Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary
From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.
The Democrat party (a.k.a. the DNC) is being controlled by former President Barack Obama and their entire power structure acts in total fealty to their master. It is his “War Against America” agenda driving the country towards socialism at an alarming pace.
A Review of Recent Political History
During the Clinton presidency the country coexisted with some degree of civility. Sure, there were differences in opinion displayed among the vocal party members, tossing political footballs “across the aisle”, but it was generally legitimate debate designed to convince their respective constituencies to support their stance on the issue at hand. That’s exactly the way Congress was intended to perform. Overall, the political climate was relatively calm and most of the bickering came from the extreme factions of each party, often viewed as lunacy on both sides.
When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, and for most of his 8 year term, the left expressed their discomfort for his foreign policy, particularly after he declared the “war on terrorism” following 9/11. That’s when political tensions began to get a little more “heated”, but it was mainly coming from the left while conservatives essentially kept quiet.
Out of nowhere, Barack Obama emerged at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and was elected that November as a first-term Senator from Illinois. The media was giddy with accolades. The DNC groomed him to be their darling Messiah, and on February 10, 2007 he declared his intention to run for President.
There were questions raised by right-wing conservative groups about the origin of his birth, commonly known as the “birther movement”, implying he may not qualify to run for President. The United States Constitution requires all candidates running for President to be “natural born citizens”, at least 35 years of age, and been 14 years a resident within the United States. Some “birthers” claimed he was born in Kenya, the home of his father, and that his Hawaii Birth Certificate was a forgery. Obama supporters immediately debunked all such accusations as racist conspiracy theories. They rest their argument on the 14th Amendment, saying “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . “ , but are they “natural born citizens” ?
Natural Born Citizenship
The truth of the matter is that it is irrelevant WHERE Obama was born. You won’t see this in simple Google searches, which offer liberally biased explanations that “muddy the water” to make you think Obama was qualified. But we can make reasonable assumptions that the Framers were well versed in English legal traditions, and it logically follows that the terms and phrases they used when drafting the Constitution were based on principles established with an English legal background. To understand these principles is certainly more valuable in assessing the intent of 18th century statutory language, than contemporary dictionaries that have been edited over the intervening centuries.
For the sake of this discussion, it should be noted that the English term “natural born subject” is essentially synonymous with the American term “natural born citizen”, in that the English “subjects” owe their allegiance to the King in return for protection, whereas American “citizens” owe their allegiance to the nation in return for protection of their civil liberties.
The definitive description of “natural born citizen” can be traced to 18th century schools of thought, the first being English common law. 
Similarly, they would have been well aware of English statutory law, and “law-of-nations” principles, which offer slight variations in the concept of “natural” law of citizenship.
Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), the notable English jurist and judge, wrote Commentaries on the Laws of England. In his interpretation, a “natural born subject” was closely tied to the place of birth, with a few exceptions. A subject born within English territory was a “natural” subject because a natural relationship was formed between the person and the monarch, who was to provide protection in return for allegiance. The principle common law exception was for children of the King’s ambassadors born on foreign land, who were classified as “natural” subjects because the father, though living in foreign territory, owes no allegiance to the local sovereignty and the child is born under the King of England’s allegiance, as the father is representing the King.
Under the principles of English common law, Obama would be considered a natural born citizen.
However, it is established in English common law, that the newborn child is tied to the father, not the mother, and owes his allegiance to the sovereignty unto which his father is bound. And England had a complicated statutory history regarding the term “natural born”.
Under English statutory law, Parliament could alter, amend, or re-define common law by statute.  In a 1708 Act of Parliament it was determined that “The children of all natural born Subjects born out of the Ligeance  of Her Majesty Her Heires and Successors shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be natural born Subjects of this Kingdom to all Intents Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.” This statute was a complete re-definition of the common law.
In 1731 Parliament passed an Act to clear up the ambiguity of the term “Children of all natural born Subjects”, as defined by the 1708 Act. It read, “All children born out of the ligenace of the crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such ligeance, whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited clause in the said act of the seventh year of the reign of her said late Majesty (i.e., the 1708 Act) and of this present act be adjudged and taken to be, and all such children are hereby declared to be natural-born subjects of the crown of Great Britain to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.”
The main point being that the 1731 Act requires that one’s father must be a natural born subject, a departure from late 17th century statutes and a significant alteration of the 1708 Act.
Here, we don’t look at the case of Barack Obama being born on American soil (assuming his Hawaii birth is true) from the perspective of his citizenship of the United States. We look at the circumstance of his birth on foreign soil from the perspective of his father’s allegiance. Barack Obama Sr. was born in Kenya, a natural born subject of Great Britain who owes his allegiance to the monarch of England. Obama is determined by the 1731 Act to be a natural born subject of Great Britain. He may have been born “out of the Ligeance” of the crown, but his father was a natural born subject, who was never a U.S. citizen. And the reason the Founders required natural born citizenship was to prevent the perception, and real possibility, of dual loyalty.
The reasoning behind the statutory expansion of the term “natural born subjects” in the 17th and 18th centuries had to do with the expansion of foreign travel and commerce by English subjects. Those who were abroad were still under the protection of the monarch and owed allegiance to the crown. Children born abroad were thus entitled to the same protections as their subject parents. In light of these developments, traditional common law rules were not sufficient to understand the true nature of the principle of natural born subjectship, thus prompting the expansion to include a broader class of people.
If we examine the writings of the Swiss legal scholar Emer de Vattel (1714-1767), particularly his book The Law of Nations , wherein he wrote, “By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him . . . “ 
Here Vattel is in agreement with the English 1731 Act of Parliament.
It is incumbent upon those who question, or defend, Obama’s status as a natural born citizen, to understand these principles, for it was certainly the body of knowledge drawn by the framers to form the language in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution, wherein it states, “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; . . . “
In my (almost never) humble opinion, I believe the framers considered the school of thought presented by Parliament in 1708, reiterated in 1731, and the insight provided by Vattel, all 18th century refinements to earlier common law, when they wrote the natural born citizen clause.
Yet no one stepped up to stop Obama’s candidacy on the basis of the constitutional requirement. He was emboldened from the very beginning, and he adopted an “untouchable” persona that he exploited with increasing regularity. It is the attitude adopted by the entire DNC hierarchy, probably under his own encouragement, flaunted against the sensibilities of the American people to this day; they believe they can do anything they want, without consequence, and they know the mainstream media will defend them from all angles. They simply don’t care what anyone says in defiance. In fact, they will persecute and prosecute their political enemies.
The Communist Agenda
Regardless of his eligibility, this country succumbed to the influence of his communistic agenda and we continue to descend in that direction every day. Make no mistake, Obama has a communist agenda, that is sugar-coated by the media as “democratic socialism” to soften the impact and garner appeal from the masses of idiots who have fallen under his spell. Look at his developmental years and some of the people who influenced him, men such as Frank Marshall Davis, and Saul Alinsky.
Davis was living in Hawaii as early as 1956 and died there in 1987. The young impressionable Obama used to sit and listen to long talks Davis had with his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. The FBI was tracking Davis in the 1930’s and 40’s. He was an activist member of the Communist Party USA. Their case file on Davis purportedly has his Communist Party Identification Number as #47544 (obtained from a “highly confidential source”) . He took the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions in front of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1956. Guilty. 
Alinsky authored the book, Rules for Radicals, a blueprint for transforming a society to socialism. His philosophy was “the ends justify the means”, whereby a radical can justifiably break from morality to achieve the radical objective. Alinsky could be called the Father of Community Organizing and formed political activist groups from his base in Chicago with names like Organization for Action, dedicated to attacking the power structure of the white middle class.
In the early 60’s he blamed riots across the country on “white racism” and in 1965 went to Rochester, NY to dismantle the “white power structure” by pressuring Kodak, the city’s largest employer, to hire 1,500 “unemployed blacks with limited skills and little work experience”. 
I typically don’t talk about racial politics, but I only mention this because ever since Obama stepped into the spotlight, the left plays the “race card” as if it “trumps” (no pun intended) every other card in the deck. “Shut up, you’re racist.”
In 1969 he began training young political activists, asking his students. “Why do you want to organize, goddammit?”, with the correct answer being, “power”. 
Well I’ll be damned, a community organizer from Chicago who has no respect for morality, while implementing social justice through class warfare to gain power. Sound familiar ?
Remember Obama’s 2008 speech when he said, “We are five days away from the fundamental transformation of the United States”. No one had any idea what he was talking about. He just sounded so eloquent.
For a deeper “dive” into the similarities between Alinsky and Obama, see my two-part series HERE
I could go on and on but the point is, he’s a communist, masquerading as a “democrat socialist”. His Muslim teachings have convinced him that he has time on his side. He plays the “long game”, not expecting his “transformation” to be completed during his 8-year term. That’s why he picked Hillary Clinton to succeed him, and after Trump’s unexpected interruption, his former “dummie”, Joe Biden in 2020. On his 3rd day in office he formed the Political Action Group Organizing for America (OFA), then rebranded it in 2013 as Organizing for Action, a 30,000-member army of activists to further his agenda that bears a name nearly identical to Alinsky’s Organization for Action.
Everything you see happening today is being orchestrated by Obama. Notice how boldly the Democrats wield their power. They have enacted policies that are literally antithetical to reasonable solutions on the various issues. But they don’t care how much the American people suffer from the consequences. We are witnessing Obama’s planned destruction of the America he despises so much. It’s happening right now and it’s accelerated into “overdrive”. He knows he’ll never be associated with this unfolding disaster. He can blame it all on the senile moron occupying the White House.
In the final analysis, Barack Obama will end up as America’s biggest mistake unless patriots unite, rise up, and begin crushing the DNC at every opportunity.
It can be done. It must be done. Not that the current cast of Republicans are the greatest politicians of all time, but our mission is to defeat every Democrat, by electing anyone running against them, no matter who they are. It doesn’t matter whether you love Trump, or hate him, if he’s the 2024 nominee, you have to vote for him.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME
 Ramsey, Michael D. ; The Original Meaning of Natural Born ; Univ. of Penn. ; December 2017 ; Section “A”, beginning p. 210
 ibid., Section “B”, beginning p. 213
 ligeance refers to natural-born subjects born within the dominions of the crown of England, within the ligeance, or as it is known, the allegiance of the King. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the King, in return for the protection that the King affords the subject.
 de Vattel, Emerich ; The Law of Nations: Or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns ; Publ. 1758
 Ramsey, Michael D. ; The Original Meaning of Natural Born ; Univ. of Penn. ; December 2017 ; Section “C”, p. 225
 Michele Ye Hee Lee ; Frank Marshall Davis: Obama’s ‘Communist Mentor’? ; Washington Post ; March 23, 2015
 Saul Alinsky, InfluenceWatch ; 2022