Friday, 10 March 2017

An Interesting Question Regarding The NBC Issue...

...And Where We Are At In General

First, a little overlap (from earlier today) to set the scene:

from ‘Malik Obama’s ‘Kenyan Birth Certificate’ For Brother Is Fake’ - March 10 
(WND details their investigation into this matter 8 years ago.)

kibitzer3 12 minutes ago (March 10)

Let's get the facts straight. And the basic fact is that it doesn't matter WHERE he was born, because his father (his purported, legally attested-to father, that is) was not a U.S. citizen. He failed to be eligible right there; no birth location factor necessary. Because the definition of a 'natural born' citizen at the time that it was codified in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement for the office of the presidency, and as easily attested to by the historical record (too long a story to go into its detail here), is a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens". (It's from the definitive tome of the day on such matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations'.) And that eligibility requirement for that particular office STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.

So: When Justice is served, all of the legislation that he signed into law, and all of the E.O.'s and P.D.'s that he issued, and all of the appointments that he made - including to the SCOTUS, and lesser courts - go with him, into the trash bin. It is to be as if he were never there. For, he was never there legally. And we will have learned a painful lesson: Not to trust our erstwhile masters, in a self-governing nation, where The People are the sovereign, but to take responsibility for our own actions. Personally. And nationally.


In all the time that has been spent trying to 'create' an authentic birth certificate for Barack Obama, none was successful, and there are many American's who never bought into the 'coverup'...never believing we had a legitimate president in Obama. But there was another element in the whole story that I was never able to get an answer to. It is well known that Barack Obama was registered in school in Indonesia, and to be a student in Indonesia, one had to be registered as a citizen of that country. It has long been my understanding that no one who holds, or has held citizenship in another country can be president of the United States. I can't find the wording in the Constitution, but would love to hear from someone more learned than I to respond. As we know, he did have to renounce his American citizenship to attend school in Indonesia, and I have felt this was one more reason his was a 'fake presidency'...just goes to prove that being president in this obscure way certainly can create havoc. Also, with all the seeming lies surrounding Barack Obama, wouldn't it make sense that he be brought up on charges and sentenced to prison? If so, I would only hope I can live long enough to see it happen. However, I feel I can rest assured that God will take care of Barack Obama and those with him who hate America and its values.


         kibitzer3 Jean Witte a minute ago 
  • The Constitution does not reference any change after birth, except in an effective way. The Constitution simply requires, as one of the eligibility requirements for that office, that the person be a 'natural born' citizen; which, there is considerable historical evidence for, meant at the time a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens". (E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations,' Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212.) The point being to make sure that the occupant of that office, who would as well, then, become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, had - or has - NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. So, if a person, even after their birth AS a 'natural born' citizen, CHANGES their citizenship status, they could EFFECTIVELY change their eligibility status. That has never been taken to court.

  • But Obama failed at the first hurdle. The rest is speculation.

  • (to original post in this thread)
    kibitzer3 an hour ago 

  • Exactly. I have a question for you tho. Why do people keep trying to insert the 14th Amendment into this? I've read it but I don't see where it says the requirements are changed. It's always baffled me.

  • Reply

    • kibitzer3
      dalek2 6 minutes ago (March 11)

    • It's a con job. The same way that the 14th has been used - erroneously - to create a category of what has come to be called 'anchor babies'.

    • 1) The 14th only talks about 'citizenship'. There is nothing in it that conveys 'natural born' citizenship on anybody. That is a smokescreen. The original definition of a 'natural born' citizen - i.e., a person born in the country of parents who are citizens - AND THAT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY - still stands, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary. No Acts of Congress or other waffling jobs need apply. (And that goes for the 1790 Naturalization Act; which was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act ANYWAY.)

    • 2) "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens..." The key is the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That rules out anybody who is not either there legally or in any way is still under the jurisdiction of their home country. Illegal aliens are still 'subject to the jurisdiction' of their home countries [so, therefore, are their children]; the same with 'holiday goers' attracted to give birth in this country because shyster lawyers have misread the 14th, and the SCOTUS has failed to act properly to the con-job matter.

    • We have a huge job ahead of us, helping Pres. Trump to drain the swamp. But drain it, we must. Or we will lose our country. No stone must be left unturned in setting this nation back to rights.

Should this matter give us some pause, as food for thought??

I don't think so.

We are due for a major change in 'the scene' anyway.

As I just said earlier today/this evening to a friend who emailed me a report from Hawaii that they were looking to 'prescribe' a home for the 'condition' of homelessness, and at first I expressed concern for anything that might smack of the state declaring somebody with a 'mental illness' - as in the old Soviet Union for rebels to their New Order of Things - but was assured that they weren't couching their initiative in those terms, my reply:

'Well, comes the evolution, all of this [sort of thing] is going to change anyway.' 

What did I mean?

I meant that we are about to enter in a New Era, first with a release of huge amounts of monies for 'worthy cause' projects.  You see, there is enough gold in the world (kept hidden, for purposes of human control, but facing exposure now) for no one ever to be in such a strait anymore, as homelessness.  All it takes is for humanity to go back to a gold standard.

Well.  Not all.

But the start.

Of something very, very wondrous.

And timely.

At last.

No comments: