|
I'll
let God have the first word:
Deuteronomy
17:15 "be sure to
appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among
your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a
brother Israelite."
Our
Constitutional requirement may have come from the Bible! I was unaware
of that before making my offer.
Part
of the reason I made my offer was so I could further gather and share
information, and I find controversy and debate and investigation to be
fun. So, here's a brief on what I know after 300 emails in nearly
two days, many from greedy and angry know-it-all's, and many from supportive
and helpful researchers.
On who
lies the burden of proof? Even for regular citizenship, it lies on
Obama, so says the State Department. These are complex issues,
because it involves not only the place where born, but also one's parent's
nationality and/or citizenship, and as we know, people can have two parents
of all different nationalities and citizenship, and even be born in a another
place, creating complexity.
The
State Department has a 103 page document on "ACQUISITION OF U.S.
CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT":
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
The
State Department said, "The
burden of proving a claim to U.S. citizenship, including blood relationship
and legal relationship, where applicable, is on the person making such
claim."
And
that's merely for plain old US citizenship, not "natural born"
citizenship, which could be even more complex.
The
State Department also asserts that "the
fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional
purposes."[14]
Note
that! Even "natural born" status given by statute may not
work for Constitutional purposes!
How
could that be? Let me guess. "Natural born" citizen
status can be given by statute to a foreign born child if both of his parents
are US citizens, but perhaps the State Department is recognizing that such a
law would be superceded by the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the
land, and those who interpret it, such as the Supreme Court.
Many
have claimed that the Constitution does not define "natural born
citizen."
But
there are clear legal distinctions between a "natural born
citizen", which is different from a naturalized
"citizen". According to the 14th Amendment, anyone born or
"naturalized" in the US becomes a citizen, but not necessarily a
"natural born citizen" as that wording was not used in the 14th
Amendment.
Confusing?
Yes! This issue is what most people are confused about: A person
born in the USA is a citizen, but is not necessarily a "natural
born" citizen, because even regular citizenship also depends on your
parents, as the State Department clearly acknowledges in their 103 page
document, over and over again.
Arnold
Schwarzenegger is a clear famous case of being a US citizen, but not a
natural born citizen. Arnold was naturalized, he became a US
citizen after his birth, and most people know he is not eligible to be
President.
Also,
people can become US citizens at birth, by being born in the US to
foreigners, via the 14th Amendment, but it would not necessarily make them a
"natural born" citizen either. People forget that.
It is
clear that if you have three things, such as both parents being citizens of
the nation, and being born in the nation, you would be undoubtedly, a
"natural born" citizen.
But if
one of those three things is in doubt, then natural born status is in doubt,
implied the Supreme Court.
Minor
v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction
between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “The
Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort
must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature
of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted
that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became
themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
Here's
my understanding and explanation of why:
There
are provisions for one or two US citizens bearing a child overseas, that
child could still be a "natural born" US citizen, but that's only
by statute, and might not be enough, for Constitutional purposes, according
to the State Department, remember.
Therefore,
a similar situation could be true. A child born to foreign parents,
born not in the nation of his parents, such as in the USA, would have
citizenship of his parent's nation, and also be a "14th Amendment US
citizen", but not a "natural born" US citizen.
This
appears to be the case with Obama.
Obama's
father was Kenyan, and thus, his father could not give any "natural born
citizen" status to Obama, except Kenyan citizenship, (or British).
Obama's
mother was American, but 17 or 18, depending on the reports. She was
too young to give US citizenship to Obama by blood only, which is crucial for
the circumstance of being born overseas, for which she would have to be
19.
From
the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act):
http://algiers.usembassy.gov/crba.html
2)
Born to one U.S. citizen and one alien parent
Born
before or on November 13, 1986
The U.S. citizen parent
must have been physically present in the United States for a cumulative
period (or periods totaling) ten years before the birth of the child, at
least five years of which were after the U.S. citizen parent reached the age
of 14. If this requirement is met, the child acquires U.S. citizenship under
the provisions of Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.'
But even if Obama's mother qualified, that would still only give "US
citizen" status, not "natural born" status.
Yes,
that's for foreign born children.
It
appears that if Obama was born overseas, and obviously Obama's mother didn't
qualify to give him US citizenship, as she was too young, she may have found
another simple way to get regular US citizenship for her son, which I
speculate on a few paragraphs below.
Links
for further research:
www.EligibilityQuestions.com
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2009/07/18/video-orly-taitz-explains-why-she-believes-president-obama-is-not-eligible-to-serve-as-commander-in-chief/
The San Francisco Examiner remains unconvinced, as of today, July 29th, by
the Hawaiian short form, and by the recent "congressional
resolutions".
http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Orange-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m7d29-White-House-attempts-to-quell-birthers-rings-hollow
Many
people have tried to claim my reward by sending this link:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
But it
does not remotely address the key questions, and says that you cannot obtain
a "long form", when a picture of the long form for another child
from one day after Obama was allegedly born, is here:
A
Hawaii Long Form Certificate from 1961
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347
An
interesting "argument" or "evidence" is that there is a
"birth announcement" in a Hawaiian newspaper. A birth
announcement in a newspaper is not proof of being "natural born",
nor even US born, as anyone can place a birth announcement.
Shockingly,
it was apparently enough to convince Hillary Clinton's camp to give up the
issue. Maybe because they didn't realize that being born in the USA,
(which that implied, but did not prove) would only be enough, maybe, to
become a 14th Amendment citizen, but not enough to become a natural born
citizen.
That
Hillary gave up the issue, was apparently enough to convince Ann Coulter that
there is "nothing to this issue". Really? To trust
Hillary's judgment? Based on a newspaper announcement is all that's
needed? Right. Wow.
I
suppose I should place a newspaper blurb that Obama is Santa Clause, willing
to give everyone their every wish! Some people will believe
anything! We "birthers" as they call us, are not the gullible
ones here!
A
newspaper announcement might have been necessary to create documentation for
an "application for registration of birth abroad".
If
Obama was born in Kenya, and if "no proof of birth" was available,
his mother could apply for the "certification of live birth" by
creating some kind of document like a baptismal certificate, or perhaps such
as placing a newspaper birth announcement.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f3829c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=f3829c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
22cfr
\ 22 CFR \ PART 50—NATIONALITY
PROCEDURES \ § 50.5 Application for registration of
birth abroad.
§ 50.5 Application
for registration of birth abroad.
- - -
The applicant shall be required to submit proof of the child's birth,
identity and citizenship meeting the evidence requirements of subpart C of
part 51 of this subchapter and shall include:
(a)
Proof of child's birth. Proof of child's birth usually consists of, but is
not limited to, an authentic copy of the record of the birth filed with local
authorities, a baptismal certificate, a military hospital certificate of
birth, or an affidavit of the doctor or the person attending the birth. If no
proof of birth is available, the person seeking to register the birth shall
submit his affidavit explaining why such proof is not available and setting
forth the facts relating to the birth.
(b)
Proof of child's citizenship. Evidence of parent's citizenship and, if
pertinent, evidence of parent's physical presence in the United States as
required for transmittal of claim of citizenship by the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952 shall be submitted.
Many people have speculated that the Hawaiian newspaper birth announcement
would be ridiculous to do merely to plan to hope to obtain the office of
Presidency. Right! I agree. I believe it was merely to
obtain normal, regular US citizenship, for a child born abroad, and certainly
does not create "natural born" status.
If you
know how the law works, and how loopholes exist due to normal uncertainty,
you realize that you can just as easily have a birth at home and write it in
your Bible, or have a birth overseas and place a newspaper announcement, and
use any old statement of fact to get a birth certificate, and thus, regular
citizenship.
More information is coming out that there is no evidence that Obama's mother
was in Hawaii during the time of his birth.
From:
Count the ways to get Hawaii 'birth certificate' - July 30th
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105371
"And the fact that
though there are many witnesses to Ann Dunham's presence on Oahu from Sept.
1960 to Feb. 1961, there are no witnesses to her being on Oahu from March
1961 to August 1962 when she returned from Seattle and the University of
Washington. No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward
with any recollection of Barack Obama's birth," the report said.
It has
been said that the short form birth certificate from Hawaii was issued for
such foreign births.
It
appears that even a valid, Hawaiian short form is thus grossly insufficient
to prove "natural born" status.
And it
appears that the long form, even if it showed Obama born in the USA, would
also be insufficient to prove "natural born" status, because Obama's
father was Kenyan, and his mother was too young.
But
the long form might also prove that Obama was not born in the USA, and could
easily cause many to quickly and easily see that a foreign born person, born
to a foreign parent and an underage US citizen, could not be construed as
being fitting with the plain meaning of "natural born" for
Constitutional purposes.
Or,
there might not be any long form altogether. This is why I jumped into
the fray. Asking "Where's the Birth Certificate", I think, is
the wrong question. But it got me and many others asking questions, and
so that campaign helped.
Unfortunately,
it appears to me that the first thing Obama did when taking office is to
block the release of such records via executive order, as reported here:
http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/1/1668.htm
On
Obama's first day in office, he sealed his birth and personal records through
executive order. Here's the link to the executive order on the
government website:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf
Excerpt:
“Sec.2
-- Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records
When
the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his
intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the
NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the
incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the
disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive
privilege.”
Why
would Obama seal records if he had nothing to hide?
Also,
remember, the burden of proof is on Obama, not us.
But if
he refuses to prove that he can be the President, then he cannot issue any
valid executive orders!
Thus,
all of his executive orders, including, and especially the ones to block the
release of important documents that might prove he cannot be the executive,
are likely illegal orders.
I
suppose any such people who are following such an illegal order could be
guilty of being an enemy of the Constitution, or aiding and abetting an enemy
of the Constitution, especially if they are guilty of "obstructing
justice" by blocking the release of information that would call into
question Obama's executive privilege.
I
understand that all Marines have a sworn duty to protect the Constitution
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Where are all the
Marines? Oh yes, fighting wars overseas that Obama said he would end,
but has not ended. I suppose all Marines in battle overseas are
following illegal orders from an ineligible President.
The
important point here is that truth is not established by Obama or Congress or
Hawaiian officials issuing "orders" or
"proclamations".
Truth
is established by the people, by two or three witnesses, by the Bible, by
your conscience, by a rule of law, by tradition, by facts, by investigation,
by debate, by cross examination, and can be established, but not necessarily,
by courts. I think I got to the truth rather quickly by reviewing
over 300 people's reviews of the subject. This is why I have provided
links for everything.
Am I a
racist? No. I have established that two Muslims, Africans, or
Asians, or any other nationality, could come to the US tomorrow, become
naturalized 14th Amendment citizens, have a child on US soil, who would then
be a "natural born" citizen according to my understanding, and
would thus qualify to be President.
This
brings me to my last point. I have no faith in the court system in the
US anymore, I lost my faith in that in 2001-2004 when the Federal Court, and
"Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals" (Known as the 9th Circuit in
California) lied about my claim, saying I was claiming the exact opposite of
what I was claiming. They lied to deny me justice in my case, which was
merely a meek and humble attempt to get a job without a social security
number.
In my
appeal, "specifically, I noted that I'm not demanding that my employer
obtain any non-existent waiver from the IRS, I'm demanding that my employer
file the affidavit with the IRS, as the law tells them to do in the event
they are unable to obtain a social security number from an employee after
asking for one." http://bibleprophesy.org/squaw.htm
No
judge can be that lame brained to ignore that kind of statement on appeal,
unless by purposeful, willful, and malicious deception, which I believe the
Federal courts are engaged in to maintain our current fraudulent monetary and
taxation system.
Specifically,
the irony in today's world is that I note that the definition of a Judge in
the Bible book of Judges is to help to end the paying of tribute, or taxes,
and to restore freedom to the people.
Lies
are the norm in this nation when it comes to unbacked paper money, fractional
reserve banking, income taxes based on non existent laws that thus cannot be
challenged, etc.
Many
people claimed that my offer is invalid or bogus, because I'm the judge of
it, rather than an independent panel or US court. But even bribed
judges in a US court could declare Obama to be "natural born" for
political purposes, and you can understand why I would remain unconvinced.
Some have even threatened to sue me to win. But my offer is,
"to the first person who can prove to my satisfaction".
And
remember, it's up to Obama to prove it to your satisfaction as well.
Yes,
I'm the judge of my offer. It's my money. It's my right. I
suppose that upsets many people in this nation that other people have private
money that they control themselves. And for others, it upsets
them to merely encounter people who believe something they don't.
But those are basic principles of freedom that some people seem to have
forgotten.
And I
hope you can see that I can never be pursuaded of Obama's "natural
born" status, because his parents can't give it to him.
And
yes, you are also a judge. So, tell me, what are you going to do with
this information? There's really only one thing you can do with good
information. Investigate it and share it.
I
suppose my question is, "What will it take to get people to
listen?" Clearly, when you can see that the Obama supporters who
do nothing but ridicule and slander as "racist" those who know, and
when they are clearly not listening, not even showing any knowledge of the
issues, not even showing any desire to know the issues, you know that they
are wrong. That's how I've learned to exercise my discernment to know
right from wrong, by arguing Bible Prophecy.
1
Corinthians 11:19 19 For there must also be factions among you, that
those who are approved may be recognized among you.
Thus,
those who are in error on this, or anything, actually help bring the issues
to light, if only we all will speak up, and correct them where they
are wrong. We actually have to teach them and evangilise them on
the issues, and I see people doing this in many ways today, which is a good
sign.
Eph
4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists;
and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for
the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and
carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
The
key to ending the deceptions of paper money and Obama's reckless spending is
very, very simple. You don't need to get the courts to rule on
anything, you don't need congressional approval, no new law needs to be
passed, you don't need to wait for the next election. God already
provided the remedy. It's this: Buy silver. The law
of supply and demand cannot be ignored, and it will destroy the dollar,
topple the abusive government, and destroy the power of these thieves in
power.
What I
don't understand is why there are so few Christians who have discernment and
unity of true faith in this age of the end times. After nearly 2000
years, why is the Church still acting like children, being totally deceived
by the false idols of paper money and and paying taxes to abusive
Kings? God? Can you answer that one? Is it going to take
another 1000 years? Can't you send just a little bit more of the Holy
Spirit to help direct people to truth?
Sincerely,
Jason Hommel
www.find-your-local-coin-shop.com
www.silverstockreport.com
www.miningpedia.com
www.bibleprophesy.org
Read
all the other articles written by Jason Hommel
I have 2 major resources on mining stocks to offer to you.
First,
look at www.miningpedia.com
It is a FREE comprehensive database of mining stocks. Anyone can update
or enter data, it's like wikipedia.com. Miningpedia has replaced the
"silver stock report" in that it is doing the legwork on individual
stock analysis that I used to do manually. This frees me up to do what
I like best, which is to write commentary. My commentary retains the
name, "Silver Stock Report", but for individual stocks, please see
miningpedia.com.
Second,
I offer a "look at my portfolio" for $50/month; where I share a
peek at which stocks I own, once a month. You can log in at any time,
repeatedly, and also see all my prior months
Please visit Silver Stock Report for
specific stock picks.
| 
