Natural Born Citizen? Obama and the Fourth American Revolution, Part Two

Andrew Fraser


The Sovereign People as Higher Law-Making Authority

For decades now, progressive constitutional scholars such as Professor Bruce Ackerman have long urged the Supreme Court to recognize the higher law-making voice of the sovereign people.  Obama’s second term will provide the Court with the ideal opportunity to do just that; indeed, his entire life story reads as if it had been crafted as a hypothetical problem in a constitutional law examination on the natural born citizenship issue.

If the sovereign people decide that issue in Obama’s favour, the already threadbare claim that the American republic is a historic nation grounded in the shared blood, language, and culture of a homogeneous people will have lost its sole constitutional mooring.

Once the citizenship status of the President no longer matters, it is difficult to see how immigration patriots can object to the future extension of the political and civil rights now associated with citizenship to all immigrants, legal or illegal.

Birthers fear that Obama’s successful re-election amounts to a constitutional amendment by stealth.  Many portray Obama’s putative Presidency as a criminal conspiracy.

But the campaign to re-elect Obama is much more than an undercover conspiracy to deceive the American people.

Advertisement

In fact, there is good reason to suppose that Obama’s most important backers have chosen him as their standard-bearer not despite but because of his questionable citizenship status.  The campaign to nullify the natural born citizenship requirement is not a covert conspiracy but an open revolutionary movement to erase the last constitutional vestige of blood and soil citizenship in the American Republic and, indeed, in the world at large.

From Republic to Empire

As the constitutional avatar of the diversity principle, President Obama will preside over a short-lived Fourth (Transnational) Republic designed to subordinate the historic American nation to the hegemony of a postmodern, global Empire.

The neo-communist manifesto of the Empire “materializing before our very eyes” was written by Michael Hardt (later one of the Group of 88 faculty members calling for the prosecution of the defendants in the notorious Duke lacrosse case) and Antonio Negri (then in an Italian prison on terrorism charges) and published in 2000 by Harvard University Press.

Hardt and Negri trace the roots of postmodern corporate neo-communism back to the founding fathers of the American Republic who sought to create “a new Empire with open, expanding frontiers,” an imperial idea which “has survived and matured throughout the history of the United States constitution and has emerged now on a global scale in its fully realized form.”

Yet Hardt and Negri are careful to note “that this idea of American Empire as the redemption of utopia is completely illusory.”  By its very nature, the neo-communist “Empire is not American and the United States is not its center.”  They maintain that the power of Empire “has no actual and localizable terrain or center.”  Instead, it “is distributed in networks, through mobile and articulated mechanisms of control.”

Obama’s Fourth (Transnational) Republic is therefore fated to mutate into a province of globalized Empire.  The first law of Empire was set out by the Wall Street Journal: “There shall be open borders.”  It follows that the old-fashioned republican “concept of the People no longer functions as the organized subject of the system of command, and consequently the idea of the People is replaced by the mobility, flexibility, and perpetual differentiation of the multitude.”

The outworn political theology of the Constitutional Republic will be superseded by the religion of humanity in which “the desire of the multitude is not the cosmopolitical state but a common species.”  The power of the multitude to circulate freely becomes the first fruit of “a secular Pentecost” in which “bodies are mixed and the nomads speak a common tongue.”

The political project of Empire unites neo-communist theoreticians and corporate plutocrats in a common program for the global multitude.  The first political demand of this movement is global citizenship.  Over the past few decades, the bi-partisan campaign waged by politicians as well as corporate and academic lawyers to eliminate the natural born citizenship clause in Article II, section I has lent legitimacy to that demand.

This campaign pre-dates Obama’s political career, receiving an early boost from the celebrity status of Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger.  But there is little doubt that the current drive to nullify of the natural born citizen clause includes many people known to be supporters or associates of putative President Obama.

Prof. Randall Kennedy

In 1995, for example, Professor Randall Kennedy, a prominent member of the Harvard Law School faculty, opined that the natural born citizen clause is the stupidest provision in the Constitution.  Having since written a book in support of Obama’s Presidency, he continues to take the view that the natural born citizen clause “stigmatizes all immigrants.”

Like Barack Obama, Kennedy believes that the right of the global multitude to “circulate” is an “essential American idea.”  In his view, the belief that nativity, or place of birth conditions political loyalties is nothing more than a “rank superstition.”  Allegiance should be seen as “a willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life.”

Kennedy insists that the American people should be free “to decide whom they want as their President.”  If they were to do so, “we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.”

Prof. Jacqueline Stevens

To give Kennedy his due, however, he has not yet suggested that the President need not even be a citizen.  Others are not so hesitant.  In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, Jacqueline Stevens, a political science professor at Northwestern University and author of States Without Nations: Citizenship for Mortals (Columbia University Press, 2009), openly preaches the political theology of Empire, insisting that the linkage between citizenship and birthplace stems from an atavistic and irrational fear of death.

Far from being part of a criminal conspiracy to hide Barack Obama’s birth certificate, neo-communist intellectuals such as Professor Stevens belong to a frankly revolutionary movement pledged to promote the free movement of capital, labour, and technology across national borders.  All states, she believes, should simply open their borders and use residence, rather than birth certificates, to define citizenship.

Conclusion

To defeat corporate neo-communism, birthers will have to do more than prove that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.  Appeals to the rule of law or to the civic virtues of an independent republican citizenry now carry little weight within the interlocking transnational networks of corporate, governmental, and mass-mediated “biopower.”

Hardt and Negri preach a revolutionary realism which recognizes that “corruption itself is the substance and totality of Empire.”  In these the last days of the Constitutional Republic, birthers (whether they realize it or not) are counter-revolutionaries set in opposition to a system in which corruption has become “the pure exercise of command…over productive biopower.”

The revolutionary ideals upon which the American Republic rests are now part of the problem—not the solution.  Old-stock Americans, generally, need to develop viable alternatives to both the old Republic and the new Empire.

Die-hard patriots might object that because I am not an American citizen I do not have a dog in their fight.  In fact, I share deep-rooted bonds of blood, language, and culture with American WASPs.  The fate of WASPs everywhere is bound up with the deepening crisis of the American Republic symbolized by the putative Presidency of Barack Obama.

To my American co-ethnics, I therefore offer one piece of unsolicited advice from my ringside seat in Sydney, Australia.  In doing so, I follow in Peter Brimelow’s footsteps. Decades ago, he advised English-Canadians that they can never win the increasingly pointless “patriot game” in a hopelessly divided multicultural society.  He suggested that they identify instead with their co-ethnics below the 49th parallel.

It is time for American WASPs to reflect on the implications of that message.  Their own patriot game has been sidelined by the postmodern game of identity politics.  From now on, any and all proposed solutions to the crisis of the Republic should be subjected to one acid test: Is it good for white Anglo-Saxon Protestants?

Andrew Fraser studied “advanced” constitutional law at Harvard Law School.  He taught American constitutional history at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.  His latest book is The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament, and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race (Arktos Media, 2011)

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

127 Comments to "Natural Born Citizen? Obama and the Fourth American Revolution, Part Two"

  1. Andrew Fraser's Gravatar Andrew Fraser
    July 3, 2012 - 9:22 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    America’s Useful Idiots
    By Steve McCann
    “Many years ago, a phrase was coined by the leaders of the Soviet Union to describe those in the West who naively promoted the cause of Russian Communism when in reality they were held in contempt and were being cynically used by the Soviet hierarchy. The term ‘useful idiot’ more than ever applies to a vast swath of citizens in the United States who have been cynically used by the hardcore left for a cause they are unwilling to understand.”
    *****
    “Barack Obama would not be occupying the Oval Office if it were not for the people over the past sixty years who have blindly supported those who have lied to them. The overriding stratagem of socialism/Marxism is ‘the ends justify the means’ — thus, no lie is too big to tell, no promise too outrageous to promote, and no tactic out of bounds. The overall strategy of the Obama re-election team confirms this mindset as it conducts a demagogic campaign based solely on emotional appeals to that part of the population its operatives consider ‘useful idiots.'”

    Those who thoughtlessly supported the left in America over the years are beginning to reap what they have sown. Unfortunately so is the rest of the population.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/americas_useful_idiots.html#ixzz1zc216lmG

  2. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 3, 2012 - 7:00 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    I am a blue-collar boy from the ghettoes of a city that you would avoid at all costs, Mickey! Being highly well-educated– which I now happen to regret, altogether, as I have mentioned elsewhere on this site, before– has not fundamentally changed me or my world view– which, in large part, explains why I am here, at this site. If I had wanted to join the cultural and financial elites, I easily could have spent my entire adult working life as an attorney, and/or as a social-psychological legal consultant, instead of quitting both of those rather-lucrative fields of work, while I was still a relatively young man.

    People with high IQs are not idiots; and, thus, cannot be “useful idiots”– as Mr. Fraser indubitably implied that I am! Someone who is willing to sell out his own people– whoever they may be– is not an “useful idiot” simply by virtue of allowing himself to be bought. An “useful idiot” is a person of some use to someone else, who is manipulating any such “useful idiots” against their own awareness, and their own best interests. Quislings and Benedict Arnolds are not idiots– and, the actual Quisling and Arnold would have been of little use to the Germans and the British, respectively, if they had been mere idiots!

    Finally, if I simply had wanted to give my own arguments– which Mr. Fraser’s obdurateness has forced me to restate here, umpteen times, already!– the authority of my dozen or so years of higher education, and the added benefit of my reasonably high intelligence quotient, I simply would have stated those as a part of my first response to him, under Part I of his essay– rather than waiting until he implied, beyond peradventure, that I was a mere “useful idiot” for some malignant Anti-American conspiracy, against which he is supposedly some crusading avenger from down under. As a real American– whatever my other qualities might or might not be– I certainly do not need any [EXPLETIVE DELETED] foreigner telling me what is going on in my own country, nor what I need or ought to do about it!

  3. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 3, 2012 - 3:40 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    Let’s not fall out over this, but you accuse me of missing the point and then seem to misrepresent or misunderstand my points. I was saying that a high IQ was not an argument for being clear of things like subliminal indoctrination. I didn’t say you had been…but let’s just step back for a moment and look at this. Are you suggesting that the leaders and elites of mainsteam White society, currently being sleptwalked to its own death, do not number well educated high IQ individuals? Come on!
    So basically, my two points were: good education and a high IQ is not a defense against being a Useful Idiot, in its proper meaning. Doesn’t mean you are one, and I didn’t say that, or think it. I agree on the birther thing, and other things you have said.
    Secondly…more as side issue…I questioned your bragging about your intelligence/education here. It looks like an attempt at Authority, and I don’t think you have just cause to be doing that. The other guys here may or may not be less well educated and so on, but they may have a strong insight into the real situation that needs to be heard. For example working class Whites have taken it up the ass more than anyone else. And seen their communities and way of life decimated. Peace.

  4. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 3, 2012 - 3:33 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:

  5. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 3, 2012 - 3:15 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    You are making a habit out of missing the obvious point, Mickey. Once again, I was not trying to prove my points about the substantive issues being argued here; my long line of replies to Mr. Fraser’s obdurate defense of his factually and intellectually indefensible claims about both the president’s place of birth and the legal consequences thereof make my points quite well enough. I was defending myself against the baseless charge that I am but a “useful idiot” for some grand conspiracy against “natural law” and the “genetic foundation for the legitimacy of the Republic”– not to mention the express will of Y-HW-W, as laid out in Deuteronomy! Measured adult IQ and earned university degrees in relevant fields of study are, to my mind, a very valid defense to the charge of one’s being anyone’s “useful idiot.” [Cf., Walter Brennan qua ‘Will Sonnett’ (“The Guns of Will Sonnet” [ABC], 1967-1969)] There are plenty of examples, on this particular Web site, of commenters defending themselves from similar charges, or any at all, by citing their alleged IQ scores. I will be happy to point you to some other examples, if you are unable to ferret them out for yourself. If I were a victim of “subliminal indoctrination” and, thus, “totally unaware of, or unable to face up to, the situation facing european descendent people,” what the hell would I be doing here, Mickey?!? Anyone who equates defending President Obama– whom, it should be obvious, I do not like or support, per see– against the types of inane birther myths that Mr. Fraser is peddling to us all, here, with my being a victim of “subliminal indoctrination” to such an end, as you have stated, is not the proverbial sharpest knife in the drawer…. For the record, Mickey, an IQ of +3.0 SD puts one at the 99.87th percentile of the population– with that population distribution being normed for American and/or European populations. Adjusted for a global population, my IQ would be somewhat higher still. Again, I am not claiming that I am right about the things that I argue about here simply because of my high IQ, nor even that in conjunction with my surfeit of higher education. I merely point those facts out in defense against claims, like that of Mr. Fraser, above, that I am anyone’s “useful idiot!”

  6. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    July 3, 2012 - 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Good news – the young are being forced to judge by results not declared intentions. We must not under-estimate this opportunity.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/us/politics/economy-cuts-into-obamas-youth-support.html?_r=4&ref=politics

  7. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 3, 2012 - 4:48 am | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    I would agree the birther stuff is BS, but I would also suggest that a high IQ is no defense against subliminal indoctrination into ideas. Many high IQ people are totally unaware of, or unable to face up to, the situation facing european descendent people.
    Also, to be fair, while I’m not accusing you directly because I have no way of knowing on a case by case basis, you would surely agree that people with super high IQ’s on the internet are a lot more common than people with super high IQ’s in reality.
    That said, an IQ of 145 is not that huge D.K. For example, it’s enough to be a competent scientist but not a brilliant scientist. Certainly, in no way should an IQ of 145 be considered genius except in some very narrow sense.

    With that said, it’s a great IQ to have…but why do you see fit to attempt to assert some kind of authority with it on line? I don’t see anyone else bragging about their life accomplishments. What about your success in life….while you are bragging please tell us how wealthy your brilliance has made you, or how many academic awards you’ve won….seminal scientific papers heavily cited? Noted acts of courage or bravery in the face of the enemy and fear? Mentioned in dispatches?
    I’m sorry D.K. but “I got an M.A. and scored 145 on an IQ test” is not really enough in this world to be seeking glory.

    In the meantime just let the weight of your arguments do the talking and leave other people to decide your merit.

  8. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 3, 2012 - 1:35 am | Permalink

    @Andrew Fraser:

    This “useful idiot” has an IQ of 145 (SD=15), as officially measured a few years ago, when already nearing my dotage, along with earned degrees in History and English (B.A.), Personality and Social Psychology (M.S.), Management & Organization (M.B.A.), and, of course, Law (J.D.). I do not need any transplanted Cannuck, from down under, to define any English words for me; nor any legal terms of art; nor, especially, any Constitutional principles of my own nation’s own Constitution. Thanks just the same, mate! (Australia obviously has quite an immigration problem of its own– as illustrated by its Welsh prime minister– although, just as obviously, not all of its dregs came courtesy of the Third World….)

  9. Andrew Fraser's Gravatar Andrew Fraser
    July 2, 2012 - 11:39 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:
    “The Declaration of Independence is symbolic of American independence; but, it is not the, nor even a, basis for American law. The Constitution explicitly lists what all comprises the supreme law of the land, in the United States– and the Declaration of Independence is notable only by its absence!”

    It is true that the federal Constitution was self-legitimating. Natural law was abandoned as the genetic foundation for the legitimacy of the Republic in favour of a constitutional coup d’etat.

    The Federalists by-passed the State legislatures by invoking the will of the sovereign People. The Constitution was ratified by ad hoc constitutional conventions in each of the States. In taking that step, the Federalists carried out the first of several revolutions within the Revolution.

    The result has been to create a constitutional order based upon the self-contradictory principle of permanent revolution.

    The American Revolution has continued down to the present day. The final irony is about to unfold: the will of the sovereign People will be invoked to justify the fourth and final revolution in American constitutional history.

    The sovereign People has become little more than a polite legal fiction. The “Posterity” of the founding generation, for whom the framers sought to preserve “the Blessings of Liberty,” have been demographically displaced by the dregs of the Third World.

    By re-electing Obama the usurper, the fictitious People will ratify-as its last official act-the Fourth (Transnational) Republic .

    As I argued in Part Two of my article, Obama’s mission is to transform the old Constitutional Republic into a province of the corporate neo-communist Empire. Under that revolutionary regime, the old-fashioned republican concept of the People will no longer function “as the organized subject of the system of command.”

    Instead, the idea of the People is about to be replaced by the mobility, flexibility, and perpetual differentiation of the global multitude.

    Since its revolutionary inception, the Constitution has been a mere thing of wax to be moulded in whatever shape required by the powers that be.

    Those who believe that Obama is a natural born citizen are clearly the sort of “useful idiots” for whom words have whatever meaning they choose to give them.

    When words no longer have a fixed or natural meaning, when it becomes impossible to distinguish between a foreigner and a natural born citizen, the constitutional order has become a government of men, not of laws.

    It cannot be long now before the pretence of constitutional legitimacy in the American Republic gives way to the naked rule of physical force and outright tyranny.

  10. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 2, 2012 - 10:30 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew Fraser:

    There was no “Constitutional Republic” when the thirteen colonies revolted against the British Crown, Mr. Fraser! My nation’s “Constitutional Republic” was created in 1787-1788, many years after the Treaty of Paris (1783) had settled the Revolutionary War, with the drafting, passing, and eventual ratifying of the Constitution of the United States, to suplant the existing Articles of Confederation, which had been ratified in 1781, after more than three years, as the Revolutionary War wound down.

    The Declaration of Independence– which is used by the Left, today, to push for more direct democracy, multiculturalism and radical egalitarianism, by taking its language out of context, and giving its phraseology a reading that would have been wholly untenable to its authors– was not a legal document. It did not create a new government, nor a new system of government. It did not grant, nor guarantee, any new rights for the citizens of the colonies– individually, collectively or respectively. The same colonial governments ruled their respective colonies, only without those colonial governments continuing to give deference to the British Empire or its titular head, King George III. The Second Continental Congress, which voted to declare the independence of the thirteen colonies, was solely a creature of those colonies, comprised of their own delegates, not a national government that ruled over them.

    The Declaration itself, rather than being a legal document, was a manifesto, and a bill of grievances against the British government, in general, and King George III, in particular, all addressed to the world at large. The Declaration was, in essence, revolutionary agitprop. The colonies won their freedom from Great Britain by the force of arms– not because of the exalted Jeffersonian rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence– and largely because the Kingdom of France, under the doomed Bourbon dynasty, intervened on behalf of the American colonies– and it did so simply for reasons of state, not as a matter of “natural law” or moral conscience.

    The Declaration of Independence is symbolic of American independence; but, it is not the, nor even a, basis for American law. The Constitution explicitly lists what all comprises the supreme law of the land, in the United States– and the Declaration of Independence is notable only by its absence! Needless to say, your beloved Deuteronomy– and the rest of the Bible, Old and New Testaments alike– did not make the cut, either. I await the unmitigated wrath of your Old Testament sky-god, Y-HW-H, Mr. Fraser….

  11. Andrew Fraser's Gravatar Andrew Fraser
    July 2, 2012 - 8:24 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:
    “Please, save your M. Vattel (who died more than seven years prior to the Battles of Lexington and Concord) and your prattles about “natural law” for some uneducated foreigner or the like; as a native-born American, and a long-time American lawyer, I am constitutionally, and Constitutionally, immune to such legal nonsense!”

    It’s simply not possible for American constitutional lawyers to hold that natural law is irrelevant to the genetic legitimacy of the Republic.

    When the rebellious American colonists declared their independence from Britain, their leaders were no longer able to wrap themselves in the ancient authority of the English common law. Instead, they grounded the genetic legitimacy of the Constitutional Republic in the law of nature.

    It was to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that Jefferson turned to justify the American Declaration of Independence.

    The radicals fomenting the American Revolution knew that only the rhetorical resources of the natural law tradition could entitle the American people to dissolve the existing constitutional order. Only the natural law binding on all nations provided a juridical foundation for the right of the American Republic to a “separate and equal Station” among “the Powers of the Earth.”

    It was the same natural law that recognized the right of a father to transmit his nationality to his offspring. As already noted, Obama, by the nature of things, cannot be both a foreigner and a natural born citizen.

    The framers of the Constitution were no doubt also familiar with the Biblical Law laid out in Deuteronomy 17:15 which declared” “thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.”

    Obama’s usurpation of the office of President of the Constitutional Republic stands in obvious violation of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

    Those who commit or condone such a political crime also court the wrath of God.

  12. dan's Gravatar dan
    July 2, 2012 - 7:37 pm | Permalink

    I love legal mumbo jumbo. Even the Supreme Ruler… oops I mean Supreme Court Justice Roberts would feel at home on the comments section here.

    Which is a nice segue to the many mysteries of quantum physics. No? Well how about a joke then? This one credited to E.F. Schumacher:

    A doctor, physicist and economist are debating the nature of God. Doctor: ‘He is most like a doctor since He created life out of inanimate matter.’ Physicist: ‘Not at all, He is most certainly like a physicist since He created matter out of chaos.’ Economist: ‘Ah Ha! And where do you think the chaos came from?’

    So that settles it, eh?

  13. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 2, 2012 - 7:10 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew Fraser:

    Mr. Fraser, with all due respect (of which there is a very small reservoir, at this point), you are as thick as a brick! M. Vattel is an irrelevancy. The Constitution of the United States, including the Fourteenth Amendment, and the laws and treaties duly passed and ratified, respectively, under the Constitution, are the supreme law of the land in the United States– period! Please, save your M. Vattel (who died more than seven years prior to the Battles of Lexington and Concord) and your prattles about “natural law” for some uneducated foreigner or the like; as a native-born American, and a long-time American lawyer, I am constitutionally, and Constitutionally, immune to such legal nonsense!

    If you are foolish, or delusional, enough to believe birther myths about Barry the Wonder Boy, a.k.a. The Black Messiah [cf. the Kinks’ “Misfits” (1978)], then you are an embarrassment to Dr. MacDonald’s enterprise on this site. (Where were you when Spiro the Greek was stinking up my nation’s capital? Where were your Canadian-WASP ancestors when Chester A. Arthur, the son of an Irish-born Canadian immigrant, was holding down the fort at the White House, in the wake of President Garfield’s assassination?)

    For the umpteenth time, Mr. Fraser, Minor v. Happersett (1875) does not hold what you and your drug-addled lunatic source– failed New Jersey lawyer and rock star, Leo Donofrio– say that it holds– as I explained exhaustively in my very first response to you, under Part 1 of your essay. That opinion said, in dicta, that it need not even consider the case of a native-born citizen with alien parents (there was NO mention of native-born citizens with one citizen-parent and one alien-parent, respectively), because the woman at issue in the case was admittedly a native-born American who was born to two citizen-parents. The issue decided in that case’s holding was whether she, thus, had the Constitutional right to vote, based on both her admitted citizenship and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was on that issue alone– with the Court ruling against her right to vote– that the case was a Constitutional precedent, prior to the Nineteenth Amendment’s ratification, forty-five years later, giving American women the right to vote, at the federal level. In citing the case for a supposed Constitutional limitation on the Article II meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” in order for one to qualify for the office of the presidency, you are demonstrating either your legal incompetence or your moral incorrigibility!?! Feel free to inform your readers here just which it is….

    If Barack Hussein Obama II, as a matter of law, rather than conscience, owed his allegiance to the British Crown, from the time of his birth, based upon his Kenyan father’s colonial subjugation, at the time, that allegiance, as a matter of law, was obviated when he reached young adulthood. He held no such alien citizenship or allegiance, as a matter of law, when he ran for the presidency, in 2008. He never took out any foreign passport, voted in any foreign election, nor engaged in any other known behavior, before or after that early point in his young adulthood, to demonstrate fealty to a foreign state or ruler. He was recognized throughout, by his home state and his federal government alike, as a natural-born citizen of the United States. You might want to worry, instead, about the British immigrant currently leading your own country, down under, as its prime minister…!?!?!

  14. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 2, 2012 - 5:45 pm | Permalink

    @Burgermeister:

    Where to begin…?!? First, if you admit to being an idiot, then you deny being a moron, since morons are brighter than both imbeciles and, lower still, idiots. As for the appellation “Mormon Moron” (which I did not call you, regardless; I merely stated that I could attach that euphonic label to you– in lieu of my apt musical allusion to “Moribund the Burgermeister”– if it would have made you any happier, which it apparently did not!?!), it was not a matter of any dove’s tail; it was a straightforward matter of alliteration– and, thus, the euphony.

    As for your and Mr. Romney’s religion, it is a particularly ludicrous one. I do not consider my pointing that out to be bigotry; I consider bigotry to be one’s attributing other bad qualities that are not naturally occurring correlations– such as saying that all Mormons are stupid or, like you, in spades, vulgar. Nor did I say that Romney wants to or would reintroduce polygamy to the Mormon mainstream, if he had the power, and the bully pulpit, of the presidency at his command. I said that his grandparents moved to Mexico as part of a Mormon colony that did so to avoid (supposed) persecution (read: prosecution) of their polygamous way of life. That is simply an historical fact, which neither your nor Mr. Romney’s denial could alter. I am against having a Mormon president, just as I am against having a professedly Christian president who believes in Black Liberation Theology (although, I am fairly confident that Obama, in his heart of hearts, is either an agnostic or an atheist!?!), or a Jewish president– and much as you are against having a black president, whether that be Barack Hussein Obama II or, I assume, from your own earlier comment, General Colin Powell!?!?! There are a lot of people in this country (and, perhaps, even some Canucks, down under!?!) who are still rather upset that Jack Kennedy slipped through the cracks– and, he had his brains blown out, in public, while sitting next to his lovely, young wife, just 1036 days into his presidency!

    Finally, Moribund, you may well be more closely related to Barack Hussein Obama II than you even are to me!?!?! You better check his genealogical chart, which is readily available, on line…. Being a secularist (although, certainly not a radical one, by any stretch of the imagination), I am quite content to know that I am, along with every other modern human, whether an idiot or a genius, related to pond sludge, as it were. Evolution of the species, through natural selection, inter alia, does not bother me, in the least. As for you Mormons, I leave you all to your own devices, to sort out the “prophets” and the “apostles” from the chimps and the pond sludge, as it were, each according to your own beloved religious myths and delusions….

  15. Andrew Fraser's Gravatar Andrew Fraser
    July 2, 2012 - 5:23 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:
    “For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.”

    Clearly, even the statute that you cite makes it impossible for the 18 year old Stanley Ann Dunham to have transmitted American citizenship to Obama were he to have been born in Kenya in 1961. At the time of Obama’s birth, she had not lived in the USA for five years after the age of 14.

    Even if Obama was born in the USA,however, the fact that his father was Kenyan meant that the infant Obama was a British subject. Owing allegiance to a foreign power, he could not be a natural born citizen of the USA.

    Natural born citizen is a legal term of art defined by both Vattel and SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett as a person born on US soil to citizen parents. Such a person could not, by the nature of things, owe allegiance to any foreign power.

  16. Burgermeister's Gravatar Burgermeister
    July 2, 2012 - 4:43 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.: “I have made a semi-professional, quasi-clinical diagnosis”

    Nonsense, you, with malice aforethought, simply chose to use the label “Moron” because it dovetailed nicely with “Mormon”. And it hardly takes a genius to come up with that elementary school slur. According to Wiki, a Moron was considered to have had an IQ of between 51-70, while apparently not clinically used anymore (something that you are more than likely cognizance of)). Therefore, while I obviously do not have your command of the English language nor your claimed lofty IQ, I do not think that a clinical moron would be reading the Occidental Observer. Nevertheless, I would agree that only a moron would attempt to have a discussion with you, and therefore, I will admit to being an idiot on that score.

    As for your rant against Romney and Mormons in general (thus belying your denial of religious bigotry), I happen to agree that politically his election would be a disaster in it’s own right and much of what you contend about his past and current connections may well be true, however, very few of those who claim to be Mormon practice polygamy, televisions shows notwithstanding, and no one that I know wants to implement it again (we have enough trouble dealing with just one wife), so it really is a red herring of a charge.

    As for your English Language lesson, in spite of your intent, I welcome such, because I know full well I am not as educated as most of the posters and writers in this forum.

    One last point, if you are a descendent of White European stock like I am, you and I are kin whether you like it or not. Because, if the average IQ of Whites is 100, then half of us are below average and half of us are above, unless we live in Lake Wobegon…See you around, Cousin:)

  17. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 2, 2012 - 1:45 pm | Permalink

    @Burgermeister:

    ERRATA: “FRASER” NOT “FRASIER;” ET SEQ., “THEN” NOT “THAN” [SUPRA] (“MEA MAXIMA CULPA!”)

    N.B.: “MAY BE” IS MERELY PERMISSIVE; “SHALL BE” IS OBLIGATORY!

  18. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 2, 2012 - 1:30 pm | Permalink

    @Burgermeister:

    I have been trained in psychometrics, as well as the English language and American law, inter alia; and, as a result of that well-rounded academic background, I have made a semi-professional, quasi-clinical diagnosis. It might be considered religious bigotry if I were to claim that all Mormons were morons; but, I have made no such claim. I think that Mitt Romney, for instance, is very smart; although, perhaps not as smart as I am!?! (Does Mitt strike you as a literal genius, with an IQ at or above the 99.9th percentile?) I have merely labeled you individually, according to (a) what you have admitted on this Web site yourself, and (b) what I have concluded from what you have written on it, based on my own experience and expertise. Q.E.D.

    As for politics, the notion that the current American form of government is not what the Founders intended, nor would even abide, were they alive today, is anything but a novel observation. Indeed, it is closer to being a truism than an insight! (Not that it is any business of a foreigner, like Andrew Frasier, regardless!) If the Republic died as the result of a “foreigner” (according to Mr. Frasier’s view– and, of course, they do say that it takes one to know one!) being elected to the executive branch of the federal government, than you may skip over Spiro T. Agnew, whose father was a Greek citizen, not an American, and go all the way back to Chester A. Arthur– whose mother was Irish, not American!

  19. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 2, 2012 - 1:01 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    Because, Mickey, as I might expect to be obvious, I do not feel any great kinship to Moribund the Burgermeister– nor to the bizarre theocratic cult to which he belongs (which has been allowed to control its own sovereign state, within the Union), and from which the next president might very well be vomited up, come November 6.

    Mitt Romney, the Hispanic-American son of a Mexican-born father, whose parents moved there to be part of a Mormon colony that wished to continue its practice of polygamy– a la Kenya’s Luo tribe– and whose family is very well connected to the movers and shakers within the Mormon Church (and State), like his fellow candidate for the Republican nomination, former-Governor Huntsman– the son of a billionaire father, and a mother who is descended from a Mormon “apostle”–is hardly ‘Jack Armstrong, the All-American Boy’ (from the eponymous radio show of old). Add to that that Romney, like Obama, is, in his heart of hearts, an open-borders Globalist– albeit from a right-wing motivation, based on both theology and business interests, rather than from a left-wing collectivist one– and, perhaps even more foreboding, that Romney is a bosom buddy with the prime minister of the world’s leading rogue state– the tail that forever wags the American dog of war, throughout the Islamic world– and 2013 might well end up with “our people” celebrating the repeal of Obamacare amongst the ashes of a nuclear World War III, perpetrated by a cultist who believes (or claims to believe) that the Jewish Messiah, after raising Himself from the dead, in first-century Palestine, made a tour of the Americas– where he supposedly proselytized the natives, who were allegedly descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel (all evidence– genetic, historical, and commonsensical– to the contrary notwithstanding)!

    Talk about “out of the frying pan, into the fire!” November gives America, already in its death throes, a choice between two cultural aliens, each the son of a foreign-born father, and each of whom believes in open borders, and the destruction of the historic American nation, which my own ancestors helped to create, dating back to the 1630s. One of those choices is a long-time intimate, and political sympathizer, of the current genocidal Zionist leader, with his own finger on the button of hundreds of intentionally undeclared, and internationally uninspected, nuclear weapons, with which his “shitty little country” (backed with the full faith and credit of the federal government of United States of America, of course) threatens to destroy the entire world, foe and ally alike, through its so-called “Samson Option!”

  20. Burgermeister's Gravatar Burgermeister
    July 2, 2012 - 10:36 am | Permalink

    Don’t you think you have derailed this thread enough?

    The bottom line is that Mr. Fraser is correct in his basic contention that a revolution has in fact taken place and he is also correct that the American People as a whole are ignorant of this fact. What is really interesting is that he posits that should Obama be re-elected, the idea that the American president should be an American who would ostensibly represent American interests will become legally passe. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama regardless of the legality of his current presidency, has ushered in a new phase of American Empire and that from now on, any future American president will be de facto the president of the world, and will probably be like Obama, a beneficiary of International Affirmative Action. This does not bode well for White Nationalists.

    And while I understand the need you have to demean ones opponent, I suspect needless name calling violates this TOS:

    “Comments that include personal insults, epithets, or profanity may be censored”.

    So, no, I would not be “happier” if you called me the “Mormon Moron”, as this is a form of religious bigotry.

    Although, I suppose you could just call me a “moron”, but to be fair, you should make a clinical diagnosis first.

    And because you don’t appear to be one of “our people”, I shall keep my list of victories to myself; as a non-academic I don’t feel the need to brag;)

  21. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 2, 2012 - 6:32 am | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    Why the scare quotes around “our people”?

  22. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 2, 2012 - 4:11 am | Permalink

    @burgermeister:

    “Moribund the Burgermeister” (1977) is the opening track on Peter Gabriel’s first (of four) eponymous solo albums, after his departure from Genesis. I could just as easily refer to you as the Mormon Moron. Would that make you any happier? Regardless, feel free to regale us with your long list of victories, fighting for “our people”….

  23. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 2, 2012 - 4:01 am | Permalink

    @Andrew Fraser:

    Mr. Fraser, I hate to break it to you, but M. Vattel on “The Law of Nations”– a foreign (neither American nor British) treatise, published in 1758, long before the American Revolution even began, let alone the Constitution of the United States was drafted and, subsequently, ratified– is not the supreme law of the land in my country; neither is any supposed “natural law.”

    THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARTICLE VI, PARAGRAPH TWO:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    Thus, the above-cited statute on naturalization, for instance, is the supreme law of the land, here in the United States, along with the Constitution itself, including the Fourteenth Amendment. The period to which you referred (more specifically, 12/24/52 – 11/13/86) refers to the date of birth of a child, born abroad to one citizen-parent and one alien-parent, who were married to each other, at the time of that child’s birth– not to the date of birth of either of the parents of such a child!

    Even if the then-Mrs. Obama had given birth to her son in Kenya– which is a ludicrous contention, rejected by both the United States Department of State (which has been issuing United States passports to the current president– stating his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii– since at least 1967!) and the Secretary of State of the sovereign State of Arizona (wherein Obama again has been granted ballot access, despite a new birther-instigated state statute, following official confirmation of Obama’s Hawaiian birth’s being provided to Arizona by Hawaii)– United States statutory law, pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, would be the controlling law on the matter– not “natural law,” Kenyan law, international law, nor M. Vattel’s now-ancient “The Law of Nations” from 1758 Switzerland!

    If the president had been born in Kenya, while his mother was visiting her in-laws– including her husband’s real wife, and their two children?!?– she would still have been a resident of Hawaii, not an American residing abroad. The fact that she was 117 days shy of her 19th birthday would not have meant that the law would not have applied to her and her son, then, since she had lived her entire life within the United States.

  24. burgermeister's Gravatar burgermeister
    July 2, 2012 - 3:27 am | Permalink

    @D. K.: “That certainly begs the question, then, Moribund, as to why, while ignoring me, you nonetheless took it upon yourself to reply to one of my earlier comments, which was, quite evidently, not addressed to you– and have continued to reply to my own replies to you (as I assume that you will to this one), albeit without ever answering one of the countless queries that they have contained!?!?!”

    Shucks, golly, gee wiz, professor, that’s an easy queerie to answer. Because…wait for it…wait for it…good boy, because you wrote something that got my attention and I used you to get my agenda posted. I couldn’t care less about your agenda. I mean, after all, it is an open forum and I was using words not bullets, so I was very surprised to see your hysterical response as you apparently took umbrage at my White Nationalist leanings. As to the charge of not jumping at the chance to “prove” my thesis, you will just have to forgive me for frankly not caring enough to take the time to educate you. The kind of word throwing bitch slapping that you intellectuals use to win arguments, just isn’t my cup of tea and unlike you have an actual life. And my forum name is Burgermeister, not Moribund and believe me, I am not ignoring you for that would be very hard to do because it appears that you have polluted every thread on this website with your need for attention. I suppose you are just trying to prove my contention that Academia is filled with whores? Attention ones in any case?

  25. Andrew Fraser's Gravatar Andrew Fraser
    July 2, 2012 - 2:27 am | Permalink

    @D. K.:
    It is not positive or statute law but natural law which confers natural born citizenship as distinct from the sort of birthright citizenship you are discussing there.

    According to Vattel, “[t]he natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

    Note that, according to Vattel, at natural law a person born to a Kenyan father would not be entitled even to birthright citizenship in the USA, and certainly not a person born in Kenya to a Kenyan father.

    It is only the intervention of positive or statute law that works to alter that natural law principle. No positive law can confer natural born citizenship on anyone not born in the USA of citizen parents.

    Certainly, you cannot cite any binding legal authority for the proposition that a person born in 1961 in Kenya of a Kenyan father and an 18 year old American mother would be entitled to “natural born citizenship” in the USA.

    Even the statute you cite applies only to mothers born in 1952 or later. Stanley Ann Durham was born in 1942. What was the law applicable to her offspring?

    In fact, the law applicable to overseas births prior to 1952 provided that: ”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.”

    Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet the requisite standard because she was only 18 at the time of Obama’s alleged birthdate.

    Once again, your mission seems to be to sow disinformation in the service of a man who has usurped unlawfully (if one respects the original intent of the Constitution) the office of President.

    Shame on you! With friends such as you and the like-minded folks at Fogbow, the American Republic no longer needs enemies!

  26. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 2, 2012 - 1:00 am | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    HERE IS THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE UNITED STATES CODE . . .

    ****

    Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    ***

    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date…

    ***

    ****

    . . . WHICH ACTUALLY GRANTS TO THOSE SUCH BORN IN THE EARLIER PERIOD (12/24/52 – 11/13/86) THE SAME TERMS AS THOSE BORN SINCE (CONTRARY TO THE SUMMARY, ABOVE, FROM THE TRAVEL WEB SITE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS)– WHICH WOULD HAVE INCLUDED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, HAD HE ACTUALLY BEEN BORN IN MOMBASA, KENYA, RATHER THAN IN HONOLULU, HAWAII, ON AUGUST 4, 1961!

  27. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 1, 2012 - 10:15 pm | Permalink

    FROM THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT WEB SITE:

    ***

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

    A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

    ***

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

  28. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 1, 2012 - 10:00 pm | Permalink

    @Ron J.:

    Yes, Ron, you are missing a lot. (You might want to try the Fog Bow Web site, which I mentioned here yesterday.) Along with putting your trust in a piece of rank hearsay, wholly unsupported by either the woman who told you the story or, according to the story that you yourself have just told, by the woman who allegedly told the story to her, or the woman who allegedly told it to her, to begin with– as against an official administrative act by the sovereign State of Hawaii, and another by the sovereign State of Arizona, in once again placing Obama on its ballot (as I mentioned here earlier, a couple of times), officially verifying his Hawaiian birth– you also are overlooking the fact, as I have discussed here earlier, as well, that your assumption that a president (or vice president) needs to be born on American soil is simply wrong. Had Obama been born in Mombassa, as some allege, he still would have been born a natural-born citizen of the United States, just like his mother– much as John McCain is a natural-born citizen of the United States, despite his having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, not on American soil.

  29. Ron J.'s Gravatar Ron J.
    July 1, 2012 - 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Around the time Obama was running for office the first time, not long after they had shown a copy of his short form birth certificate on the internet, I was chatting with a woman, her daughter, and her son-in-law about the Obama eligibility issue and I said, “I thought they had already shown a copy of his birth certificate on the internet,” and her son-in-law said, “Yeah, they did, but its probably a phoney.” Then she said, “Obama better hope it is a phoney.” I said, “Why on earth would Obama hope that it’s a phoney,” and she said, “That type of birth certificate is evidence in itself of the fact that he
    was not born on Hawaiian soil.” I said, “How do you figure that?” Then she told me she had recently been to Hawaii and had sat next to this lady on the plane who was an old friend of this woman who had worked in the Hawaii State Department of Health. She said that the lady from the health department told her, “The form of birth certificate that was shown on the internet is for residents of Hawaii who were out of state when the birth took place. It has no address of birth on it, nor does it have the name or signature of the attending physician, both of which do appear on the long form for births which did
    take place on Hawaiian soil. Since this issue over the birth certificate began, it has been the general consensus that people can just order up any old format of birth
    certificate they want, but that’s just a bunch of baloney. There are no ‘designer birth certificates’ or ‘birth certificates of different flavors.’ Whenever we received a
    request for a duplicate birth certificate we simply made a certified copy of exactly precisely what was in that person’s file and mailed it to them. Nothing more, nothing less, just that. And never at any time did we take information from an existing birth certificate and make up a certificate of a different format for any reason. Never.
    There was one per customer. If he had that type of birth certificate then he did not have the other type.”
    If what this lady said is true (and it seems to be, based upon the research I’ve done on it,) why is it seemingly of such little significance? I’ve read several complaints filed
    in connection with lawsuits involving the eligibility issue, and in most cases, this is either just not mentioned or if it is, there’s little emphasis placed upon it. It would seem to me that this would be the keystone argument in any lawsuit connected with Obama’s eligibility because of the constitutional requirement for a candidate to be born on
    american soil, but people just seem to ignore it. Why? Am I missing something?

  30. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 1, 2012 - 6:01 pm | Permalink

    @burgermeister:

    That certainly begs the question, then, Moribund, as to why, while ignoring me, you nonetheless took it upon yourself to reply to one of my earlier comments, which was, quite evidently, not addressed to you– and have continued to reply to my own replies to you (as I assume that you will to this one), albeit without ever answering one of the countless queries that they have contained!?!?!

  31. burgermeister's Gravatar burgermeister
    July 1, 2012 - 5:24 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.: I suppose in your world, comprising of entities such as”your ‘honors’ and other such fancy types” that your prolific intellectual masturbation on this site is what passes for fighting, or winning an argument. Nevertheless, amongst us less educated types, such wordplay holds no bearing and tends to be ignored. It would be as though I had called you a “Cunt”, (not that I am mind you) and then you respond with an essay pointing out that you couldn’t possibly be one because you have a penis (mind you that I don’t know if you personally have a penis and are just acting like you don’t so don’t take this line of thought personally) whereas, I would then insist that nevertheless you are a still a “Cunt” in spite of your claims to have a penis like physical appendage. Thus, in the future, please save the “big guns” of argumentation for your peers whom might care about such things and leave the real fighting to people like me. Oh, that’s right, you already do.

  32. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 1, 2012 - 5:05 pm | Permalink

    @Burgermeister:

    I do hope that I shall never allow anyone to claim, with any sense of plausibility, that I myself am not one to give full credit to another, where it is manifestly due: A more succinct and apropos summation of your total intellectual capacity, and range of worthwhile knowledge, Moribund, not even I could have delivered up, as here expressed!

    And, with that, Your Honors, I rest my case….

  33. Burgermeister's Gravatar Burgermeister
    July 1, 2012 - 4:08 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.: Blah, blah, blah.

  34. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    July 1, 2012 - 4:00 pm | Permalink

    @Burgermeister:

    Reposting your reply does not make it any less embarrassing to you, Moribund; it merely reiterates what an ignorant and vulgar fool you are. Your idiocy is beautifully illustrated by your opening: “While I cannot say for certain, I am sure….” Your old elementary-school teachers– and your poor parents– must be so proud of you!

    For the record, I had posed four explicit questions for you, in my earlier reply; your latest reply (well, replies) answered exactly none of the four. Instead, you begin, following your aforementioned and total contradiction in terms, with a wholly unsubstantiated, and patently dubious, claim that your Jewish TV idol, Maury Povich, would agree with you. (In the words of ‘Mr. Spock': “Highly illogical!”)

    As for your substantive statement, which Maury Povich almost certainly would not agree with, you claim, without presenting any evidence to substantiate that claim, that the current president’s late mother “slept with men to whom she was not married in order to advance a certain zeitgeist supported by her father and his cadre; he taking the place of her pimp.” Your statement lacks support for three separate assertions, in addition to the ludicrous one about Maury Povich: (a) the claim that she slept with more than one man to whom she was not married; (b) the claim that she did so, in each case, specifically “in order to advance a certain zeitgeist supported by her father and his cadre”; and, (c) the claim that her own father, in each case, was instrumental to that supposed ideologically motivated fornication, “taking the place of her pimp.” In order to rectify the situation, please provide a full list of the men with whom the president’s late mother had sex outside of marriage, along with proof of an ideological motivation, on her part, for each of those listed couplings, and proof that her own father not only had foreknowledge of each of them, but essentially acted as a “pimp” in each case.

    Next, we move on to your unsubstantiated claim that the president’s late mother “was a slut because she had a black man [sic] fetish; an embarrassing fact alluded to and resented by Barry himself.” In the first place, having a sexual fetish would not have made her “a slut” per se– although, it certainly would have made her doubly unusual, since the vast majority of sexual fetishists are male!?! Where is your proof that she had pre-marital sex with Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., because of “a black man [sic] fetish” (in addition to your previously claimed ideological motivation)? Please cite the alleged source(s) for your claim that the president, at some point, has alluded to, and explicitly noted his resentment of, such a racially oriented sexual fetish. (N.B. It might help your case if you could, at a minimum, name at least one black man, besides the president’s late father, with whom she is known to have had any sexual relations!?! The fact that the president’s step-father was an Indonesian, not a black man, would certainly operate to undermine your claim that she had “a black man [sic] fetish.”)

    Again, “does any teenage or pre-marital sex make a woman a slut and a whore, to your sophisticated intellect and pure moral bearings?” To begin with, we need to know what your operational definitions of the terms “slut” and “whore” would be, before we may move on to evaluating your assertion about the sexual proclivity of women with advanced degrees (of whom, I suspect, I have known exponentially more than you have– even, perhaps, in the Biblical sense!?!). Next, we need to know just how you concluded that the women that you have known with advanced degrees were so prone to being sluts and whores. Did you happen to ask them, in the midst of, say, copulation; or, did you simply observe their slutish and whorish behavior, while you were in the midst of, say, peeping in their windows at night?!? Based on differential rates of academic achievement, by both race and class, and of such sexually related measures as abortions, illegitimate births, sexually transmitted diseases, etc., I would suspect, as someone trained in the social sciences myself, that you would have a somewhat difficult time proving your thesis– even if you were a hell of a lot brighter and better educated than you apparently are!?!?!

  35. Burgermeister's Gravatar Burgermeister
    July 1, 2012 - 12:53 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.: While I cannot say for certain, I am sure my “Jewish friend” Maury would agree that Obama’s Mother was a whore because she slept with men to whom she was not married in order to advance a certain zeitgeist supported by her father and his cadre; he taking the place of her pimp. And she was a slut because she had a black man fetish; an embarrassing fact alluded to and resented by Barry himself. And yes, I have met many whores and sluts with advanced degrees. They can be found in a place called “Academia”.
    Reply

  36. Burgermeister's Gravatar Burgermeister
    July 1, 2012 - 12:52 pm | Permalink

    @dan: By and large, “Boomers” are a useless lot, but so are the exulted members of the “Greatest Generation”. Apparently, the majority of the good guys were killed off in WWI/WWII, and maybe that was the plan. In any case, in my experience, while the non-whites will rob, rape and murder you, 9 times out of 10, the hand holding the knife in your back will be White. At least in America.

  37. Burgermeister's Gravatar Burgermeister
    July 1, 2012 - 12:45 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.: While I cannot say for certain, I am sure my “Jewish friend” Maury would agree that Obama’s Mother was a whore because she slept with men to whom she was not married in order to advance a certain zeitgeist supported by her father and his cadre; he taking the place of her pimp. And she was a slut because she had a black cock fetish; an embarrassing fact alluded to and resented by Barry himself. And yes, I have met many whores and sluts with advanced degrees. They can be found in a place called “Academia”.

  38. Richard Pierce's Gravatar Richard Pierce
    June 30, 2012 - 8:49 pm | Permalink

    Great article, I just skimmed through Empire and read some reviews.

    @Bear

    I tended to be cynical about “conspiracy” theories but then I read Kerry Bolton’s “The Revolution from Above” (He must be one of us, he posts at “Counter Currents”. It’s no secret that Susan Sontag, virtually the entire Frankfurt School (in the USA) not only received CIA money but money from the Rockerfellers, Ford Foundation and many other establishments.

    This is no conspiracy theory. The Sontag was open about receiving CIA money and so were most of the others at times.

    What Drew Fraser calls corporate neo-communism (open borders, global citizenship, mobilization, of women into the workforce) has been going on as a managed process by transnational elites for a long time.

    The lunar left have merely been ‘useful idiots’ in many ways they have not been our real enemy.

    The Revolution from Above thesis is quite interesting, and reactionary literature has described glimpses of the globalist network from Catholic anti-Masonic to anti-communist pespectives to someone like Ezra Pound, for a long time. Central banks now operate quasi-indepedently of their respective governments and the financial system is global in nature. Banking itself relies on secrecy.

    “Conspiracy theory” is just the equivalent of “heretic,” I believe the modern use of the term “conspiracy theory” was used to shout down anyone suggesting that Oswald didn’t act alone. CIA funding of all sorts of causes (even modern art dreck like Jackson Pollack!) is a matter of historical record – Fraser mentions Empire here; one of the authors was a Red Brigade terrorist, which we know was influenced, perhaps even run, by NATO’s Gladio program.

    The beauty of banking is that you can set economic incentives such that individuals will react predictably by their own supposed free choice. Famous Republican party pollster Frank Luntz explains the best results come from setting up choices in a certain way so that the targets choose your desired outcome by themselves. Given economic and media power, you can reliably coordinate individual actions among the masses. It’s what modern marketing is based on.

    Former CIA director R. James Woolsey tells a fascinating and terrifying Cold War anecdote about his time at the State department involved in negotiations with the Soviets. He said no matter how tense the negotiations got inside the conference room, American and Soviet teams would go out for drinks afterwards and got along surprisingly well, telling Yiddish jokes to each other. (Wooley is openly philo-semitic, embarassingly so.)

    Most of the third world “communist” movements were really nationalist movements against Western imperialism; the US fought those while often bailing out the USSR itself, making favorable economic arragements with them, and seemingly propping them up in many ways. Lord Rothschild of England was known to have personal access to virtually all British intelligence, and it all consistently wound up in Soviet hands.

    The existence of the Bilderberger meetings were a “conspiracy theory” for a long time, until the Canadian press started reporting on them, now they have a website – wikileaks even released their meeting minutes going back to the 1980s. It reads like every single conspiracy theorists worst nightmare come true.

    It’s hardly even worth calling it a “conspiracy” it’s business as usual. The West has been ruled by a transnational oligarchy for a very long time, and post WWII there has been a long project of trying to integrate China and the rest of Asia (the Trilateralism of the 70s/80s was the attempt to integrate Japan into the system.)

    The problem with conservatives, and one reason conservatives always lose, is they get hung up on older, traditional and partial theories of how the oligarchs operate; hence TyronParsons’ long diatribes about the universal commercial code and admiralty law, Catholics and their Freemason conspiracies, John Birchers obsessing with the CPUSA, etc. Even worse, like the Ron Paulites longing for a gold standard, or the Tea Party waving around copies of the Constitution, they think there is some “system” or “form of government” that will make everything alright, if we can just go back to the “old ways.”

    It’s not the “form of government” that matters as much as who runs it.

    Fraser concludes:

    It is time for American WASPs to reflect on the implications of that message. Their own patriot game has been sidelined by the postmodern game of identity politics. From now on, any and all proposed solutions to the crisis of the Republic should be subjected to one acid test: Is it good for white Anglo-Saxon Protestants?

    Could not agree more (though I would characterize myself as post-Protestant of course); as dixiegirl has mentioned here before, there is a difference between Catholic and Protestant cultures, and I have no wish to involve myself in the world wide network of priests run out of the Vatican – the West’s first globalist, universalist minded conspiracy of oligarchs loyal not to their neighbors and families, but an imperialist power far away (every village priest essentially a spy for Rome.)

    It’s clear the WASPs made a deal with the devil by getting in bed with the Jews, but I think we are coming to our senses finally. The Anglosphere desperately needs to hold the ethnic line in our nations and reign in our traitorous elites. Nietzsche described the two types of rulers as aristocrats, ruling by military force, and priests, ruling by lies. The West is trapped in a web of lies and propaganda that’s extremely sophisticated, scientifically honed, and propogated by the media and the banks/corporations. The internet is, however, already proving itself to be a game changer.

  39. dan's Gravatar dan
    June 30, 2012 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

    @Burgermeister: Damn good insights [no sarcasm]. I too have been puzzled by the high emotion and fervor attached to homosexual issues. I still can not figure out what the hell a ‘Pride’ parade is really about. (‘well I do ‘this’ with my genitals…and so I’m ‘proud’…huh?)

    I’m a bit old to be a boomer, born in ’42, but I notice one feature of this group is how commonly they trash their parents. To me there is something fundamentally wrong here. It seems that the more was bestowed upon them, adoration of their youth, paying for their college and deference to their extended adolescense; we are rewarded with excuses as to why they were unfaithful, had no kids and generally had no morals or love of anything but themselves.

    And as far as WN or White anything goes, Good F’n luck with that. Such a materialist bunch of deceiving back stabbing bastards holds no second to such minorities as we’re stuck with. It’s every man for himself as far as I can see. Good Luck all.

  40. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 30, 2012 - 5:30 pm | Permalink

    @Burgermeister:

    Mitt Romney’s late father, George, was born in Mexico, to parents who chose to reside there, so that they could continue to practice polygamy. Romney, and his children and grandchildren, are thus legally entitled to Affirmative Action and set-asides, as Hispanic Americans, if they choose to check the proper boxes on government legal forms!

  41. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 30, 2012 - 5:25 pm | Permalink

    @Burgermeister:

    Does your Jewish friend, Maury Povich, have a lot of white-trash women on who have earned doctorate degrees, and whose mothers were bank vice presidents? How many men can you name that the president’s late mother had sexual relations with, in her entire life? Or, does any teenage or pre-marital sex make a woman a slut and a whore, to your sophisticated intellect and pure moral bearings? Regardless, the Constitution does not agree with your White Nationalist agenda. You have the grass-roots support to rectify that fact, right, Moribund?

  42. Burgermeister's Gravatar Burgermeister
    June 30, 2012 - 4:56 pm | Permalink

    @mari: “I have loathed and despised this country since 1970 when I realized the impact affirmative action would have on me.”

    Amen, I came to the same conclusion years ago as well. As a tail-end baby boomer, I stared at the same boomer assholes taking up valuable space ahead of me for years waiting until my turn to advance up the ranks only to find the way blocked with special appointees and carefully mentored non-whites regardless of merit. I sometimes suspect that the current rash of faddish White Homosexuality to be a response to the blatant anti-white heterosexual policies shoved down our throats from elementary school on. Better to be in a protected class than not apparently.
    And I might add, that I also loath those Whites whom, although disagreeing with the law, fully implicated it and proudly proclaimed their deeds from every pulpit.

    Thus my message to American WASPS is to piss off. You dug your own graves and the rest of us Whites will somehow muddle along without you. It is the non-Whites that will miss you the most.

  43. Burgermeister's Gravatar Burgermeister
    June 30, 2012 - 4:34 pm | Permalink

    @Tom: While I am not a Romney fan, he is White and born of two American parents, therefore, he is at least eligible to run for President. What grandpa did or didn’t is irrelevant at this point.

  44. Burgermeister's Gravatar Burgermeister
    June 30, 2012 - 4:31 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    Frankly, all this talk about who an American or not is intellectual masturbation. Obama is an African living in America who has some European admixture. This fact alone makes him ineligible to be the American President simply because he isn’t White (and I for one will never be ruled willingly by a non-White, no matter where he or she was born). Thus, he cannot lead any White Nation anywhere nor represent their interests. And that also makes those other so called “Non-White Americans” non Americans as well. All they are are residents. As for the whose his daddy question. I’ll refer you to the Maury Povich show. Apparently it is very common for sluts and whores to be unsure of whom is their babies daddy. And his momma was both.

  45. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 30, 2012 - 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Since that last query emerged safely from the ether, I shall try to finesse the system to the same effect as my last rejected attempts.

    Those interested in a thorough debunking of birtherism– generally done by Obama supporters, yes, but using facts, authoritative citations, and logic!– should visit a site called The Fog Bow. Get there by turning that into a standard URL, by compressing the phrase, to lose its spaces, and adding the standard URL prefix and suffix, with the necessary dots in place.

    For a good overview of the specific issue of whether a person needs two citizen-parents, at birth, to be born eligible to serve later as president (or vice president), click on “Birther claims debunked”, from the menu at the top of the homepage, and then on “Three Theories”. Choose # 3, “Both parents must be citizens.”

    To get the most for your entertainment dollar, however, you must check out the page dedicated specifically to New Jersey’s favorite son, Leo Donofrio! It has a long URL, which I will not attempt to finesses, here and now; so, just use the “Search” item, in the top menu, and enter “Leo Donofrio” as your search term. You will get two results, with the first one being the link to the page dedicated to Mr. Fraser’s favorite Constitutional scholar. (The second leads to an overview of a large number of Donofrio’s fellow birther nuts.) Enjoy!!!

  46. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 30, 2012 - 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Why have my last four attempts to respond to Andrew Fraser’s nonsense, over the course of more than half a day, all disappeared into the ether?!? (Comments usually appear on screen to their own author, at least, with the bold notation that they are currently under moderation– which sometimes is a terminal condition!?!) Has Dr. MacDonald given his contributors the authority and power to ban particular critics from posting comments, even in direct reply to contributor comments specifically addressed to us?!? “Something is rotten in the State of Denmark”– and I am not referring, now, to unassimilable Islamic immigration!

  47. Andrew Fraser's Gravatar Andrew Fraser
    June 30, 2012 - 1:57 am | Permalink

    @D. K.:
    “Whether Barack Hussein Obama II ever was a dual citizen– whether a British subject at birth, by virtue of his Kenyan father, or an Indonesian citizen, later, by virtue of a naturalization, during his several years living in Indonesia, with his mother and step-father, as a young child– he was always a natural-born American citizen.”
    Once again, you could profit from a reading of Leo Donofrio’s work. Ad hominem assertions as to his alleged “incompetence” are not enough to refute his legal analysis:
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/justice-hugo-black-in-duncan-v-louisiana-indicates-obama-would-not-be-eligible-ineligibility-echoed-by-former-attorney-general-jeremiah-black/

    “QUESTION: How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?

    ANSWER: It’s not possible.
    Such a person is born with divided allegiance. Such a person is born owing fealty to the monarchy of the United Kingdom.”
    ****
    “Those who owed allegiance to ‘anybody else’ are not natural born citizens of the United States.”
    ****
    “Obama supporters cling to a desperate argument. They claim that another country’s nationality laws should not have any bearing in the US. But this is clearly false. In a previous article entitled, ‘The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality’, I highlighted an official letter from Secretary of State Lansing to Senator Dodge wherein Lansing educated the Senator regarding the requirement of citizen parents so that children born here not be subject to foreign military duty.

    If a child is born in the US to a father who owes allegiance to a foreign power, that child also owes allegiance to that foreign power. This was always our law. It was US law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at the time Obama was born, and it is US law today. Nothing has changed.

    Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom. I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears. Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US. Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother.

    Read the quote from his web site again:
    ‘As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.’

    I will finish this report with a question:

    Why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?”

    Answer: Because the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship. Natural born citizens do not owe their status to the 14th Amendment.

    In other words, there are three, not just two, classes of American citizens: naturalized citizens, birthright citizens (ie persons born on US soil of alien parents), and natural born citizens (ie those born on US soil of citizen-whether naturalized or birthright-parents).

    Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution distinguishes between the natural born citizens eligible to the office of President and other citizens, whether naturalized or birthright citizens,for a reason.

    John Jay, inter alia, wanted to ensure that the President would be a person who owed no allegiance to any foreign power-especially Great Britain.

  48. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 29, 2012 - 11:00 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew Fraser:

    Your source is simply a legal incompetent, Mr. Fraser– and, evidently, so are you! You two grasp neither the English language, per se, nor basic legal skills. What your source cites as the case’s “holding” was merely prefatory matter– dicta– within which the Court explicitly stated that it need not even consider whether that other group of American-born persons– those born to alien parents– were or were not natural-born citizens of the United States, within the meaning of the Constitution. The entire paragraph makes no mention, direct or indirect, to the specific case of a person born in the United States who had both one alien-parent and one-citizen parent, whether the latter was a native-born or naturalized citizen. The woman in question, in that case, was born in the United States, to two American citizen-parentss; thus, the Court was able to cut straight to the proverbial chase.

    There are only two types of citizens, here, in the United States: those of us who are American citizens at, from, and simply by virtue of our American births, and those who are not, but who are instead naturalized as citizens, through their completion of the American naturalization process, including their being formally sworn in as such. Your source’s claim that those who are born American citizens, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, but who might or might not have been considered citizens, prior to or absent its passage and ratification, are not “native-born citizens,” simply because the Court did not rely upon the Fourteenth Amendment to make its ruling, on a wholly different issue, in that 1875 case, is abject nonsense! My mother, who just died recently, at age 88, was not a foreigner throughout her entire life, simply because her parents had both been legal immigrants from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Like scores of millions of other first-generation Americans, she was a natural-born citizen of the United States, from the day that she was born until the day that she finally died– just the same as was my late father, whose parents were both born in the United States, and whose ancestors first arrived here in the New World in the 1630s!

    Whether Barack Hussein Obama II ever was a dual citizen– whether a British subject at birth, by virtue of his Kenyan father, or an Indonesian citizen, later, by virtue of a naturalization, during his several years living in Indonesia, with his mother and step-father, as a young child– he was always a natural-born American citizen. Absent a formal renunciation of that citizenship– for which there is no credible evidence, whatsoever– he has been eligible to serve as either the president or vice president of the United States, beginning August 4, 1996.

  49. Andrew Fraser's Gravatar Andrew Fraser
    June 29, 2012 - 8:05 pm | Permalink

    Leo Donofrio who is an American lawyer shows clearly that Minor v Happersett is binding precedent which provides a clear definition of natural born citizenship which excludes Obama. See: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/
    “The Supreme Court in Minor specifically construed Article 2 Section 1 by defining – as natural-born citizens – those persons born in the US to parents who were citizens.

    Again, the Supreme Court specifically avoided the 14th Amendment, by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.

    In order to determine whether Mrs. Minor had the right to vote, the Court first needed to determine if she was a US citizen. They determined that she was a citizen because she was in the class of “natural-born citizens”. And, in doing so, they made it clear that persons born of non-citizen parents were not natural-born citizens.

    The Court left open the question of whether those born of non-citizen parents were “citizens”. But the Court did not leave open their specific construction of Article 2 Section 1. Their definition of a “natural-born citizen” was the core reason they found Mrs. Minor to be a citizen. Therefore, the Minor Court established binding precedent as follows:

    “…[A]ll children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners…”

    Please also note that the Court here makes specific reference to both aliens and foreigners as distinguished from natural-born citizens. Aliens are just that, aliens. They are not citizens. But we have always had many foreigners in this country who were citizens. Those who came here from foreign lands were foreigners naturalized as citizens. Some who were born in the US with dual citizenship – like Obama – were also citizens of the nation of their parents. These are citizens, but also foreigners. The Court in Minor made the careful distinction that a natural-born citizen is not an alien or a foreigner.”

  50. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 29, 2012 - 6:16 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew Fraser:

    Mr. Fraser, with all due respect, arguments about the evolution of the nature of my own country’s form of government, whether they are made by me and my fellow Americans, or by foreigners with conspiratorial complexes, are utterly irrelevant to the Constitutional issue of whether Barack Hussein Obama II is or is not qualified to serve as my country’s president, now and in the future, under the express terms of our (i.e., his and my, rather than your own) Constitution of the United States, as amended to date.

    The Constitution of my native country– which was founded by statesmen, rather than, say, convicts– cites but three necessary qualifications, as well as one possible bar (a previous Congressional impeachment and conviction). I discussed the issues thoroughly in my first response to your first installment– beginning with the fact that your 1875 Supreme Court citation explicitly stated, in dicta, that it need not bother to discuss, at all, let alone to decide, the very issue that you were claiming was decided as its actual– and still-precedential, under stare decisis– legal holding!

    Barack Obama was a natural-born citizen of these United States– and would have been, even if his impoverished parents had (inscrutably) bankrupted themselves to fly to Kenya to have their baby! There is no credible evidence that the president subsequently renounced his American citizenship, in Indonesia or anywhere else, nor that my country’s Department of State ever recognized or recorded any such renunciation. He was certainly of sufficient age, when he was elected president, and had certainly resided in the United States for far longer than the required period of fourteen years. He has certainly never been impeached by the United States House of Representatives, let alone been convicted by the United States Senate. Ergo, he has been eligible to serve as my country’s president throughout his term– and, indeed, would have been eligible to run, in place of Bill Clinton, way back in 1996!

    As a former American attorney-at-law, who actually earned his Juris Doctor from an American law school, and who actually sat for and passed a state Bar examination, leading to my actual admission to the practice of law in my then-home state, by an actual order of its state supreme court, I may assure you, Mr. Fraser, that I am not in need of any lectures from any foreign attorneys as to my own nation’s own legal history, thank you very much.

    I am painfully well aware of the fact that there are a very few people in my formerly chosen profession of law who make an inane argument about the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees natural-born citizenship to those born in the United States, with a very limited exception. The crux of their argument is made against those who have two foreign parents, neither of whom is then present in the United States legally, at the time of their child’s birth. Along with its being a facially fallacious argument– the amendment refers to those children’s status, vis-a-vis American jurisdiction, not to the status of their parents!– it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as my president, which so offends your foreign sensibilities. He was born in the United States, to a native-born mother; and, even had he been born in Kenya, whether by deliberate planning or through mere happenstance, he still would have been a natural-born American citizen, and subsequently and currently eligible to serve as my nation’s president.

  51. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 29, 2012 - 4:40 pm | Permalink

    @Tom:

    I cannot imagine what he could say, other than that he chooses to believe someone who claimed that his unsupported word “proved” the negative (i.e., a total lack of evidence that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii)!?! That is what bothers me about people, in general, and commenters on this site, in particular: they often tend to believe whatever nonsense they choose to believe, for no other reason than that believing such nonsense reinforces their preexisting beliefs! Many, if not most, people here, for instance, are thoroughly convinced that the Jews, as a group, are the natural enemies of Whites (i.e., non-Hispanic Caucasian Gentiles of indigenous-European descent). Well, okay, fine . . . BUT . . . those people who believe that then often feel that the Jews are behind everything that is bad, and ignore any evidence to the contrary, so that they may blame the Jews. For instance, I have read many comments on this site suggesting, or outright claiming, that Jack Kennedy was killed by Israeli intelligence, because he was not in line with Israel’s interests (the way that LBJ certainly turned out to be– especially when the U.S.S. Liberty was under attack, and he and his, and J.F.K.’s, Secretary of Defense, Robert Strange (!) McNamara, arguably committed treason, by TWICE recalling our fighter jets, from elsewhere in the Mediterranean, which already had been sent off to intervene!). I have been a student of the JFK assassination for nearly a quarter century, now. I do not claim to be an expert about the assassination– nor about anything else (I am, by both nature and nurture, a generalist)– yet, I have seen no credible evidence that Israel, or the Jews more generally, had anything to do with the killing. (For the record, I am of the firm belief, now, as I have been for the past few years, that it was a mob hit, originating with the New Orleans don, Carlos Marcello, although it certainly did involve both anti-Castroites and disgruntled members of the C.I.A., who all hated Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, et seq.) Do I think that Israel had a motive to kill JFK? Yes– but so did lots of others, individually and collectively, and they did not all get together in a grand conspiracy-of-conspiracies to carry out the assassination! As in “The Thin Man” series, and many other such detective yarns, lots of people had the motive, and more than one might have had the means, but rarely do suspects all conspire to do the deed. (“Murder on the Orient Express” comes to mind as a fictional exception.) Unlike, say, Sherlock Holmes, many people, however, simply do not care about facts and logic; they have their own favored suspects, respectively, and they are sticking to them! (Of course, even the brilliant Holmes could be that way himself, when he was on the blow….) The bottom line is, I will defend anyone, no matter how loathsome, from an individual injustice. I do not believe, as a former officer of the court, in “poetic justice” being done at the bar. If there is a God, He may sort things out for Himself, later. All individual cases ought to be judged solely on their own merits. I may hate Barack Obama, in the instant case at hand, but I do not believe that he was born in Kenya (nor that that would have disqualified him from the presidency, regardless!), any more than I do that he, say, killed Cock Robin. (N.B. The Sparrow readily confessed!) As President Ronald Wilson Reagan once infamously said, misreading his TelePrompTer: “Facts are stupid things!”

  52. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    June 29, 2012 - 1:42 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    Maybe, Edwards will have something to say, he writes for TOO?

  53. June 29, 2012 - 1:30 pm | Permalink

    @Bear: And again, you are talking about conspiracy in general when I have emphasized that I was only saying that a particular conspiracy-theory made no sense. Why address to me a comment that bears no relation to anything that I said?

  54. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    June 29, 2012 - 3:53 am | Permalink

    @D. K.: I hope you never had to defend or prosecute this nebulous “large minority” in your legal career.

  55. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    June 29, 2012 - 3:31 am | Permalink

    WAY OFF TOPIC..BUT I WANTED KMD TO READ:

    San Francisco Examiner :
    Brinkin, who has a longtime partner and a teenage son, retired in 2010 after working for 22 years with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission
    Brinkin retired from the Human Rights Commission in 2010, and has been a beloved member of the gay community, with the Board of Supervisors even declaring the first week of February as “Larry Brinkin Week.” At the time of his retirement, he earned more than $135,000 yearly.
    Upon his retirement, Dufty introduced a Board of Supervisors resolution declaring the first seven days of February 2010 “Larry Brinkin Week” in honor of his advocacy.
    Carmen Chandler, the vice president of that all-volunteer board, called Brinkin a “consummate professional” and said she was stunned when she heard about the arrest.
    We put in a call to Theresa Sparks, executive director of the Human Rights Commission, told us this allegation is “beyond hard to believe.””It’s almost incredulous, there’s no way I could believe such a thing,” Sparks told us. “He’s always been one of my heroes, and he’s the epitome of human rights activist — this is man who coined phrases we use in our daily language. I support Larry 100 percent, hopefully it will all come out in the investigation.”

    The warrant claims these e-mails contained images of children as young as perhaps a year old being sodomized by and performing oral sex on adult men. [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

  56. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    June 29, 2012 - 3:17 am | Permalink

    @D. K.:
    Yes, Mass., Harvard and US Govt, Importing ‘diverse trash’.

  57. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    June 29, 2012 - 3:06 am | Permalink

    @Luke: Well said Luke.

  58. Bear's Gravatar Bear
    June 29, 2012 - 2:53 am | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:

    I tended to be cynical about “conspiracy” theories but then I read Kerry Bolton’s “The Revolution from Above” (He must be one of us, he posts at “Counter Currents”. It’s no secret that Susan Sontag, virtually the entire Frankfurt School (in the USA) not only received CIA money but money from the Rockerfellers, Ford Foundation and many other establishments.

    This is no conspiracy theory. The Sontag was open about receiving CIA money and so were most of the others at times.

    What Drew Fraser calls corporate neo-communism (open borders, global citizenship, mobilization, of women into the workforce) has been going on as a managed process by transnational elites for a long time.

    The lunar left have merely been ‘useful idiots’ in many ways they have not been our real enemy.

  59. Bear's Gravatar Bear
    June 29, 2012 - 2:24 am | Permalink

    @D. K.:
    Dear D.K, I don’t think that any offense of exclusion of your non WASP ancestry should be taken. WASP’s were once a force to be reckoned with that drove economic and technical progress, now they are marginalized kowtow yes men.

    The topic of what happened to WASPs deserves examination as a topic on its own.

    It’s worth considering that the splitting of Whites into Protestant versus Catholic had a great deal to do with the breakdown of immigration policy in that it allowed exploitation, eg the efforts of the Kennedys in breaking down immigration barriers and the supposed efforts of WASPs to war on Catholic working class whites by introducing Black racial diversity into their neighborhoods.

    What happened to White Catholics, should also be a topic for concern.

  60. Andrew Fraser's Gravatar Andrew Fraser
    June 29, 2012 - 1:54 am | Permalink

    @D. K.:
    “On the one hand, we have the sovereign State of Hawaii certifying that the current president had been born there, and releasing documentary prove that was found to be legally sufficient for another state to allow Barack Obama to be placed again on its ballot, in accordance with a new law, instigated by birthers.”

    You really need to examine the material presented at Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s presser back in March. His Cold Case Posse demonstrated that there is “probable cause” to believe that the “birth certificate” PDF presented by Obama in his presser in April 2011 was a computer-generated forgery. Not to mention the forged Selective Service registration card! See:
    http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html

    As for the decision by Arizona Sec’y of Stat, Ken Bennett to place Obama on the ballot, you should have followed the links in Part 1 to Butterdezillion’s analysis of the Hawaii DOH’s non-verification verification of Obama’s nativity story:
    http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hi-non-verification-1.pdf

    Then, of course, there is the core issue of “natural born citizenship.” You show no awareness of-or even any apparent interest in-the arguments and analysis on that subject made, inter alia, at these links:
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com.au/
    and
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

    The arguments made by those two “originalist” lawyers take the genetic legitimacy of the American Constitutional Republic for granted. Unfortunately, as my article sought to demonstrate, the genetic legitimacy of a revolutionary regime is, by definition, almost impossible to demonstrate.

    Arguments based on the constitutional premises of the long-since superseded First Republic carry little weight in a legal system now negotiating the tumultuous transformation of the Third (Managerial/Therapeutic) Republic into Obama’s Fourth (Transnational) Republic.

    If you had done some basic homework on the historical context and jurisprudential background of the natural born citizenship issue, you might not have to depend quite so heavily upon unproven (and unproveable) assertions coupled with ad hominem attacks.

    As things stand, I’m tempted to doubt your good faith. You seem to be bent mainly on throwing bulldust in the eyes of the readers here.

  61. Barbara's Gravatar Barbara
    June 29, 2012 - 1:53 am | Permalink

    You might find this informative.

    http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

  62. Barbara's Gravatar Barbara
    June 29, 2012 - 1:42 am | Permalink

    @Darren Fisk: I agree. I write my legislators all the time but I think they throw my correspondence away.

    What do you say to them? Are you open and frank?

  63. Barbara's Gravatar Barbara
    June 29, 2012 - 1:34 am | Permalink

    @Daybreaker: You are absolutely right. Thank you for speaking up.

    The only way we can win this is with numbers. Many more whites need to speak up to their legislators. We have the numbers, unfortunately, not all know the seriousness of our situation. If they aren’t looking around for it on the internet, they won’t hear about it in the MSM.

  64. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 29, 2012 - 1:20 am | Permalink
  65. Vlad Writes's Gravatar Vlad Writes
    June 29, 2012 - 12:18 am | Permalink

    As an example of how screwed up America is, let me tell you the true story of what is happening in Dallas County, Texas.
    The Sheriff is a latina and a lesbian, who came from a affirmative action background in federal law enforcement. She has been reelected and has gotten much help from other democrats of power in the county. However, she does have a jail to run and has to keep it operating. So, who does she employ in the maintenance department, and who does she promote? White men, of course – they show up on time and keep the equipment operating. So, naturally, some black guys are suing, saying the whites get all the good jobs and even are the only ones with keys to the toolroom. (I wonder why?) Mysteriously, the phrase “white power” was spray painted in an unused portion of the jail, although no one can prove by whom. That, an an incident mocking a black guy with a gold tooth has caused the following:
    Latina, lesbian Sheriff who practices affirmative action wherever she can is getting sued by black guys because she promoted white guys.
    America – what is left to like about it?

  66. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 28, 2012 - 11:20 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Just broad enough to cover the large minority of commenters here who appear, to me, to be virtually impervious to either facts or reason….

  67. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 28, 2012 - 11:15 pm | Permalink

    @Tom:

    You tell me that some unnamed guy was on a radio show, claiming a negative (the absence of evidence), and you expect me to accept that hearsay claim, rather than the official documentary evidence that the sovereign State of Hawaii has supplied to the secretary of state of a fellow sovereign state, which caused that official to allow Barack Obama’s name on that state’s 2012 ballot, consonant with the Constitutional requirement that a candidate for president be a natural-born citizen? Sigh….

  68. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 28, 2012 - 11:00 pm | Permalink

    @mari:

    Barack Obama, Sr.’s immigration problems did not begin until a few months after he had married the president’s mother– who was already well into her pregnancy, by then. The elder Barack did not know that his immigration status– on a student visa, which was regularly renewed, dependent upon his academic progress– was in any danger until he already was off doing his master’s program, at Harvard. Here is the relevant part of the story, from a newspaper article that is available online:

    ***

    Harvard’s action was the culmination of long simmering concern among US immigration and academic officials regarding Obama’s personal life. Raised in rural poverty near Lake Victoria in western Kenya, Obama was a highly talented student and one of an elite group of young Kenyans who were educated in the United States in the late 1950s and early 1960s in preparation for their country’s achievement of independence. In spring 1961, during Obama’s second year as an undergraduate at the University of Hawaii, Sumi McCabe, the school’s foreign student adviser, raised the first questions about Obama’s marital status.

    In April 1961, McCabe called immigration officials and expressed concern that Obama had recently married a young woman named Stanley Ann Dunham — who would become president Obama’s mother. She was concerned because Obama already had a wife back in Kenya, according to a memo written by Lyle H. Dahling, an administrator in INS’s Honolulu office. What’s more, McCabe told the INS office that Obama, “has been running around with several girls since he first arrived here and last summer she cautioned him about his playboy ways. [Obama] replied that he would ‘try’ to stay away from the girls,’’ according to the memo.

    Neither McCabe nor Dahling knew quite what to think about Obama’s womanizing. Obama is a member of one of Kenya’s ethnic group’s known as the Luo, among whom polygamy is common. Obama told McCabe that in Kenya, “all that is necessary to be divorced is to tell the wife that she is divorced . . . [Obama] claims to have been divorced from his wife in Kenya in this method,’’ according to the memo.

    But Obama was not divorced at all, according to his first wife, who was living in Kenya with their two children at the time he married Dunham in February 1961. Grace Kezia Obama, now 70, lives in Bracknell, England, and maintains that she remained married to the elder Obama until his death in 1982.

    INS officials considered whether Obama could be deported if he were convicted of bigamy, but decided against it. Instead, they decided that Obama “should be closely questioned before another extension is granted — and denial be considered.’’

    Just weeks after Dunham gave birth in August 1961 to Barack Obama II, her marriage to the elder Obama had apparently begun to fray. By the end of the month, she was living with her baby and her parents while Obama was living by himself in another part of town, according to a handwritten memo in the INS file. In the fall of 1962, Obama headed to Harvard to pursue a PhD in economics, leaving his small family behind.

    Not long after he arrived in Cambridge, authorities were once again focused on his dating habits. This time Obama was apparently dating a high school student from Kenya who had taken an unauthorized trip to London. Immigration officials observing their relationship noted that, “Obama is considered by [redacted] to be a slippery character,’’ according to a January 1964 memo by immigration inspector K.D. MacDonald.

    Immigration officials’ conversations with Harvard’s international office provided little clarity about Obama’s marital situation. “Harvard thinks he’s married to someone in Kenya and someone in Honolulu, but that possibly he belongs to a tribe where multiple marriages are OK,’’ according to a April 1964 memo.

    Henry, the director of the school’s international office, told INS officials he would talk to Obama about his “marital situation.’’ One month later, he wrote Obama a crisp letter informing him that although he had completed his course work and passed his exams, “neither the department of economics nor the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences has any further funds to support you in Cambridge,’’ according to a copy of the letter in the INS file.

    Obama struggled mightily to reverse the decision. He repeatedly called the INS office and asked for an explanation of what had happened but was told that the decision was “final,’’ according to an INS memo. In July, he boarded a plane to Nairobi and in 1965 Harvard awarded him a master’s degree in economics.

    ***

    I stand by my earlier statements….

  69. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    June 28, 2012 - 10:35 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.: “You people…”
    Broad brush strokes?

  70. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    June 28, 2012 - 10:09 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    I’m not in a mood to go through James Edward’s Political Cesspool archives, but, Edward’s has had the guy on his show at least twice that I know of. I’m pretty sure that Edward’s co-host Keith Alexander is a lawyer, and he has questioned the guy too.

    This just isn’t all Jerome Corsi and WND. Or Donald Trump for that matter—Trump still claims Obama wasn’t born in the USA.

  71. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    June 28, 2012 - 9:05 pm | Permalink

    @Luke: à la John Carpenter’s They Live.

  72. mari's Gravatar mari
    June 28, 2012 - 8:56 pm | Permalink

    DK

    There have been numerous biographies of Obama written.
    They all claim that his student visa was due to expire. One of the biographies even reproduced the letter he wrote claiming harship if he has to leave his wife and child to go back to Kenya.

  73. mari's Gravatar mari
    June 28, 2012 - 8:53 pm | Permalink

    The Sovereign People as Higher Law-Making Authority
    When in the history of the world has this ever happened. Our revolution and constitution were not made by the Sovereign People. They were made by the wealthiest persons in the colonies backed by the most powerful officially non govermental entity in the western world at the time, the Masons.

    Those wonderful WASP founding Fathers borrowed millions to pay for the revolution. Then when it was time to pay back the Hessian and Frankfort bankers, they refused to pay the taxes themselves but imposed a confiscatory whiskey tax on the frontier farmers who did most of the work and edured all of the dangers in settling the frontier.

    And before someone who has never taken an American history course past high school jumps on me and says we borrowed the money from France; remember that the French borrowed the money France lent us from the Grand Duke of Hesse and his FRankfort Germany bankers.

    Obviously I’m not a patriot although a remote ancestor, Humphrey Gilbert founded the colony of Maine in 1598.
    Whether the elites are the New England slave importers and Southern slave owners of 1774 or the Jews of today, they are always the enemies of the so called Sovereign People.

  74. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 28, 2012 - 8:00 pm | Permalink

    @Tom:

    On the one hand, we have the sovereign State of Hawaii certifying that the current president had been born there, and releasing documentary prove that was found to be legally sufficient for another state to allow Barack Obama to be placed again on its ballot, in accordance with a new law, instigated by birthers. On the other hand, we have an anonymous or pseudonymous Internet comment that claims that an anonymous person, who claimed to have insider knowledge of a lack of just such evidence, who is claimed to have stated that claim on a radio show, while not under oath. Now, as a former attorney, how in the world would I ever sort out such a pair of conflicting claims…?!?

  75. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 28, 2012 - 7:45 pm | Permalink

    @mari:

    You people seem to have a gag reflex that makes you vomit up a canard, each time that you are in the presence of a fact!?! Obama, Sr., was in Hawaii on a prestigious international scholarship. His student visa was good for as long as he was making reasonable progress toward that degree. Your assertion that he needed to marry a pregnant American teenager, carrying another man’s unborn child, in order to get a different type of visa, which would allow him to remain in the United States, and that he willingly did so, despite being married already, with children abroad, with the pregnant teenager willingly going along for the ride, while getting nothing in return from him, for either herself or her newborn son, is pure bovine excrement!

  76. mari's Gravatar mari
    June 28, 2012 - 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Moderator, why oh why do we still have to skip through Tyson Parsons theories about the City of London and the Vatican especially, especially!!!!!!! when they have nothing to do with the topic under discussion?

  77. mari's Gravatar mari
    June 28, 2012 - 7:19 pm | Permalink

    DK is right. This is what the constitution says about who is eligible to be President:

    Clause A A natural born citizen
    Clause B Anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

    No one has proved that Obama was not born in the United States. Richard Nixonand Eisenhower were the Presidents most destructive of Whites, Eisenhower for school busing and Nixon for affirmative action. Check out Nixon’s EEOC and his Philadelphia plan.

  78. mari's Gravatar mari
    June 28, 2012 - 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Barack Obama SR married Anne Dunham so he could get an extension on his student visa and avoid being deported to Kenya. As far as those wonderful anglo saxon English speaking protestants that founded this country goes, they have done nothing but import people of foreign language and culture since 1619.

    In colonial times the black population was 20 percent, larger than it has ever been before. The First census of Washington DC showed about 750 blacks, 250 Whites in the capital of the nation. Large sections of Pennsylvania were German speaking from the 1600’s until recently. New England mill owners were importing Irish Catholics when the Catholic religion was still illegal in those states. ( The first amendment
    did not automatically legalize Catholicism, that was done state by state.) Those great WASP aristocrats imported the dregs of Europe to keep wages down and to create a vast reserve of unemployed as we have now.

    It was only during the 1920’s that the aristocrats realized that along with millions of docile Russians and eastern Europeans they had imported a significant number of Jewish communists who planned to do to the United States what they were doing to Russia that the WASPS passed the exclusion acts.

    If you look at what the WASPS did, not what they said, one might conclude that the elites spent the years 1925 to 1965 plotting how to make it possible for the employers to once again enjoy the endless stream of immigrants willing to work for nothing.

    The welfare state makes it even easier for the elites to enjoy cheap labor. Section 8, food stamps, free medical care, free babysitters, day and after school care, free school lunches all those welfare programs support the families of immigrant workers. Their $20,000 per year salaries go for cars, recreation and is sent back to cesspool land to support their relatives back home.

    I have loathed and despised this country since 1970 when I realized the impact affirmative action would have on me.

    Any White person who has loyalty or patriotrism for the country that hates us and wants to exterminate us is a fool and does not have the basic intelligence to see what is going on.

    Why should I not hate my enemy that destroyed my life because I am White?

    Remember, the constitution is whatever the courts say it is. And since the 1950’s every attorney in the country has been brainwashed to be anti white. And all Judges were once attorneys.

  79. mari's Gravatar mari
    June 28, 2012 - 7:05 pm | Permalink

    “If Barack Hussein Obama II is not the biological son of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., why did the latter marry a teenage co-ed who was pregnant with another man’s baby, especially since Obama, Sr., already had an existing wife and two kids, back home in Kenya?”

    So he could get an extension on his student visa and avoid being deported to Kenya. As far as those wonderful anglo saxon English speaking protestants that founded this country goes, they have done nothing but import people of foreign language and culture since 1619.

    In colonial times the black population was 20 percent, larger than it has ever been before. The First census of Washington DC showed about 750 blacks, 250 Whites in the capital of the nation. Large sections of Pennsylvania were German speaking from the 1600’s until recently. New England mill owners were importing Irish Catholics when the Catholic religion was still illegal in those states. ( The first amendment
    did not automatically legalize Catholicism, that was done state by state.) Those great WASP aristocrats imported the dregs of Europe to keep wages down and to create a vast reserve of unemployed as we have now.

    It was only during the 1920’s that the aristocrats realized that along with millions of docile Russians and eastern Europeans they had imported a significant number of Jewish communists who planned to do to the United States what they were doing to Russia that the WASPS passed the exclusion acts.

    If you look at what the WASPS did, not what they said, one might conclude that the elites spent the years 1925 to 1965 plotting how to make it possible for the employers to once again enjoy the endless stream of immigrants willing to work for nothing.

    The welfare state makes it even easier for the elites to enjoy cheap labor. Section 8, food stamps, free medical care, free babysitters, day and after school care, free school lunches all those welfare programs support the families of immigrant workers. Their $20,000 per year salaries go for cars, recreation and is sent back to cesspool land to support their relatives back home.

    I have loathed and despised this country since 1970 when I realized the impact affirmative action would have on me.

    Any White person who has loyalty or patriotrism for the country that hates us and wants to exterminate us is a fool and does not have the basic intelligence to see what is going on.

    Why should I not hate my enemy that destroyed my life because I am White?

    Remember, the constitution is whatever the courts say it is. And since the 1950’s every attorney in the country has been brainwashed to be anti white. And all Judges were once attorneys.

  80. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    June 28, 2012 - 5:45 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    Maybe, James Edwards will interview the official from Hawaii again, who claimed there was no record of Obama in Hawaii?

    I haven’t heard that he died or changed his story.

    I expect the Democrats will have a natural born citizen issue with Romney too. Romney’s Dad was born in Mexico wasn’t he?

  81. Faustus's Gravatar Faustus
    June 28, 2012 - 4:41 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    Fully agree.

  82. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    June 28, 2012 - 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Whatever the intentions behind Obama supporters, and I think there were both good and bad intentions, his presidency has done more for our side than we could have hoped possible. No man has ever entered the office with more good will than he. Old time liberals felt warm and fuzzy because they actually thought he was intelligent, he was proof that all their hopes and dreams were true. Conservatives were so disgusted with Bush’s wars and Mc Cains sad performance that they thought Obama couldn’t be worse. He will be leaving office having brought about more racial division then anyone could have imagined. The blatant charges of racism hurled at anyone who criticizes anyone in the Obama crowd are simply embarrassing. You don’t have to be one of our number to think that there is something strange about African Americans for Obama when Whites for anybody is forbidden.

    The clear racial lines drawn on the Holder contempt charge has given us all a glimpse of reality. Holder is either incompetent or corrupted.Rep Cummings said it best – Congress holds The Attorney General of the United States in contempt – in fact they found him in contempt of Congress – the exact opposite! If you demand accountability of a black man you are a racist. The future is here and white folks don’t like it.

  83. Steven Rike's Gravatar Steven Rike
    June 28, 2012 - 2:30 pm | Permalink

    I, too, feel that the last ‘election’ was much more than it appeared; with the information above, it is agreed that aspects of the election were placed before us, to not bring the national government together, nor was it designed to bring us, as a people, together, but to once and for all sunder us from each other. What better way than to set up the ‘straw man’, then dare the ethno-state to do something about it! Does anyone know what fait accompli means?

    The issue of ‘citizenship’ is, of course, the most compelling, as it strikes to the quick of the matter:

    In general, basic requirements for naturalization are that the applicant hold a legal status as a full-time resident for a minimum period of time and that the applicant promise to obey and uphold that country’s laws, to which an oath or pledge of allegiance is sometimes added. Some countries also require that a naturalized national must renounce any other citizenship that they currently hold, forbidding dual citizenship, but whether this renunciation actually causes loss of the person’s original citizenship will again depend on the laws of the countries involved.

    Nationality is, traditionally, based either on jus soli (“right of the territory”) or on jus sanguinis (“right of blood”), although it now usually invokes both with the same meaning. Whatever the case, the massive increase in population flux due to globalization and the sharp increase in the numbers of refugees following World War I created an important class of non-citizens, sometimes called denizens. In some rare cases, procedures of mass naturalization were passed (Greece in 1922, Armenian refugees or, more recently, Argentine people escaping their own economic crisis). As naturalization laws were created to deal with the rare case of people separated from their nation state because they lived abroad (expatriates), western ‘democracies’ were not ready to naturalize the massive influx of stateless people which followed massive denationalizations and the expulsion of their minorities in the first part of the 20th century — the two greatest such minorities after World War I were the Jews, and the Armenians, but they also counted the (mostly aristocratic) Russians who had escaped the 1917 October Revolution and the war which ushered in the period known as communism, and quickly to follow were the Spanish refugees. As Hannah Arendt pointed out, internment camps became the “only nation” of such stateless people, since they were often considered “undesirable” and were stuck in an illegal situation (i.e., their country had expelled them or deprived them of their nationality, and were not then naturalized, thus living in a judicial no man’s land).

    After the Second war of Fratricide, the increase in international migrations created a new category of refugees, most of them economic refugees. For economic, political, humanitarian and pragmatic reasons, many states passed laws allowing a person to acquire their citizenship after birth (such as by marriage to a national – jus matrimonii – or by having ancestors who are nationals of that country), in order to reduce the scope of this category. However, in some countries this system still maintains a large part of the immigrated population in an illegal status, albeit some massive regularizations – in Spain by José Luis Zapatero’s government and in Italy by Berlusconi’s government.

    There had always been a distinction in English law between the subjects of the monarch and aliens: the monarch’s subjects owed the monarch allegiance, and included those born in his or her dominions (natural-born subjects) and those who later gave him or her their allegiance (naturalized subjects). Such as was the original intent of the polity of the founders of the United States.

    Congress is given the power to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, which was administered by state courts. There was some confusion about which courts could naturalize; the final ruling was that it could be done by any “court of record having common-law jurisdiction and a clerk (prothonotary) and seal.”

    The Constitution also mentions “natural born citizen”. The first naturalization Act (drafted by Thomas Jefferson) used the phrases “natural born” and “native born” interchangeably. Until 1952, the Naturalization Acts written by Congress still allowed only white persons to become naturalized as citizens – except for two years in the 1870s which the Supreme Court declared to be a mistake.

    Moreover, naturalization is also mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment. Before that Amendment, individual states set their own standards for citizenship. The Amendment states, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside.”

    Note also that the Amendment is ambiguous on the issue of singular or plural United States. In the early days, the phrase “United States” was used as a singular or a plural according to the meaning. After the Civil War, it was generally always a singular. The Amendment does not say “its jurisdiction” or “their jurisdiction” but “the jurisdiction thereof”.

    The Naturalization Act of 1795 set the initial parameters on naturalization: “free, White persons” who had been resident for five years or more. The Naturalization Act of 1798, part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, was passed by the Federalists and extended the residency requirement from five to fourteen years. It specifically targeted Irish and French immigrants who were involved in Democratic-Republican Party politics. It was repealed in 1802.

    An 1862 law allowed honorably discharged Army veterans of any war to petition for naturalization, without having filed a declaration of intent, after only one year of residence in the United States. An 1894 law extended the same privilege to honorably discharged 5-year veterans of the Navy or Marine Corps. Over 192,000 aliens were naturalized between May 9, 1918, and June 30, 1919, under an act of May 9, 1918. Laws enacted in 1919, 1926, 1940, and 1952 continued preferential treatment provisions for veterans.

    The White Nationalist knows that he cannot win this battle without tools. His tools are the realizations and obligation too his ethnic-state, his racial fellows. A white republic, then, is the guiding light of all rational individuals who want to realize a brighter and more resilient people and future. The absence of such a vision has enabled anti-racists to win victory after unopposed victory. This must, and will change.

    While a non-anti-racist society need not strive for racial purity, it would recognize the difficulty of combining freedom, diversity and equality. Those things may all be good, but they do not dine well together. A non-anti-racist society would therefore accept at least informal, limited and local ethnic hierarchy, and restrict immigration, especially of those whose ethnic background is radically different from that of dominant groups. Devolution of power within a federal structure could maintain freedom while accommodating some diversity by allowing groups to have settings in which each is locally dominant. The greater the diversity, however, the more difficulties are likely to arise. Free government requires mutual loyalty and common goods and standards. Such things can grow up among a mixed population, but they require time and favorable circumstances. They are unlikely to exist where an ideal of equal citizenship is combined with extreme ethnic mixture and political accommodations – that is, compromise.

    How could a non-anti-racist society arise from what we have now? Agitation against anti-racism, while necessary, will not be enough. Local and marginal improvements are always possible, but for major changes certain preconditions are obvious. Bureaucratic centralization will have to decline radically and the importance of ties based on various forms of kinship grow. The radical centralization of political life through the mass media will have to come to an end, and white nationalist arms of propaganda in the ascendant, as well as the importance of the transcendent — most concretely, common moral principles not reducible to self-interest — become once again generally accepted. All these are difficult to achieve. Current trends are to the contrary, and things like acceptance of the authority of the transcendent cannot be achieved by fiat.

    The White Nationalist knows that every man has his worth, yet is recognized that not every worth is equal to that of another; hence, it is through the ranks of white nationalists that the goals, and education deemed necessary for the folk-community shall originate from this source. This attitude is consonant, upon reflection, with the best interest of the people, since no form of general government (mobocracy) has produced leaders worthy of their fame. On the contrary, only those few dedicated, driven men, in a democracy, have been able to challenge the existing order – usually, for their vision, and mission, these men are chastised, ridiculed, and mobbed by that mighty herd which have been turned against them by unscrupulous men, protecting their interest above those of their race-culture. These ‘leaders’ who are now in control of the press, communications, and military power call the individual spokesman who comes from the bottom ranks a demagogue, bigot, or worse in this situation. These leaders do not allow any new voice to be heard above their squalor of political intrigue. Only through a single party apparatus, with the foresight to aid in the political setting, can our Nation become strong again. In addition, from this party mechanism must our leaders come whom, after long years in the struggle for preeminence, they will know, and so will the people, just what they can or cannot do. The dedication they show will, ultimately, make the way for the individual intellect, that special genius, that comes so rarely to any people that will mark the ages with a new epoch of change and direction for the higher-man.

  84. June 28, 2012 - 1:56 pm | Permalink

    I never said that conspiracies weren’t real. I said that a particular conspiracy-theory advanced here didn’t make any sense.

  85. Lombard's Gravatar Lombard
    June 28, 2012 - 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Yes there’s a good reason why conspiracy king Kosher Jones has an endless list of Jewish sponsors. This is an area where a great deal of young adults, eager to activate, are kept running in circles. There’s enough energy there to combat the marxist left and even awaken many of them (who have good intentions).

  86. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    June 28, 2012 - 12:41 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows: Perhaps so, Brother Meadows – but, it is my strong opinion that the human brain is very much like a muscle. Muscles need to be flexed and stretched and put under a certain amount of strain on a semi-regular basis, or they do not develop properly.

    Opening one’s mouth like a trained seal at a Marine Land / Sea Life Park center and blindly gulping down whatever squirming fish that gets tossed your way is precisely how far too many gullible White Americans have been conditioned to behave. The ‘fish’ morsel, in my analogy, is actually jewish lies and propaganda and disinformation, of course.

    I say to all White Americans: Flex that brain, just like you should be doing for your body’s other muscles. Engage it and teach yourself to analyze and think and reason when you are hearing and seeing the latest ‘spin’, and remember that this spin is coming from an alien race who seeks to genocide your race into extinction.

    Once you learn to do that, everything else will fall into place.

    You will then understand that evil is seldom completely out in the open, because evil fears the sunlight – just as is the case with a Vampire. Evil operates best and most efficiently in the dark and in the shadows; hence the need to engage in conspiracies to get their work done. Thus, if our enemy can convince us to totally discount the concept of conspiracies, it is less likely that they will be discovered.

  87. 49er's Gravatar 49er
    June 28, 2012 - 12:26 pm | Permalink

    @Darren Fisk:
    I think you’re absolutely right Darren. In fact, Nobel prize winning author Alexander Solzhenitsyn, when giving an address at Harvard University in 1978, gave this warning to the United States pertaining to our lack of courage in standing up to Socialist forces which he viewed as a precursor to murderous communism:
    A Decline in Courage
    may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.
    Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?

  88. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    June 28, 2012 - 12:11 pm | Permalink

    @Darren Fisk:
    A conspiracy is indeed a long range business plan, only in this case the “business” is crime.

    I see that our good old friend Tyron Parsons is back again. Is he not supposed to have gone in a UFO into the hollow earth for a holiday ? (or should I say : hollowday). Now he is repeating his old story again that the US is a corporation owned by the City of London, owned by…the Vatican! I am afraid he will start repeating his other nonsense theories also. An incurable case.

  89. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 28, 2012 - 12:00 pm | Permalink

    @Tom:

    There are no FACTS supporting the claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, born to a native-born American citizen, his mother, in an American hospital, in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. There is NO evidence that Obama ever renounced his American citizenship, whether or not he ever took on Indonesian citizenship, during his several years living there with his mother and step-father, as a boy; there is NO evidence that the United States government, through the Department of State, ever recognized that Obama had renounced his American citizenship– and the government, through the Department of State, has continued, ever after, to issue Obama a series of United States passports, to date, based upon his natural-born citizenship, not upon any subsequent (re)naturalization process that Obama had ever undertaken. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that limits natural-born citizenship only to those born here to two citizen-parents; and, the Fourteenth Amendment has ALWAYS been interpreted, by both the courts and the executive branch, to apply to ALL children born here, IRRESPECTIVE of their parents’ respective citizenship status, so long as those children themselves were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (i.e., not children of foreigners who are themselves protected by diplomatic immunity, and thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States). Mr. Fraser is patently MISTAKEN (to put it in the most charitable light) in his claim that the 1875 Supreme Court decision that he cites had ruled otherwise, as should be OBVIOUS, even to the non-lawyers among you, when you read the passage that I myself quoted, verbatim, in response to part 1 of Mr. Fraser’s ill-conceived argument against President Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States. Hate Obama, politically and/or personally, for whatever your own favored reason(s) may be; but, DO NOT try to claim that he is CONSTITUTIONALLY ineligible to hold his current office, because that Constitutional argument is manifestly fallacious!

  90. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    June 28, 2012 - 11:53 am | Permalink

    Here are the facts people. (REPOST WITH CORRECTIONS. Moderatators, please delete my post above. Thank you.)

    The Articles of Confederation organic Government is what America fought the Revolution with. This lawful Government did not disappear but was left vacant upon the creation of the Constitution for (not of) the united States of America in 1789.

    The united States Constitutional and lawful Government existed from 1789 until 1860 when the south walked out. This Government did not disappear but was also left vacant.

    In 1871 the Corporation UNITED STATES was created and housed in DC.

    DC is a Corporation city/state just as the City of London and Vatican City are.

    This Corporation is a completely unlawful entity outside of the boundaries of DC and their lawful possessions such as Guam, Puerto Rico etc. This Corporation is also called the “Shadow Government” and its bogus jurisdiction has been extended over all natural born Americans by way of lies, omissions etc, via adhesion contracts such as Birth Certs-SS#’s, Voter Registrations etc. Americans are connected to this entity and are given a SLAVE citizen/subjects status through the 14th Amendment of that Corporation Charter. This “citizenship” negates one’s inalienabe (not unalienable) god given and/or inherient rights and replaces them with privleges.

    The united States Government has purportedly been reseated since 2010. From what I gather, RuSA (Republic for the united States of America) has not filed papers in the Hague and do not have the support of the good guys in the US Military or Corporation US structure.

    The Articles of Confederation Government(s) have been purportedly reseated since 2012. This reseated Government is also known as the Nation States and has filed papers in The Hague. From what I gather, the good guys in the US Military and Corporation US structure support this lawful entity because they did not construct a Government structure like RuSA, but rather reseated the Articles as to give a place for the Corporation Government to walk back over to, hence inhabiting the Common law Organic Constitutional Structures again apart from the Legal fictions that is the Corporation UNITED STATES. This also gives the US Military a place to cite law over legalities so that when they round up the criminals that infest the Corporation they will not be engaged in a Coup d’etat.

    Again, as I understand it, the US military is split as of now. About 20% are taking orders from the UN- 80% taking orders from “We the People”- the Law, as to oppose the Corporation empire structure controlled through the UN. Obama only controls the drones, many of which are flying over America now.

    What we are seeing is the unholy trinity (Vatican/London/DC) Corporate fictions, controlled by the “Jews” and their cohorts attempting to make a worldwide Empire later to be controlled out of so called Israel.

    Opposing them in America today is 80% of the US Military, citing its lawful authority that trumps legal fictions so they might protect We the People (primarily all European stock peoples) from this Jewish beast who wants to kill us all so as to build their World Government upon our adhhes (In America/Russia, Europe/UK/Australia/SA/New Zealand etc).

    This is why I keep saying on these boards that the white mans solutions lay within the Law itself, which trumps legal fictions such as Corporations. As the law trump legalities, so does truth-lies. et us all support the Law, the organic Constitution, as opposed to al legal fictions controlled by the so called “Jews” through the unholy trinity.

    Let the truth REIGN!!

  91. Darren Fisk's Gravatar Darren Fisk
    June 28, 2012 - 11:44 am | Permalink

    I totally agree that the Emperor’s citizenship is a moot point when you consider the long string of white sell outs who’ve led the helm. Clinton and his gloating about our becoming a minority takes the cake for me. That an educated white could have such self hatred makes me sick to my stomach. Point is, the big Jews install whoever they want. They don’t care if it’s BO or MR, since they own both of them.
    By the way, I long ago got over the taunts of “conspiracy theory” and “tinfoil hats” because I finally realized that it was a Jew constructed wall, a feeble attempt at deflecting people’s attention away from the truth. I’ve also learned to explain that a “conspiracy” is much like a long range business plan, and every corporation in America has long range business plans. It’s simply a matter of perspective.

  92. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    June 28, 2012 - 10:02 am | Permalink

    Here are the facts people.
    The Articles of Confederation organic Government is what America fought the Revolution with. This lawful Government did not disappear but was left vacant.
    The united States Government Constitutional lawful Government existed from 1789 until 1860 when the south walked out. This Government did not disappear but was also left vacant.
    In 1871 the Corporation UNITED STATES was created and housed in DC.
    DC is a Corporation city/state just as the City of London and Vatican City are.
    This Corporation is a completely unlawful entity outside of the boundaries of DC and their lawful possessions such as Guam, Puerto Rico etc. This Corporation is also called the “Shadow Government” and its bogus jurisdiction has been extended over all natural born Americans by way of lies, omissions via adhesion contracts such as Birth Certs-SS#’s, Voter Registrations etc. This is connected to the SLAVE citizen/subject status through the 14th Amendment of that Corporation Charter.
    The united States Government has purportedly been reseated since 2010. From what I gather, RuSA (Republic for the united States of America) has not filed papers in the Hague and do not have the support of the good guys in the US Military or Corporation structure.
    The Articles of Confederation Government(s) have been purportedly reseated since 2012. This reseated Government is also known as the Nation States and has filed papers in The Hague. From what I gather, the good guys in the US Military and Corporation structure support this because they have not constructed a Government structure but rather reseated the Articles as to give a place for the Corporation Government structure to walk back over to Law-Common Organic Constitutional Structures from their Legal fictions.
    Again, as I understand it, the US military is split as of now. About 20% are taking orders from the UN- 80% taking orders from “We the People”- the Law, as to oppose the Corporation empire structure controlled through the UN. Obama only controls the drones, many of which are flying over America now.
    What we are seeing is the unholy trinity (Vatican/London/DC) Corporate fictions, controlled by the “Jews” and their cohorts attempting to make a worldwide Empire later to be controlled out of so called Israel.
    Opposing them in America today is the US Military, citing its lawful authority that trumps legal fictions as to protect We the People (primarily all European stock peoples) from this Jewish beast who wants to kill us all and build their World Government upon our Ashes (here in America/Russia, Europe/UK/Australia/SA/New Zealand etc).
    This is why I keep saying on these boards, the white mans solutions lay within the Law itself, which trumps legal fictions such as Corporations. As the law trump legalities, so does truth-lies.
    Let the truth REIGN!!

  93. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    June 28, 2012 - 9:44 am | Permalink

    @Luke:

    Perhaps it would help to see whether people can agree that most ideas/theories in general, are bad. It’s just part of the human condition.
    Saying most conspiracy theories are bad, is really just an extension of this.
    I would agree ideas need to get a fair hearing and not just be dismissed. But in general…having done that….probably most of them do turn out to be bad.

  94. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    June 28, 2012 - 9:18 am | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    Anyway you look at it, both Romney, and Obama have questionable citizenship issues in their background.

  95. Bear's Gravatar Bear
    June 28, 2012 - 9:14 am | Permalink

    My understanding is that Obama produced a birth certificate indicating a Hawaiian birth.

    The claim in his biography to birth in Kenya would presumably be then attributed to an editing mistake or oversight.

    Would his having lied and deceived as to his place of birth not be grounds for impeachment?

  96. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    June 28, 2012 - 9:11 am | Permalink

    @Bobby: Every time I encounter one of these kind of brainless imbeciles who automatically dismiss any theory or speculation that varies even a microscopic inch away from whatever steaming pile of horse manure saturated ‘spin’ that these gullible and pathetic morons were fed through the hose that connects their throat to their 32″ wide electronic hebrew rectum (TV) – I have to shake my head in sheer amazement.

    I have a little sign on my refrigerator that is held in place by a tiny magnet and it reads: “The definition of Ignorance is when you don’t know enough to know how much you don’t know.” This describes every last one of these idiots who blindly refuse to review the facts, examine the arguments and study the evidence and who lack the talent or ambition to connect the relatively simple-to-connect dots and finally realize the truth:

    Which is: Your TV is lying to you. So are your newspapers.
    So is your government. And the reason all of these outlets are lying to you – is because your hostile and most dangerous enemy owns and controls all of these mechanisms and they use them to brainwash, to deceive and to manipulate your dumb hind parts.

    Look, I wised up to the controlled opposition angle on Rush Scumbaugh many years ago. But, I remember when I did listen to him – during the Clinton years, which were the early days of the World Wide Web – he had this reoccurring little bit he would do whereby he would try to satirize conspiracy theories and mock anyone who dared to offer up an alternative theory or opinion on any issue or topic. Remember his ‘Kook Test’ gimmick?

    Come on, White numbskulls. Scumbaugh was doing that for a reason – and the reason was to try to keep the listening public from venturing outside of the narrow confines of what the jews who paid this Judas Goat his money considered to be ‘acceptable discourse’ and ‘acceptable opinion’.

    And, to this very day – whenever I run into one of these reality denying, conspiracy theory phobic bone heads – I automatically think back to Scumbaugh and his ‘Kook Test’ and realize that standing before me is a programmed zombie, who was a victim of that brainwashing tactic.

    This shows you the power of the media, people. And, the fact that our mortal enemy owns and controls that media means that they have incredible power to shape and mold and twist and program the brains of anyone who sits in front of that TV or sits by that radio. They tell their stooges to send the message: “Thou Shalt Not Deviate from Whatever We decide is The Acceptable range of discourse on any subject or issue” and like millions of trained chimpanzees in a circus act, millions of White numbskulls obediently click their heels, salute, and say ‘Yes Sir.’

    Which translates into the principle: I will question nothing and put 100 percent of my trust and faith in whatever my electronic manure dispensing device tells me.

    This isn’t a formula that spells victory or survival for White European people, folks. Its time we all reach a consensus on that fact and see the enemy owned media as a very dangerous force.

  97. Joe Warren's Gravatar Joe Warren
    June 28, 2012 - 5:00 am | Permalink

    Romney qualifies perfectly as he was born in Detroit to two US citizen parents. It matters not where father George was born. Obama, Rubio and Jindal are not constitutionally qualified for the US presidency or vice presidency as they were not born to two US citizen parents.

  98. Annabelle's Gravatar Annabelle
    June 28, 2012 - 4:20 am | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon:
    Curmudgeon,

    When Obama was elected president, my Jewish friend exclaimed to me, “We are not hiding anymore”!. I think the press used Obama as an experiment: Can the media have a man elected president who is black, no credentials and tons of baggage. They won, the election of Obama is a win for the media.

    I observed how the media controlled who was heard and not heard in the Republican Primary, the media chose the Republican candidate.

    The media controls what we talk about. Our views, our lives. Everything we think is controlled by the media. We must stand for ourselves and voting does nothing. We must hurt the parties, we must use every law the country has to make our point. We must rebell. Whites are too beaten down to even care.

    Until we hold the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and the Supreme Court accountable to act in accordance with the law of the land, we will lose.

    We must sue the Parties, our representative and impeach our Judges. Unti white American fight for equal civil rights, we will be kicked around and ignored.

  99. fnn's Gravatar fnn
    June 28, 2012 - 4:08 am | Permalink

    In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, Jacqueline Stevens, a political science professor at Northwestern University and author of States Without Nations: Citizenship for Mortals (Columbia University Press, 2009), openly preaches the political theology of Empire, insisting that the linkage between citizenship and birthplace stems from an atavistic and irrational fear of death.

    I’m not saying Stevens isn’t influential-but she’s obviously a semi-retarded loon. More evidence:
    http://www.stateswithoutnations.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-jewish-eugenicists-just-as-dumb.html

    The pseudo-scientists have done it again: successfully pitched an inane argument dressed up as “new research” to a middle-brow audience of journalists and editors always happy to unveil a “controversial” fake discovery legitimating racial and ethnic genetic inequality. One of the co-authors has made equally absurd claims before, arguing, the LA Times writes, that “some unidentified pathogen prompts a hormonal imbalance that makes babies more likely to become gay.”

    Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran wrote a book that ignores a ground rule of statistics, not to confuse correlation with causation, especially when the correlation is likely to be entirely spurious.

    They argue that the increased likelihood of Ashkenazi Jews to have certain mutations associated with neurological disorders AND to have higher IQs than themselves reveals the connection between these two attributes:
    [Cochran] was struck by the fact that so many of the diseases involved problems with processing sphingolipids, the fat molecules that transmit nerve signals.

    This seemed an unlikely coincidence.
    Danger, Will Rogers, danger! There are hundreds, even thousands, of possible attributes associated with Jewish stereotypes, so it is not surprising that Cochran hit on one that yielded a correlation with some genes that have a higher but still rare probability of existing among Ashkenazi Jews. Their paper was turned down by peer reviewed journals and is a laughing stock among the scientific community.

  100. Random's Gravatar Random
    June 28, 2012 - 3:33 am | Permalink

    @Random:

    I should add, it’s not like jews have had any trouble getting their way using exclusively native born, mostly WASP White men as presidential figureheads, so it’s not like the “native born citizen” clause means much. Obama is functionally no different than Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc. Not attributing importance to presidential elections and thinking outside the electoral politics box is one of the first steps that we need to take, psychologically, before any significant progress can be made.

  101. Random's Gravatar Random
    June 28, 2012 - 3:19 am | Permalink

    In fact, there is good reason to suppose that Obama’s most important backers have chosen him as their standard-bearer not despite but because of his questionable citizenship status. The campaign to nullify the natural born citizenship requirement is not a covert conspiracy but an open revolutionary movement to erase the last constitutional vestige of blood and soil citizenship in the American Republic and, indeed, in the world at large.

    You may be right about this, but I think it’s more likely that Obama is basically just a diversion. People who are worried about Obama’s birth certificate generally aren’t worried about America’s demographic situation or about the jews who are actually running everything, which is very good for the jews who put Obama into power.

  102. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 28, 2012 - 12:30 am | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon:

    If Barack Hussein Obama II is not the biological son of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., why did the latter marry a teenage co-ed who was pregnant with another man’s baby, especially since Obama, Sr., already had an existing wife and two kids, back home in Kenya? Since the president’s mother left Hawaii for Seattle, the very month after her first-born child was born, leaving Obama, Sr., behind to finish his own bachelor’s degree, and she did not return until the following year, when Obama, Sr., himself graduated, and quickly headed off to Harvard, alone, never to return, there would not seem to have been any appreciable domestic relationship ongoing between the president’s legal parents, in the wake of his birth!?! Regardless, what evidence do you and your ilk have that the president is not the actual biological son of his legally recognized father– much less, if that were the case, that the president was ever told so, by his mother or anyone else who might have known? You people simply love to make things up, out of proverbial whole cloth, and then say, “Well, it could be true, so we should assume that it is true, and argue accordingly, unless and until it is categorically disproved!” Furthermore, the notion that Obama’s lying about who his biological father was– and, do you really have him on record saying explicitly that Barack Obama, Sr., was his biological father, rather than merely his (legally recognized) father?– would be a legal fraud, vis-a-vis the 2008 presidential election, is a contention that is literally laughable to anyone who has ever taken a legal course on contract law, let alone passed a state bar exam! Who exactly do you think it was who voted for Obama in 2008 who would not have done so, if only they had known that his teenage mother had been knocked up a Black-American Communist, rather than by a Kenyan one? As for your contention about his being adopted in Indonesia, and thus losing his American citizenship, regardless of his place of birth, as I pointed out in my original response to yesterday’s post by Mr. Fraser, Indonesian law could not have operated to rescind the president’s American citizenship, whether it was obtained from naturalization or simply by birth.

  103. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 27, 2012 - 11:55 pm | Permalink

    @Tom:

    A) I have not bet, at all, since losing $3 on a college football game, in September 1975 (a memorable year!); so, no, I do not play roulette, either.

    B) You do not need to own property in a foreign country to live there, any more than you need to own property in America to live here.

    C) Taking out citizenship in a foreign country does not cancel one’s American citizenship, regardless.

  104. Darren Fisk's Gravatar Darren Fisk
    June 27, 2012 - 11:48 pm | Permalink

    That is a very good point, that the people who want to order us around are in it for the long term. They’ve been screwing with us since the Frankfurt School scum was allowed to land her 70 years ago. Okay, we were asleep at the wheel. Who could have imagined that these people we SAVED would turn out to be such despicable ingrates? So, they’ve had a long head start on us, but whites are waking up FAST. We are not a low IQ group.
    You have to have the understanding that it took generations to undermine our way of life, and it may well take generations to get the ship back on course. So, don’t give up and keep fighting. This little creepy Kenyan has had his moment in the sun and he made a big noise, but his time will pass.

  105. June 27, 2012 - 11:19 pm | Permalink

    @Nigel Chatsworth: I have read articles claiming that he is Malcolm X’s child. Whether he is Frank Marshall Davis’s child or Malcolm X’s child, he may be a natural born citizen, but if he is, he has committed a fraud. He has claimed to be the child of Barak Obama Sr. If he isn’t and knows it, he has garnered votes and campaign contributions fraudulently. The other aspect, as the author stated, is his adoption by an Indonesian annuls his American citizenship, natural born or otherwise. No matter how the situation is sliced and diced he is not eligible – whoever he really is.

    As an aside, I recall reading a magazine article (Time?) in the mid 70s about the time Nixon started having problems. If I recall correctly, the article lamented that Henry Kissmyass (Kissenger) would be a wonderful POTUS if it weren’t for that darned constitutional thing. The controllers think long term. I have no doubt that the article was the opening shot of the war on this provision of the US Constitution.

  106. Darren Fisk's Gravatar Darren Fisk
    June 27, 2012 - 10:24 pm | Permalink

    I have to say, sometimes I just want to shake some of you. We are STILL the majority. David Duke says that we are an elephant afraid of a little mouse, and he’s right. STOP your fatalistic whining and FIGHT BACK. Fight back in whatever way you can think of. Speak out on internet blogs and chat sites. Write letters to government officials. Run for office yourselves. Writes essays and books for the WN movement. DO something. But stop the godamned whining and claiming that they’ve WON. They have NOT won. If we could simply get the word out regarding white fertility and convince whites to have more kids, that act in itself could assure our majority status for many years to come. AND, we must continue to fight against the insane immigration policies that are ruining this nation. Bug the hell out of your senators and reps. i do this stuff all the time. it’s FUN. I find it very enjoyable. You should too. Otherwise, shut the hell up. Some of you whine like JEWS, and I don’t mean that as a compliment.

  107. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    June 27, 2012 - 9:59 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    You put your money down, and you see where it lands.

    Btw, the Romney’s were in Mexico when only Mexicans could own property, so I got a hunch they were Mexican citizens. That too will come out if anyone really wants to look.

  108. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    June 27, 2012 - 8:47 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.: That follows from the point I was making about Clinton, who afterall, is a Democrat, leftist, superstar around the world, where leftists are located.

  109. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 27, 2012 - 8:30 pm | Permalink

    @Tom:

    She is his paternal grandfather’s third wife, the step-mother of the late Barack Obama, Sr., and supposedly a devout Muslim herself. (The president does have an aunt of the same name, Sarah Obama, who is the elder sister of Barack Obama, Sr.) No, I have never met any of the Obamas, to the best of my knowledge and recollection. The closest that I ever have come to Africa is a brief trip down to Pompeii, back in July 1975– unless, of course, you count my living in two majority-black cities, in my youth, which, here and now, shall go nameless!?! Sorry, but, to me, all Kenyans look pretty much alike…. What does the young Barack Hussein Obama II’s long-ago trip to Kenya got to do with whether his old and demented Kenyan step-grandmother is competent and honest?!?

  110. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    June 27, 2012 - 5:36 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    Do you know her personally? Have you been to Kenya? That is young Obama with her, and there is a very strong resemblance between the two. Maybe she’s his aunt? LOL. Get it aunt? LOL.

    I guess Obama has never been to Kenya either.

  111. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 27, 2012 - 5:10 pm | Permalink

    @Tom:

    His step-grandmother, yes . . . and I rest my case!

  112. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 27, 2012 - 5:00 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby:

    That is not the only reason: It also would mean that the Democrats would have just as much of an iron grip over our federal government, inter alia, as the PRI did over the federal government of Mexico, for most of the 20th Century (1928-2000)!

  113. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    June 27, 2012 - 4:55 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.:

    Here’s Obama’s grandmother:

  114. Paul Hausser's Gravatar Paul Hausser
    June 27, 2012 - 4:44 pm | Permalink

    No doubt this fake stooge was chosen to open the door to destroying the rest of the Constitution.

    By having him re-elected they can say that the ENTIRE Constitution is not valid anymore.

    All with Jewish judicial double talk and chicanery to lead the charge.

    Not one Jew Black or Hispanic was a member of the Founding Fathers. All three groups should be restricted from having ANY say about the Constituion

  115. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    June 27, 2012 - 4:28 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.: The only reason Bill Clinton would long to see the U.S. become a majority minority country, is because he imagines it won’t affect him at all and that he and his will continue to lead the LIFE OF RILEY that they are living now. Pure scum.

  116. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    June 27, 2012 - 4:22 pm | Permalink

    @john7: I’m often double minded on conspiracy theories myself. I used to be totally on the side that it’s nutty. Conspiracies are nutty, I believed. Now, after much thinking and reading and talking with folks that seem informed, I’m more on the side that they are VERY REAL. If we go back to the different Presidents of the U.S., we often read that they warned about conspiracies even in their time. Some phrases they used were, “the government behind the legitamate government”– Teddy Roosevelt , ” everything that happens to be coincidence isn’t, nothing in government is done by chance, etc. Franklin Roosevelt. Then we have Eisenhowers, “military industrial complex” warning. Kennedy’s “shadow government”, or secret agencies”,etc. How many times do we find that the government has been hiding something, only to admit it later? Quite a lot. Hadding might have a point, that everything cannot be a conspiracy, but I’ve concluded to my satisfaction, that the more corrupt the government becomes, the more likely that they do things behind the publics back. Doesns’t doing evil crap secretly without letting the public know, especially when it affects them negatively qualify as a conspiracy?

  117. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    June 27, 2012 - 4:11 pm | Permalink

    @Daybreaker: How utterly CONGRUENT to the realities of present day life in the U.S. for European-Americans your little essay is. You are 100 percent right when you say that the battlefield has changed. No longer can European-AMericans hope to win ANYTHING, within a system that is so obviously hell bent on catering to ANYONE THAT COMES TO THE U.S. YESTERDAY, AND ISN’T WHITE. Some people are waking up, but considering the pace at which European-Americans are being betrayed by their so -called representatives, in having to serve everyone’s interests but their own, NOT ENOUGH ARE. How much of our pay went to “ethnic power groups in the last ten years, twenty years?!! STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES.

  118. Nigel Chatsworth's Gravatar Nigel Chatsworth
    June 27, 2012 - 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Obama is a natural born citizen. His father is Frank Marshall Davis, not Barack Obama, Sr.

    The birthers have never examined the suspicious marriage, or non-marriage, of Obama Sr and Ann Dunham. The marriage was arranged to provide cover for Davis. He was married to a white woman with two children.

  119. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 27, 2012 - 4:06 pm | Permalink

    @Tom:

    You find it too hard to believe that an old, illiterate, black-African peasant woman would dare to claim (in her native Dholuo language, through an interpreter– who immediately denied that she even had said it!) that “the most powerful man in the world,” at present, had been born there in Kenyan, in her own presence, if it were not simply Allah’s honest truth? Hmmm…. What is your source for the claim that the Romneys, while living in Mexico, had renounced their American citizenship?

  120. john7's Gravatar john7
    June 27, 2012 - 3:56 pm | Permalink

    @hadding scott – your naivete shows; to suggest there is no conspiracy is lunacy.
    Hussein’s first ‘election’ certainly set precedent, and his second installation shall do so also. The author is absolutely correct, tho the conspiracy certainly goes even deeper and ranges farther.

  121. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 27, 2012 - 3:21 pm | Permalink

    @dan:

    No, peoples are not fungible, any more than people are. America is already a very different, and much lesser, nation than the one into which I was born, in the middle of the Baby Boom generation. If I led a “full” life, I likely would be around, still, when my poor country becomes a majority-minority one– as Bill Clinton, for one, longs to see. If current trends continue, it could become a majority-Hispanic, or even, eventually, a majority-Mexican country, perhaps by the end of this century!?! If and when that occurs, as I now presume it will, the United States will be simply the largest and most populous nation in Latin America– and will take on most, if not all, of the characteristics of such countries. It will essentially become a Third World country (although the First World likely will have passed way entirely, by then, just as the Second World essentially did, already, with the collapse of the former Soviet empire), albeit a more prosperous one– more like a Mexico or Brazil than like a Guatemala or El Salvador. I shudder for my grand-nephews and -nieces!

  122. June 27, 2012 - 3:18 pm | Permalink

    This is too much conspiracy-theory.

    As the first obviously non-White president, Obama has set a precedent. This could happen because the Republicans insist on nominating terrible candidates that do not reflect what the Republican constituency wants. If a precedent had not been set with Obama, a different precedent would have been set with the first woman president. The Republicans make it easy for the Democrats to set such precedents.

    Obama only sets that precedent because we can all see that he is not White, and everybody acknowledges that he is not White. It was claimed that Warren G. Harding had some small amount of Negro ancestry, but his election was not precedent-setting because mainstream opinion rejected that claim.

    The claim that Obama was not born in the United States is not widely recognized. It is dismissed as the ranting of cranks. Consequently Obama’s election or re-election in spite of the question about his birth cannot not set any precedent.

  123. dan's Gravatar dan
    June 27, 2012 - 2:53 pm | Permalink

    @D. K.: Well, consider the contrapositive of his, Fraser’s, final tautology; ‘if it’s not good for the historic American people it is certainly not good for the WASP’s among us.’

    The implied question is, I believe, ‘Is the ‘sovereign body’ of America like the interchangable parts of a machine?’ I.e., Can 20 million WASPs be simply replaced by 20 million hispanics, for example, and still the America as has been remain?

    It seems these doubts about our WASPS and others of such similar historical legacy, right to maintain is never questioned as regards the Chinese, Japanese, African or any other peoples of the Earth.

    Why is that so?

  124. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    June 27, 2012 - 2:51 pm | Permalink

    One question I’ve wondered about, have the various investigators been able to track down other peoples birth certificates issued by the same hospital around the same time. It would be interesting for puposes of comparison with what Obama has released.

    If Obama was born in Hawaii, you would think there would be people who would remember his birth who could be tracked down. His own grandmother remembering him being born in Kenya is pretty damning.

    Let’s not forget that Romney’s father was born in Mexico to a family who had renounced their American citizenship so they could practice polygamy.

    A couple of real pieces of work.

  125. dc's Gravatar dc
    June 27, 2012 - 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Yes, “moderation”. Do any of you idiots have access to a dictionary? For shame! Honesty begins with honest speech.

  126. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    June 27, 2012 - 2:37 pm | Permalink

    A non-White majority America has already been born; the children are entering the kindergartens. Added to this there is the continuing affect of the Hart-Celler act of 1965 and the continuing flood of illegal immigrants, which the states have no power to resist after the Supreme Court decisions on Arizona SB 1070.

    The state already exists for the benefit of non-Whites in a raw distributionist sense. The push to hire “minorities” means that to be classified White is undesirable. The ability of non-Whites to organize ethnically and racially without sanction while Whites cannot organize in parallel ways under penalty of severe legal and social sanctions means that to be White is to be disempowered politically and less than a fully free and equal citizen.

    This means any member of the non-White / anti-White coalition now occupying America and crowding out White Americans, has a more potent stake in America, a greater share of its future, than any White.

    Many of these non-Whites hate Whites, and more every day will do so, because they are taught to do so by anti-White educational and mass media systems and because they have a common interest in legally and illegally plundering Whites with the aid of the state. (Self-deception will always supply enough negative judgements on Whites to justify plundering them, as long as the plundering is good.)

    In other words, the patriot game is lost, just as Andrew Fraser says.

    If Whites want to live, collectively, they must start playing a White game. They must resist on the level that they are being attacked, that is racially. (For examples, by affirmative action and disparate impact.)

    Tacitly sacrificing their interests as Whites for the good of a state that has ceased to be theirs and that now participates in their dispossession is suicide. (Or rather, when you take into account who controls the mass media, the relevant parts of the academic elite and the relevant parts of state policy, it is falling for murder-by-deception.)

  127. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 27, 2012 - 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Let me get this straight: My own ancestors began settling in present-day New York (then New Amsterdam) back in the 1630s; but, because I am not a WASP (although I am 3/32nds English, 3/32nds Scottish, 1/16th Welsh, and 5/32nds Anglo-Irish), Mr. Fraser believes that the WASP diaspora, himself included, has a manifestly greater interest in my own country of birth than I, and my extended family of non-WASPs, do?!? This Aussie has even more chutzpah than his Johnnie-come-lately idol, Peter Brimelow!

Comments are closed.