Anyone in California up for a little challenge? A ballot challenge, that is

Question: Is there anyone in California who will file a ballot challenge requiring Dr. Taitz to release her Immigration/Naturalization records, along with proof she matriculated from Hebrew University, her voting record, i.e. has she ever cast a ballot, and when did she renounced her Israeli citizenship to the public?

2 thoughts on “Anyone in California up for a little challenge? A ballot challenge, that is

  1. The Unenforced Definition of “Natural-Born Citizenship”

    The U.S. Constitution requires that a presidential candidate be a natural-born citizen in order to be eligible for the office of President.

    In seeking to define the meaning of “natural born citizenship”, those who blindly support Obama desperately seek a minimalist’s definition of the term. They desire that a natural-born citizen is one to whom may be ascribed as few requirements as possible in order that a candidate, with whom they share ideological fetishes, can be president regardless of his actual fitness for the office. They seek to assume jurisdiction over the declaration of being “natural born” in the minds of as many as possible while contending that “natural born citizenship” means the fewest, most remedial natal circumstances possible, which will allow their politigod, Barack Obama, just enough legitimacy to squeak by and be eligible.

    Their definition allows Obama to merely meet what they consider the most easily argued, though obviously unverifiable characteristics of Obama’s obscure citizenry, in this case, his birth place.

    However, unfortunately for Obama supporters, the purposed intent of our founders was not so slight in this matter. They sought to make the meaning of being a natural born citizen the highest, most laudable position of all forms of citizenry. After witnessing the corruption and inbreeding and treasons of monarchical rule, America’s founders desired that becoming President of the United States to be as difficult as possible…politically, socially and biologically.

    All arguments seeking to diminish this truth are reprobate and defamatory, made in the interest of serving one’s own political lust, not defending the sovereignty of our Constitution or upholding the value of the blood ransom paid by our people.

    Hence, logically, our founders induced that the highest form of eligibility for the highest office would be a lawful mandate.

    Consider the following:

    Taking survey of all possible circumstances which, therefore, lend credibility to one’s claim to legitimacy, and thereby, eligibility to lead, there is much more to consider than simply one’s location of birth. In order to meet the highest standard intended by our founders, we must also consider that biology must also meet this standard. Not only is it essential that a presidential candidate be born under the sovereign geographic protection of our Constitution, he must also be conceived by two parents of native citizenry, possessing U.S. citizenship.

    Moreover, let’s consider further extension of this ideal by commanding that a presidential candidate also be conceived legitimately within the bounds of legal marriage of their parentage. Having been measured and found wanton, those subservient to bias for persons over their respect for the office would not embrace this noble ideal. For them, uplifting the standard of the presidency remains an inferior cause to diminishing the requirements in order to provide access for their inferior candidate. Therefore, they seek to minimize the standard, not maximize the person.

    Of course, this would disqualify many from being the President…as so it should!

    However, let’s not even stop there. We should also assume that our founders sought to ensure that a presidential candidate had also preserved their natural-born citizenship from “conception to election”, never having allowed it to be revoked, or never having it revoked even against their will. For, even those who lose their eligibility to no fault of their own should bear up in faith that this is the intention of higher power, sacrificing for the sake of sovereignty of the office rather than opportunity for the man!

    Let all of these metrics define the standards of natural-born citizenship in America. Banish minimalism and seek the highest mark in the spirit of exceptional-ism forged by our forefathers! Hold this mantle lest that crown be stolen by any upon the earth without seeking the interests of God and country first! Daringly and boldly, let these marks serve as the highest definition of humanity’s advanced citizenship and the prescribed metrics for eligibility to be President of the U.S.!

    We should set a higher bar, not lower it. It is impossible to choose one’s own natural-born citizenship because it is preeminent and incumbent to one’s birth. Historical writings, along with related legal precedents strongly suggest this form of citizenship is achieved when natural circumstances make it impossible for that individual to have any citizenship or allegiances other than with the United States at the time they are elected as President. Research of America’s founding culture reveals that a very heavy emphasis was placed on legitimacy at birth.

    Therefore, it is probable that one’s most authentic degree of natural born identity does not occur at birth, but at conception. With this in mind, we must consider that the framers of the Constitution assumed it was commonly understood that the definition of “natural-born citizenship” for a presidential candidate to mean a citizenship status that was not just achieved by the event of birth but that it was a maintained status from “conception to election” in order to qualify a sovereign candidate. This is the most complete definition of natural born citizenship possible. There is no other degree of more complete natural circumstances which can establish the status of one’s existence.

    Therefore, theoretically, natural-born citizenship, in its purest, ineradicable form, could be measured by three metrics:

    1) Biological conception by two U.S. citizen parents

    2) Birth in a geographic region under the protection of the U.S. Constitution

    3) Maintenance of that citizenship status without any unnatural interruption of parentage, legal process or administrative procedure.

    This means that their citizenship has never been achieved by any legal or administration process at or after birth. Dual citizens and expatriates are not natural-born citizens. Those who lose their natural-born status by taking the citizenship of another country or denouncing their natural born U.S. citizenship cannot regain it. A natural-born citizen is one who was born within a geographic region under the protections of the U.S. Constitution AND to two U.S. citizen parents, they being either natural-born or legally naturalized through immigration or repatriation.

    Despite ongoing, unanswered questions about his geographic origins, Obama does not meet the requirements to be a natural-born citizen for two possible other reasons:

    1) His alleged biological father, Barack Obama Sr., was not a U.S. Citizen

    2) He was adopted by his Muslim, Indonesian step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in the mid 1960s thereby taking Indonesian citizenship, thus forfeiting natural-born status.

    “Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptible doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the full-most sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution…”

    • So, IOW, you are saying that Dr. Taitz is ineligible to run for Federal Office. Thank you.

Comments are closed.