Obama releated to all but 1 of US presidents

So that means Barracks mother? or Barracks Father is related to the King?

very interesting. thats an eye opener.






Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/10/2009 by Sauron]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Article one of that treaty, as read below, seems very short and very clear, at least to me.
The way I read the opening statement, shows address to the attendees of the signing of the treaty.

Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
So that means Barracks mother? or Barracks Father is related to the King?

you're kidding right? it'd be his mother of course.

I guess I must be somehow related to a bunch of presidents too then since I have English descendants (Barker being the last name)

I've known that presidents and candidates were often related to each other or to someone else in high government but, if this is true......

wow

I'm shocked at the lack of response from everyone, I wouldn't think it much if he were only related to a few people, but every president save one??

According to the article the grandfather is a genealogist and has studied presidential genealogy for 60 years, if this is true I suppose he is a fairly reliable source.

I can't even begin to comprehend what it would mean if Nobel Peace Prize Winner President of the United States Obama, Head of the UN Security Council was truly blood related to every president and the former king of England, signer of the Magna Carta.

Assuming this is accurate information. I think using words like coincidence
and very common is foolish and naive.

The only thing that could make this even more astounding is if it was ALL
of the presidents. And even then someone would still stress how common
this is, and how silly it is to draw any outlandish conclusions.

Jokingly, I'd like to add:
I bet when Obama was a child, someone said to him in a prophetic and mysterious manner, "Someday, you will be the President of The United States".

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Article one of that treaty, as read below, seems very short and very clear, at least to me.
The way I read the opening statement, shows address to the attendees of the signing of the treaty.

Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

I grant you it's very confusing and I think a little misleading but His Brittanic Majesty is just one facet of who the King is.

Relinguishing his power as Brittanic Majesty does not necessarily mean he is relinguishing his power as our Prince Elector, or as our arch-Treasurer.

Nor does it say who as Brittanic Majesty he is relinquishing them too. Is he relinguishing his claim and ceding us power, or is he just relinquishing his claim and allowing Rome to retain their power through him as our Prince Elector and Arch-Treasurer.

Each title in his name is actually an office and we don't know actually from the main treaty what exactly are the powers and rights and obligations of each office as they are all derived from seperate treaties.

It's also important to understand where it says in the King's title by the Grace of God he is all these things because a seperate treaty from centuries before actually legally establishes the Pope as God!

The Pope is God's legally recognized agent by treaties and concordances established between England and several other nations and the Holy See.

So you have to understand that while when you and I might be inclined to think when the King says by the Grace of God he is the Prince Elector and Arch Treasurer of the United States which are seperate offices other than Britanic Majesty, and that God is not the Biblical God in heaven but his legally established agent the Pope in Rome by other Treaties, that the Prince Elector, and Arch-Treasurer offices which are not the Britanic Majesty Offices did not relinquish anything, nor did the God which is also a legally established office and not a deity in heaven but a Pontiff in Rome did not relinguish nor grant him the power to relinquish his power as Prince Elector or arch-Treasurer of the United States which he was not as Britanic Majesty but as an Agent and officer and official and Prince and Prince Elector of Rome.

This in my humble opinion is what throws everyone off. I am not 100% sure I am right, but you know how lawyers are and their contracts and all these guys where lawyers!

Additionally the other matter for consideration is the fact that it explains at the end of the pre-amble that they have all personally communicated to one another their 'true and respective powers'.

They communicated it to one another, but not in the treaty as most of their true and respected powers especially those pertaining to the King or established in other Treaties.

I don't know if it's wise to so casually dismiss it all based on assumption because there is plenty of circumstancial evidence in our money, in our laws, and in our architecture that Rome plays a significant if not dominant role.

The point being here in this thread though, that the blood line connections from U.S. Presidents to Kings and Queens is powerful, and the Kings and Queens real power and position originally came from Rome, and they were very much still Officers and Officials who owed their Titles to Rome at the time of the nations founding.

Food for thought friend nothing more, you be your own judge as every person must ultimately define their own truth.

Thanks for indulging me.

Great find by the way on the little girls work.

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
I think using words like coincidence and very common is foolish and naive.

Even if I've done the research and found that it's true? Is it still "foolish and naive"?

Originally posted by genius/idoit
Have you traced your ancestry,are you related to all but one president?

My husband is related to James Buchanan. So, apparently, also distantly related to Barack Obama.

About 100 million in the US are related to a US president

That's nearly 1/3 of us! Think about it. If you're white and live in the US and go back far enough, you're going to be related to the people who came over here from Europe. And because of their common ancestry, there's going to be some relations.

More than 100 million people can trace their ancestry back to a U.S. President. If you’re willing to do the research, it is not too difficult to discern.
...
You’re most likely to be related to a President if your ancestors were New Englanders or Quakers.

Presidential Family Trees

We've all heard family tales of a distant relative being the second cousin, twice removed of President "So-and-So." But is it really true? In reality, it's not all that unlikely. More than 100 million Americans, if they go back far enough, can find evidence linking them to one or more of the 42 U.S. presidents. If you have early New England ancestry you stand the greatest chance of finding a presidential connection, followed by those with Quaker and Southern roots.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Beefcake
What you are saying is complete BS i have a family member that was in a Family tree club ...

I'm sorry most of your club members weren't related to anyone of note. But what I say is not BS at all.

I noticed no one else did any further research on the possibility of this being true. They just spouted their opinions and personal attacks as if they mean something. I don't know if it's laziness or disinterest or just eagerness to believe the worst without further curiosity... But I have PREVIOUSLY researched this and what I say about it is not BS. My brother spent years tracing our genealogy and I found out a lot of interesting information about the study of genealogy.

Thank you jam, for defending me. I appreciate it.

This list goes to tenth cousins. I would guess that the people in the OP went further to connect all the dots. Being a professional genealogist helped, I'm sure.

Presidents' Genealogical Relationships

reply to post by Totalstranger


The Dutch have claimed that his father is descended from Frysians (of the northen part of the Netherlands).

www.belowtopsecret.com...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


So "nearly" 1/3 of us is related to a president?! Wow, that's an interesting fact! (I mean that with no sarcasm).

and 43 of the 44 presidents have the same ancestry?! Holy S#*%!!!!! That is
borderline amazing/suspicious.

Which fact is more astounding?!

I think it's foolish to believe that any election is somehow,
not predetermined or swayed somehow.

Anything above 2nd or 3rd cousin I consider to be not related to me.

So a link to an article where an elementary school student asserts that her grandfather or whatever has traced all the Presidents but one back to Lackland is somehow evidence? It would have been nice had a proper genealogist created the 'family tree'.

It's interesting but not that signficant. It's like saying Queen Elizabeth is descended from Muhammed. The link is through the Arab Kings of Seville but that is very much an indirect link - more relevant is the Tudor descent from people like Owen Tudor who was actually a commoner.

There are many more loose links than real bloodlines. And of course the main line in the current Royal Family is the German Battenburg who of course are connected to the Royal Houses of Europe but then again you must establish the direct lines rather than the loose links.

As for Kennedy - anything must be through the Fitzgeralds - Mother, not Father. The Anglo Norman aristocracy. Interesting but not unusual since the ANs were transplanted to Ireland in order to rule over the native Irish but ended up going Gaelic, one of the reasons being the native Irish practice of polygamy which relatively few Irish Catholic know about!

And to go back to my original point - most people in Europe and the British Isles have loose links by blood with aristocracy and royalty especially as there were so many bastard children.

I don't think people are understanding this, or even reading the OP article, everyone is just being smug about their knowledge of genealogy.

It says that Obama is directly related to all but one President and to the old king of England.

I know you may be 33rd cousins with Stonewall Jackson but that's not what this article is talking about.

People's brains have been scrubbed clean when it comes to Obama.

The 'Jews' control our money system (Federal Reserve) and the British Royal Family chooses our government... no wonder America is Snip, so much misguided loyalty to other powers and principalities!





Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[Mod Edit - profanity]

[edit on 28/10/2009 by Sauron]

The thing about the british isles is that , there are indeed alot of bastard children , my grandfather on my dads side and my great grandfather on my mums side were bastards , and therefore we have no idea where they came from!

My fiance's greatgrandfather was a supposed bastard of the earl of seaforth, and he was pretty much royalty.

Im not so sure about the whole rome connection with the royalty of england because of the whole catholic protestant war which took place, so i dont think there is any real connection between the current royal family and rome !

I find this interesting even if less than relevant.

What is really incredible, assuming for a moment this info is even remotely accurate, is the fact that Van Buren is NOT related....seems those are the truly staggering odds.

...so by proxy they must all be related to each other - through him???

I don't buy ths one...

Brad Pitt for President!!!

which 1 is he not related to?

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Al Gore