Obama never answers whether he is or is not a Muslim in a recent interview, but rather skirts it by bringing up his "birth certificate" issue. He tickles the ears of the interviewer, and punches a loyalty button in Brian Williams with immediate sub-conscious code words, "birth certificate", that among the liberals is effectively virtually the same as a hypnotic suggestion to send them into an emotionally triggered veering off the topic, and to feel the need to show an odd spiritual support of, and loyalty to, Obama.
For Obama and his lying Media friends to say Barack is a Christian in the sense of a follower and disciple of Jesus, are clear and obvious lies. Barack's works or fruits are as thorns and thistles, types based in greed and the worship of or obsession with mamon (that perceived as material wealth, as the Bible phrases it)...even as he also seeks to promote Islam over Christ Jesus at almost every step... and to hide from transparency, while denying Jesus Christ as the ONLY WAY to Heaven (John 14:6). John 14:6 proves Barack Obama is a fraud and a liar to claim he is a "Jesus" Christian of any genuine type, rather than a Muslim contorted and corrupted interpretation of the word.
In fact, John 10:1 says any who seek any other way than Jesus to go to Heaven, are counted as robbers. In John 10:10, they and Barack Obama included, "come not but for to steal, to kill, and to destroy". Barack states that many religions lead to Heaven or the same place...and instead of Jesus atoning for his sins, he must by works deny Christ and what he did at the Cross, cast G-D aside, and become his own deity by earning his own salvation collectively by having others submit to him as if he were a g-d, and enable him to transform America, or he will not save his own soul (or words and utterances to this effect). Since he says he doesn't believe in hell...to save his soul from what?
Obama is documented denying Christ, saying that his individual salvation is NOT in Jesus as John 3:16 and 10:1 says it must be for the true Christian, but that his salvation from...?....whatever he is to be saved from, since he doesn't believe in hell, is by collectively saving ... what? By his fruits, I perceive that his intent and definition of collective salvation that saves him is by saving liberals of the Communist-Socialist persuasion, Muslims and people of color (after the definition of the black man only).
Reason #4 has graphic abortion pics, that those able to stomach what Obama (after the idols or demons of Molech) emphatically demands we promote and support, can be viewed at:
LOST WARNINGS FROM THE MUSLIMS AIDED IN THE WAR IN BOSNIA
Hattip: Pamela Geller @ Atlasshrugs
"The Islamic Declaration" ("Islamska deklaracija") by .Alija Izetbegovic
"BOSNA" reprint, Sarajevo, 1990, 127 pages.
{When you read the below, think of Barack Obama who calls the Muslim prayer call praising the deity of Muslims as the most beautiful sound he has ever heard...only something a Muslim or non-Christian would say}.
Page 4 -
"... A nation, and an individual, who has accepted Islam is incapable of living and dying for another ideal after that fact.
... A Muslim can die only with the name of Allah on his lips and for the glory of Islam, or he may run away ...."
Page 17 -
"... Muslim nations will never accept anything that is explicitly against Islam... He who rises against Islam will reap nothing but hate and resistance. ..."
Page 19 -
"... The shortest definition of the Islamic order defines it as a unity of faith and law, upbringing and force, ideals and interests, spiritual force spiritual community and state, free will and force. As a synthesis of these components, the Islamic order has two fundamental premises: an Islamic society and Islamic authority. The former is the essence, and the latter the form of an Islamic order. An Islamic society without Islamic power is incomplete and weak...
A Muslim generally does not exist as an individual. If he wishes to live and survive ..."
Page 22 -
"... The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or coexistence between the "Islamic faith" and non- Islamic societies and political institutions."
Page 32 -
"... Islamic renewal cannot be initiated without a religious, and cannot be successfully continued and concluded without a political revolution."
Page 37 -
"No-one has the right to smear the...name of Islam...."
Page 43 -
"... the Islamic movement should and must start taking over the power as soon as it is morally and numerically strong enough to not only overthrow the existing non-Islamic, but also to build up a new Islamic authority. ..."
Pages 53-54 -
politics takes in account only temporary ratio of power and forgets about overall ratio of power between Jews and Muslims in the world. This politics in Palestine is a provocation to all Muslims of the world. Jerusalem is ...a question of all the Muslim nations. TO KEEP JERUSALEM, THE JEWS WOULD HAVE TO DEFEAT ISLAM AND THE MUSLIMS...
...FOR ALL MUSLIMS THERE IS BUT ONE
[read "FINAL" -- Brianroy]
SOLUTION: TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT, TO STRENGTHEN AND BROADEN IT, FROM DAY TO DAY, FROM YEAR TO YEAR, NO MATTER THE VICTIMS AND NO MATTER THE TIME it may last, until they are forced to RETURN EVERY INCH OF THE OCCUPIED LAND. EVERY NEGOTIATION AND EVERY COMPROMISE ON THIS FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE FOR OUR BROTHERS IN PALESTINE WILL BE A TREASON WHICH MAY DESTROY THE VERY CORE OF THE MORAL SYSTEM OF OUR WORLD.
These are not new laws of our new Islam politics toward Christians and Jews, not new laws dictated by the new political situation. They are just the practical conclusions taken from the Islamic recognition of Christians and Jews which come right from the Qu'ran (Qu'ran, 29/45, 2/136, 5/47-49)."
My Comments:
In other words, no matter what the rhetoric of Muslim leaders to say they are a religion of peace, they mean themselves as a religion and power of extermination of all other belief systems, of all individuality and freedom of speech or freedom of thought, and of the one final soulution: the extermination of all Jews, and then all Christians in the world.
Islam's "religion of peace" is to be translated as "rest in peace" for those who chose to exercise free will, and not to submit to a third world idiocy, based on the myths of a perverse schizophrenic liar and child molester Mohommed, the false prophet who is Satan's means of damning billions of souls, and leading them directly to Hell and eternal damnation, separated forever from G-D.
The free will to accept Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of G-D who came down from Heaven, is a G-D given inalenable right (John 3:16).
The Muslims revel in death, and to them, the desire of death and destruction is glorified as the ideal. When they have conquered their nations, do they create utopia? No. They seek out those whom to oppress, torture, maim, rape, kill, and create elitist societies of the few while enslaving and oppressing the masses. Those masses living in poverty and oppression, going hungry, getting sick from diseases, having dirty water, open or backed up sewages, having their individuality and humanity constantly stripped from them, often cowering in the same political and religious fears that those of oppressive and non-just dictatorships create...do they live in a joyous utopia as those who espouse that Islam promises...or do they just live physically, as it were?
Saudi Arabia and a few other Islamic nations obtain trillions annually in oil sales, but who reaps the utopia experiences? Carry the Quran in the US, and few will notice, and almost none will even comment.
Muslim talking heads and pseudo-peaceniks demand that they be treated equally with the same rights and even preferential rights over US Citizens and by US Standards. Since their "holy" Mecca is under Sharia Law, how about a reverse Sharia application...treat them the same way they treat Christians in Mecca?
Carry the Bible in Saudi Arabia, and you forfeit your life. We don't have to go that far...deportation back to a Muslim country of their choice, at their expense (including liquidation of their assets here if need be) would be enough.
So if we were to ban the Quran in the US to the same extreme they ban the Bible, but respond more humanely than they by deporting Muslims instead of killing them...where would be the wrongness of such a law? In fact, except for those reasons that follow lust after oil or are based in greed or hypocrisy, there wouldn't be any reason to NOT apply such, if we were to grant their wish of "equality" on standards that Islam lives and kills by.
But such is moot, because Christianity is about offering abundant life and liberty, the freedom of being in Christ and free from the bondages of sin through Christ and faith into Him and what He did at the Cross.
DON'T DWELL IN THE SPIRITUAL AND INTELLECTUAL DARKNESS, THE BLINDNESS THAT COMES FROM BEING AWAY FROM FAITH INTO JESUS CHRIST
Often I find myself, instead, checking to see if a person who is engaging as if seeking, knocking, asking (even demanding) "wants" to be reasonable, to intelligently discuss or aspire to a bettering of themselves and those they engage a conversation with, and find the answers to that which they were apparently seeking, knocking, and demanding about.
I personally believe that a majority of people in America already, but for the Gospel of Jesus Christ as given in the New Testament, are being blinded spiritually, not just intellectually. This is contrariwise to how it was in 1776 and 1789, at the founding of our nation under Christianity in Government and Governance of the public and private sectors. Some 211-234 years later, we live in an America where society and its people are often driven from fad to fad, and anti-Christian hype to anti-Christian hype, to and fro like cattle. We have a large segment of this nation that now seems often driven by a form of bondage where they cannot help but to be enslaved to a genuine anti-Jesus Christ the L-RD opposition. A very many of them even feel (and some express this) that they bound by some greater force to comply to idiocy, to world conformity, to unite and oppose the One True Christ of G-D and the Cross and to unite with all others who also oppose Jesus as L-RD and Savior of the world to whosoever will believe into him (John 3:16-18).
"For G-D so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For G-D sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of G-D."
Barack Obama does not accept Jesus as his L-RD and Savior, and bans the Cross in his presence (like a vampire or opposer of Christ, or anti/against Christ).
This is contrary to even the outward behavior of true Christians, whose fruits of accepting the symbolism of their personal salvation upon which Jesus atoned for their sins and offered them that one and only way to Heaven (John 14:6; Colossians 1:20, 2:14) will be after that of
"But G-D forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our L-RD Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. "
(Galatians 6:14)
--------------------------------------------
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me. (John 14:6)
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in Heaven. (Colossians 1:20)
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. (Colossians 2:14)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In opposition to the Living Jesus, who rose again from the dead, was glorified, ascended into Heaven, now sits in Heaven, and is coming again...in opposition to that ONE, Obama instead embraces and completely promotes Shia Islam in his Usurpation Administration...and those that are willingly blinded in their minds or who are willing to actively resist the Christ of G-D and be blinded by Satan.
One need only look at their religious (or anti-religious religious, if you will) adducibles. They claim those who appeal to reason, the law, and legal and peaceful means are as if violent...while they themselves excuse the worst kinds of violence and angry rhetoric, and demand Barack assume dictatorship, and kill off all we "f**kers" who simply ask for our day in Court without massive street protests, without violence, and while attempting to engage public debate or share our grievances with a Congress that could care less about following the Constitution in a pristine way that would alienate them socially among the Corrupt and perceived Powerful there.
Those in bondage who would rather turn off Intelligent Reasoning of the Mind and Heart, and turn instead to the darkness and depravity of the world system feel compelled to back those that would offer them substitutions to the faith into the Christ of G-D, Yeshua of Nazareth. It matters not if they are in bondage to some voodoo tribe or some pharma party jumping around out of their heads, or if they were dressed up in a suit and tie in a University Faculty or in an elite Wall Street Office espousing the same blindness against Intelligent Reason as to what they feel the world system makes them as politically correct and acceptable. We see this both in Romans 1:18 ff. in the Greek, as well as 2 Corinthians 4:4, the latter of which phrases
toutou etufelose ta noemata ton apiston
Toutou
"a manner or attitude of permissiveness, of allowing something to occur"
Etufelose
"Blindness"
[Note that this word is the active aorist tense of tuphloo: it is not just Blindness, or obscurity; but a Blindness that is actively and willing invited and accepted. It is as if with pleasure in an outward expression of rebellion: i.e., an inward determination to disagree even before any conversation is exchanged is seen as a form of "blindness".]
Ta noemata
"Those being without a sure faith, double-minded ones, ever swaying and
changing values and precepts."
Ton apiston
"those who exercise and practice a willful choice to not believe."
[Pistos faith or trusting belief preceded by the alpha-privitive, negating belief into "unbelief". (Cf. Romans 1:21a, 24a)].
For those who are in bondage to this kind of faithlessness, it is very easy to throw off any sound reasoning or in depth intelligent discussion on matters of law, or journalistic investigation and reconstruction of the greatest political corruption scandal of our lifetimes. That is why, at least as I believe it is so, that is why the Liberals who disavow Christ will not engage us seriously on Barack Obama not having the proper legal credentials to be a US Natural Born Citizen, or not having the "Witnesses to The Birth" on the Hospital records as required by 533 US 53 @ 54, 64 per 333 US 640 @ 653, et al.
Perhaps they cannot even engage in a serious discussion as to the very blindness they have of being the oppressors that they accuse others as being...such as Liberal Political Strongholds stupifying and impoverishing Blacks (as well as Latinos and Whites) of the parts of America they stranglehold by votes and elections, control.
By video example:
At the Al Sharpton 08/28 anti-TEA Party and hate counter-rally to the peaceful and G-D fearing Lincoln Memorial rally, those who of the Al Sharpton rally who openly advocate enslavements to poverty, and the degradation of human beings -- albeit black human beings, as but helpless and useless sacks of flesh like tumors to to be discarded -- when these are confronted by the evil of their supporting such evil governance...they slink away in shame, being exposed to the harsh light of the true reality of their actions.
INTELLIGENT REASON IS PREFERABLE TO SHOUTING, AND CASE LAW PERHAPS NEEDS MORE EXTENSIVE QUOTING IN REASONING OVER THE NBC ISSUE
Former Chief Justice of Alabama, Judge Roy Moore, states that Obama cannot even rise to the NBC eligibility he claims to have:
Even Newsweek now seems to list Barack as a non-US NBC "anchor baby, as newsbusters reports.
So, perhaps those who wish to peacefully engage in the Natural Born issue, and not forcefully like the shouting match of the above video at the Al Sharpton rally, but who still somehow get hung up on Wong Kim Ark...perhaps these should now read the last major Supreme Court historical preview and input on the NBC issue in Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, (1927); http://supreme.justia.com/us/274/657/case.html
661-666 provides us with a mandatorily necessary knowledge of the political history regarding NBC legislation from 1790 to 1855 that most leave out of the debates.
Page 274 U. S. 661
..."An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
"Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law court of record in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court that he is a person of good character and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer;
Page 274 U. S. 662
This Act was repealed by the Act of January 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 415, § 4, but the third section of that act reenacted the provisions of the Act of 1790 as to children of citizens born beyond the sea, in equivalent terms. The clauses were not repealed by the next Naturalization Act of June 18, 1798, 1 Stat. 566, but continued in force until the 14th of April, 1802, when an Act of Congress of that date, 2 Stat. 153, repealed all preceding acts respecting naturalization. After its provision as to naturalization, it contained in its fourth section the following:
[The Chester A. Arthur justification cited by Senator Bayard to A.P. Hinman]
"That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing to any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the
Page 274 U. S. 663
United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States."
No change was made in the law until 1855. Mr. Horace Binney had written an article, which he published December 1, 1853, for the satisfaction of fellow citizens and friends whose children were born abroad during occasional visits by their parents to Europe. 169 U.S. 169 U. S. 665.
He began the article as follows:
"It does not probably occur to the American families who are visiting Europe in great numbers, and remaining there frequently for a year or more, that all their children born in a foreign country are aliens, and when they return home will return under all the disabilities of aliens. Yet this is indisputably the case, for it is not worthwhile to consider the only exception to this rule that exists under the laws of the United States, viz., the case of a child so born whose parents were citizens of the United States on or before the 14th day of April, 1802."
"It has been thought expedient, therefore, to call the attention of the public to this state of the laws of the United States that, if there are not some better political reasons for permitting the law so to remain than the writer is able to imagine, the subject may be noticed in Congress and a remedy provided."
Mr. Binney demonstrates that, under the law then existing, the children of citizens of the United States born abroad, and whose parents were not citizens of the United States on or before the 14th of April, 1802, were aliens because the Act of 1802 only applied to such parents, and because, under the common law, which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but were aliens. Mr. Binney was not interested
Page 274 U. S. 664
in the citizenship of the second generation of children of citizens of the United States born abroad, and nothing in this article was directed to the question of the meaning of the words contained in the Act of 1802, "provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States."
The Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, passed presumably because of Mr. Binney's suggestion, was entitled "An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits thereof," and read as follows:
"That persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States."
"Sec. 2. . . . That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen."
The part of the Act of 1855 we are interested in was embodied in the Revised Statutes as § 1993.
It is very clear that the proviso in § 1993 has the same meaning as that which Congress intended to give it in the Act of 1790, except that it was then retrospective, as it was in the Act of 1802, while, in the Act of 1855, it was intended to be made prospective as well as retrospective. What was the source of the peculiar words of the proviso there seems to be no way of finding out, as the report of the discussion of the subject is not contained in any publication brought to our attention. It is evident, however,
Page 274 U. S. 665
from the discussion in the First Congress, already referred to, that there was a strong feeling in favor of the encouragement of naturalization. There were some congressmen, although they did not prevail, who were in favor of naturalization by the mere application and taking of the oath. The time required for residence to obtain naturalization was finally limited to two years. In the Act of 1795, this was increased to five years, with three years for declaration of intention. Congress must have thought that the questions of naturalization and of the conferring of citizenship on sons of American citizens born abroad were related.
Congress had before it the Act of George III of 1773, which conferred British Nationality not only on the children, but also on the grandchildren of British-born citizens who were born abroad. Congress was not willing to make so liberal a provision. It was natural that it should wish to restrict the English provision, because, at the time that this phrase was adopted, there were doubtless many foreign-born children of persons who were citizens of the seceding colonies, with respect to whose fathers there was a natural doubt whether they intended to claim or enjoy American citizenship, or indeed were entitled to it. The last provision of the Act of 1790 manifested this disposition to exclude from the operation of the act those who were citizens or subjects in the states during the Revolution, and had been proscribed by their legislatures. It is not too much to say, therefore, that Congress at that time attached more importance to actual residence in the United States as indicating a basis for citizenship than it did to descent from those who had been born citizens of the colonies or of the states before the Constitution. As said by Mr. Fish, when Secretary of State, to Minister Washburn, June 28, 1873, in speaking of this very proviso,
"The heritable blood of citizenship
Page 274 U. S. 666
was thus associated unmistakably with residence within the country which was thus recognized as essential to full citizenship."
Foreign Relations of the United States, pt. 1, 1873, p. 259. It is in such an atmosphere that we are to interpret the meaning of this peculiarly worded proviso.
Only two constructions seem to us possible, and we must adopt one or the other. The one is that the descent of citizenship shall be regarded as taking place at the birth of the person to whom it is to be transmitted, and that the words "have never been resident in the United States" refer in point of time to the birth of the person of whom the citizenship is to descend. This is the adoption of the rule of jus sanguinis in respect to citizenship, and that emphasizes the fact and time of birth as the basis of it. We think the words "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States" are equivalent to saying that fathers may not have the power of transmitting by descent the right of citizenship until they shall become residents in the United States.
[The Court went on to chose this first construction...the later I have edited out, because they did not choose it as the correct one to follow]
In the context of the Court, the term "resident" also is one who actively acquires "citizenship", and is not to be confused with a "resident alien" who lives here a while and then returns to his home country, as happened with Barack Obama Sr.
I would also state, by this Case, we are again conclusively told AT LENGTH that the Father is not only required to reside in the US a required length of time and to legally naturalize to become a US Citizen himself, “taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer” (@661), before the child may be considered to enter the realm of becoming a Natural Born US Citizen…but that the US Constitution’s own NBC Clause in Article 2.1.4 (now 2.1.5.) -
(per McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819) http://supreme.justia.com/us/17/316/case.html
Where the implied Constitutional language or intent is justifiable interpretation.)
- is naturally discovered to relate from US documents of the period prior to the writing and publishing of the US Constitution, and to effectively so state that it is the FATHER (Paternal lineage) as that which MUST BE PRESENT in order to meet the definition of having been conferred "NATURAL born citizen" status…and that the child’s natural born status follows the Father, regardless of birth location.
While there are those who deny the NBC clause in the US Constitution on the Obama side, let me remind them that it was NO ACCIDENT of language, and was also so stated and clarified in the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788: “
…That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States.”
In 1788, the original intent was that every member of Congress also be a “natural born citizen” or a Revolutionary War Veteran in order to be in or elected to Congress.
What did they mean by the necessitate that the US President (and even the VP and members of Congress, according to the State of New York) were to be "Natural Born Citizens"? What IS a Natural Born Citizen in the view of those in the 1780s? We turn to the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress OCTOBER 14, 1774:
...Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now assembled, in a full and free representation of these colonies…do, in the first place, as Englishmen, their ancestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties, DECLARE,
That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS:
Resolved, N.C.D. 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty and property: and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.
The First Continental Congress in October 14, 1774 (NCD 1&2) de facto defined a Natural Born Citizen as someone who “have never ceded to any foreign power whatever”…and whose ANCESTRY FROM BOTH PARENTS was of the same allegiance and citizenship to which the descendants owed. The legal argument of the Colonials who of the First Continental Congress in October 14, 1774 was to the effect that they were free born of English Citizen Parents descended multi-generationally in the lands of the Colonies, hence now free, indigenous and natural-born Colonials for as long as the political entity of British Colonies have been Crown recognized, and that de facto, they were thus free and natural-born Colonials born to those who emigrated to the Colonies as free and natural-born subjects to the Crown within the realm of England. They were not slaves and the scurges of prisons risen up to rebel against the Crown...rather, they were among England's choicest citizenry who came and exercised their English political rights and legiences, even in the Colonies they co-established.
Barack Obama by having a Kenyan National Father, and a wife with a dual citizenship by marraige, can NEVER be labeled a US NBC except by lies and criminal deceptions by those conspiring to promote the same lies for whatever personal motivation or gullibility on their part.
In the first and third section of Chapter 1 of the Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777, we have the elucidation by the comparative to the October 14, 1774 First Continental Congress where that it says “all men are born equally free”, and have the rights to life, liberty, and property, and to worship Almighty G-D (as according to the Old & New Testament Bible) … that these inalienable rights are NOT to just the natural born, but are inclusive of those both born in the country AND was extended to those who immigrated also, whether they came as slave or free.
So the distinguishing characteristic of a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” as compared to a Citizen of any other type, is that BOTH PARENTS WERE CITIZENS of the Country where they were BORN upon and into, and that the child NEVER had any foreign legiences whatsoever.
Barack Hussein Obama (II) had legiences to Kenya from birth until at least the age of 23 (for he was born into Kenyan Citizenship via his Kenyan National biological father), and to Indonesia (attending and pledging allegiance to the flag of Indonesia in the school where he attended Muslim school and prayed Muslim prayers with Indonesia’s living dictator’s grandchildren at the time.) So even from the point of birth and legal naturalization by adoption and relocation, again, Barack Obama is found to be UNFIT under US Law to any legal claim to the US Presidency, and must be cast out as a usurper (by whatever legal and peaceful means...or by force, if Congress and the US Supreme Court jointly so order it).
And this, without getting into International Law with Vattel’s Law of Nations, 1.212
Obama's father does not even rise to the level of the Villato factor...he is that low and unqualified in absolutely NO Paternal claims upon the USA...none.
What is the Villato fator you ask? Let's look at it.
THE UNITED STATES v. VILLATO, 2 U.S. 370 (1797)
Context: A Pennsylvania Constitution ( 1776 version) had a 42nd section provision used for inviting immigration and settlement into Pennsylvania. Its provision gave almost immediate equal status to those who naturalized and swore allegiance with those who were already born into Pennsylvania by two citizen parents and lived there all their lives (the natural born). Why? The highest equivocation was made in order to promote Immigration, and Commerce. In 17th and 18th Century America, there were two fundamental categories of Americans: marine (sea-based) and agrarian (farm-based). In the second half of the 1700s, it would not be uncommon to be natural born into an agrarian community by two parents owning land there, and to never travel more than 30 to 50 miles beyond the Community in one's entire life time. In order to spark growth, enticements needed to be made to draw the Seaboard community into what was then viewed as "the West".
In a sense, Ben Franklin also “immigrated” and “naturalized” into Pennsylvania as well. The whole case of Treason against Francis Villato centered on a local jurisdiction’s oath of allegiance, exclusive of any other state, and any union of states.
As an alien Spaniard, Francis Villato lived in Philadelphia for a year and then swore an allegiance under an old statute of Pennsylvania's then existing Constitution. He had a national legience to Spain, and was under the impression that he could "safe haven" swear legience to a "home port, or port of call" even if that port of call were part of a larger entity, such as a county or state. Villato had no intent to transfer national legience, and in effect, did not recognize the United States as a sovereign nation, so much as a collection of various states, once colonies.
It seems apparent, that by the presentation and decision, Francis Villato considered himself having taken an oath exclusively to the city of Philadelphia, which just happened to be in the state of Pennsylvania. His oath of citizenship was therefore intended to a city, not a country. In the 1700s, it would not be an unreasonable expectation on Francis Villato's part regarding common views of international law regarding sea-merchants and sailors.
There is no change or alteration to the definition of "natural born" citizen being equal or subservient to a "naturalized" citizen inferred as a pro-Obama argument attempted to use. Loyalties to states (county, or even community) was a common theme over loyalty to Country prior to 1861. Robert E. Lee chose State loyalty over the collective at the outbreak of the Civil War, for example. For this reason, the Founders' Historical Intent approach is a requirement of interpretation, it is not optional.
THE UNITED STATES v. VILLATO, 2 U.S. 370 (1797)
Francis Villato, born in Spain, made his way to Philadelphia in 1793. After a year, on May 11, 1794, he took an oath of allegiance (2 US 370), under the 42nd Section of the Old Constitution of Pennsylvania (2 US 370 371), carried over into the third section of the act of assembly in the new Pennsylvania state constitution of March 13, 1789 (2 US 370) .
When the whole Constitution of Pennsylvania state was destroyed, none of its parts could survive; and when, therefore, the 42nd section was annulled, the description of foreigners which it contained, and the rights and privileges which it specified, could no longer furnish a foundation, on which the act of Assembly could stand (2 US 370, 372).
The act declares, that a foreigner, having taken the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance, and resided here one year, shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges specified in the 42nd section of the old constitution; that is, he may acquire, hold, and transfer real estate, and enjoy all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except the right of being elected a representative, which he cannot enjoy for two years. (2 US 370, 371).
A citizen of the United States, adopted under the act of Congress, is a citizen of each and every State; and the convention of Pennsylvania could conceive no means of establishing uniformity (2 US 370,372). In other words, the granting of citizenship was itself not uniform even throughout Pennsylvania, because of the enticements to grow the various communities (e.g., Philadelphia) that ran contrary even to what was generally accepted State-wide.
If, then, the act of assembly is in force,an alien naturalized (2 U.S. 370, 372) under it, having the rights of the old, is in a situation preferable to a natural born citizen under the accumulative restraints of the new constitution.(2 US 370, 373).
Justice Iredell: …I should be disposed to think, that the power of naturalization operated exclusively, as soon as it was exercised by Congress. But the circumstances of the case now before the court, render it unnecessary to enquire into the relative jurisdictions of the State and Federal governments. The only act of naturalization suggested, depends upon the existence, or non-existence, of a law of Pennsylvania; and it is plain, that upon the abolition of the old constitution of the state, the law became inconsistent with the provisions of the new constitution, and, of course, ceased to exist, long before the supposed act of naturalization was performed. The Prisoner must, therefore, be discharged.
If we examine each Supreme Court case, one by one, we shall see no other definition of natural born than a "paternal" or "paternal with maternal" (status) passing of citizenship to the (geographical) native-born child.
So, in a snapshot recap:
Obama is a false Christian.
Islam is a religion of subjugation and enslavement and long-term multi-generational and multi-century conquests in the words of Muslims themselves, based on commandments in their own Quran.
Jesus Christ alone atones for the sins of all mankind, and there is no other faith, or person, or way, to keep from damning oneself or being damned to hell...thus Islam is Satan's tool to deceive and damn billions to hell.
The NBC issue is discernible from present case law in the US Supreme Court, but very few appear to care to educate themselves about what that is...because they are without Christ, and cannot resist the direct side effect of being the willingly susceptible victims of Satanic deceptions and manipulations of themselves via their willing moral and intellectual blindness by resisting faith into Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment