Natural Native versus Hybrid Native
September 17, 2012 Leave a comment
~why Obama isn’t a natural Native
There’s a widespread common misconception that’s preventing the American people from grasping the truth about the nature of the citizenship of Barack Obama. That misconception is that the principle of citizenship that applies under the 14th Amendment (birth within the United States and subjection to the laws, rules and orders of the federal government, -including the obligation to defend the nation if needed) is also the citizenship principle that applies in regard to presidential eligibility, but it is not.
Birth within the United States is not a required element of the first of three requirements that must be met in order to be eligible to be the President. The first element is that one must be a “natural born citizen”. To be such does not involve place of birth. [Nearly all Americans are born in America, but a small percentage are born to Americans living overseas, such as John McCain.]
But a U.S. birth location does not necessarily make children American citizens by birth because their parents must not be foreign diplomats or tourists, or temporary workers/ students/ educators/ merchants/ relatives/ etc.
They are the exceptions to the 14th Amendment because they are under the sovereignty of their own governments by owing allegiance to their homeland, -the land where they have their citizenship and to which they will return after a limited stay in the U.S. Such temporary guests are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States nor are they permanent members of American society.
The Constitution requires that the President be a “natural born citizen”. Why did some of the founders use “native-born” interchangeably with “natural-born”? Was there something that they were failing to understand about the difference between the two? Were they implying that a President must have been born within the United States, or worse, were they implying that almost anyone at all born within the United States is thereby eligible to be the President?
Finding the answers to these questions should one day be the chore of the United States Supreme Court when and if they ever are willing to accept the adjudication of the issue of whether or not Barack Obama was constitutionally qualified to be the President.
Some of the founding fathers may have conflated the terms “native-born citizens” with “natural born citizens” because of the legal practice of the state in which they were born, raised, and educated, -a state which may have granted citizenship to native-born children of non-citizen immigrants. In such a state there was no difference between children born to Americans and children born to foreigners, since both types of children were life-long subjects or citizens.
Also, some congressional leaders may have used the terms interchangeably because of the root that they have in common. In their minds they may have been fully aware of that connection, and also realized that it bore no relation to place-of-birth.
By natural law one is the same as one’s parents. Lions don’t give birth to donkeys, Natural inheritance is an inviolable law of nature. Members don’t give birth to non-members, nor do non-members give birth to members anymore than donkeys give birth to lions. If born to a non-member, one isn’t a natural member even if allowed membership by permission.
The most fundamental right in nature is property ownership, which begins with the wives and children of the Alpha male. Hence the basis of patrilineal inheritance by descent. The children belong to him and inherit what pertains to him, be it his nature or his name or his status or his possessions.
Place of birth is only an issue in regard to “The Divine Right of Kings” and their Lordship over all born within their dominion. One is born where one’s parents live, and people lived with their group for generation after generation. producing sons with a member of an outside group is not a natural situation. Such sons aren’t natives of their mother’s group because they take after their father and therefore aren’t natural members their mother’s group. The ownership of the alpha male dominates the situation. That’s Natural Law in the social realm, as opposed to the biological realm.
To be a natural born citizen is not based on American laws or judicial rulings. It is instead based solely on Natural Law. Natural Law involves a principle derived from nature and natural societies that aren’t governed by written laws and bureaucracies. It is the principle of natural group membership.
Membership in any group is always the result of either being born into the group by birth to group parents, or membership by permission. The principle is self-evident in nature, so let’s look at its application in human society.
A hypothetical situation provides a good illustration. If a pregnant Englishwoman sailed on the first ship to reach North American and she delivered there, her child would not be a native American. Only those born of the native indigenous people were natives of the new world.
Before that principle could be naturally applicable to children of Europeans and their descendants, it required many, many generations of births in the new world, to the point that they no longer had European attachments.
Certainly after over 100 years of a colony’s existence, its citizens, the descendants of earlier settlers, would fit the description of being native-born Americans. By then they were clearly the new indigenous population. They were the new natives and the new world was their one and only homeland.
Their children were natives by birth in the homeland to parents who were indigenous members of the colony. They were the new natural natives through natural inheritance via birth to native parents.
All of the descendants of the early settlers would be Natives by birth, (natural-born Natives), whereas those who joined the colony by immigration were not born as Natives. They would be allowed to join and would be members, but they would not be Natives because their parents weren’t Natives.
Their children would also be members at birth but they would not be Natives either because they also were not born to Natives. But the grandchildren would be Natives because they would be born to native-born members. They would be natural members by birth to native-born members who were members at birth, -not by immigration. Thus it could be said that they would be natural Natives, -like those with much longer ancestry in the colony.
If an Asian or African, or Indian immigrant with no connection to anyone in the colony fathered a child with a native colonial woman, their child would not be a natural native of the colony, but would be a hybrid. It’s membership would be contingent on the acquiescence of the others.
If the father was very foreign, such as American men in Vietnam, then the hybrid children might be rejected by society, as they were in Vietnam, requiring their transplantation to America. Those Amer-Asian children were not natural members of Vietnam nor America because of the conflicting nature of their parents background, nationality, language, and race.
Children born in America to Amer-Asian parents would not be eligible to be President because they would not have been born to parents who were both American citizens.
and also, if they obtained citizenship it was via naturalization law, -unless it was (as I believe) via a special Congressionally passed mass naturalization bill.
Naturalization makes one the same as natural citizens except for being ineligible to be President, -or qualifiable to guard the President, -or to guard, access, control and launch nuclear weapons.
In a group or colony, if the natives wished to protect their group from hybrid members who might harbor loyalty to the group of their outsider-parent, they would require that no one could be their leader except a natural-born native, not a hybrid-born half native.
In the group that became the union of the sovereign states of America, they put such a stipulation into their foundational charter. It substituted the word “citizen” for the word “native”.
So it reads “No one except a natural-born citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”.
Summing up: Only those born to natives are natives, all others are not a result of a Natural Law and unwritten human membership law.
A transient male foreigner cannot father a native child anymore than a native male could father a foreign child. Only a male natural citizen (or a naturalized citizen) of the U.S. can father a new American natural citizen.
Only citizens can produce natural citizens. Half-native hybrid citizens are not natural citizens. And no native-born foreigner-fathered person with a hybrid citizenship is eligible to be the President of the United States.
Obama Sr’s son was a hybrid citizen, accepted as a member only by law, -not made so by the natural inheritance of his father’s political nature. Therefore his citizenship was not natural citizenship by descent from citizens, but was citizenship by law, -law written to accommodate non-natural situations involving outsiders producing off-spring with insiders.
The children of Barack Obama Jr. are natural born citizens of the United States because they were born to citizen parents, but their father was not. His father, Obama Sr., was an outsider, a temporary visitor, not even an immigrant, and therefore it was not possible for him to father a natural native of the United States.
Barack Obama wasn’t born of a native American father and therefore is not a native America son, but is a native-born hybrid . By birth he was not a natural member of the American nation. Therefore he can’t be described as being a natural born citizen of the United States.
by a.r. nash april 2012