Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Obama Jr. a Caucasian Kenyan? -- h2ooflife, A.R. Nash

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Obama Jr. a Caucasian Kenyan? -- h2ooflife, A.R. Nash

    Is Obama Jr. a Caucasian Kenyan?

    h2ooflife

    A.R. Nash
    1/29/2013

    Excerpt:

    ~the enormously significant answer

    Mariah Carey is Caucasian. Vanessa Williams is Caucasian. Haley Barry is Caucasion. Barack Obama is Caucasian. None of them are Negroes.

    Who says so? I say so. And who has any standing to contest what I say? No one, unless they have some facts that refute my claim.

    What facts might they offer? They might argue that just because they had a Caucasian parent or grandparent, -that does not make them Caucasian. To which one must reply that neither does having a Negro parent or grandparent make them Negro.

    So if they can’t legitimately be called either of those two possibilities, then what exactly are they and what should they be called? To what natural group do they belong?

    Can the Peach family claim Nectarines belong to it? Or does the Plum family own that right? Of course it’s neither. Nectarines are a combination of both, being a hybrid that belongs to neither group.

    Can Murray the Mule be called a natural horse because his father was a horse? Or can he be called a natural donkey because his mother was a donkey? Since he is neither of those two he can’t be called by those labels. One can say that he is neither of the two or that he is both, sharing the nature of both, but one can’t say that he is a natural member of either group because natural horses do not have donkey mothers, nor do natural donkeys have horse fathers. Instead he is something else. Something different.

    So, cutting to the chase, is Barack Obama a natural Negro or a natural Caucasian? More importantly is he a natural Kenyan or a natural American? Or is he neither because he is a hybrid combination of the two, resulting in something different and not natural at all?

    Is there such a thing as a natural group of Kenyan-Americans? Are any hybrid creatures or hybrid people natural members of any group? How can they be natural members when there is no such natural group to which they could belong?

    There is no such thing as a natural mule group because mules are sterile and unable to produce group members. Similarly, there is no such thing as a natural Kenyan-American group which can reproduce members because their off-spring will be a members of legal groups, -not a natural group . Kenya does not, or did not, allow dual-citizenship, -just as the United States for over a century (from its inception) did not allow dual-citizenship.

    Kenyan hybrids born abroad, (like Obama Jr.) at the age of adulthood must swear sole and undivided allegiance to Kenya or their citizenship (provisional) expires.

    Barack Obama allowed his provisional Kenyan citizenship to expire, while assuming that his supposed American citizenship would be preferrable. But there is no law by which he ever possessed American citizenship. Nor is there any constitutionally legitimate Supreme Court opinion which allows U.S. citizenship for off-spring born on U.S. soil to foreign Visa-card visitors. But he chose to have it both ways in a sense since he labeled himself for perhaps two decades as being Kenyan-born, and thus assumedly a naturalized Kenyan-American, when it fact he knew that he was neither.

    In his Marxism-steeped mind the truth is what you choose it to be, it’s all relative to your needs, to your most beneficial narrative. He practiced that approach to his utmost benefit when it came to not explaining the Fast & Furious operation (claiming “executive privilege” -as in privilege to hid the truth and cover your own political behind) as well as Benghazi-gate and the cover-up of what actually happened, why it happened, and why it was lied about.

    But there is an opinion offered by the Attorney General in 1898 (John William Griggs) which opined that the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment in the Wong case of that year to mean that children of all foreigners born in the U.S. -except those with foreign ambassador or military attache credentials, are U.S. citizens at birth. But that is not what the court asserted. They instead asserted, contrary to the entire previous history of the republic, that children of immigrants, (like children of slaves), -being members of American society, are therefore subject to the full authority of Washington just as are children of citizens. That meant that they fulfilled the requirements of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause.

    What did that opinion imply? They didn’t say explicitly, but anyone who knows something important about history knows the result. It was that the subjection that was imputed to the children of immigrants was also covertly imputed to their fathers (through whom subjection descends).

    What was the consequence of that covert arcane implication? It was that foreign immigrants, like citizens, became subject to the most fundamental responsibility of members of American society, and that responsibility is to defend the nation if called. They, after that, were no longer exempt from the draft. They had to fight for the nation that was not their own because they were members of a society that was theirs and for which they shared the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend.

    ...........................................

    View the complete article at:

    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/...casian-kenyan/
    B. Steadman
Working...
X