1 of 34
1
LEGAL PROOF OBAMA IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT
Posted: 25 July 2009 10:59 AM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25

PROOF PAGE 1 OF 4

STRUCTURE OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
AND THE SOVEREIGN NATURE OF HER PEOPLE

In England and old Europe, before the American Revolution, when America broke free and became her own SOVEREIGN NATION OF SOVEREIGN PEOPLE, this is how things were viewed by people to be organized, in a TOP DOWN HIERARCHY of SOVEREIGN POWERS AND AUTHORITIES.  Each level deriving its power and authority from the next level up. Like this:

GOD—If you did not believe, and made your views known, you would most likely be tortured to death. Atheists were not welcome much in feudal European society, for centuries.

NATURE—God creates Nature and Natural Laws. Nature comes from God, which is the source of Nature, and Natural Law, that governs human behavior and customs, and statutory constructs, or man made laws.

KING—Sovereign authority over the people who derives his power from the Laws of Nature (force of arms, and might makes right, which is just the application of natural physical laws of physics, and the application of positive and negative natural laws that govern human motives and behavior, which determines what the king is fighting for. The King derives his authority, from GOD, by his claim of DEVINE RIGHT to rule over government and people. This claim is the source of historic power struggles between KINGS and RELIGION, throughout history!  A king’s lawful jurisdiction, is by the soil that he controls under his SOVEREIGN authority, and by any agreements he enters into with, with other SOVEREIGN powers, like other kings or countries.  The king must give his permission for a Parliament or Government to be created, and so it is the King who creates the Government for his people, who are his SUBJECTS, basically his “property”, including their LABOR, and the goods they produce. All land, actually belongs to the king, unless he sells and transfers sovereignty to you, for any land he sells you, usually so the king can gain an agreement for allegiance, and soldiers, and taxes.  This is the type of governance called FEUDALISM, which is basically what you had in Europe and England for centuries, and America fought a war and was supposed to have freed herself from.

GOVERNMENT—Basically, acts as a go-between, serving the KING’S INTERESTS. It serves to protect the KING and serve the people, by dealing with the day to day troubles of the people and implementing the King’s decrees and Will, while at the same time, listening to the people’s desire for their natural rights and needs and complaints to be met, and so the government brings the people’s voice to the kings attention, for the king’s input on crafting legislation to deal with these matters.

PEOPLE—basically the lowest form of life in a FEUDALISTIC society ruled by KINGS and PARLIAMENTS. People are just slaves who can’t really own any property, and all their labor, and goods, and freedoms, and protections, come from the King, or one of his direct or indirect vassals.  The Common People, are viewed by the ruling elite, as nothing more than ignorant brutish work animals, good for dying in the kings wars, and taxing for the kings profits, kind of like life in America today under King Obama, and the Federal Reserve system of PRIVATE FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC BANKS who create fiat currency out of thin air with a statute and enslave mankind and future generations into tax debt service to the FEUDAL GLOBAL MATTERS of the NEW WORLD ORDER.

THEN THERE WAS A WAR IN 1776 AND A NEW ORDER AND STRUCTURE IN AMERICA LIKE THIS:

GOD—Does not matter if you believe or not, because GOVERNMENT and the PEOPLE are bound down under NATURAL LAW by the U.S. Constitution, and by natural reality, (self-evident truth, see DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, people being created equal by laws of nature, and inherit natural rights, for example), and NOT BY RELIGION (GOD), thus creating a SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE (eliminating the age old European struggle between these two entities), that brings Law into the realm of science, and not religious opinion, by recognizing that NATURE is real and exists, and has OBJECTIVE DISCOVERABLE LAWS, that are the basis of morality and statutory governance, even if you do not believe the hypothesis (that which is not yet proven to be true), of God’s existence.  Christians can now live, side by side with atheists in peace, because both recognize Nature and her superiority, and authority, to govern human behavior and norms.

NATURE—Now, same as before, but now viewed from the lens of a natural scientists, who see nature as the ONLY KNOWABLE TRUTH regarding matters of law, and Justice, and Government, and that which explains and morally guides human behavior, and morality, regardless of whether you believe in the big G in the sky, or not.  This is the highest achievement of the AGE of ENLIGHTENMENT and AGE OF REASON, coming to full fruition in the expression of the American revolutionary war, and the creation of America with the Constitution.

PEOPLE—The people have replaced the KING.  Now the PEOPLE are the SOVEREIGN authority, deriving their just powers and authority from nature and her laws. The People now recognize, the natural right for people to be free to believe in whatever big G in the sky, or Religion, they want.  The People are the ones that now give permission to themselves to create a government for themselves, and the government is to serve the PEOPLE’S interests, and be loyal to the PEOPLE, just like they are the Kings in the old arrangement of things, because in actually reality, they ARE NOW THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY over the government, and they ARE NOW THE KINGS, plural, and not just one king or family.  It is now all American families/citizens, who are OF THIS COUNTRY (inherited from citizens or immigrants that are here as U.S. citizens for a long enough period, defined in the statutes that govern such matters, and not just born here), that are the King’s descendants, (inherited from their American king/queen parents).  That is why you must INHERIT your right to be President and rule over the political party, and Executive branch, and Military, (but not the People which is why Congress can override the President, so our President is not a total king, which is what the founders were purposely trying to avoid), from your American citizen parents, just like a PRINCE inherits from his SOVEREIGN authority, his dad, the King.

GOVERNMENT—Government is now under the PEOPLE who are SOVEREIGN and who create and govern OVER IT (like a creature or baby), to serve the PEOPLE’S interests, and make IT be loyal to the American PEOPLE and THEIR interests.  All sovereign powers that the U.S. government has, comes from the sovereignty that it was given by the PEOPLE, like for example, the concept of territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. government to enforce its statutes, comes from the Common Laws of England and the RIGHT OF KINGS to rule over their soil jurisdiction, because that is a king’s natural authority, and where it ends, (soil borders of his kingdom).  That is why the Federal Government can only apply its laws on its soil, like the 14th amendment only applies on U.S. soil, because WE the PEOPLE, gave that right of soil of the rule of Kings, to the Government.  This proves also, who the real Kings and sovereign authority is in America, and it is the PEOPLE, or where else could, or would, the power to enforce U.S. code, come from?  This is also how and why American citizens take their jurisdiction with them wherever they go, and can create American citizens by natural birth inheritance, and soil is irrelevant!  These are the NBC’s that are being referred to in Article II.

This is the way government is SUPPOSED TO BE structured in America.

(1 of 4, continued on next post)

[ Edited: 25 July 2009 11:46 AM by Jedi Pauly ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25

PROOF PAGE 2 OF 4

WHAT ABOUT THE 14th AMENDMENT?
DOESN’T THAT MAKE OBAMA A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
AND THEREFORE, QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT? NO!

The fourteenth Amendment is only about citizenship and NBC(soil), or the privilege of U.S. citizenship, that is granted to foreign birth parents on U.S. soil (that is one type of NBC), and the EMANCIPATION of former SLAVES. The 14th Amendment forces the States to recognize and grant State citizenship to former slaves, due to the natural reality of NATURAL INHERITANCE, and that blacks in the south that were freed from being slaves, by the 13th Amendment, were entitled to INHERIT from their fathers, who were from the States, State citizenship and legal protection of the laws, the same as other state citizens.  This was called EMANCIPATION.  The 14th does this by a careful declaratory statement, that grants U.S. citizenship to anyone that is born on U.S. territorial jurisdiction, regardless of parent’s citizenship, and who has no other foreign jurisdiction controlling their citizenship. This is called the “fully subject clause”, and it ensnares the former slaves that were denied having their inherited state citizenships recognized, since they were born to parents on the soil jurisdiction, and they were long removed form Africa, and so there was no foreign jurisdiction to claim them, so they are “fully subject” to the jurisdiction of the U.S., like it says in the 14th Amend, so they are U.S. citizens.  Then the 14th Amendment states that these U.S. citizens, are also citizens of the States wherein they reside, this forces the States to view the freed black slaves as State citizens, and entitled to equal protection of State and Federal laws, (Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).  This brought EMANCIPATION to the freed slaves, and opened the door to FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION, that could be applied as a lawful federal authority over STATE’S RIGHTS ISSUES, that had been a problem in the Dred Scott case.  Also, since government can’t grant natural rights, but can only protect them in statutes, and because the Southern states still could not be forced to pass laws for the benefit of Black equality in society, Federal Civil Rights had to be crafted in order to force protection of the natural rights of people, Blacks or anyone, in the former slave States (or generally anywhere in the U.S.), because the former slave States decided to write laws to segregate Blacks from society, if they were going to be forced to write laws for, and recognize Blacks and former slaves as citizens, because of the 14th Amendment.

American citizens that are born to American citizen parents, do not get their citizenship via the 14th Amendment, unless they want to.  They get it the way they always have, by NATURAL INHERITANCE from citizen parents.  This has always existed, for whites anyway, for 100 years before there was even a fourteenth amendment!  The 14th Amendment did not change or eliminate that, which it cannot do anyway, because the subject matter jurisdiction of natural inheritance is under the laws of nature, and not under the statutory authority of government, to eliminate it.  Only GOD has that power!  Congress can only PRESERVE AND PROTECT natural rights, not ELIMINATE THEM!  We still get our citizenships by natural inheritance from our citizen parents.  In fact, now since the 14th Amendment, you have two ways to be an American citizen, by the 14th Amendment if you are on U.S./State soil when born, AND by natural Inheritance from citizen parents.  Each avenue of citizenship actually has different legal ramifications, depending on which way you choose to be a citizen, and the privileges that you wish to receive as a result of the type of citizenship you claim and exercise.  A 14th Amendment citizen, even if born to U.S. citizen parents, might have more “privileges”, and more duties, and obligations, and responsibilities, to the Federal Government, than a citizen born, on U.S. soil, who only claims citizenship by inheritance due to parents.  That is another subject for discussion, that is outside of the scope of the Obama situation.

Finally, the 14th is not even about Article II and the qualifications for president, which is about LOYALTY TO AMERICA, and who your parents are, and THEIR citizenship, not who qualifies as a U.S. and/or State citizen.  The 14th is not even about Natural Inheritance from citizen parents (except indirectly for former slaves), which is the qualifications for President.  It is just about the “PRIVILEGE” of soil birth citizenship and former slave Emancipation.  It has no bearing on the Obama issue at all, and can be dispensed with as TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!

(2 of 4, continued on next post)

[ Edited: 25 July 2009 11:31 AM by Jedi Pauly ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25

PROOF PAGE 3 OF 4

WHAT ABOUT THOSE THAT SAY NBC IN ARTICLE II IS UNDEFINED?

Many Obamanite supporters try to argue that NBC in Article II is undefined and not in any statutes anywhere.  This is NOT TRUE, as NBC in Article II is defined by the laws of Natural Inheritance, and English grammar, and logical construct for loyalty test, and Protection and Empowerment of Official Duties of the President.  Obamanite supporters attempt to apply judge’s opinions like, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), or Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), or my favorite, Lynch v Clark, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs 236,1 Sand Ch 583 (1844), in an UNLAWFUL APPLICATION OF PROCESS, to try and REDEFINE the meaning and intent of NBC in Article II, to mean NBC(soil), instead of NBC(parents).  This requires a Constitutional Amendment, and cannot be achieved by statute, or judge’s opinion.  Besides, all of these cases are about citizenship, and not the qualifications for President, and are not controlling anyway, because their opinions can not alter or change the meaning of NBC in Article II of the Constitution, which is the Supreme Authority, and so IT is controlling, and already just means what it means, and must just be applied as a loyalty test.  It means INHERITED citizenships due to citizen parents, for purposes of loyalty to America, and protection from foreign blackmail, and for Empowerment in Treaty Negotiations by the President, and soil has very little to do with it.  Inherited citizenships from citizen parents, are also called natural born citizens (NBC), regardles of what soil one is born on.


TYPES OF NATURAL LOYALTY

The SUBJECT MATTER of “LOYALTY”,  is BOTH an INHERITED NATURAL POLITICAL RIGHT, and a function of human interactions, and the natural laws that govern those actions, and interactions, as they play out over time.  Time is a big factor in the law, and cannot be ignored in matters of inheritance and citizenship, because factors (facts) of life, that play out over time, after you are born, can affect your citizenship status after birth. It is helpful to think in terms of two types of natural loyalty. Type 1 and type 2. One is POLITICAL, and one is SOCIAL.

TYPE 1, is a NATURAL POLITICAL RIGHT, inherited at birth, as a natural birth-right, from your parents. You inherit type one loyalty from dad mostly, as far as political rights go, due to the Natural Law of Inherited Loyalties, (see the section, where I define that, in the proof definitions). Type 1 loyalty is automatic at birth, and must just be LEARNED about, as you grow up and experience your dad, and learn about his membership in his, and your, society (citizenship, country).  Type 1 loyalty is forever, and cannot be changed or affected by others, unless an effort is made by you to break with your father’s political allegiances to his, and your, country of birth.  Type one loyalty is the type that causes you to be faithful to American interests, because of inherited loyalty to your dad and his people, who are Americans. (Again, see the definition of, “Natural Law of Inherited Loyalties”, in proof section.)  This is just learned about as you grow up, and can only be NOT true, if you immigrate someplace, or disabuse yourself of your citizenship for some other reason of your own.

IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE.  Of course there is a natural birth loyalty to mom as well, however, I wish to limit the discussion to just political rights, since we are talking about the qualifications for President.  Soil can be a factor in determining loyalty, and for the office of President, but it requires a person to make it an issue, by taking advantage of the fact that they were born on foreign soil, to culture and develop foreign ties and/or loyalties, then soil would be an issue. It is not the same for parents’ citizenship, which has a very high probability of automatically coming with foreign ties and loyalties, that you cannot do anything about at birth, or that you yourself had to culture, or develop, over time.  Therefore, for purposes of ease in grasping the important issues that makes our case against Obama, without soil, assume loyalty by soil is removed as a topic of controlling interest, due to it being irrelevant to making our case against Obama, and because it is highly likely to be, the least important and most unlikely factor in determining loyalty.  I wish to present my case against Obama strictly on the evidence of parental citizenship at birth, without the need to even consider the soil, which is not at all even needed to prove he is not qualified under the law, and removes the relevancy of where he was born, and any issues of his real, long form birth certificate.

TYPE 2 loyalty, is the SOCIAL type of loyalty, that must be EARNED over time, as a function of human interaction between natural individual people, or agents, (governments, corporations, etc.).  This is where TRUST, and CHARISMA, and FRIENDSHIP, and LEADERSHIP etc, skills must be developed and employed, to earn the trust and respect that engenders type 2 “loyalty”.  This type of loyalty is fleeting, and may not be permanent at all.  Type II loyalty is very subject to forces (other people) outside of your control, to maintain and posses this type of loyalty between agents. (people, associates, etc). You must constantly reinforce this type of loyalty between agents, over time.  Our discussions about Obama, focuses on type one loyalty.

IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE ABOUT MILITARY AND THEIR LOYALTIES

The military takes an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and Country from all threats, foreign and domestic. Their allegiance and loyalties are supposed to be with the LAW, and the PEOPLE, and NOT TO THE PRESIDENT.  The military has the Uniform Code of Justice, and Chain of Command rules, to regulate and control the military from within itself.  Loyalty to officers, or the president, must be earned by the officers or president over time, through human interaction, just like every one must do, under natural laws that function over time and govern these human interactions.  The Military Code, and Chain of Command, just requires one in the military, to obey LAWFUL orders, so loyalty is irrelevant.  It also requires a soldier to hold every other soldier, including the President, to loyalty to the Constitution, and laws, and people, so it REQUIRES military personnel to QUESTION, SUE, and REMOVE, an imposter President, who is not legally qualified to hold the position.  It is the PATRIOTIC DUTY of military personnel to do this.  They ARE NOT, and CANNOT POSSIBLY BE, being disloyal to the President, because they DO NOT OWE ANY LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT.  Instead, they ARE BEING, LOYAL TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, and the Laws and Constitution, which is exactly where their loyalties are supposed to be, and is exactly the oath they took to protect and defend.  They did not make this pledge to the President for his benefit, and so their loyalties do not belong to the President, if he has not earned their loyalty!  A soldier is not expected, or required, to give “blind” loyalty, only to obey lawful orders.


NOTE ABOUT OBAMA’S MOM

The statutes say, that Barack’s Mom, was too young when Barack was born, to transfer natural born inherited citizenship, due to parental inheritance, when he was born. According to the statutes, a woman by herself, must be sufficiently ‘of the country’, and of legal political age of 21, and living in the U.S. for 10 years as a citizen, and five years after the age of 16, before she is able to transfer full inherited citizenship to her offspring.  This does not affect Barack’s ability to claim a U.S. citizenship from soil birth, or by his Mom from some other statutes, she was just too young to transfer INHERITED citizenship to him.  This could only be a factor, if we did not know who baby Barack’s dad was, then Barack would have to inherit loyalty, his last name, and political rights, from his Mom, but he would not be able to inherit full rights, because she was too young to have full legal status herself, and so she can’t transfer them to her baby by herself.  This would mean that Barack would be an immigrant U.S. citizen, which is what he actually is because of his dad that we know about, and only his kids could possibly inherit loyalty to America, and grow up to qualify for President.  Since we know who Barack’s dad is, Mom’s age at Barack’s birth, does not matter, and so this is purely academic.  All that matters, as far as usurper Obama is concerned, is that Barack’s Mom was a full U.S., INHERITED citizen herself, by the time Barack was at the age of eligibility for President (35yrs old).  She was, so Obama passes the Mom part of the American Loyalty Test for President, he just fails the DAD part, which is arguably, THE most important part of the loyalty test for qualification for President.

(3 of 4, continued on next post)

[ Edited: 25 July 2009 11:37 AM by Jedi Pauly ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 11:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25

PROOF PAGE 4 OF 4

DEFINITIONS

Natural Law = (science and foundation of law that forms stare decisis (science of law) as opposed to stare decisis (opinion) which is the RELIGION of law. Basis of all law in history. A ubiquitous and undeniable Legal Jurisdiction.)

Laws of Nature = (laws that are discovered or derived from forces of nature that naturally shape and govern societies and human behavior. Subject matter of science and/or law, often operating simultaneously & interchangeably. Forms basis of all man-made law and statutes throughout history, especially common law and customs.)

Natural Law of Inherited Loyalties = Males are only born with one fixed loyalty, that is fixed by nature and logic to be only to his father’s tribe and people. Females are naturally born with the possibility of “split” loyalties because females can come from outside of the tribe, so females can be loyal to husband’s tribe, and home family tribe.  Males are only naturally born with loyalty to only one tribe, dad’s tribe. That is why you inherit loyalty to your country (father’s people), through your father, and not your mother.  You only inherit loyalty to country, last name, and political rights (citizenship), from mom, if you do not know who your dad is.

Define NBC(dad) = natural born citizenship & natural rights inherited from American citizen dad by the Laws of Nature and Natural Law (soil irrelevant), just because he is your natural birthright dad, and he is an American citizen.

Define NBC(mom) = natural born citizenship & natural rights inherited from American citizen mom by the Laws of Nature and Natural Law (soil irrelevant), just because she is your natural birthright mom, and she is an American citizen.

Define NBC(parents) = natural born citizenship inherited from both mom and dad who are Americans, by the Laws of Nature (soil irrelevant), just because they are your natural parents, and they are American citizens.

Define NBC(soil) to be “privilege” of soil/citizen granted to foreign immigrant kids (foreign parent or parents) born on soil jurisdiction of U.S. (soil/jurisdiction of government only thing relevant).

Define NBC = any one of NBC(dad), NBC(mom), NBC(parents), NBC(soil) all are defined to be NBC (natural born American citizen).


LOGICAL PROOF & EQUATION

ASSUME NBC(mom) and NBC(dad) are the parents of the same kid, just for logical clarity of the concept being related in the proof.

PROOF;

NBC(dad) to American kid birth = NBC American kid = LOYAL to American people (inherited from dad due to the natural law of inherited loyalties), denies foreign influence/loyalties.

NBC(mom) to American kid birth = Protection for President from foreign BLACKMAIL, & EMPOWERS PRESIDENT IN TREATY NEGOTIATIONS (alternative, if you do not know who dad is then you also inherit last name, citizenship, and loyalty to tribe, from mom.)

NBC(soil) to foreign kid = NBC immigrant kid U.S. citizen = creates FOREIGN LOYALTY &/OR BLACKMAIL problems for president.

THEREFORE;

I prove NBC in Article II Constitution CANNOT possibly mean NBC(soil), but instead means NBC(parents) & your dad must be an American citizen for you to be President, for loyalty reasons to American interests, (protects from foreign influence), and mom must also be an American citizen, to protect the President from blackmail and threats of retaliation against foreign mom’s parents, which might compromise the Presidents abilities to effectively negotiate in the American People’s best interests, in TREATY NEGOTIATIONS! This means Article II FORCES BOTH parents to be NBC Americans by NATURAL INHERITANCE, because it forces your mom, in order to PROTECT and EMPOWER the President, in his official duties!

THE LOYALTY TEST

The first and most important test, in the qualifications for president, is your DAD. First, you look at your dad’s citizenship when you are born. If he is an American citizen, then you INHERIT LOYALTY to your father’s people, by the Laws of Nature, and they are Americans, so you are LOYAL to America and her people, and not some foreign dad’s people, or country, or interests. This is the first and most essential qualification. If you fail this part of the test, because your dad is a foreign citizen, like Obama’s dad, then you cannot possibly inherit loyalty to America, and you DO NOT QUALIFY as a candidate for President. Next, you look at your mom. If she has a foreign citizenship, due to her foreign parents, then the President is subject to blackmail by foreign jurisdictions, by way of his mom’s parents, and he is DISEMPOWERED to negotiate in the best interests of the American People, in TREATY NEGOTIATIONS! This is why NBC in Article II means INHERITED, from citizen parent(s), in order to force mom to be an American citizen, also of America, to protect and empower the President in his official duties, should he become President.


CONCLUSIONS

So Obama is a usurper, and NBC in Article II is defined by THE LAWS of NATURE (natural inheritance), and English grammar, and proper subject matter jurisdiction of Naturally Inherited Rights, and context of qualifications for president (LOYALTY TEST & PRESIDENTIAL PROTECTION AND EMPOWERMENT IN TREATY NEGOTIATIONS), to mean NBC(parents)! It is NOT UNDEFINED, as so many people think.  It is not defined in any statutes, ON PURPOSE!  NATURE AND NATURAL LAWS DEFINE NBC in Article II, to keep its definition outside of the jurisdiction of CONGRESS, in order to PREVENT Congress from creating Presidents with a statute!  I can’t help but marvel at those that are guilty of such ignorance, who could think otherwise, but at the same time, is Justice Roberts REALLY THIS CLUELESS, the CIA, Military, Judges, Attorneys DoJ etc? Give me a break! We are in BIG TROUBLE!

I get a kick out of people who argue that NBC in Article II is UNDEFINED, and then they proceed to look for a statute to define and give meaning to it when the answer is so obvious. They have things ass-backwards, and are ignorant of nature’s legal jurisdiction and natural rights, that do not come from government or statutes, but are just recognized and protected by government, in statutes. You do not apply statutory definitions to imply meaning in the Constitution, HA! HA! HA! The Constitution is the supreme statutory authority, it is controlling and just means what it means and just must be applied. It defines the statutes, not the other way around! The very fact that people who defend Obama with these arguments, in the way they are attempting, makes it an unlawful violation of process, attempting to REDEFINE NBC(parent) in Article II, to mean NBC(soil), by statute, instead of by Constitutional Amendment. This process alone is enough to invalidate their assertions that NBC(soil) is what is meant by NBC in Article II, and thus qualifies for President!  It is easy to make anyone arguing NBC(soil), look stupid and ignorant of law. I mean, what the hell did those poor writers, that were writing the Constitution, think they were writing, if they had to write in an undefined term that had to be filled in with a judge’s opinion of its definition and meaning some time later in the future? HA! HA! HA! The insanity of such a notion makes it difficult not to laugh at the source of such an obvious lunacy!

Obviously, we are talking about natural born, as an adjective, that describes the type of Citizen, in Article II. Since Citizen is capitalized, it is a PROPER NOUN, and is referring to AMERICAN citizens, in the LOYALTY CLAUSE of Article II section 1. This just means the people who are born by the laws of nature, fully subject to the natural authorizing authority from nature, not government, that grants natural inheritance. This would be your parents, and not government, which is NOT A NATURAL AUTHORITY, but is an artificially-created jurisdiction of “privilege” of authority, that grants citizenship, by the rule of the English Common Law Right of Kings, the right of SOIL, that was granted to the government by the People (American citizen parents). This means that NBC in Article II, PROHIBITS citizenships that are obtained by statutory “privilege” from qualifying for President, which PROHIBITS NBC(soil), like Obama.  This prevents Congress from writing a PRESIDENTIAL PRIVILEGE STATUTE for their buddies, and disenfranchising the American citizen dads and kids from owning their own government, the way we don’t own it now, under KING OBAMA.

The SUNSET CLAUSE of Article II section 1, (the part after the OR that makes exceptions for the citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is talking about naturally born BRITISH citizens, and is further proof that Obama is PROHIBITED BY THE SUNSET CLAUSE ALSO, SINCE IT HAS EXPIRED, because Obama inherited BRITISH loyalties at birth, from his dad.

American citizens, just like most others in the world, carry their jurisdiction with them wherever they go, even outside limited U.S. soil jurisdiction, just like a King does. If a Prince is born while the King is on vacation in some other kings jurisdiction, the Prince still inherits dad’s name, and citizenship, and right to rule over his dad’s government and demand loyalty from the people and government. American kids, born outside U.S. jurisdiction, still inherit father’s last name and political rights (citizenship) directly from dad, and are American citizens.  These are the FULLY SOVEREIGN citizens, like the ones that were created when the Constitution was adopted, and who were then born to American citizen parents.  These are the citizens being referred to in Article II, and the only ones that can qualify for President! You just naturally inherit this right as a birthright, obtainable only from fully American citizen parents (dad mostly). U only inherit germs, and the privilege from government of soil citizenship, from soil, not the naturally inherited right, from dad, to politically rule over your dad’s government. The very notion that Nature, U.S. law, or natural reality, can be any other way, is preposterous and absurd!

I hope this is useful. You have my permission to copy and redistribute.

God Bless and loving wishes,

General Jedi Pauly

RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!
http://jedipauly.blogspot.com/
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

[ Edited: 02 August 2009 04:52 AM by Jedi Pauly ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 12:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

What the hell is this drivel?

By this silly argument we are really citizens of the countries of which all our parents are citizens.  He argues that since Obama’s father wasn’t a U.S. citizen it doesn’t matter where Obama was born, but rather that he has to be a citizen of his father’s country (note that this male chauvinist assigns it to the male parent).  If we are to accept this, we must say that every president of the United States has been a usurper because their parents, traced back through their ancestry, is not a citizen of the U.S.  In fact, there are NO U.S. citizens other than American Indians. 

Just plain stupid.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 12:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25

WRONG. You obviously did not understand my post and have no legal or historic understanding of government or law in America.  If you think my post says that Obama is not a citizen, then my post has obviously gone right over your head.  That is not what I have said at all.  What I am saying, which is not my OPINION by the way, since I am just REPORTING the TRUTH and HISTORY and LAW as it has been for 200 years in America, until Obama, is that you must INHERIT your American citizenship from your citizens parents, for reasons of loyalty to America, and protection and empowerment for the President in his official duties, and not to be just a statutory President (by privilege of soil) which can not Prevent Congress from writing any “PRIVILEGE” of President statute they want, for the benefit of their friends.  You must inherit this right, just like a Prince inherits the right from his dad the KING, because the American People are SOVEREIGN in America.  This is a fact of life that you just refuse to accept, because you believe the American government is a DEMOCRACY, and not a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. (READ THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE).

Your claim that my post is “GARBAGE”, indicates your lack of education and knowledge.  For a representative from CFI, who is supposed to be about critical inquiry, you must do better than baseless emotional opinions to prove your point.  You could not have possibly spent enough time looking into this matter to determine if it was “garbage” or not.  I have spent MONTHS looking into this matter in a critical non-partisan way, and discovered what I have posted here.  It is fine if you want to disagree with it, that is your right, but you must PROVE it is “garbage”, in the same way I have PROVEN the case against Obama with logic, and reason, and law, and structure of government, and history, and investigation etc.

Unless you do this, then you will only show everyone that you are just a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION that acts as a front for Obama and the DEMOCRATS, against American interests, instead of a non-partisan organization that fosters critical thinking and truthful scientific discovery, which is what I HAVE MADE, and posted.  I thought that was what CFI was supposed to be about!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Oh well! Me and millions of other Americans are willing to accept Obama as our President, and I don’t personally care if rules were broken, or the Constitution was not followed. I like the Ruler- not the Rules!!!!!! Heee Heh Heh Heh..!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 01:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4621
Joined  2007-10-05

...I am just REPORTING the TRUTH and HISTORY and LAW as it has been for 200 years in America, until Obama, is that you must INHERIT your American citizenship from your citizens parents…

So George Washington was Constitutionally ineligible to be President?

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 01:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25
fotobits - 25 July 2009 01:04 PM


So George Washington was Constitutionally ineligible to be President?

No.  The founders wrote a SUNSET CLAUSE, into the Article II qualifications for President, in order to make a one time exception for natural born BRITISH citizens, which is what all the Colonials had been.  This permits George to be President. That is the part after the “OR”, right after is says only a natural born Citizen (proper noun meaning American citizen) can be President “OR”, a citizen of the States at the time of the Adoption.  If they had not written this in, they would have had to wait 35 years for an INHERITED American citizen, from the time of the Adoption, in order to have a qualified candidate for President.  Also, it would not be right to tell all of the Colonials, who had been born BRITISH, that they could not be President of the country that they just fought and died for, because they did not INHERIT an American citizenship from American citizen parents, so they made a one time exception.  That is called the SUNSET CLAUSE and it comes right after the “OR” that separates it from the LOYALTY test part, which requires your dad and mom to be American citizens so that you INHERIT your citizenship from your parents and soil is irrelevant.  This is also called a natural born citizen.  It is just natural born by PARENTS right as sovereign natural beings with legal rights, and not natural born by the Common Law SOIL right of kings.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20

Fun fact:  Our 8th President, Martin Van Buren, was the first one to be born in the US.  And English was not his first language.

 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25
VYAZMA - 25 July 2009 01:01 PM

Oh well! Me and millions of other Americans are willing to accept Obama as our President, and I don’t personally care if rules were broken, or the Constitution was not followed. I like the Ruler- not the Rules!!!!!! Heee Heh Heh Heh..!

Unfortunately for you and the many millions, we are not a DEMOCRACY of MOB RULE.  We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and the LAW is PARAMOUNT and not the WILL of the PEOPLE.  If a person has lied, like Obama, and was never qualified to be a candidate because his dad was not an American citizen, as REQUIRED FOR LOYALTY TO AMERICA, and for PROTECTION FROM BLACKMAIL AND FOR EMPOWERMENT IN TREATY NEGOTIATIONS, which is why the framers required NBC(parents and inheritance) and not NBC(soil) which is just a statutory privilege, and not a natural birth right, then he must be removed.  That is what the LAW and PROPER PROCESS is, to ensure that MY rights are protected, even if you do not care about them, and the millions of Americans who’s legal and political rights are being trampled upon.  You have your loyalties in the wrong place.  You are supposed to be loyal to the Constitution, and Law, and People in America, and American interests, not a President or a political party.  Try being a responsible AMERICAN instead of a DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4621
Joined  2007-10-05

It only took about 30 seconds of searching to find this from the Cornell University Law School web site:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Obama was born in Hawaii, thus he is eligible to serve as President of the United States. QED.

[ Edited: 25 July 2009 01:48 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 01:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  136
Joined  2009-07-25
VYAZMA - 25 July 2009 01:01 PM

Oh well! Me and millions of other Americans are willing to accept Obama as our President, and I don’t personally care if rules were broken, or the Constitution was not followed. I like the Ruler- not the Rules!!!!!! Heee Heh Heh Heh..!

And so, you admit your selfish criminal nature, and you disqualify yourself as a person who should be given the right to vote or have a say, since you do not care if laws are broken, as long as you get what you want.  By definition, this makes you a Nazi Fascist.  I am sorry, but that is all the more reason that our REPUBLIC needs to be restored, and Obama must be removed, thanks to people like you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

That is what the LAW and PROPER PROCESS is, to ensure that MY rights are protected, even if you do not care about them, and the millions of Americans who’s legal and political rights are being trampled upon.  You have your loyalties in the wrong place.  You are supposed to be loyal to the Constitution, and Law, and People in America, and American interests, not a President or a political party.  Try being a responsible AMERICAN instead of a DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN!

1. Your gonna learn to roll with the punches, one way or another!
2. Peoples rights get infringed upon everyday, so get in line!
3. By definition, where I choose to place my loyalties, defines my loyalties therein. So my loyalties could never, ever, actually be misplaced!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4621
Joined  2007-10-05
Jedi Pauly - 25 July 2009 01:44 PM
VYAZMA - 25 July 2009 01:01 PM

Oh well! Me and millions of other Americans are willing to accept Obama as our President, and I don’t personally care if rules were broken, or the Constitution was not followed. I like the Ruler- not the Rules!!!!!! Heee Heh Heh Heh..!

And so, you admit your selfish criminal nature, and you disqualify yourself as a person who should be given the right to vote or have a say, since you do not care if laws are broken, as long as you get what you want.  By definition, this makes you a Nazi Fascist.  I am sorry, but that is all the more reason that our REPUBLIC needs to be restored, and Obama must be removed, thanks to people like you.

Your snark went right over his head, VYAZMA.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 July 2009 01:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20

Jedi Pauly,
I gather you distinguish your “Natural Born Citizen” argument from the typical “birther” argument that Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen at all.  Are you willing to denounce those other kinds of birthers as, pick one, misguided, wrong, fanatical, crazy?  What do you suppose drives their opposition?

 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 34
1