A fellow who has a spiritual blog on the Internet has responded to me regarding my ‘revisionist’ take on the subject of Obama’s birth certificate, as I recounted in my blog of, and posted here on, December 1. Although he is not keen to continue to get into the subject any further - preferring to concentrate on The New World aborning - he has kindly offered me a chance to come up with an article on the whole subject, of ‘Obama’. (Background note: His channeled sources consistently refer to Obama as a ‘high spiritual being’. I objected to that take on the matter, and cautioned him on just taking their word for it; to take the matter into his own head and heart.) This summary of that subject may never see the light of day on that blog; herewith my ‘offerings’ - and as well, as a good summary of the matter, I feel.
(N.B. The response directly below was occasioned by his brief reference to having come across reports of three different possible ‘takes’ on Obama’s birth father. I have edited my response a bit, for further clarity.)
December 1
Thanks for your open-minded response, [person]. I appreciate it. And I will give your kind, and very fair, offer some thought. I'll just have to figure out how to phrase the 'story' best for your audience.
Stan
P.S. Briefly, as to the question regarding his birth father: I have heard, apparently, the same suggestions that you have. 1) The mentor his mother chose for him in his youth, and 'drinking buddy' of her dad: Frank Marshall Davis. An actual card-carrying Communist, who was instrumental in shaping his early thinking; and with whom he has a fair resemblance. And as far as resemblances go: 2) The same for the Indonesian founder of the Subud movement, with which there is a family link as well.* But the closest resemblance, and which brings up the most intriguing story, is that 3) he was the offspring of (Marxist) Malcolm X with a Jewish Communist 'groupie' in NYC, and was ‘parked’ with a communist family in the network in order to be raised for future political use [without the Malcolm X albatross hanging around his neck]. This story has some meat to it from the fact that there was a mysterious woman who was seen sitting with him during a NY Knicks basketball game once, and who was also mysteriously along with the Obama entourage on a visit to the UK, both during his presidency. And that there is a video on YouTube of a retired CIA man who says that they ran a DNA test on BHO Jr. - from both saliva and fingerprints from a glass of water - and that from it, he was proven not to be related to either BHO Sr. or Stanley Ann D. But he didn't say how they had checked out those two facts; so I only mention it as being part of the curious story about this Man of Mystery.
But as you say: Let's concentrate on the New World. But: 'Tiz a puzzlement.
And at some point, needs to be worked out to an honest conclusion. For all involved to be able to move on, clean and clear.
-
* And also with the woman in Hawaii who signed off on his bc; and who died under mysterious circumstances, in a plane ‘ditching’ just offshore in which no one else perished, and who had mixed reports on her autopsy, one being that she died by drowning, the other, more 'accepted’/media-reported one that it was by a heart condition; the mystery occasioned by the fact that they all had ample time to don lifejackets, with the ‘conspiracy theory’ being that the drowning report was the true version of the matter and was due to one of the other occupants having deliberately paddled over to her and held her head under water. Which wouldn’t be the first time such an outcome resulted from such a politically hot situation.
[N.B. As to the idea that another woman was his actual birth mother: The idea is supported by the fact that a female acquaintance of Stanley Ann's where she had taken the extremely young baby with her to go to college in Washington State said that she didn't have the first idea of how to take care of a baby. It was as though she had had no prenatal classes or advice of any kind. Which also 'matches' with the blunt fact that there is no actual proof that Stanley Ann was ever pregnant at that time at all. [Outside of the circumstantial evidence about the contretemps regarding his supposed birth in Kenya. And the Hawaiian hospital involved never officially having claimed his birth there.]
And she did take his name off of her passport renewal form...
It was all as though she had said at some point: 'Over to you, Frank. You raise him. I can't be bothered.'
P.S. See marthatrowbridgeterribletruthdotwordpressdotcom on the 'Malcolm X' angle.]
P.S. See marthatrowbridgeterribletruthdotwordpressdotcom on the 'Malcolm X' angle.]
---
December 2
(To Person): Herewith a crack at an article on this subject.
-
There are those, and especially those auditing this site, who are of the opinion - have been led to believe - that Barack Hussein Obama is a high spiritual being. That could be true, if you consider him to have been someone who has been working to bring The Play to a positive end deliberately and knowingly from the Dark side of The Process.
Consider; and keeping in mind that this is not a rehash of the ’birther’ argument. (That was a red herring, to the real matter regarding his eligibility for the office, or lack thereof.)
One of the eligibility requirements for the office of the presidency of the United States - and that federal office only; testifying to its special nature, in the minds of the constitutional Framers - is that the person needs to be, quote, a “natural born” citizen. What does that mean? More specifically: What did that term mean to the constitutional Framers who codified it in their contract for that particular office?? There is abundant historical evidence that the understanding of those Framers was that it referred to a person, quote, “born in the country, of parents who are citizens” thereof. Which makes eminent sense. The point having been to make sure that the person occupying that particular office - who would as well, then, become the Commander in Chief of the nation’s military forces (a consideration that it is known that they took to mind) - had NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Had SOLE ALLEGIANCE to, in this case, the U.S.
What is the quote above from? It is from the definitive tome of the day on such matters, Emer de Vattel’s ‘The Law of Nations’. (Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212. Look it up for yourself. It’s on the Internet.) How do we know that the Framers used this definition in their considerations, or even knew about it? One good reason: It is known that Benjamin Franklin, their elder and well-respected mentor, who just [so] happened to be sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself to those proceedings, had three copies of that tome in his possession. (One of which [and as an indication of how highly he thought of the work; besides there being an extant letter of warm appreciation of his to the man who sent those copies to him] he gave years before to the Continental Congress, for their edification on such nation-building matters, as the colonists started thinking seriously about liberation from Mother England, and what that might entail, as far as nation-building was concerned.) If the Framers were not quite sure what that term and proposal meant, all they would have had to do was ask him.
Some naysayers to this strict definition of the term - that is, that the person occupying the Oval Office needs to have been born on the soil (or its equivalent, as in an embassy) of citizen parents (PLURAL) - have tried to use the argument that there are only two kinds of citizens, naturalized or natural born. Wrong - and as demonstrated at this very same Constitutional Convention, conveniently enough, when Alexander Hamilton, a delegate himself to those self-same proceedings, made a proposal that the president need only be, quote, “born a Citizen” - and his proposal WAS SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent category of citizen, i.e., needing to have been born of both ‘the soil’ and ‘the blood’ (‘jus soli’ and ‘jus sanguinis’ in legalese). Another argument that has been raised by naysayers is that the Framers were going by English Common Law. But that refers to ‘natural born SUBJECTS’. These were certainly not ‘subjects’ any longer. They were freemen - and damn proud of it, after having fought a long and bloody War of Independence to be able to claim the right to declare their sovereignty over themselves. No; they were CLEARLY going by American Common Law, or what is also called Natural Law.
It has also been argued that the definition was changed by the Naturalization Act of 1790. Those naysayers (which include, ahem, backers of Sen. Ted Cruz for the office) fail to point out that that Act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 ON THIS VERY ISSUE - that it was misleading in its use of the NBC term. And that repeal was signed off on by no less a pair of constitutional experts than James Madison - known to history as the Father of the Constitution - then in his capacity as a Congressman, and G. Washington, then as President, after having been Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings. (And in which capacity he had received a letter from John Jay, a noted statesman of the day - and who, not so incidentally, turned out to become the first Chief Justice of the new nation’s Supreme Court - who, during the discussions at the Convention on the eligibility requirements for the office of the presidency, suggested to Washington: “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 commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.” (Letter dated July 25, 1787.) With Britain ‘breathing down the former colonists’ necks,’ seeking any way to get back into power over here, this was wise advice.) And in any event, no Act of Congress could change such a substantive part of the constitutional contract. That eligibility requirement for that particular office STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.
If all of this is true - and it is - why, then, did not the Republicans challenge the Democrats and Obama on the issue? Good question; and it brings us back to the historical record again. Where it turns out that both major political parties of cur day tried a total of eight times between them, between 2003 and ’08 alone, to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on this very issue - proposals all of which had this issue as their common denominator, in attempts to water this requirement down - and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this particular issue. So, what did they do? It is obvious what they did: They colluded, in an attempt to do an end-around play on the American people, and the Constitution, on the issue. And with their control between them of the Mainstream Media, they obviously figured that they could get away with their deceitful action.
Not allowing for the rise of the Internet, and the Independent Media, in the country. To help educate the citizenry to such cases of chicanery, and deceit, from the Establishment.
The bottom line to all this [besides the fact that I am saying that the American government needs to come down. For new governance to take its place. - Ed.]:
Unless you believe that High Spiritual Beings would countenance deceit in the working-out of The Plan, you cannot, in all good conscience, entertain the notion that the man who took to calling himself Barack Hussein Obama in his adult years understood himself to be a ‘high spiritual being,’ or that said HSBs were correct in their (channeled) assessment of the man. For, the man was not eligible for the office which he occupied, not just for one day, or one week, or one month, or one year, or four years. But for a second term as well.
Which, as far as I am concerned, has worked to help separate ‘the wheat from the chaff’ in this Harvesting that is going on.
At this time of the Conclusion to
The Play
that has been going on for a very long time. With each of us having taken on many different roles over its ‘run’. Now a prince/princess, now a pauper. Now a male, now a female (or an incarnate soul of indeterminate gender identity). Now of one race or religion or nationality, now of another. All, in order to learn lessons from the various perspectives.
Life being a school. And the purpose being - having been - to graduate.
A stage of which we are facing
as we speak.
—
(I then told this person that I was “amenable to suggestions for changes in this article. It’s a tricky business, trying to figure out how to express this sort of story to this sort of audience.
Anyway: Over to you.”)
—
What am I getting to in all this? Why ‘bother’??
Because I feel that a ‘setting to rights’ needs to take place. In America; and elsewhere. For The Last Test, for those wishing to engage in
Ascension.
Out of this 3D realm of duality, and polarity. Into the Light of a, the, New Day.
Where we move beyond the need for a cutting edge against which to hone ourselves.
Because we, there, don more of our true bodies.
Call them Light bodies. Closer, in frequency, to
our Higher Selves.
Which we are on the verge of inheriting.
As we speak.
Those of us, that is to say,
who make the grade.
Which proves that we are beyond the pull of the Dark side any longer.
To say; the need for the Dark side any longer.
In our process of Emergence.
From the equivalent of our chrysalis.
Into our full, glorious, colorful, potential.
As a full-blown co-creator, with
The All That Is.
Hallowed Be Thy Name.
No comments:
Post a Comment