A Stateless, Unconstitutional 'World Citizen' President

A Stateless, Unconstitutional 'World Citizen' President

By Adrien Nash ·

“Dual citizens are 50-50 combo, half-breed citizens of two different nations.”

“No, you can't be a 'partial' citizen, a half-American citizen.”

That is true from the perspective of the two governments. Dual citizens have full citizenship in both nations to which they belong, either by blood or by blood and borders. One can't be born in two different nations but can be born of two different nations when one's parents are of dissimilar nations with different governments, languages, religions, histories, values or traditions. The children of such unions, like the children of different races, do not naturally nor fully belong to either group and yet are viewed by both as citizens because of the granting of citizenship via their laws.

Saying that one can't be a 50-50 citizen – that one must be a full citizen or an alien – is like saying that one must be fully male or fully female. One or the other. But such a view doesn't take reality into consideration because one can be an unnatural gender; namely, a hermaphrodite. Both male and female. Being two things at once is possible but unnatural, and results, in the case of citizenship, in a conflict of nationality.

Citizenship comes with few strings attached, but there are two which many, or most, nations require, and those are the payment of taxes and the obligation of national defense if needed and called. Both governments have laws governing their citizens and aren't inclined to provide exemptions for those with a second nationality because that would impinge on their sovereignty, so a tug-of-war exists between one's obligation to both. That is an unnatural situation due to an unnatural union of disparate origins.

It's the civic equivalent to dogs having off-spring with cats. With Nazis having children with Jews. With Eskimos having children with Africans. Quite dissimilar natures result in off-spring that do not fully belong to either parent's group. But denying the idea of “partial” membership (dual citizenship) resulting from being embraced by both groups is to espouse the nationality equivalent to someone being 200% of a certain thing (political nature).

Racially, it would be like being one hundred percent Negro and 100% Caucasian. That is impossible, and so it is also politically impossible to be 100% of one nation and also 100% of another because one can only be 100% in total – not 200% even though proud governments don't prefer to acknowledge such a bifurcated nature and obligation.

And practically speaking, a conflict never arises for 50% of dual citizens – those who happen to be female, because they are not subject to the full jurisdiction of two nations since they are not obligated to serve in the military in either (Israel being the only exception). If neither nation has a universal draft of all young male citizens, then no potential conflict would arise. The United States was not such a nation (because it had held that the most fundamental obligation of citizenship was national defense) until that historical national policy changed with the abolition of the draft.

Dual nationality is accompanied by another similar form of unnatural citizenship, and that is adopted citizenship – citizenship that one did not inherit; citizenship with which one was not born. There are many analogies to the unnatural change of one's country and citizenship.

Nature versus Surgery

One example would be if one were to change their gender from male to female. That would not be a natural change but a physical change because one is naturally what they are by birth – not surgery.

Naturalization is similar. Naturalization is a form of political surgery. One must sever their born nature and adopt a new political nature. What one was born being is rejected via the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation. That is political surgery that changes one from one thing into another. It does not add another nature to one's existent born nature; it replaces it. Such a citizenship change is a legal-political alteration from one's natural status. It provides one with new legal citizenship. It does not and cannot provide one with natural citizenship.

If one has dual citizenship in two nations that do not allow dual-citizenship for its adult members (while allowing provisional citizenship for its dual-citizen minors) then one must make a choice at adulthood which nation one chooses to belong to.

If neither nation has a policy or law that grants citizenship based on birth within national borders, then one might have provisional citizenship in both nations.

If one has only provisional citizenship in two nations, and, upon reaching the age of majority, one neglects, in both nations, to take the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation (as Kenya required of Barack Obama Jr.), then one's provisional citizenship would expire in both nations (as Obama's Kenyan citizenship did two years after reaching age 21). One would then be a citizen of no nation on earth; a stateless person.

Barack Obama is neither Kenyan nor British since his provisional membership in both was allowed to expire but his supposed birth within U.S. territorial limits did not fulfill the requirement of the 14th Amendment (which grants citizenship to children of aliens if born in the U.S.) because it only covers children of alien fathers who are immigrants since only they are subject to a citizen's obligation to defend his nation via military or civilian service if the draft were to be re-instituted.

Foreign guests are not subject since they are guests and not official members of American society. They aren't legally obligated to register at 18 with the Selective Service since they are not subject to possible conscription into the U.S. military.

Obama's mother's American citizenship was only relevant by law for situations of foreign birth – not native birth. There is no law by which an American mother's citizenship descends to her children if they are born in the United States. The nationality law that provides American citizenship to children of American women only applies in situations of foreign birth. So Obama has no source of U.S. citizenship in actual American law, even if some courts have ignored the law because they didn't understand it and instead simply followed the erroneous over-reaching policy of the executive branch put in place in 1898 by the Attorney General following the Supreme Court's ruling on the 14th Amendment.

Aside from applying that established policy which has no root in actual American law (other than “the law” that the Attorney General ignorantly or deliberately created) Barack Obama is in the truest sense, a stateless person – not an American citizen by actual law or Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and therefore can not be considered what the United States Constitution requires for serving in the office of the President, namely that he be a “natural born citizen”. So he is neither legitimately a U.S. citizen nor the American President. He is instead a stateless fraud.

But some problems are simply too big, too huge, too gigantic to deal with, to handle, to get one's arms around (such as the national debt, the deficit spending, the uncontrolled bureaucracy, the ocean of federal regulations and unfathomable tax code, the military-industrial complex, the secret intelligence complex) and the Obama conundrum is one of them.

No one wants to touch it because it's like an electrified fence or the third rail of the subway line. There are serious consequences to even mentioning it. It might be like daring to claim in 1940 Nazi Germany that Hitler was actually Jewish by ancestry, or that Stalin was actual a Capitalist, or Mussolini was actually a woman. No one would dare go there, especially when Obama's NSA flying monkeys know everything about everyone going back decades.

To correct the travesties that Obama has heaped on America would require pulling out some giant plants by the roots, and we have few if any political gardeners with the knowledge, experience, and courage to even contemplate such a thing.

Life usually holds quite a few surprises, but what is also surprising is when there are no surprises when there should be. Such is the case with the near universal silence regarding the unconstitutional usurpation of the office of President by the Progressive-socialist wing of the Democrat Party via their exalted and adored Marxist messiah whose goal is “to fundamentally transform America”. Meaning that it is fundamentally flawed from the ground up.

How would you feel about a contractor you hired to do some upgrading of your home, who, once you've signed a contract, announces that he intends to tear your home down and rebuild it from the ground up?

Would that sound like something you would think he has the right to do just because he prefers it? What
about your rights?  After all, it's your home, not his, even though he's taken it over.