Outrage Toward Obamacare Court Opinion

in response to several PatriotPost.us commentaries

“Judged by the outcomes, the Washington casino is rigged so that no matter which party wins national elections, the federal government gets bigger, hungrier and more dictatorial. With each passing year and regardless of election mandates, more of what belongs to the people is stolen away by government operators and their cronies. Our money, property, privacy, peace, fundamental freedoms and the right to be left alone are their targets. At the current rate of government expropriation, We the People will soon have nothing that isn’t controlled or beholden to the sharpies of D.C.”  (author unknown)

Hopefully, like myself, tens of millions of other Americans will feel and think exactly what you’ve expressed.  Thank you.
And thank you, Chief Traitor Roberts, you disgusting stink bug for fouling the nest of your nation with in indefensible distortion of reality, -one that flies in the face of reason. and language, and validates the marxist position that the federal government possesses unlimited power

.  Now that you’ve outed yourself as just another slimy progressive statist tyranny-defender & enabler in conservative’s clothing, what you’ve done is ignite a prairie fire of opposition to the suppression of individual liberty and the cancellation of the Constitution.
And thanks a lot ex-AG Alberto Gonzolas, who like your former boss and statist president, Bush, for fully vetting another fellow RINO just like you and your appointer.  How does it feel to be a stealth socialist?  -to wear the clothing of conservatism while being a traitor to its principles?  I always strongly suspected that no good thing could come from a Peter Principle slug such as yourself, and now, unfortunately, you’ve proven that suspicion in spades.
This is the result when an incompetent, insightless electorate can’t see incompetence and insincerity even when it’s looking them right in the face.  They blindly elect them as leaders and instead of putting on the brakes they just apply the accelerator pedal even harder.   Straight toward the fiscal cliff!  AN

President Obama said that he believes the U.S. Constitution, that protects Americans from government tyranny “is fundamentally flawed,” and essentially said in a 2001 Chicago NPR interview that the Constitution should not so much “protect” people, but “provide” for them” thereby turning it into a wealth redistribution welfare document.  Sharon Sebastian

“and plans to establish a civilian militia as well funded and powerful as the U.S. military under the oversight of the White House”
I’ve not been a reader of conservative websites for more than a year and half, but in that time, I’ve never read any exposition of the thinking behind that emphatic statement, from whence it came and of what political persuasion it was born.  Nor for what end it would be used.  There has to be a whole lot of fire somewhere in Obama’s mouth to have openly said something so unbelievably anti-American.  A federal police militia?  To use against whom?  Only American citizens, because a few isolated would-be terrorist are not the target of such martial power.  How is such a force any different in essence than the Revolutionary Guard in Iran, or Saddam Hussein’s special police/military forces?  Just how tyrannical must Obama’s imagination envision him being in some unimaginable future scenario in which freedom-loving citizens need to be suppressed?  Would-be tyrants establish loyal martial forces solely with the plan to make them useful in the future.  What kind of future was Obama imagining when he envisioned such a force under his direct command, and not under the command of someone who had sworn allegiance to protect, and defend the Constitution and not him?  Do you not hear echoes of the Nazi party which required of all Germans that they swear an oath of allegiance, not to Germany or its constitution, but to Hitler personally?  How would the command structure of the Nazi Brown Shirts, and SS have been significantly different?  The SS was Hitler’s personal army, not under the command of the military?  Is that what Obama had in mind?  AN

Wickard v. Filburn granted the federal government nearly absolute power over what we do in our own lives on our own property.  Now the Supreme Traitors have become the Tweedle Dee to that previous court’s Tweedle Dumb and have canceled all American freedom only in the opposite direction by assume full authority to regulate, not what we do, as Wickard did, but what we don’t do.  So now Americans are slaves to the federal authorities in regard to both.  Washington’s power is hereby unlimited.  I sure hope that Mitt Romney grasps the full portent of this decision and gets off his ass and does what he had farmed out to Ron Paul, which is to have a clue as to what the Constitution is all about.  His ignorance has gone on long enough.  If he doesn’t wise up, we will be condemned to repeat the past because we sure as hell will remain ignorant of it.  The American people can’t do his thinking for him.  Another blind shepherd will end up leading the sheep off a cliff, and that’s where we’re headed.  Our only hope is that the stealth treason of our government and media is met by a greater stealth resistance in the ballot booth.  AN

Chief Traitor Roberts has revealed himself to be above the law.  What law?  The Constitution and the principles it embodies.  How did he justify his treason to the Constitution?  By assuming the authority to do that which no man has the right to do, which is to bastardize the meaning of fundamental words crucial to the framework of all government.  Lincoln said; “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?  Four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it so.”
Roberts choose to defy the basic immutable law that no one has the right to fundamentally alter the laws of the nation by simply perverting the meaning of a simple word.  Giant ships are steered by discreet rudder gears on which the direction of the ship is dependent.  Roberts and his liberal allies smashed the gear that has always existed and replaced it with a socialist gear, a gear that declares that punitive penalties are taxes, and that taxes are penalties.  No difference says the brain-dead imbeciles masquerading as the highest and wisest minds in the entire judicial establishment, when in fact they are political bozos who consider the Constitution to be as sacred as a doormat.  Now how do we go about removing the knife from our back?  Only by securing the power to flush the toilet that Washington DC has become.  AN

Even though no one has yet brought up the issue of misfeasance and criminal action taken by those who promoted and facilitated a policy that surely must be in violation of at least one law, is no one going to bring up the subject of criminal charges?  When will everyone stop pretending that an entire chain of command could have been populated by people as stupid as baboons?  No one is that stupid.  There was no “flawed” execution, or incompetent planning.  The did exactly what they intended to do and that entailed not doing a whole list of things that they knew they should have done.   Then those who pointed out the truth were pressured to shut-up and keep the conspiracy secret.  The criminals were in charge of the prison, -the foxes were guarding the chicken coop.  The good shepherds were in fact wolf shepherds with malevolent intent.  Either that or they were the stupidest people that every lived.  But even the Peter Principle can’t explain that magnitude of stupidity, so it must not be the real explanation.  Since the AG remains opaque, there is only one other possibility and it follows the course of deliberate sinister intent. AN

You completely missed the point.  There is no TAX!  It is a penalty.  Government may be able by contorted illegitimate logic to penalize the citizens of each and every state for what they do if it’s something they should not do, but the federal government has no authority to penalize people for not doing something, for not entering into an expensive contract just because some statist political group wants them to be a part of something they don’t want nor need.  What next?  Can the federal government penalize us for not smoking, -which reduces their cigarette taxes?  Why not?  They now can penalize for what you do and also for what you don’t do.  Either way you are their slave.  How does that saddle fit you?  No so comfortably?  Too bad, you better get used to it because you’ll be wearing it for the rest of you life, as the government rides you all the way to your grave.  Thank you Big Government!  Where would we be without your saddle and bridle to keep us in line and obedient to your every dictate.  Escapees from Soviet tyranny must be in shock to see such totalitarianism imposed by a Court established to defend the rule of law and the principles of individual liberty, but which has now again done just the opposite.  AN

Fed Up in Philly PA
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Our Country’s and a lone Veteran Patriot’s Obituary, June 2012

We Americans became so apathetic and squeamish, fat and lazy, caught up daily in our big screen TV’s, Hollywood stars, nice cars, social media and other feel-good niceties, that in the end, we did nothing about the creep of autocratic Socialism into America.

We were all spellbound sheep following the communist’s pied-piper to our country’s and constitution’s demise.

Our younger generation was brain-dead, unmindful of the freedoms they lost and continued to lose after the fall of Capitalism and freedom on June 2012.
Most everyone else had cowered, secluded themselves, and accepted without a fight America’s new fate, without the will to really fight.

For me, I was getting older and tired, and was just a lone veteran and patriot who loved his country and constitution; but I could not continue to fight the monstrous dictatorial government on my own. And sadly, no one else did what was needed to reverse its devastating course.

With little support to change course, I had to ‘sign off’ once and for all. I could not do it on my own – my resistance to the policies thrust down once free American’s throats, and passed into law by the authoritarian government people elected in 2008, was just too much for one patriot to bare. I too became the “model, conforming” citizen like everyone else. I decided to live out the rest of my years the best I could for my family, until my coming passing.

At this time past, I wept for our country and its future, I weep for future generations, I weep for my children, grand-children and future generations; but I especially weep for the men and women who gave up their lives over the past 236 years, all for what we have finally become this year, 28 June 2012, a Socialist Nation.

I am hopeful a new generation reading this has woken up, recalled and contemplated what it was like to be in free-America, during past generations before freedoms stolen away, forgotten decades ago, and perhaps, just perhaps, took the courage, and ACTION, we did not to do something about it. If you haven’t, perhaps now is the time. Take matters into your own hands, for we did not, and we got what we deserved.

I tried, I really did. I am so, so sorry!
Sincerely,  Once Free-American Patriot, Veteran, Brother, and Father

Mac in Phoenix
Saturday, June 30, 2012

Dear Patriot, Try to keep your fingers limber, maybe you could re-load our guns.  There are still an army of patriots here, make no mistake.

There will come a time when these bastards – like Obama and his vile ilk – take a last wrong attempt to usurp power that was never intended by our forefathers.

I happen to think they’ve already passed that threshold, but I’ll see what November brings.  Until then – stock up on ammo.

The Chief Pariah of the S.C. was probably one of the traitors that ruled for unlimited government power of eminent domain take-overs, and unlimited EPA power by declaring CO2 a pollutant.  Now he has personally pulled a skunk out of a hat by ruling that something that is clearly unconstitutional and unAmerican under one description is perfectly legal under a different description, -and Big Brother can choose at their own lawless discretion how they label it so as to make a sows ear a silk purse.  Words can mean whatever Congress decides that they mean, and the Chief Traitor is just fine with such perversion of basic laws of language.  Can someone in his position be that dumbass?  That is less likely than that the same people got to him that got to the the hierarchy of the judiciary in Georgia.  Some one by hook or crook convinced everyone up and down the chain to turn their backs on the law and precedent and reverse their own previous leaning.  How else could the party that didn’t even appear in court be ruled the winner?  AN

Appleby

I read the decision, and I swear there were so many pirouettes in that thing that the Sugar Plum Fairy would have screwed herself into the ground before she got to the end. If Daddy had read this — he knew the Constitution up, down, back, forth and sideways, not to mention inside out–he would have bust a gusset.

What this thing is saying is that the government cannot force us to buy things, it can only make your life a living hell until you do. Wait for the same kind of “tax” to apply to those light bulbs we don’t want to buy, and gradually upon the Prius and Volt we aren’t driving, the Energy Star refrigerator we didn’t buy, the solar panels we don’t have on our roof, and the other products and services made by government cronies that we do not patronize.

JD| 6.28.12

Definition 3: Conservatives treat causes. Liberals treat symptoms.
Explanation 3: Liberals see that the poor have little money, so they give them money. But the reason that the poor have little money is that they are unproductive. Giving them money doesn’t make them more productive; in fact, it has been shown to discourage them from being more productive, making their income worse. Income disparity isn’t impacted in any positive way by post-income redistribution, unless one believes in trickle-wherever, which the Left decries (except when using it to justify “stimulus”). In general, liberals paper over symptoms of problems and condemn conservatives for not doing so. Conservatives, by contrast, see the liberal policies as the causes of problems, and know that removing the policies will remove the need to deal with the symptoms.

When Experts Are Idiots & Authorities Are Fools

~none dare call it constitutional treason
by a.r. nash  obama–nation.com

The Supreme Court ruling against the illegal migrant law of Arizona was misguided at best and a constitutional travesty at worst.  The court had no basis to rule as it did against the State of Arizona.  Says who?
Says the United States Constitution.  And what makes yours-truly an expert on the Constitution?  Simple, the ability to read.  Anyone who can read can be quite expert on the Constitution because it is perfectly understandable in almost all regards.

If my audacious self-appointed expertness is true, and the Justices of the Supreme Court were wrong, then why were they wrong?

They were wrong because they violated their oath to follow the Constitution and instead followed an accepted conventional “common knowledge” attitudinal position.  The conventional consensus attitude which they relied on is the same as that employed by respectable legal experts and former judges (“senior legal analyst”) who have shockingly declared in a most emphatic manner, that the right to control immigration is not given to the states but to the federal government by the Constitution!

Hearing that statement coming out of the mouth of a respected authority was like hearing that the Earth indeed, as every one can see, is in fact actually perfectly flat.  I wondered in amazement, “if the ‘experts’ get something so simple flat-out wrong, what hope is there for our future?”

I have to assume that there is very little, -if something as simple as the enumerated powers delegated to Congress can be completely misconstrued in an imaginary manner by experts who are great defenders of the Constitution.  That would mean that we’re in big trouble.

What did they all get wrong?  Simple, they didn’t get anything “wrong”, -it’s worse than that.   Instead they simply invented something that doesn’t even exist!
Congress, in Article 1, Sections 8, 9 & 10 is given no authority over immigration!  It’s impossible to misconstrue what the Constitution says about foreign  immigration because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it.

It does mention the slave trade though, -that it can’t be forbidden by Congress before 1808, but it can be taxed.  It states in the Section 9:
“The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress…”

So that leaves only the one single statement related to immigration, and yet even it isn’t.  It’s the  statement; “Congress shall have power…to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

So that’s it.  There’s nothing more.  Congress was only given the authority to write a naturalization rule that would make the rules of the states uniform.  So Congress could decide the over-all nationwide policy for naturalization, period.  But what you may have failed to grasp in that sentence, thanks to conventional thinking, is the part that reads, “the rules of the states”.
What that means is that the states were sovereign over immigration and naturalization, just as they were before the Constitution was finally ratified by all of them.  As formerly sovereign governments, with their own legislatures, governors, courts, and constitutions, the central government had no sovereignty over who the states allowed into them, nor had a hand in their naturalization.  It was strictly a state matter, except the Congress was given authority to ensure that all the states met a minimum standard, i.e.,had a uniform rule.  They remained free to set a higher standard as long as it didn’t conflict with the general nation-wide rule written by Congress.  End of story.

So, when you consider the words of the 10th Amendment; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”, you’re left with only one conclusion.  The states have been robbed.  The federal government has stolen an authority it was prohibited from possessing.

Which leads us back to the authoritative dogmatic statement that immigration was a subject delegated by the  Constitution to the federal government, about which one is left to ask oneself; “In what universe?”  It sure isn’t this one.

Any child reading what the Constitution says and what the 10th Amendment says can come to no other conclusion.   So even in the subject of immigration and naturalization, the central government, as in most other areas of its jurisdiction, is operating totally outside of its legal bounds.  It’s not skirting the border between the granted and the prohibited, -it’s squarely ensconced in the land of the prohibited.

One is left with no other understanding of the situation other than that “the law”, the Congress, the courts, and the experts are all wrong.  Conventional “wisdom”, common “knowledge” and consensus “opinion” is guiding their misguided minds.  It’s bad enough hearing legal experts pontificate incorrectly on the Constitution, but how do you explain the justices of the Supreme Court?

Are they not supposed to know and follow the Constitution?  There is no acceptable answer to that question, because they either know what its limits are on Congress, and the authorities it leaves to the states exclusively, but it doesn’t care and simply does whatever its member want and feel should be the political policy of the nation, or indeed they are actually as ignorant as any child would suspect them of being.  Both possibilities are horrible.  As for operating as “a nation of laws and not of men”, pardon my French but, we’re screwed.

In fact, the inescapable fact is that we essentially are a nation of men and not of laws.  That is born out by the terminology used in law; “the opinion of the court” (not “the facts determined by the court”, or “the constitutional truth of the matter”.
Opinions do not necessarily have to be factual or correct, after all, they are just opinions.  And judges with no regard for our foundational charter nor for the wisdom of the men who labored over writing it, can and do simply substitute their opinion of what the law should be for what the law actually is.
How should one describe such behavior?  Call it what it is; constitutional treason.

Again, that leaves only three explanations; -they either are too ignorant, intellectually lazy or stupid, and therefore are not even aware of what the constitutional law actually is, -or they know but misunderstand it, and choose the wrong side of two possible choices, -or they simply don’t give a damn about fulfilling their oath to follow the constitution whether they like it or not, -as impartial judges.  In most instances, it’s the latter when it comes to the votes of the court’s treasonous liberals.

Allow me one more example of conventional wisdom being totally wrong.  Everyone, including yourself, think that slavery was abolished in the United States.  It’s banned.  Gone forever and can’t come back.  Right?  Wrong!

Slavery, and involuntary servitude are still perfectly legal in in all of the states under proper circumstances, and fully legal without restriction in well over half the territory of the United States.  How can that be true when everyone knows that it isn’t?  Because everyone is wrong.

But, you argue, slavery and involuntary servitude were universally outlawed by the 13th Amendment, which reads:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
That’s about as plain and simple as it could get, right?  That is right, but what’s wrong is that the quote left out its center section, which reads: “except as punishment for crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,”.

So, under proper legal circumstances, slavery and involuntary servitude are still legal in
“the United States and their jurisdiction”.   That second-to-last word makes it even worse, because “their” jurisdiction only covers that of the states themselves, and does not include the jurisdiction of the federal government, -which includes all of Washington D.C., all federal territories and lands owned by the federal government.  That includes perhaps 80% of the land west of the Mississippi river since the federal government owns more of the land of many western states than the states do.

If you follow the logic of state-property versus federal property to its inescapable conclusion, then slavery and involuntary servitude are not banned in perhaps more than half of the area comprising the nation, especially with the vastness of Alaska thrown in, -which one could assume is mostly owned by Washington since the federal government obtained it by buying it from Peter the Great of Russia.

In addition, anyone born on federal land is not a citizen of the state in which they were born because they were not born under its jurisdiction.  States have no jurisdiction over federal lands, anymore than they do on Indian reservations.  They are therefore, like those born in Washington DC, federal citizens only.  They therefore should not be liable for state income taxes if they live and work on federal land, such as rangers for example, and if they are not citizens of the state in which they reside, they probably have no constitutional right to vote on state matters in state elections.

So much for conventional wisdom.  Conventional wisdom declares that I must be off my freakin’ rocker to think that I’ve illuminated some obscure  surprising facts that all of our nations great legal authorities, pundits, scholars, and judges are unaware of.  Well, stating the obvious doesn’t necessarily come with the assumption that others aren’t aware of such elementary facts.  But if they are aware, then where are their voices?  Have you heard any?  I sure haven’t.  But then I’m nobody, with no legal connections whatsoever.  Yet here I am writing about it.  If the experts are experts, why aren’t they the ones writing about it instead of a nobody?
Is “group think” that powerful?  Does no one question the status quo they were taught in law school, a status quo that no one is challenging?   Why aren’t they?  Are they cowards, clueless, or fellow traitors with the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court?  I think we’ve all been conned in a manner too huge to grasp, and not by what the experts have said, but by what they haven’t said.

One in 315 Million, but the wrong one

Everyone who voted for Barack Obama to be our Emperor cast a vote against the Constitution, -without even realizing it.  Why would that be true?  Because his election was in direct contradiction to the clear prohibition given as the first, and foremost requirement to be eligible for the office.
Article II, Section I,  “No person except a natural born citizens…shall be eligible to the office of the President,”.  That clearly barred Obama from the office since he is not a natural American citizen.

What kind of citizen is he?  He is a provisional citizen turned statutory citizen.  Having been fathered by an alien, his citizenship rested on whether or not he lived in the United States for 5 years after the age of 14.  If he had returned to Indonesia to live with his mother and step-father at age 18, he would not have obtained American citizenship via the provisional process.  He would have needed to naturalized personally as an adult.

If you mistakenly believe that he obtained U.S. Citizenship simply by being born on U.S. soil, you would be both right and wrong.  The citizenship he might incorrectly be deemed to have rightfully obtained is citizenship obtained wrongfully.  That’s because, although it is supposed by the government that native-birth conveys citizenship to everyone, that is in direct opposition to the actual meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment.

They plainly require that one be subject to the federal government’s full authority.  Babies aren’t subject to anything other than the craving for the necessities of baby survival, so they, like all minors, are born subject to the government through the head of the family, the father.  He is fully subject because he can be drafted and sent to face death in war.

Immigrants are under that authority as well as citizens, but Obama’s father was not since he was not an immigrant.  So the assumption by the government, which it has been falsely making for over a century, is incorrect.  But even if it were correct, what kind of citizenship does it produce?
It produces man-made constitutional citizenship, not natural citizenship.
Citizenship comes in an assortment of  types.  The lowest type is the provisional citizenship of minors with foreign fathers, which can expire.  It could be described as Copper Citizenship.

Above that is citizenship by the naturalization process.  It’s granted to foreigners who undergo the pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and the United States, and renounce all allegiance to their homeland.  It can be called Silver Citizenship.

Above that is statutory citizenship, -that granted to children born abroad of mixed-nationality marriages, -having American & foreign parents.  It can be called Golden Citizenship.

Above that is citizenship obtained by the authority of the 14th Amendment for children of legal immigrants who are subject to conscription into the United States military without any right to refuse.
Neither the Congress nor the executive branch can prevent, redefine, withdraw, or repeal the right to that citizenship because it isn’t bestowed by them but by a constitutional amendment that is far above their pay grade.
It can be called “Platinum Citizenship”.

All the citizens of these various types combined together constitute perhaps less than 5 percent of the American population.  An examination of census records would be needed to know the actual percentage.  But they wouldn’t be reliable because they would come with the presumption that all children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors are citizens, when constitutionally they are not.

So what kind of citizen constitutes the other 95%?  They are the indigenes natural citizens.  Born of an American father and an American mother.  Their citizenship is beyond the reach of naturalization and constitutional statutes.  It’s immune to all citizenship law because all the laws that exists were written for births involving foreign parents.
Congress was given the authority to write a uniform naturalization rule for all the states, and
nothing more.  It has never had any authority over the status of natural citizens.  They are outside the purview of its legislating authority.  Off-limits, thanks to the Constitution not granting any authority in that area of citizenship.
So how can we describe such citizenship?  Platinum is already taken.  So we need to go beyond the
realm in which those precious metals are found.

Just as natural citizenship is beyond the realm of legal citizenship, so we need to go beyond the realm of terrestrial elements, -to the realm of extraterrestrial elements.  I speak of the one that is hardly found on Earth, it only comes from outer space.  It provides the name for natural citizenship; namely Iridium Citizenship.
Natural citizenship, like Iridium, is from another realm.  Outside of the legal realm, -purely from the realm of natural law.  It springs from conformity to the universal law of uniformity.
When genetic uniformity is an element in parental biological makeup, then their off-spring will be naturally identical to them.
When uniformity is an element in the parents’ political makeup, then their off-spring will have the same nationality as them by the same natural principle.

What difference does it make what kind of citizenship one has?  It makes no difference at all, unless…well…there’s one tiny, essentially inconsequential exception.  It only involves one single person out of 315,000,000.  Hardly worth mentioning.  On the other hand, it is something mentioned in the Constitution.  It’s some little, forgotten, overlooked, misunderstood requirement inserted as an element of presidential eligibility.  It’s that essentially meaningless mandate that the President be a “natural born citizen”, whatever that is.  I know, I know, some fanatics think that the Constitution matters for some reason.   Whatever.
But since absolutely no one in the government or the media care (including the conservative media) why should anyone else care?
I’m sure the White House doesn’t care.  After all, the guy that occupies it was a copper citizen growing up.  So I’m sure he doesn’t recent me pointing out that fact.
So as I was saying… wait,  -wait a minute…. I hear something…. -what was that sound?  OMG!!!
I gotta go.  A swap team is about to smash down my door!!!

By A.R. Nash

The Nature of Natural Citizenship

There is something in most American’s background that is so much a part of us that it never gets a thought, and it never gets taught.  It is totally taken for granted, like the air that we breathe.  It is related to our citizenship.

We rarely think about our citizenship, except when we are in a foreign nation or applying for a passport in order to be able to prove our citizenship.  But what we never think about is the nature of our citizenship, the principle by which we have the citizenship that we assume we have.
There really is no reason to think about it except to come to an understanding of something written in the United States Constitution.  In it is a set of requirements for the office of the President.  The first and foremost requirement is natural born citizenship.

The framers of the Constitution were so adamant about that requirement that they insisted in negative language that “No person shall be eligible to the Office of the President except a natural born Citizen,…”. [word order rearranged]  But what does that mean?

It means that the citizenship of a Presidential candidate must be of a certain nature, and that nature is “natural”.  It cannot be non-natural citizenship.
Non-natural citizenship is of various types, but one thing they all have in common is that they are authorized either by statute, the 14th Amendment, judicial ruling, or administrative decree.
If one is a foreign citizen and wishes to become an American citizen, then one must go through a process to re-make one into the equivalent of a natural citizen via the naturalization process.  One cannot be required to be re-born as an American, so the next best thing is to require a process intended to change how one consciously thinks about who they are and where they belong and what society and government they are attached to.
[Some natural born citizens take their citizenship for granted to such an extent that they would become far better citizens and persons if they also were required to complete the naturalization process in order to become thoughtful members of the American political and social world.  But I digress.]

Let’s examine the nature of natural citizenship.  It can be said that females who are born as females are natural born females, which is a statement that would never have been made until female transsexual reassignment surgery was invented.  As a result, there now exist two classes of females; one might be called simply “female” and be relate to ones physical appearance, while the other would be called “natural female”.
Just as all females are not natural females, so all citizens are not natural citizens because they were not born as natural citizens.  In a similar vein, I, like you, was born as a human by birth to human parents.  Thus I am a natural born human, meaning I don’t embody the makings of humans along with some other species.  My human-ship is similar to my citizenship in that both are natural.
I was born as an American citizen because the American citizenship of my parents was mine upon my birth.  Americans give birth to Americans.  Chinese give birth to Chinese.  Eskimos give birth to Eskimos.  Natural citizenship is not dependent on where one is born anymore than ones gender, or species is dependent on birth location.  It is solely dependent on to whom one is born
.
Natural born citizens are citizens by a historical political analogy to natural law.  In nature each species produces its own kind.  In nature species do not intermingle.  In nature there are no natural hybrids (with only a few unusual exceptions to the rule).
Similarly, natural citizens are citizens by natural inheritance, not citizens by law, or judgement, or decree.  Therefore it can be said that those whose citizenship is defined by law, or judicial or administrative decree are not members of the class of natural born citizens because that class has never been dependent on the acquiescence of men.  Rather it is a permanently embedded ancient human tradition.  It is an unalienable right that is no more in need of being legislated than is the right to live.  That is why it is not defined in the Constitution, nor any legislation ever passed.  It’s fundamental.  It pre-dates the law, and the Constitution, and English law, and Roman law.  Since over 99% of the citizens of most countries are natural citizens of those countries, there has never been a need to legally state what is obvious and universally recognized.
The natural born citizens of a country are analogous to a big bed spread covering a bed representing the nation.  The bed spread has fringe around the edge, and that fringe represents immigrants and those born with one or two foreign parents.  Compared with the surface of the bed spread, they are similarly no more than a fringe element, but being different is what requires that they have the nature of their status defined.  Their citizenship is not natural and thus the nations leaders are forced to create rules to conditionally grant or deny them citizen rights.

What this all distills down to is the fact that no one whose citizenship is defined or determined by law, or decree, or constitutional amendment, is a natural born citizen because natural born citizenship is not dependent on any of those things, rather it is more fundamental than all of them and is one of the foundations on which they exist.  The government cannot grant a person natural born citizenship.  Under the Article II Presidential requirement, no foreigner is eligible to be President because no foreigner is a natural born citizen.  Also, under the Article II Presidential requirement, no half-foreigner is eligible to be the President because no half-foreigner is a natural born citizen, and as the Constitution plainly states; “NO person, except a natural born citizen…is eligible to the Office of the President.”

Adrien Nash  September 4th, 2011  http://obama–nation.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers