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
2019
-- 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.










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).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZD.html

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....
http://australianpolitics.com/democracy/documents/act-of-settlement.shtml


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.)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships23.html



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.)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships23.html

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.



THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OF OBAMA POINTS TO FRAUD AND A FOREIGN BIRTH

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.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm

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.
http://www.ssa.gov/ss5doc/?ID=ori&Selfchild=self&Status=us18&Submit=Submit


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

http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orlytaitzesq.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F01%2FSankeyAffidavitExhibitB.pdf

http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orlytaitzesq.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F01%2FAffidavitSusanDaniels.pdf

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.

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/43081/
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.

No comments:

Post a Comment