers, with such persecutions and unlawful demands for us to submit to their evil wills.

To Laud, as with the modern Communist-Socialists, those who burned down a Church were no guiltier than those who may have hypothetically said to one of his priests “You’ve no right to steal the only food we have off the plates of my children, nor to take coins from my purse as you please, whenever you please.” But in the modern times, it is the theft of tax revenues going down rabbit holes...and tens and hundreds of billions unaccounted for to who knows whose personal or this or that ACORN or Communist or Socialist account? Even the CBO is inhabited by pro-Obama cover-uppers.

Both the one committing the act of arson, and the one who petitioned a greivance or complained in the 1630s were equally guilty to Laud, and deserving of the same torture that Roman Catholicism in its dungeons and clandestine places currently dished out to Protestants...tortures and the most severe judgments that would sicken many readers here. To those suffering, especially the English Puritans departing in groves to America’s English Colonies in fear for their lives, there was no difference.

Archbishop Laud’s undoing was to follow England’s persecutions with a military backed oppression to his brand in Presbyterian Scotland, and by extension with demands upon Ireland and America also. This led to an outbreak of war in Scotland, that began with riots in July 1637 in opposition to a mandatory Roman Catholic-like William Laud beatification prayer book and liturgy, which included prayers like:
"Keep us, O Lord, constant in faith and zealous in witness, that, like thy servant William Laud, we may live…”.

The State sanctioned and enabled self-exultaion of William Laud to be exalted to a position equal to Christ, and equal to G-D, burned in the minds of those in America that such should not happen here. In the 1770s, the Founding Fathers were well aware of this pendulum swing to the monarchal anarchy side, as much as it was aware of the current 1770s swing to the Parliamentary seizing of powers to the point of anarchy other side as well.

In our day, it seems as if the Communist-Socialists have been able to "split" the pendulum, and attempt both an executive and legislative simultaneous anarchy assault on the American populace in the hope of succeeding....inculding the redefining of common every day words, until all that is left is obfuscation, bickering, and a dominant hand to seize dictatorship.

As Obama and his fellow Communist-Socialists of his Administration seeks to infiltrate the US Churches via "Social Justice" and Ecological Justice "partnerships" , the very "US Government" contract that was drawn up for the US Church Denominations to sign defacto obligates the Christian Churches sign up to the same program as the Nazis did to the Lutherans and others in the 1930s....the Churches cease being Christian...and do become the political tool, and politically corrected (heavy censored and pre-State cleared) mouthpiece propagandizing for the State. By taking out the Church, and altering its definitions, the Communist-Socialists see to redefine and replace G-D with flawed humanity, and Orwellian ever changing histories reflecting current Communist-Socialist Regimes. Hence, subjugating the masses by destroying the Aleitheia Faith of Christianity from without and within, and infuriating G-D in Heaven in the doing.

The opposition to such blasphemy as Laud committed in Scotland amongst the Presbyterian Christians, continued to foment and rise until full military clashes were exchanged in 1639 and 1640 between England and Scotland because of this Archbishop of Canterbury who decided to rule as if a king (or a neo-pope) unto himself. However, under existing laws and authorities granted him, the finally reestablished Parliament, still reeling after a 10 year absence when they were dissolved, were so infuriated, it seems they wished to treat Laud as he had treated them in absentia. By a special writ of a bill of attainder (most renowned for those thought guilty as rebels, and without need of more than just suspicion, reasonable or otherwise in regard to the crown, especially during the War of Rose ff.), Parliament was able to pass judgment upon William Laud as guilty of beheading, and this was carried out on January 10, 1645.

The reason why the Colonies personalized English Law and stamped their own brand upon it was for reasons as Thomas Jefferson put it:
“…our ancestors, before their emigration to America, were the free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right which nature has given to all men….
America was conquered, and her settlements made, and firmly established, at the expence of individuals, and not of the British public. Their own blood was spilt in acquiring lands for their settlement, their own fortunes expended in making that settlement effectual; for themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold. Not a shilling was ever issued from the public treasures of his majesty, or his ancestors, for their assistance, till of very late times, after the colonies had become established on a firm and permanent footing.
by solemn treaty, entered into on the 12th day of March, 1651, between the said commonwealth by their commissioners, and the colony of Virginia by their house of burgesses, it was expressly stipulated, by the 8th article of the said treaty, that they should have "free trade as the people of England do enjoy to all places and with all nations, according to the laws of that commonwealth.
…. experience confirms the propriety of those political principles which exempt us from the jurisdiction of the British parliament.
… we declare… that the British parliament has no right to exercise authority over us.

Obama needs to be removed via the US Supreme Court in order to preserve this Republic...all laws and enactments by his illegal Administration need to be reversed by Court Order.

Whatever sentence the Supreme Court passes, must be done WITHOUT Sotomayor or anyone Obama appointed.

And if the Birth Certificate issue and NBC issue is brushed aside by the US Supreme Court too much longer, eventually Obama will send out death squads just like any other Communist dictatorship . The only question is whether it will be before or after the US Constitution is "hereby declared dissolved, by executive order" with Nancy Pelosi and other Communist-Socialist traitors at his side, or not. Because Obama is NOT a US Natural Born Citizen, and has not presented his Long Form BC per Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54, 62...the ONLY HOPE America has is in diverting violence and preserving the Republic is by an immediate forwarding of the Birth Certificate cases: or the US A is about to cease to exist as any kind of Government we have heretofore known. We are THAT CLOSE!

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Obama is not an Indigenous American Citizen & Obama's failure to obtain an Hawaiian issued SS Card highlights his BC Fraud

[Updated: May 16, 2010]

Obama is not an Indigenous American Citizen via both parents, hence NOT a US NBC

--- In 1762, Sir Michael Foster stated in his authoritative “Discourse on High Treason”, that: “With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places.
We see that Justice Scalia used this very quote in his dissent, in HAMDI V. RUMSFELD (03-6696) 542 U.S. 507 (2004).

A reading of the opinion of Justice Scalia sees him reach even to the 1300s in regard to English Law and the Writ of habeas corpus.
A.H. Carpenter’s “Naturalization in England and the American Colonies.” article in the American Historical Review 9 (January 1904): p. 291, stated:
“…Englishmen coming to America brought with them the common law, which in this case rested upon the feudal law, whereby every man was attached to the soil and owed allegiance to the overlord upon whose land he was born. Thus allegiance and citizenship, like family and race, were determined for the individual by his birth. Personal choice was not recognized; political institutions rested on natural laws. England held to that principle without a break until 1350, when she permitted children that inherited and were born out of the English allegiance to have all the rights of natural-born subjects. It is worth noticing that in this respect the United States courts followed English principle and maintained the feudal law until 1855, when citizenship was extended to persons born of American parents outside of the United States.”

Keep this 1855 year in mind, as we review that the US Founding Fathers were cognizant of many forms of law and philosophy, and the US Constitution took into account English Law, such as “the Act of Settlement, 1701,” which was used as a guide by the Colonies turning into free and independent states, as to how to discern citizenship.

It stated that natural born definition in that:
“…no person born out of the [soil of the ] Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him….”

In other words, the primary qualifier, is that both father and mother are citizens of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging, and that the subject who is issued forth from such, also be a native from English parents to fall under the definition of being that which is “indigenous” or “natural born to the soil” of the Kingdom.

The Act of Settlement, 1701, also went on to speak of legience and laws as if an hereditary birthright, saying that:
...the laws of England are the birth-right of the people thereof....

America only reserved this “natural born exclusivity” to the Presidency, and those who might reasonably succeed such a one.

As of July 4, 1776, the identity of those who swore legience to the United Colonies as United States was transmuted by their previous legiences in the states where they resided.

The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84--101 1829 (2d ed.)

The citizenship principle applied primarily to white land-owning males, so that the second generation citizen of any State might be labeled a "natural born citizen" of the United States. Those who were born to the first generation citizens and any successive generation thereafter, were transmuted in their status on July 4, 1776;: so that, if you were born in New Jersey in 1762, and were 17 at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and you lived with your pa, a citizen both of the Colony of New Jersey and of the New State of New Jersey...you became both a Natural Born Citizen of New Jersey and of the same status recognition of the United States, as well as were labeled an "original citizen".

The status of the father’s citizenship and sole legience to Community and to the State (and hence, the United States) was the make or break issue at the time. If the father would not recognize federal cohesion in his legience, solely, the question arose as to whether or not he intended sole legience to his community and state while forsaking all other legiences. See - THE UNITED STATES v. VILLATO, 2 U.S. 370 (1797), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830) {cf. Gardner v. Ward, reported in Kilham v. Ward (2 Mass. 236, 244n.a 1806)}.

If the father was an alien at the time of the American Revolution, and he swore total legience to the colony that became a State (and to the United States) to the forsaking of all other foreign legiences (dissolving them), and if he also begat US Soil born children at any time between July 4, 1776, until the ratification of the US Constitution, by his becoming a citizen, even though an alien at the first (at any time between July 4, 1787, until the ratification of the US Constitution), those children were accepted as natural born citizens.

William Rawles argued that the alien father of a family on US Soil who became a citizen, and if that same alien father had a child born in a Colony becoming one of the United States before the Declaration, that alien father and child also might be extended the same jus soli and jus sanguinis adoption courtesy available to others who were transmuting their citizenships on July 4, 1776…which generally would have been within one year prior to the Declaration, or say July 5, 1775 (as perhaps a grace period).

Therefore [at that interim time period between July 4, 1776 and the ratification of the US Constitution] every person [then] born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

…No one can suppose that the parent intended, that WHILE HE WAS A PERMANENT CITIZEN OF THE STATE, his children should not partake of the same rights, enjoy the same liberty, and be protected by the same government. Nature itself impresses on the parental mind, a desire to promote the interests of children, and causes it to revolt at the idea of witholding from them what may not only be shared with them, but what also becomes more valuable by being so shared. The pleasing sensation in the parent, of passing from the condition of an oppressed subject, to that of a citizen of a free republic, would surely be impaired by a consideration that his offspring would acquire no birthright in the community of his choice. In respect to him, therefore, we cannot doubt the desire, and have only to examine the power, of fixing the political relations of his descendants.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84--101 1829 (2d ed.)

After the ratification of the US Constitution, this was no longer the case.
“Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law…” states United States v. Rhodes (1866). Since the father’s citizenship determines the legience of the son under natural law, his allegiance and nationality pre-determines the child’s nationality in the “natural born status” as well.

The Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat.155) stated that:
"children of persons who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof . . . ."

From 1802 to 1855, through certain vagaries in the Law, there were those who wondered what the definitive law of Natural Born Citizenship in this time period was. This was cleared up in the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604).

This in turn was clarified again as Revised Statute 1993:
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose FATHERS were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

But even this was not clear enough. So we have the next argument and dispute concerning Chester A. Arthur in relation to that time period between 1802 and the issuance of the (post 1855, and post age of 21 Chester A. Arthur) Revised Statute 1993, in which a child born on US Soil might be called a US Natural Born Citizen as long as the father Naturalized to the United States before the child reached its 21st birthday.

Since Obama’s father never naturalized to the US, it is impossible to call him a United States Natural Born Citizen. Even his forged birth certification calls his 1961 era "negro" designation father as “African” so as to designate his father’s alien status as well as his ethnicity.

African also encompasses at least three ethnicities alien to one another. So even if we accept the forgery as genuine, it testifies that Barack is an alien national and not US natural born in his natural born citizenship identity. Hence, he is a usurper to the US Presidency, violating the US Constitutional mandate that he be a United States Natural Born Citizen in order to legally occupy the Presidency.

In the June 1902 Harvard Law Review 15: 810-28...Lee M. Friedman gave an article aptly titled - "The Changes in Allegiance and Laws of Colonial New York.” Friedman's primary focus was on the changing over what we now call New York City from a Dutch Colonial Possession in the 1600s, to that of the British. The name change from New Amsterdam to New Yorck (sometimes spelled as New Jorck, the Dutch/Germanic "J" being a "Y" sound) happened in 1664, after the Dutch surrendered to the British (invading with just 4 Frigate warships) on September 6th; but it was not until 1674 (after that it was lost to the Dutch in 1672 and regained again afterwards by the British) that the English spelling of New York (without the letter "c") was officially and finally used ever after.

On October 14, 1664, the leaders within the Dutch Community were required to take an oath of fealty to the King of England.

‘I swear by the name of Almighty God that I will be a true subject to the king of Great Britain and will obey all such commands as I shall receive from his majestie, his Royall Highnesse James duke of Yorck and such governours, and Officers as from time to time are appointed over me by his Authority and none other whilst I live in any of his majesties territories. So help me God.’

The significance of this oath is, as Sir Michael Foster's "Discourse on High Treason" tells us:

-- Introduction, Section 1:
"The Duty of Allegiance, whether Natural or Local, is founded in the Relation the Person standeth in to the Crown, and in the Privileges He deriveth from that Relation.

Local Allegiance is founded in the Protection a Foreigner enjoyeth for his Person, his Family or Effects during his Residence here; and it Ceaseth whenever He withdraweth with his Family and Effects.

Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member; and on the peculiar Privileges He deriveth from that Relation, which are with great Propriety called his Birthright.

This Birthright nothing but his own Demerit can deprive Him of; it is Indefeasible and perpetual. And consequently the Duty of Allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is inseperably Connected with it, is in Consideration of Law likewise Unalienable and Perpetual.

. . . With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places. This is what We call Natural Allegiance, in Contradistinction to that which is Local.

. . .There have been Writers who have carried the Notion of Natural, Perpetual, Unalienable Allegiance much farther than the Subject of this Discourse will lead Me. They say, very truly, that it is due to the Person of the King; and from thence have drawn Consequences, which do not fall within the Compass of the present Inquiry, and shall therefore be passed over. It is undoubtedly due to the Person of the King; but in that respect Natural Allegiance differeth nothing from that we call Local. For Allegiance considered in every Light is alike Due to the Person of the King; and is paid, and in the Nature of Things must constantly be paid, to that Prince who for the time being is in the Actual and Full Possession of the Regal Dignity.

The well-known Maxim which the Writers upon our Law have adopted and applied to this Case, Nemo potest exuere Patriam, comprehendeth the whole Doctrine of Natural Allegiance, and expresseth My Sense of it."

Nemo potest exuere Patriam... [expanded and reiterated by me, is translated in that context as]: "No one has the power / ability / authority to leave / reject / disown himself from the Father's Land."

The question of natural born birthright is through the Father and whether the child is recognized through the Government on the Father's soil. When the alien father visit's a land not under his country's dominion, he falls under the protection of local legience. By marriage, Ann attaches herself to Kenya via Barack Sr., and even the child, if born in the United States is so born, his Natural Legience is ever to Kenya because it is his "Father's Land". If he is not born into the society where his FATHER is a citizen, he cannot be a natural member, but is rather a Local member, whose citizenship is subject to withdrawal.

The United States recognizes a "born citizenship" by simply being born here, as long as that does not contradict any Treaty. We have Treaties with the United Kingdom / Great Britain, that forbids us from granting United States "Natural Born Citizenship" to one of its citizens. While a general Local dual citizenship might be accepted, the primary citizenship of the child falls to England (via the British Commonwealth legience that was in effect to Kenyans and their male citizen issues until 1963...by saying he was born in 1961, Barack Jr. falls under British protection and primary citizenship by its laws and treaties in effect at the time of his birth).

Hence, no mater how we legally and logically look at the NBC issue in context, Barack Hussein Obama is a usurper to the US Presidency, violating the US Constitutional mandate that he be a United States Natural Born Citizen in order to legally occupy the Presidency.


But if we look at his attachments to a Connecticut Social Security Number, we cannot in any way accept his fraudulent / forged online short form birth certification.

Obama would not have applied as a youth pre-August 1979 (Occidental College bound) for the Social Security Number without the intervention of a parent or guardian present, and he would have done so in Hawaii, and would have been issued only a 575 or 576 number in the presence of a parent or guardian (since he would have been allegedly only 15-17 years old in the years of 1977- pre-August 1979).

The Hawaii code of 575-576 is inconceivable to have been "mistakenly issued" a 042, be it before or after the Field Office issuances ending in 1973.

In order to be issued a Social Security number, Obama needed either a U.S. birth certificate, or a U.S. consular report of birth, or a U.S. passport, or a Certificate of Naturalization or a Certificate of Citizenship.

In NOT ONE INSTANCE of a check for Barack's Social Security Number, does there ever appear a 575 or 576 Hawaii issuance for that name, in ANY kind of spelling variance. Only the 042 number follows Barack in and around Chicago where Barack lived.

If Investigator Susan Daniels affidavit is followed, we have the 042 number issued for someone born in 1890 (see statement 8 of her affidavit).

This leads us to conclude of the likelihood of a later technological manipulation and back trail that begins with the 1890 individual whose total data was not fully erased from the system, and whose Social Security Number identity was taken over, renamed, and re-entered into the system.

The Sankey and Daniels affadavits



Obama would have needed such a Social Security number to attend Occidental College in the Los Angeles area of California. In order to legitimately get one, he needed to prove either a US birth or a US Citizenship. If he could not, it follows that he would either steal one, or one would be stolen for him; and that he would attach himself to that stolen SS #.

The Obama apologists on May 15, 2010, are now trying to use the Nordyke twins mother to discredit the notion that Obama's mother might not have been issued a genuine Kapiolani Hospital Birth Certification.

Eleanor Nordyke…82, of Honolulu, Hawaii … in a Friday telephone interview with The Daily Republic…says that on Aug. 4, 1961, she was in labor with her twin daughters Susan and Gretchen at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital — the same…has since been renamed Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children.
…Obama was born on a Friday, and the Nordyke twins were born on a Saturday, she said.
…She recalls that Obama’s birth notice was published several days before her daughters’ notice, even though Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was
[alleged to have been] admitted to Kapiolani Hospital after Nordyke entered the hospital.
…Nordyke’s late husband, Dr. Robert Nordyke, was an internal medicine specialist at Honolulu’s Straub Clinic.
“My daughters’ birth certificates were 10637 and 10638, and Obama’s was 10641, so his mother must have come in after I did,” Nordyke said, though she never met Obama’s mother.
Nordkye said she doesn’t know who Obama’s mother’s doctor was, but only five obstetricians were at the hospital at the time, she said.

Unfortunately, the attempt to salvage Obama doesn't wash in light of the Connecticut based Social Security Number.

Had Barack Hussein Obama a genuine US Birth Certification, he would have been using a genuine Hawaii issued 575 or 576 Social Security Number, and NOT have been issued on from a state where he was a non-resident during the time he was a minor living in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Because Barack was unable to obtain a legitimate state of Hawaii Social Security Number issuance, this proves that the accusations that he is of foreign birth and foreign citizenship are NOT unfounded.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Musings on an end run around Hawaii's new law to forbid checking into Obama's BC. Check Obama's fake SS#.

Obama uses Connecticut residents only issued Social Security Number:

Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653,

“The burden of establishing

a delegation of power

to the United States

or the prohibition of power to the states

is upon those making the claim.”

Private investigator Neil Sankey uncovered that Barack Obama uses or has used a State of Connecticut Social Security number that was issued to a man in or about 1977 who was allegedly a Connecticut resident at the time of issuance, and who was born in 1890. Barack Obama allegedly used the 042 Social Security (SS) number in order to gain admission to Harvard, and continued to use it (allegedly) in the State of Illinois. This information was validated by the affidavits of 2 Homeland Security related investigators (one retired, John Sampson; and one current associated investigator, Susan Daniels). http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/imgSocSecCmnt.jpg

It has been about a year since the Connecticut SS# used by Barack Obama has been cited, and made known via attorney Orly Taitz. So now it is time to start loosing the hounds on the trail of Obama's past, and ask the pertinent questions, wherever that might lead to in uncovering the truth of Obama's past. If Lingle and others wish that the Birth Certificate be an unlawful venue, then we have others that reasonably suggest a more nefarious Obama motive for suppression of the First Amendment and the demand of 333 US 640 (1948) @ 653, as cited above.

If Barack acquired such a fraudulent SS Card, as has been alleged by 3 independent investigators above (Neil Sankey trusted and vetted by no less than the estemed and respected Police of Scotland Yard), then it seems very reasonable that Obama's acquisition of the Connecticut SS Card and # of an individual born in 1890 could have been by his hypothetical and alleged act of mugging and/or killing of a senior citizen born in 1890 visiting Honolulu, Hawaii during anytime Barack Obama was in Honolulu between 1977-1979.

The solving of such a cold case to such an end result proven via facts, if such a hypothetical event happened, allegedly, it would be a major feather in the cap of any journalist. It would be bigger than the Watergate Scandal, and make so much revenue in today's media, it's not even funny.

So, did Obama allegedly mug some 87 - 89 year old as a punk kid in 1977 - 1979? Or did Obama -- by reasonable hypothetical postulation of the possible scenarios -- use a fraudulently obtained SS# via any means, such as felonious identity theft inclusive of all and any other means than violence or force, then use that fraudelently obtained SS Card to obtain a US Passport in Chicago, and commit other furthering felonies in relation to the SS# fraud?

If Obama lied about his identity, and claim (like felons), "Oh, it's just for tax purposes, given or stolen for me by ACORN....", then America has a right to know, and about anything and everything else he has hid in his Communist-Socialist past.

The questions need to be asked, and pursued.

When called a Soviet Communist, Obama claimed to be insulted. Had we clarified to call him a Marxist-Maoist with certain particular leanings to this or that particular philosophy, would that have been the more correct? Not that we called him Communist and Socialist, but it need to be a Democratic Socialist Marxist-Maoist with such and such tendencies and proclivities?

In his own words, "Like a spy behind enemy lines" while in his Manhattan office, Obama schemed. But what "Manhattan office"

was he speaking of in his book? Was it an alleged ACORN office, where on a computer he lifted the identity of the Connecticut SS #? Is that where it all comes together, rather than an actual muging or slaying?

Obama went out of his way this month to say he can't operate an i-pod, about a year after he stated he listened to Michael Jackson songs on one, supposedly (if the media correctly quoted him). So on an Apple or Commodore, did someone lift the SS # for Obama on a alleged Manhattan ACORN Computer so that he felt "like a spy behind enemy lines" being given an entirely new identity...one hid from us even today? Obama the native-born Kenyan ceased, and Obama the Hawaii born Connecticut resident who never was, appears suddenly on the scene? Would that be what we will eventually uncover, in spite of his hiding his Long Form Birth Certification, and the farandole contortions he and others put themselves through?
By example, Lingle signs a protection of Obama's (Foreign?) Birth Certification information law:

Obama by his deceit; acts of hiding his papers, documents, records; not having a US citizen father nor a US Citizen mother 5 years past the age of 14 in 1961, (hence NOT a United Staes Natural Born Citizen) , and so forth ... has opened the door to a legitimate challenge to his claim of authority (Bute v. Illinois 333 US 640 @653...he has to prove his authority to us, not we to disprove him).

Wouldn't it be interesting if a 33 year old cold case mugging (and/or homicide), or at least an alleged ACORN identity theft in collusion and conspiracy with Barack was the catalyst to remove Barack from the Usurpation of the US Presidency?

Instead of a Watergate, like Biden might hypothetically say if he were in the company of the US Navy on the islands (regarding Obama's problem past and origins): "It's a big f'n Maui".