Sunday, October 25, 2015

Once More Into the Breach, You Make the Decision!!!

I have written over the years about Obama’s ineligibility for President of the United States of America (POTUS)….
It is, and has been, my opinion, based on my research, that Obama is a fraud, usurper, and a treasonous person, and really a man without a country who has claimed the United States of America as his nation because no other country would sanction him based on his inability to produce verifiable documents.

The US citizens, regardless of his lack of documents, voted him into office twice having no clue who he is nor where he really came from.  Obama's roots are certainly not in the black community population of the US dating back to their pre-revolutionary roots.  We know his mother was white (Communist), verified, his father was a black Kenyan citizen (Communist), verified, and that should pretty much tell of his origin and upbringing.
Was he raised in Hawaii?  Yes, from an elementary age, by his mother’s parents.   Obama’s grandparents were also Communist US citizens (CPUSA), verified.

Obama was brought back to the US by this mother, without a US passport, from Indonesia.  Any thread there?  His mother had earlier removed Obama from her passport when she renewed that passport while living in Indonesia; so unless he held an Indonesian passport, which no one can find, he was smuggled back into the US, somehow, by his mother.  The process by which he returned would hence make him an undocumented (illegal) alien since at that time he held Indonesian citizenship through his adopting father Lolo Soetoro; and Obama was known, in Indonesia, as Barry Soetoro (documented & verified).  Anymore threads here?
Further, Obama’s in-house attorney published his birth certificate which has been confirmed a fraudulent document and certified as such by several forensic document specialists.

Obama also uses a SS number which was never issued to him, (verified); and his Selective Service Registration Form and card has been certified as forgeries, (verified).  In light of all this no one, in congress, or the Justice Dept. has had the guts or ability to live up to their oaths of office and bring this criminal conspirator to justice.  In my opinion we have an illegal alien president and he probably should move to a sanctuary city immediately after he leaves our white house in January 2017.

Although my interests remain for what I wrote above I have another compelling interest for the election cycle we are now in; so let’s move on.

We have an election coming in November 2016; are we going to repeat the same mistakes again in this election and vote for any one of three ineligible people now running for POTUS, should one of them becomes the RNC nominee?  If so would the RNC and the voters then be saying, two wrongs make it right to have an ineligible person serving as POTUS or VPOTUS (same rules apply)?

If so the voters are, in my opinion, Progressives since it is the Progressive’s Agenda to change our Constitution by acclimation through their messaging to the people rather than making changes through the amendment process to allow any US citizen, no matter how their citizenship is obtained, to seek and hold the office.
All three of these candidates Cruz, Rubio and Jindal serve now in areas of our governments where they are eligible to serve and they do a good job for those who elected them.  Frankly I like all three of them, although I do not always agree with them on every issue or stance they take.  But that’s the nature of agreeing to disagree when their message does not resonate with me.  The bottom line here is each of these candidates running for office know they are not eligible for POTUS, two are attorneys, one has clerked at the Supreme Court of the United States, and in each case these candidates are simply self-serving themselves by pretending they are eligible for POTUS.  Do your own research and decide who these candidates are!
These candidate's tactics lead me to believe their Constitutional Conservative credentials are not what they pretend them to be, otherwise they would not be running for the office of POTUS.  The question is, do each of them have Progressive leanings or are they truly Progressives in hiding?

Being a Progressive is a choice, not a disease, but do not cloak it as something else while hiding their true agenda.
Our constitution was written by men who had sacrifice their 'all' to be able to sit down and come up with a document that declared our nation’s independence from the British Empire; fought a war of revolution against a tyrant king, and then formed a new nation under republican (not a political party) principles and were able, after time, to get the ratification necessary to form our Constitutional Republic; which still stands today, much to the shagreen of the Progressive Movement;  which today is infested with Socialists, Marxists, and Communist who infiltrated the movement over the last eighty plus years.

The Progressive Movements (Democrat and Republican) was formed by Presidents Wilson and T Roosevelt to change the body politic when their respective parties rejected them, and keeping with their ideals that as our nation aged our constitution need to 'progress' along with the new times.  This our Founding Fathers understood and provided a mechanism called the 'Amendment Process'.

Little did the Progressives of old know that in a few short years their movements would become something else under the same name, as their coattail groups grew and became the face of the Progressive Movement in an effort to conceal their true identities from the original progressives and the public.
What most of the Progressives of old do not understand is that the progression from a Constitutional Republic form of government takes the following steps a) to a Democracy, b) to Socialism, c) to Marxism/Communism and that during the process the Democrats and Socialists become irrelevant and the authoritarian government, Marxist/Communist takes over to rule the country.

The Road to Serfdom, by Hayck, is an excellent book that explains the paths and the outcomes the people and nation will go through in their transformation from one form one type of government to another.  Is that really what you would want for your children, and grandchildren?

The Progressive Movement of today our national terrorist group hell bent on taking our Constitutional Republic down from within our federal government and, in my opinion, the most dangerous element and movement in our nation today; because they work from within out governments, congress and our white house.  It is time to clean house!

The article which follows was written by J.B. Williams and was published in the American Sovereign in December 2010.  This article explains the US Constitution presidential eligibility requirements more thoroughly than I can explain them when it comes to eligibility to become President of the United States of America and the Commander in Chief.  I have highlighted some areas to bring attention.

How to act like an American

What does Natural Born Citizen really mean?

In American Sovereign on December 29, 2010 at 10:49 am

By J.B. Williams
December 29, 2010
"International leftists and anti-American Democratic Socialists like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews care, that’s who! These folks are the real “birthers,” desperate to prove that Obama is US born, with absolutely no help from their political messiah.
They care where Obama was born because they want to make the issue of presidential constitutional eligibility all about birth place, aka “native-born” status, instead of “natural-born” status, which has nothing to do with birth place.
Leftists want anyone “born on US soil” to be eligible for the office of president, including “anchor babies” and even 14th Amendment citizens, none of whom are “natural-born citizens” of the United States. They want to rewrite Article II – Section I – Clause V via precedent and so far, they are doing a fine job of doing just that!
Leftists and even many ill-informed on the political right have worked tirelessly to make the issue of Obama’s eligibility all about nothing more than his birth place, alleged to be Hawaii. But birth place is only a demonstration of “native-born” status, not “natural-born” status.
History is Clear
Few modern day lawyers know what the US Constitution says or what it means. But historians do know and history is quite clear. History begins with understanding the difference between “natural law” and man-made statute. The term natural born citizen is based in natural law, and as such, it is a foundation for many man-made statutes.
During the formation of our new country, it was necessary to establish national sovereignty for the purpose of national security. The terms used to accomplish this had to meet standing international laws and treaties of the time, in order for our nation to be recognized by all other nations as a sovereign nation with sovereign citizens and citizens’ rights.
The international standard in place then and now is known as The Law of Nations. We see this term referenced in our US Constitution under Article I – Section VIII – the Enumerated Powers section of our Constitution, wherein it states that Congress shall have the power – “To define and punish – Offenses against the Law of Nations;note that Law of Nations is capitalized, referring to the international treaty defining national sovereignty and citizenship the world over.
To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well. – More history here
The Law of Nations treaty is the foundation for our national sovereignty and the term “natural born citizen” is found, and was studied by our nation’s founders, in a book written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. The book was a scholarly in-depth look at what constitutes a sovereign nation, a citizen and citizen rights, recognized throughout the civilized world.
In it, Vattel defines “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” – which became the standard that must be met by anyone seeking the highest office in our land, the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.
Book one chapter 19, § 212. Of the citizens and natives. – reads as follows – pay particular attention to the sections in BOLD.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The following section has created confusion for some – “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Yet this statement is not in conflict with the balance of the overall section. Both “native” and “natural” born citizens are indeed “citizens” by birth, born in the country (on US soil), of parents (two parents) who are citizens. This means that anchor babies, while “citizens” due to 14th Amendment laws, are neither “native” nor “natural” born citizens. They are only “citizens, via man-made laws related to immigration and naturalization statutes.
However, the sections pertaining specifically to the topic of “natural-born” citizens is very clear – “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. – The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; – I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Intentional Confusion in the Political Class
The political left, which has worked for more than a hundred years to dismantle the US Constitution via judicial fiat and broad interpretations of constitutional text that borders on subversion and treason, hopes to limit the term “natural-born citizen” to nothing more than birth place, or “native-born” status and they don’t even see a need for a legitimate birth certificate from the applicant for President.


The political right hopes to rewrite the term “natural-born citizen” as well, adding to the “condition of their fathers” requirement put in place by our founders, a birth place and mother’s citizenship requirement.

People who opposed John McCain’s bid for the White House developed this interpretation from thin air for the purpose of disqualifying McCain’s campaign for the Presidency. However, this interpretation is just as improper as the left’s interpretation, which asserts that essentially all citizens are natural-born citizens, including 14th Amendment naturalization citizens.
Intentional Misdirection
As Chris Matthews attempts in the MSNBC video clip linked here, leftists continue to speak about whether or not Barack Obama is a legal US citizen. Of course, the debate is not really over whether or not Obama is a legal US citizen, although that might be a valid question under his highly unusual family circumstances.
The constitutional question is based upon whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural-born citizen” as required for the office of President under Article II – Section I of the US Constitution, which reads – “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution (our founding fathers), shall be eligible to the office of President;”
According to the actual definition of natural born citizen placed in our Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the Unites States no matter where on earth he may have been born. At birth, he naturally inherited the “condition of his father,” who was at no time in his life a US citizen.
Barack Obama’s father was a foreign national, a citizen of Kenya – then ruled by Britain. Inheriting the condition of his father at birth, Barack Hussein Obama was born with the natural citizenship rights of his father, a British subject and citizen of Kenya, not the United States.
As such, Barack Hussein Obama was born with foreign loyalties and as a result, he violates the natural born citizen requirement for the office he currently holds and everyone including all members of the US Supreme Court know it.
Barack Hussein Obama is precisely the type of citizen the founders were attempting to block from holding the highest office in this land. Yet, Barack Hussein Obama is the sitting President of the United States, in great part due to the intentional misinformation floated and perpetuated on the matter.
No Matter Where He Was Born
Was Barack Hussein Obama born in Hawaii?
The truth is – nobody knows because Obama refuses to provide any legitimate proof answering this question, not even a simple birth certificate that every other natural born citizen of the USA has in their possession.
Was Barack Hussein Obama adopted by Lolo Soetoro as a citizen of Indonesia and did Obama naturalize to US citizenship upon return from Indonesia?
All evidence available says that Obama was indeed adopted by Lolo Soetoro, making him a citizen of Indonesia at the time. What happened next, nobody knows, once again, because Obama refuses to answer the questions.
Does Barack Hussein Obama have dual or divided loyalties?
Based upon his known family history as well as his focus on international interests versus national interests, one must honestly conclude that Barack Hussein Obama does indeed have at best, dual and divided loyalties.
Does being born in Hawaii answer the question of constitutional eligibility?
No… a birth certificate for Hawaii will result in establishing only the place of his birth, his “native born” status, NOT his “natural-born” status. His natural-born status is already answered in Obama’s own statements, that he is the son of a foreign national. If a birth certificate shows someone other than Barack Obama Sr. as his natural birth father, then Barack Hussein Obama is a fraud and cannot hold office for that reason.
So, I say again, who cares where Barack Hussein Obama was born?
A much better question is who is going to remove this fraudulent thug from office in handcuffs?
If Republicans don’t address this issue upon swearing into power in January, then Republicans are complicit, the constitution is dead, and the people are on their own. The American patriot either gets this one right, or they get nothing else right. The world is not laughing at Obama, they are laughing at the ignorant spineless Americans who prefer politicking over their own constitution. As long as we fail to clean up our own house, the rest of the world has no reason to respect our opinions on anything else.
We right this wrong, or all wrongs stand! The entire free world is watching and so far, nobody is impressed!
© 2010 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of Freedom Force USA and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the power to the right people in America.

So bottom line where do each of you stand.

No comments:

Post a Comment