Born in the U.S.A. or Planted Here for Wealth Building

By: Jennifer Lawson-Zepeda

For all of those who want to see President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, to insure he is a true red, white and blue born leader, I give you the history of George Romney…a true immigrant story of a man who ran for President when he was born in Mexico.

USA Born

Sometimes I think about California’s last Governator, Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger — an Austrian former professional bodybuilder, actor, businessman, investor, and American politician.

Remember that guy?  And his efforts to change laws qualifying candidates for the Presidency; such as that testy little section in our U.S. Constitution stating that the requirements to become a President that we understand today:

A natural born citizen or the child of two parents born in the U.S.

Over the age of 35

Have been a permanent resident of the United States of America for at least 14 years
Feeling American

But let us not forget that many who come to the U.S. and apply for citizenship feel more American than those of us born here.

So, in spite of our constitution, they feel those Constitutional requirements simply don’t apply to them.  And in the case of George Romney, that has never been truer.

Remember Mitt’s father, George Romney’s bid to become our President, back in 1968?

A year before the first 1968 presidential primary – some newspapers were raising questions as to whether George Romney’s place of birth disqualified him from the presidency.

George Romney himself was unequivocal.

“I am a natural born citizen. My parents were American citizens. I was a citizen at birth,” he said, according to a typewritten statement found in his archives.

In a paper in November aimed at clarifying presidential eligibility, the Congressional Research Service declared that the practical, legal meaning of “natural born citizen” would “most likely include” not only anyone born on U.S. soil but anyone born overseas of at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen.

(Source:  Romney’s birth certificate evokes his father’s controversy)”

Wait a minute!  Did I read that correctly?  “…of at least ONE parent who was a U.S. citizen?”

And the Constitution adopted on September 17, 1787, it says TWO parents, doesn’t it?

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Nope.  No mention of parental birth.  So where did that come from and why do we care about a person’s place of birth, as long as they are a U.S. citizen?

The Constitution

Why were the original authors of the U.S. Constitution so concerned about a person’s immigration status, when they created this document?

Well…you see, our forefathers were thinking ahead about something that has slipped by us today.  The concept of wealth and power controlling the direction of a country.

The immigration requirement was an attempt to keep foreign aristocrats from immigrating here to use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy.

So does the citizenship clause include children of two parents born in the U.S.?   Here are our own USCIS Citizenship mandates, used to determine a person’s citizenship if born outside of the U.S.:

Citizenship Through Parents

There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18.

Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories

A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth IF… AND…
Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of birth, The parents were married at the time of birth and at least one parent lived in the U.S. or its territories prior to the birth.
One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birth date is on or after November 14, 1986 The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14thbirthday.If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:Serving honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces;Employed with the U.S. Government; orEmployed with certain international organizations.Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.
One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birth date is before November 14, 1986 but after October 10, 1952 The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least ten years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least five of which were after his or her 14th birthday.If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:Serving honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces;Employed with the U.S. Government; orEmployed with certain international organizations.Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.
If the child was born out of wedlock, see N-600: FAQ.

Automatic U.S. Citizenship After Birth – But Before the Age of 18

A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen after Birth IF…
The child was under 18 or not yet born on February 27, 2001 At least one parent is a U.S. citizen; the child is currently under 18 and residing in the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent pursuant to lawful admission for permanent residence.
The child was under 18 from December 24, 1952 to February 26, 2001 The child was residing as a Green Card holder in the U.S. and both parents naturalized before the child’s 18thbirthday; ORIf one parent died, that the surviving parent naturalized before the child turned 18.If the parents legally separated, that the parent maintaining legal and physical custody naturalized before the child turned 18.If the child was born out of wedlock and paternity has not been established by legitimation, the mother naturalized before the child turned 18.NOTE:  The order in which the child meets the conditions does not matter so long as the child meets all the conditions before his or her 18th birthday.
The child was adopted by a U.S. citizen parent The child resides legally in the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent and meets the following conditions after February 27, 2001 but before his or her 18th birthday:The adoptive parent adopted the child before his or her 16th birthday (or, in some cases, 18thbirthday) and had legal custody of the child and resided with the child for at least two years; ORThe child was admitted to the United States as an orphan (IR-3) or Convention adoptee (IH-3) whose adoption by his or her U.S. citizen parent(s) was fully completed abroad; ORThe child was admitted to the United States as an orphan (IR-4) or Convention adoptee (IH-4) who was coming to the United States to be adopted and the child’s adoptive parent(s) completed the adoption before his or her 18thbirthday.

Is that confusing, or what?  So if you were born before….and your parent was…

I can see why we are confused!  Did you realize that U.S. citizenship was so complicated?

Why, some people even believe that the office of the Presidency is a scandal manipulated by the infamous Illuminati.  They cite evidence that of 43 presidents of the U.S.A. all were related in some way, and that 33 of the Presidents can be traced back to the bloodline of Charlemagne.

Well…that might explain the aversion to Obama.  After all, would it be acceptable to these types to admit a biracial man into that elite Illuminati lineage, tracing back to Charlemagne?

But with Mitt Romney running for President after his father already tried, I have one question to ask…

Did we really avoid foreign aristocrats from immigrating here to use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy?  Or did we just eliminate it for one generation?

 

 

For more from Jennifer Lawson-Zepeda visit her blog @ http://lawsonzepeda.blogspot.com/

5 Comments on “Born in the U.S.A. or Planted Here for Wealth Building”

  1. My reponse – who cares? At this point it’s no longer relevant where the fucker-in-chief was born (he could be a goddamn Martian for all I care…) because he has already demonstrated by his *actions* that he is an enemy of the sovereign individual!

    And it’s not just one person either – the entire political structure is rotted to its core! The fact of the matter is that the state looks out for itself and the ruling classes first, not regular people: the whole fucking system has to go – not just certain politicians of questionable “citizenship” (note: “citizen” is just a polite word for slave).

  2. I don’t have much truck with conspiracy theories – most of them are twaddle, and the whole ‘Illuminati’/Bilderberger/Trilateral Commission/False Flag 9-11/Dogs-And-Cats-Sleeping-Together’ thing certainly falls into that category.

    Fact is, when a candidate gets to the point where they’re ready to be nominated, the national committee of their chosen party vets ’em all rather heavily in conjunction with the FBI, Secret Service, and probably a half-dozen other agencies. To think that the average citizen would find something that all of these folks had somehow overlooked is stretching it.

    But no matter.

    There are larger forces at play.

    The next president of the U.S. may well be the last. Right now, we’re using 2.5X of the planet’s resources (a swift trick that won’t last forever); we’ve overbred our little plot of dirt here in the Universe, and are busy shitting in our own sandbox.

    Anthropogenic climate-change is probably past any real tipping point. Peak oil is, for good or ill, upon us. The last thirty years of lunacy-as-domestic-economic-policy is coming home to roost.

    Those birds you hear on the horizon? They’re not a group of benign chickens, coming home to roost – they’re huge and angry bastards, with bloody eyeballs and carrion-rending beaks. And, they’re almost here.

    Should be fun to watch.

    I’ll make the popcorn….

  3. When the world’s wealthiest people come together to hold secret meetings with the purpose of maintaining control over their wealth, it may not be a conspiracy but they are certainly conspiring. With that much money in their stingy, tight fists, you can bet they are not conspiring to create cheap, clean, renewable energy, balanced agriculture, and practical water recycling solutions or it would be done.

    The “heritage” claims are absolutely ridiculous. Every time i hear a colonialist talk about his “clean” linage, referring to a pure European background all the way back to pre- revolutionary war days, the only thing i can think about is inbreeding. Up here, we are of the opinion that stateside folk entertain the idea that Hawaii is a third world country, with a populace desperate enough to forge American citizenship birth certificates. Hawaii is a state, and much wealthier than a lot of the mainland ones. This leads us to further speculate that if Sarah Palin had been an Inuit instead of a colonialist, would her own citizenship have been brought into question. After all, Alaska became a state only six months before Hawaii became one.

    What i find most ridiculous of all is the Illuminati fear factor. If this secret society actually exists, the roll call didn’t include the most corrupt and vicious people in the world precisely, but some of the most intelligent and forward thinking. If this group actually exists, they preserved art, literature and scientific knowledge throughout the Dark Ages, when everyone else was hideously murdering each other. Intellectualism, of itself, is nothing to fear. It’s only fearful when it’s used as a measurement of superiority and entitlement to rule over others, but then, any system of superiority and entitlement is fearful.

    Obama is simply a poor leader. He is obviously intelligent, but uses his intelligence for personal gain and dominance over others; thus placing him in the group that feels a sense of entitlement. A good leader does not feel superior. S/he does not feel entitled. The leadership is not a planned propaganda device to make others follow. In the active demonstration of humility, kindness, compassion and care for others, the good leader sets an example that others follow. We have no good leaders.

  4. @ W.D. Noble,

    I’ll admit that most of that Illuminatti/shadow government stuff pushed by many conspiracy theorists is bullshit (in my opinion it’s the delusion of hyperpatriots – people that can’t imagine that the state they love so much could be the source of their problems, so they postulate that some foreign entity has taken control away from the people), but don’t be so quick to dismiss such ideas as false flags or other seemingly crazy government projects because the state has used them before (Gulf of Tonkin, MK Ultra, etc…): conspiracies are very real and are a *lot* more common than what we are led to believe…

  5. Hmmm, seems to me all these angry white people can shut the hell up about “Anchor Babies” as we have almost all of us, been guilty of this in our ancestry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.