Obama & A $40,000,000 Comma
October 10, 2011 Leave a comment
Natural membership & The American Tribe
Before Barack Obama took the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, who was it that verified that by taking the oath he would not be simultaneously violating it by not being constitutionally eligible to be the President? Answer: No one.
A centuries old conflict, and the confusion that’s a result of it, led to a misconception in the mind of the American population, and that misconception exempted Mr. Obama from meeting the requirement that the Constitution mandates. It revolves around the issue of his citizenship, and whether it is of the type that qualifies him to be President.
The confusion is based on opposing philosophies which are expressed in ambiguous ways. Simple alternate punctuation can produce results that are diametrically opposed. But when one speaks, there is no punctuation, and so unpunctuated speech can be very ambiguous and that produces confusion.
But listeners normally don’t recognize ambiguity. They assume that one or the other of two possibilities is what is being conveyed, and the opposite possibility doesn’t occur to them. Hence they feel certain that their interpretation of what was said is correct, but it may be 100% incorrect, and only careful writ- ten communication can make the truth be known.
That’s the reason behind “legalese”. That’s been the plight of communication regarding citizenship in America ever since the ratification of the Constitution. People picked-up misconceptions which accompanied them into adulthood, into public office and positions of authority in law and its administration. Those misconceptions remain to this day because the errors behind them have not been widely recognized.
A startling example of how a minuscule error can produce a disastrous result is one from the 1960’s. A communication satellite was carefully constructed and placed atop a carefully constructed missile for launch. It cost $20,000,000 to build (double that in today’s dollars). The software written to control the launch had been carefully reviewed so nothing would go wrong. The missile was launched and soon something went horribly wrong and it had to be destroyed. A total loss.
But they learned after careful analysis that nothing was wrong with the missile. Instead there was an almost insignificant flaw in the software.
The programmer had accidentally hit a period on the keyboard instead of a comma. That period ended the process that was meant to continue following a comma. The result of something so small was a catastrophe so large. The smallest mistake can have a huge result. The same is true in the realm of ideas. Tiny misconceptions are like the small part that controls the movement of a giant rudder which controls the movement of a giant ship. Nations are like giant ships and their direction is determined by small things such as crucial words and misconceptions. Consider these examples.
Obama was born as a citizen of the U.S. via birth to an American mother in the United States. Does that mean the same as:
Obama was born as a citizen of the U.S. via birth in the United States to an American mother?
What do those statements clearly convey? Only one thing; the fact stated in the first half of the sentences. The second half is totally ambiguous. These are the possible meanings:
Obama was born as a citizen via birth in the United States.
Obama was born as a citizen via birth to an American mother.
Which one is it? Which is true, or are they both true? Confusion. Let’s see it with punctuation. Obama, born in the United States, was a citizen of the U.S. via birth to an American mother. Or… Obama, born to an American mother, was a citizen of the U.S. via birth in the United States.
By which principle is Barack Obama eligible to be the President? By birth within the borders of the American government? Or by birth to an American mother? Answer: Neither, -and here’s why.
To be eligible to be President one must be a natural member of the American family. That requires natural inheritance of membership in the group. That group membership (citizenship) is passed down to the children of members. They are members by birth. As in any tribe, outsiders cannot father members of the tribe, only members can do that. If an outsider marries, or just impregnates a native female member of the tribe and a child results, it will not be a natural member of the tribe because it was born of an outsider.
But the child is accepted as a member because the mother is a member, -though the child will not be eligible to be Chief because he’s not a full-blood natural native of the tribe, but is a un-natural hybrid member, -the result of the pairing of an insider with an outsider.
If a tribe lives on tribal lands that contain some special quality, and it draws outsiders to settle on the tribe’s land, the tribe can adopt a policy that grants tribal membership to the children born to the outsiders, but that membership is not natural membership because it is not the result of birth to tribe members. Those children would not be allowed to be the Chief.
The child of the hybrid will be a natural native tribe member via birth to parents who are members of the tribe. He will be eligible to be the Chief. His father, the hybrid, would only be eligible if his father, the outsider, underwent a purification process by which he was purged of his old life and loyalty to his former world, -former “tribe” and was re-made as a new natural-ized member of the tribe after having completed the naturalizing rituals, -rituals handed down from the ancestors for converting men from other tribes into naturalized members so the children of the native women they married would be full- fledged tribe members, -full-blooded instead of half-blood hybrids.
Since Obama’s father was a transient outsider, his off-spring is not a natural member of the American tribe but is instead a hybrid. Hybrids are not allowed to be the Chief unless their fathers underwent the naturalizing ritual and forsook and rejected all prior allegiance and loyalty. No transient visitor ever does, nor can do that. Without that his child remains an un-naturalized hybrid member.
Where I live there are two indigenous tribes and they have boards of directors to govern them. Seeing a photo of the board is surprising. One sees faces similar to their own, Anglo-Saxon, with names like McKinsey. One is hit by the impression that something isn’t right, something isn’t natural. Even though they clearly are not pure-blooded indigenous members, they are fully accepted as such because of multiple generations of membership.
Such dilution of the tribes blood-line is tolerated because of the decimation of its numbers by massacre and poverty. But the principle remains unchanged. An outsider can father a member but it won’t be a natural member. Thus, Obama is not an American citizen of the natural type by birth since he was fathered by a foreigner.
So is he eligible to be President because he was born on American soil? The answer is “definitely not”. But few Americans are aware of just how definite that fact is. That is because the mind-set of the American public remains clouded by the smoke of the aftermath of a war between the rights of man and the “Divine Right of Kings”; –the right of individual liberty and the right of ownership of human property.
The origin of belief in attachment to one’s place of birth is rooted in the religious philosophy that arose to justify the absolute power of monarchs. The principle that gave their reign legitimacy was the belief that since they were ordained by God to be his authority on earth, their will, decisions, and choices were paramount, absolute, and uncontestable. The domain over which they reigned was their own personal empire, and anyone born within their dominion belonged to them from the moment they were born until the moment they died. Anyone who dared to renounce their loyalty and allegiance to the Crown had committed a high crime tantamount to treason, even though it was a natural human right to live in any country one might prefer and be a citizen of that country.
The British men who emigrated to the United States, including those who became new naturalized Americans, remained in the eyes of the King as his personal property, -his subjects for as long as they lived. The United States, founded on principles of Natural Rights, not King’s rights, bitterly disagreed and in response to the British Navy kidnapping new Americans from American ships and conscripting them into the British Navy, the United States did the only thing that the dignity of its sovereignty could accept; -they declared War on the British Empire in 1812.
Miraculously, the British were defeated again, but the war over who humans belong to continued on, -on the conscious and subconscious level.
The Americans over-threw the despotic monarchy and it’s version of human ownership, but its presence in the minds of the ex-colonists was not eradicated. It was embedded by a century and a half of imperial governance of the colonies, under which is was understood that anyone born on the King’s lands belonged to him. That was “the law” in both Britain and the colonies in the eyes of the monarchists and those who were the sycophants of his Highness.
But free-thinking individuals asserted that humans possessed rights of personal liberty and were not the property of any self-serving King or Queen. Eventually they won the multi-century long disagreement and citizenship by descent was codified into British law. Englishmen are Englishmen because they are born to Englishmen, not because they are born on the English property of the Monarch.
But Americans are still in confusion regarding the principle by which they are Americans. Is it by location of birth or is it by natural inheritance? One thing is certain, the place of one’s birth has no connection to nature, nor to the word “natural” as in “natural born”. Where an animal gives birth is irrelevant to its membership in the herd, or pack, or flock, etc. The same is true of birth to members of a tribe. The same is true of many nations, but those which were once the colonies of kings still think nothing has changed since the days when they were ruled by The Lord & Master of all the inhabitants of all of his lands. They trace their membership to the soil instead of to their native-citizen parents who gave them both life and their natural connection to their national group.
The Constitution of the United States does not require a President to be a person born in America, rather it requires that one be a natural member of the America tribe, (as was John McCain) -an indigenous native citizen by nature, -born a natural member of the American group by birth to group members.
With this being so, how can the son of an alien be viewed as being eligible to be the Chief? Can a native member of the American tribe give birth to a natural Kenyan? Can a Kenyan give birth to a natural American? Can the GPS coordinates of one’s birth location really determine eligibility to the most powerful office on earth? If most Americans believe so, then we need a re-boot as a nation so we can get our thinking straight, and understand the clear and simple meaning of the words of the Constitution: “No person—except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”
by a.r. nash oct 2011 http://obama–nation.com