|
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perhaps the State Department is recognizing that such a law would be superceded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-...ander-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-Cou...rs-rings-hollow
Many people have tried to
claim my reward by sending this link:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008...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 < target="_blank"br>
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...p;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/...00045f3d6a1RCRD
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 target="_blank" 30th
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f...p;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.thefreepressonli...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:
target="_blank" http://edocket.access.gp...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 fo target="_blank"r
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
In case you miss an email, check target="_blank"the archives:
http://silverstockreport.com/
Yes, we sell silver, and gold, too! target="_blank"See the top of
http://silverstockreport.com/
Or visit target="_blank" www.momsilvershop.com
(Mom will ship in lots of
more or less
than 100 ounces,
and overseas, and take credit cards or pay pal.)
See us also at:
Rocklin Coin Shop
4870 Granite Drive,
Rocklin, CA 95677
http://rocklincoinshop.com/
|
