Natural Citizens by the Brotherhood of Blood
May 12, 2014 2 Comments
“Natural Citizen” is a very real but rather rare term in America. The normal term is simply “citizen” or “U.S. citizen”, or even “citizen of the United States”and that is because the adjective “natural” has only two uses, (-not including the exceptionally rare use of referring to the eligibility requirement for the presidency). One use has been in contra-distinction to an “artificial” or law-made citizen, -otherwise known as a corporation.
Corporations are, thanks to a law-making, constitution-perverting Supreme Court, American citizens also, and supposedly imbued with citizen rights. A corporate “citizen” is not a natural citizen because natural citizens are: a.) human, and b.) citizens by nature, by oath, or by birth location, -not by judicial creation via judicial ruling or congressional statute.
In Britain, and everywhere, there was similarly little use for “natural subject” since simply “subject” would normally do, but it also had an alternative against which it could be juxtaposed, and that was “naturalized subject”. Those were the only two terms that existed in nations until the 1608 Calvin case in Britain, which changed everything by turning the status quo natural order of nationality upside down.
America also had the same contradistinction of natural citizen vs. naturalized citizen (the other use for the term “natural citizen”.
In Britain, the admittance of outsiders into the English family and nation was accomplished by a means known as “naturalization”, natural-ize-a-tion, natural-izing, -making natural one who is not natural, -who is an unnatural member of English society, -which was composed almost entirely of Englishmen (plus a small percentage of foreign immigrants).
Their ancestors, and language, went back to the dim distant past, as it seems did naturalization also. It’s roots are so old as to be undiscoverable by normal internet searching. They are likely Roman in origin.
What did they all have in common? Lineage. English lineage via ancient blood line. Membership in the national family of Englishmen was via blood descent. Blood was the central factor in their identity and status in life.
It had been purely “Anglo” blood until the Norman invasion of 1066 by the French King William “the conqueror”. From thenceforth it took on the character of Anglo-Saxon, with Saxony being the name of an area of France long ago conquered by the Viking Saxons.
An abandoned infant of unknown origin would belong to no one and would have no identity at all unless adopted and made a member of a preexisting family with family roots because lineage was the determinant of identity, and blood was the determinant of lineage.
That was most emphatically true of the royal family. No one was a member of that family except by blood relationship. One could not join it (except by holy matrimony for life) nor be “naturalized” as a royal. One had to have been born with royal blood. When that blood line failed to produce an heir to the throne, a huge problem resulted because the throne could not be given to anyone without royal blood.
It wasn’t about the nation itself, and what was best for it, -like picking a new king from among a field of worthy or heroic candidates. No, it was all about blood, royal blood, -whether you had it or did not. If no one had it, then it had to be sought outside of the kingdom, -which is exactly what happened and thus lead to the Calvin case.
The Throne of England was unoccupied when Queen Elizabeth I died childless in 1603. The English were forced to seek a new monarch, -someone with royal blood even though from outside of England and Ireland. They had to embrace as their new king the King of Scotland, James VI, who had reigned beginning in 1583 at age 17.
It seems that even blood had a pecking order. Royal blood trumped English blood. The throne could not be occupied by one with common English blood, nor one with noble English blood. It had to be royal blood. That would be because of the near universal belief in the Divine Right of Kings.
By its doctrine, God himself choose or ordained the men who would be kings, -just as he had chosen David to rule over the nation of Israel as king. He alone determined the divine order and the earthly order. So one from a blood-line chosen by God had to be found, -a fellow Protestant Christian royal who could assume the throne and wear the crown of England and Ireland.
They could and did trust James to be a fair ruler. (Jamestown was named after him) and he was the man who commissioned the King James authorized translation of the Bible, -the most widely published book of all time. He himself penned works such as Daemonologie (1597), True Law of Free Monarchies (1598).
The importance of blood was central to certain rights, -rights of status and privilege, and rights of inheritance. One can’t claim a right to inherit property from a deceased person to whom one is not related by blood or adoption. Inheritance of property in Britain was disallowed to anyone without British blood. No one with foreign blood could inherit nor buy British property because it belonged to the blood-connected people of the kingdom.
If foreigners couldn’t rightfully own it in perpetuity, it makes sense that they could not transmit it to foreign relatives who would, if they could inherit, constitute an island of foreign-ness in the realms of the English and Irish homelands. Without English or Irish blood, you could not inherit. That was the principle of inheritance
But it became very foggy and fuzzy in the minds of the Britains following the Calvin case because by it the central focus on blood was shifted to something totally arbitrary and man-made, namely; national borders.
Was one born inside them or outside them? If one was born inside them in a state of amity with British authority, then one was born subject to that authority.
Until the tradition-perverting and natural law abandoning court opinion was handed down, borders only had one significance and that was as a demarcation line between realms. Just like a property line; on one side is my property, and on the other is someone else’s property. With the nation and the King it was exactly the same.
To prevent endless wars contesting territory, boundaries had to be agreed to and so they were and peace could continue unperturbed. That was why borders were needed and was the only reason why they were needed. One’s national membership was not determined by them anymore than one’s family membership was.
One belonged to one’s own people, and that was determined by being born into that group via parents who were members of that people, -that country, -that nation. Borders had no significance regarding which people and nation one belonged to, …until the cursed Calvin case bastardized the fundamental principle of nationality by inventing a new one, which was not really a principle at all, -just a policy that followed recognition of birth circumstances, and tossed the principle of blood connection out “with the bath water”.
Ever since then, the governments of Britain and America and all nations that were once colonies or New World territories of imperial powers have been in a state of confusion regarding nationality principles, because they no longer have any openly acknowledged nationality principles.
They only have border-based birth-circumstance policies by which natural blood connections are absent unless born beyond national borders. Then it must be acknowledged, -but it is not acknowledged as what it is, but as what it is deemed to be; namely a national connection, and right of membership which is not via a natural principle, (-that of blood connection alone) but merely a “right” extended as government’s blessing of that principle according to its own capricious will, and not according to an inviolable right of membership by blood alone.
Reading the explanations of why foreign-born children of the nation (both Britain and America) are allowed to be citizens and not deemed to be aliens is almost comical in how pathetically distorted the logic is forced to be in order to produce a semi-reasonable explanation in the total absence of blood connection as the only natural explanation.
I don’t believe I’ve yet come across any reference to blood connection as being the reason that they are natural members of their parents’ country. Instead, some pontificating “authorities” of great repute have labeled them as aliens in need of naturalization by the merciful authority of the big-wigs of Parliament who would come to their rescue and write a little statute to save them from being forever aliens.
That is directly equivalent to you writing a stipulation in your will that your natural children, who happened to not be born on your property, are to be recognized and treated as your natural born children also. Great! You’ve ordered that they be recognized as that which they already were born being.
They are not that which they automatically are by blood because you ordered that they be deemed to be that which they already are. And yet that is exactly what the blind and ignorant men of the post-Calvin decision had devolved to doing. The new Calvin policy based on borders had become so pervasive and all-encompassing that it was like a 1,000 lb. fatso sitting on the chihuahua of natural rights and blood connection. It could no longer be seen anywhere. Out of sight and out of mind.
Thenceforth the “tail” of nationality by birth-within-borders wagged the dog of the 98% of the nation who were automatically subjects by blood inheritance alone -but with the blood factor then invisible, only borders remained in the sight of the law, -the “common law” based on court decisions.
From then on it didn’t matter what your ancestry was, -what your roots were, nor who your parents were. You would be deemed to be the King’s subject if you were born within his borders. Do your ancestors date back centuries in Poland, Prussia, France, or Spain? No problem, you are a born subject of the King of Britain because his borders make it so as dictated by the Calvin opinion.
You join the natural subjects of the King in equal standing. And since you are so equal to all natural subjects, why not just call you something that applies to all born as natural subject as well? Something like… “natural-born subject”. That way everyone is equal and there is no discrimination. After all, you were both subjects from birth, so why point out the out-of-style difference of them being born of British blood and you being born of alien blood? It would not be politically polite to rub that in your face. “Equality” was the word of the times.
And so that became the new normal, the new status quo institutionalized policy of the realm and the colonies. -Acknowledge no principles, only birth circumstances. Acknowledge no natural connections, only borders. Acknowledge no natural rights of British and American parents and children to be one and the same as members of the same society and country, -only the right of the government to decide and impose its policy on everyone without consideration of the cancellation of a fundamental unalienable right that comes with national membership in a free nation, -the right to carry your sovereignty with you everywhere in the world, -particularly if American since they had no royal sovereign, -being themselves the sovereigns of their nation.
Kings are recognized as carrying their sovereignty with them everywhere they go. They can issue orders in their homeland or in another land. Their authority over British subjects in Britain does not cease at the border. If a royal baby is born on foreign soil, it is still royal, a member of the royal family and its parents’ nation. Borders mean nothing.
The very same identical principle applies to all American citizens since we are the sovereigns and our public servants are not. We are the royalty who carry our natural rights with us everywhere in the world.
The government that we created cannot tell us that we are or are not members of our own nation based solely on where our mother was situated when she delivered us. We carry that natural right of national membership with us everywhere. It does not expire at the water’s edge or across the border! That is our inviolable right, -as fundamental as the right to breath, as long as one’s mother was married to an American.
We do not bow to government nor to kings because we are their equals or their superiors. Government exists to serve us, not dictate to us that our children are aliens if not delivered within its borders. The creation cannot dictate the rights of its creator.
Authority to the contrary can only exist if government is sovereign and we are its submissive, saddled & bridled subjects. But it is not our master, nor our father. We are its father.
And speaking of fathers, the British children born outside of Britain were referred to as “the children of the King”. They were children of Britain, and the King was “father” to the nation and its children, -responsible for the well-being of all as head of the national family.
After Calvin, all those born within his borders were referred to simply as his subjects or his natural-born subjects, but those born overseas were not born subject to his reign since his authority over those born not born on British soil ended at the water’s edge, and yet how did he label them? As his “children”.
What makes one someone’s child? Their blood connection. They were his children because they were born of British blood. It was incumbent on the government to assure their membership in their own natural country, and they did just that via a statute of Parliament.
But every such statute after Calvin failed to acknowledge that it was based on a natural right of mankind and not on the arbitrary authority of government. That resulted in otherwise intelligent men growing up in a system in which they were convinced that government authority was supreme, and any child of Englishmen or Irishmen born outside of the nation’s sovereign borders was an alien since it was not connected to the hallowed ground of the nation and its nationality policy.
The perverted manner of thinking about nationality due to the Calvin case resulted in viewing all those born on British soil as being naturally British, -aside from the bothersome exceptions of children of foreign ambassadors, foreign invaders, and British children not born of and on British soil. Mere minor kinks in an otherwise seemingly perfect system.
They saw the world through the eyes of policy instead of principle, so deceived as to believe that mere policy in fact constituted a principle, -even though there was no articulatable principle behind it nor beneath it. It merely existed as a matrix of man’s making, -having the strength of the full force of government’s marital power and thus appearing to be thoroughly legitimate and unquestionable.
So if the native-born child of an alien (originally only Scotsmen) could be viewed as a natural-born subject of the King (though not a natural subject of the nation) then that fiction of law could also be applied to those who were not native-born and “naturalized at birth” but were born abroad as foreigners who became naturalized by Parliament.
They could be viewed and labeled as natural-born subjects also since there was no authority that said they could not also be covered by the same fiction of law. And so in time they were also so labeled. Parliament could “make” a natural-born subject even though such a subject was not a true natural subject. But they were deemed to be equal, and therefore to be viewed as one and the same as those born of natives.
That form of nationality fiction carried over to the Americas. In the colonies and States of America, naturalization had been allowed for a century for immigrants seeking full membership. If they did not pursue becoming members by legal means, their children born in the colony, nevertheless, were deemed to be members from birth, -just as all such children were “naturalized at birth” in Britain thanks to the Calvin ruling.
It was the universal common law. Thus, all the native-born were “natural-born subjects” of the King regardless of parentage. But for their fathers, if was not so simple to become a full subject of the King and nation.
In Britain, (and presumably in the colonies) to become a new natural subject via natural-ization required fulfilling certain obligations, -one of which was providing proof of having partaken in communion within the last three months. One needed to procure from a clergyman and witnesses an affidavit stating that one had participated in the Eucharist (as performed by any of the Protestant churches of the land), and was therefore demonstrably a Christian.
No atheists, agnostics, Jews, or Catholics (Roman or Orthodox) were welcome. And what was the symbolism of the Eucharist? It was the drinking of the blood of Christ. Jesus had told his disciples during his last meal with them that in the future when they meet and dine together, to view the bread as his body, and the wine as his blood, thus sharing together in being spiritually one with him and each other, -with he becoming after resurrection and ascension an indwelling spirit of strength and comfort.
Again, a blood connection bound men together in a sacred ritual, just as it binds parents to children in a primal bond. So you had the blood of the holy communion, the blood of the cross, and the blood of the ancestors of Britain binding all Britains together as one people under one king.
Foreigners could be a part of the first two but not a part of the third, but they could provide a substitute and that was their submission to the authorities of the realm. If they wanted or needed to become official members of the nation, they could petition Parliament for naturalization, providing it all the references required.
After the American revolution, if not before, that sacrament requirement of naturalization was abandoned in America. But something equally somber and sober replaced it. And that was the most solemn oath ever devised for common people. It was a life-changer. It was the American oath of Allegiance & Renunciation.
Its origins are seen in a preexisting oath that came into being two and a half centuries earlier. From Wikipedia re the Oath of Supremacy:
The Oath of Supremacy required any person taking public or church office in England to swear allegiance to the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Failure to do so was to be treated as treasonable.
The Oath of Supremacy was originally imposed by King Henry VIII of England through the Act of Supremacy 1534, but repealed by his daughter, Queen Mary I of England and reinstated under Mary’s half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I of England under the Act of Supremacy 1559. The Oath was later extended to include Members of Parliament and people studying at universities.
Roman Catholics who refused to take the Oath of Supremacy were indicted for treason on charges of praemunire. For example, Sir Thomas More opposed the King’s separation from the Roman Catholic Church and refused to accept him as Supreme Head of the Church of England, -a title which had been given by Parliament through the Act of Supremacy of 1534.
He was imprisoned in 1534 for his refusal to take the oath, because the act discredited Papal Authority and Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon. In 1535, he was tried for treason, convicted on perjured testimony, and beheaded.
Under the reigns of Charles II and James II, the Oath of Supremacy was not so widely employed by The Crown. This was largely due to the Catholic sympathies and practices of these monarchs, and the resulting high number of Roman Catholics serving in official positions.
Text of the Oath as published in 1559
I, ___, do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen’s Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, (and of all other of her Highness’s dominions and countries), in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as well as temporal; -and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate (Pope) hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen’s Highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen’s Highness, …. So help me God, and by the contents of this Book.
We see in that oath the genesis of enforcing a policy of having only one allegiance, -one loyalty, one nationality, -not dual, -no split loyalty, -no competing allegiances, no disparate nationalities.
That policy became the center of the American central government’s view of nationality. Just as all natural citizens had only one country, nation, nationality and allegiance, so also must all natural-ized Americans as well. And in the middle of those two extremes were the native-born children of aliens, -immigrants, who were both born foreign and born American. Born in America but not of America, Born of foreign blood and not of American blood, -the blood of American fathers. [foreign mothers became American by marriage]
The States had no such concern since they didn’t have an office of President & Commander-in-Chief of the entire American military. So dual loyalty didn’t have any way to present a national security risk at the State level, nor much in their representatives in Congress either.
But just as the King of England would not share his secular nor spiritual sovereignty with foreign leaders (the Roman Catholic Pope or a foreign king) so America would not share the loyalty of the President with any foreign sovereign power either.
His loyalty would have to be unconnected to any nation except the United States and that was only possible if he was not born of parents connected to another nation as a subject. The President’s father absolutely had to be an American. He absolutely could not be a foreigner, -otherwise his son’s inculcated, ingrained national loyalty & patriotism would be unknown, -questionable, -and possibly divided -even secretly so since no one could know for sure what values his foreign father had instilled in him.
That possibility presumes that he was someone not just born in America but also raised in America, -with the added possibility that his father might have eventually become an American by naturalization.
But what if that were not the case? What if his father had only been in America for a short time and then returned to his homeland with his wife and child, and raised him abroad as a foreign national with foreign loyalty and attachments, with a sense of national pride and allegiance toward a foreign nation and its leadership and none toward the United States? The State he was born in probably viewed him as a native-born “son of the soil”, but what did the federal government view him as? A dual American-foreign citizen or just a foreign citizen like his father?
Such a foreign-raised “American” was the possible worst-case-scenario that greatly concerned the American leadership. And that was why they could not allow dual allegiance, dual nationality, nor soil-based, border-based citizenship to be recognized when it came to the highest office in the land. It had to be blood-based citizenship, -the blood of an American father. And that included the blood of an American natural-ized father as well since he became a (fictional) natural American via his oath.
He had shown his true colors by swearing the vow of Allegiance & Renunciation, -renouncing all allegiance and obedience to any foreign sovereign, -or more specifically, to his own foreign sovereign, -naming him by name and renouncing his authority and the life-long political umbilical cord connection to him.
Recall the origin of that renunciation; Sir Thomas Moore was beheaded because he was unwilling to renounce the authority of Rome and swear allegiance to Henry VIII as his spiritual sovereign. Such an oath was taken very seriously, -even without any penalty attached, since one was making it by swearing on the Bible, -“with God as my witness” in effect.
By placing one’s hand on the Bible, one was swearing by all that is sacred and Holy, -before one’s Creator and future Judge. One was pledging their word on their sacred honor, -not just before an earthly judge but before a heavenly one as well, -as if standing on Holy ground with the eye of God watching and remembering.
[One could "affirm" instead of swear if one was Quaker and rejected swearing oaths because of the commandment of Christ:
Matthew 5:33-37 ESV /
“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil." That was in reference to this quote from the Hebrew Scripture a thousand years before:
Deuteronomy 23:21-23 ESV /
“If you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay fulfilling it, for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and you will be guilty of sin. But if you refrain from vowing, you will not be guilty of sin. You shall be careful to do what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth."]
So a vow, an oath was a serious matter in America just as it had been in England when the oath of Supremacy was created. That oath was latter attached to the oath of allegiance to the secular rule of the State, its laws & government to be taken by everyone natural-ized by Parliament. It was the man-made substitute for natural allegiance resulting from a blood connection to the nation.
A man-made substitute in between those two opposite ends of the spectrum, was birth on British soil. Almost without exception, if a foreigner’s wife gave birth in Britain it was because they were immigrants domiciled there, -having chosen to live there rather than where they were from.
That choice was a de facto form of admission of being in subjection and submission to the rule of the British government, voluntarily making oneself a subject of the Crown even without taking any vow or oath.
That subjection was deemed sufficient (following the Calvin case) to warrant recognizing an alien-born child as having been born as a subject of the Crown and thus not a foreigner like its father & mother.
In time it came to be the view that birth within the British realm was a strictly voluntary thing (even if a foreign couple were only in England temporarily) because it could be assumed that they consciously chose to allow the birth of their child to happen on British soil because they preferred that their child be born as a subject of the British Crown rather than they own.
From then on, any child born in Britain, except that of an ambassador, was deemed to be a British subject from birth. Before Calvin, life was uncomplicated regarding nationality; one was either “a subject; -born” or “a subject; -made” (by naturalization).
But after the Calvin court case, how were the alien-born children to be designated in regard to origin? Subject born? -or subject made? The answer was both, combined, -making a subject at birth by the authority of the Calvin court ruling.
But there was no longer a reason to distinguish them by their origin since they were no longer aliens like their foreign fathers. They were thenceforth, Englishmen by law from birth, and thus equal to Englishmen-by-blood.
President by Right of Ancestral Blood
In America, post-independence, the contested dichotomy (concerning the presidency) was not “citizen born? or citizen made?” but instead was regarding how one was “citizen born”. Was one a natural citizen by blood or a border-based citizen by common law?”
But in the Obama era, that has been changed in order to legitimize his presidency as being constitutional; having switched the focus back from common law citizenship to naturalized citizenship. Thus the question has been perverted to be “natural born citizen? or naturalized citizen”?
By that older, pre-Calvin dichotomy his dishonest legitimizers profess to be logically assuming that since he is not a naturalized citizen, therefore he must be a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be President . But that logic is totally false. And its falsity is easily seen in the example of transsexuals.
In the modern world things are different than in the past, just as they became post-Calvin. Today we can’t infallibly refer to a woman, or female, as if those are defined and understood terms. Instead, to avoid confusion in certain situations, we must refer to the equivalent of “female born? or female made”? Sometimes we have to refer to “a natural female”, and yet even that is technically ambiguous.
All natural females are naturally female, but like natural-ization, there exists in the modern world its gender equivalent; female-ization. Foreigners who are preparing to become citizens by following the requirements for naturalization (learning U.S. history, government, and the English language) are equivalent to pre-op “shemales”.
Shemales were born with one gender but will undergo surgery to change to the opposite gender via female-ization surgery. Once it is complete and all healing has occurred, they are a new creation with a new gender; just like a foreigner with a new nationality. But that is not the correct way to describe new Americans. They do not have a new nationality because they have become Americans, organically, so to speak, by our American fiction of citizenship equality.
By it, all Americans are natural citizens (via the natural-izing power of the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation) They are not said to be citizen-ized, but natural-ized; -just as a post-op shemale is not said to be consided to be female, but actually is female.
There is no difference between her and one born as female, -as far as the eye can tell. They are identical. Even a doctor wouldn’t know the difference because the surgical skill level is so perfected. And yet there is a difference inside, unseen; female organs are missing, (although they are also missing in women who have had them removed) -just as one cannot really tell what is unseen in the mind of a naturalized citizen.
Did the oath cause the psychological and subjective change that it is intended to cause? Or did the person retain their foreign loyalty and swear a lying oath instead?
A transsexual female is a real female. She does not have any artificial parts other than perhaps breast implants which don’t count for comparison since natural females can have them also. Like the Hair Club for Men advertizes about their hair results; it’s your real hair, -you comb it and cut it because it is real.
Same with a transsexual female. She also is real and will still be real in ten years or twenty years, etc. She is, for all intents and purposes; a natural female because she is real and not artificial nor aberrant in any visible way. So, technically speaking, to use the term “natural female” is rather ambiguous because the door is open to the possibility of including transsexual females.
It is the same with the term “natural citizen”. How do you disambiguate the use of those terms? Answer: you must add a second modifier, namely; “born”.
Suppose that you were the founder of a women’s magazine, and it was all about being a natural woman, -meaning wearing no make-up, eye-liner, lipstick, fake eyelashes, fake fingernails, hair dye or bleach, high heels, etc.
Suppose that your magazine becomes quite popular for its great natural beauty tips but its editor has left for another position. You need to hire someone, -and not just anyone. Someone who represents what the magazine portrays and extols. Suppose a well-known transsexual in the publishing business appears for an interview. What do you do?
Your readers would be aghast at having such an unnatural person being the face of their magazine. It could be a disastrous choice if made. So to protect all that you have worked so hard to achieve, you inform her that the position is only open to natural born females.
She knows she is a natural female, -just as much as any other, but she also knows that she was not born as a natural female. She was not female born but was female made and therein lies the difference.
She was not formed in the womb, nor born into the world as a female, -a born female, but became one; -just as a foreigner becomes an American, -a real American just like every other American.
But that dichotomy is not the totality of the picture because there is the post-Calvin situation to content with; a third scenario. In regard to citizenship, it is the gender equivalent to a hermaphrodite.
Such a physical body is unnatural because it incorporates both genders. That’s just like a common law citizen born of foreigners and having two nationalities. That also is unnatural and abnormal, just as having parents of different nationalities that result in that situation.
Is it perfectly normal and natural for a Chinese woman in Shanghai (with Chinese ancestors dating back two thousand years) to marry and produce children with an African from Kenya, such as Obama’s brother who lives there?
Such duality of background is the opposite of normal, just as is dual-citizenship in dissimilar countries with different language, culture, history, law, and racial or ethnic background.
Hermaphrodites are the equivalent to the children of such pairings. They are what they are from birth, just like common law citizens are citizens from birth, but neither one is natural because one of one’s character attributes is extraneous or extra or unnatural, meaning; foreign.
One nationality is not native just as one of the genders is one too many. Such a non-natural “woman” cannot be the editor of your magazine, -especially if “she” has an Adam’s apple and a “5 o’clock shadow”.
Similarly, such a citizen cannot be the Commander of all of the American military power and nuclear strike force because such a citizen may be of two minds regarding which nation it owes allegiance and feels loyalty toward. Odds are against it rejecting either nation and having attachment to only one.
What happens if both nations become hostile and maybe even go to war against each other? How does a President with divided loyalty side only and fully with America?
America might find itself like the governor of a Pakistani state who defended someone accused of blasphemy against Islam or its “prophet”. He had death threats but the threat to his life was not from outside but from inside. He was murdered by one of his own bodyguards, -one who had divided loyalty, with the loyalty toward him playing second fiddle to religious fanaticism.
The same with the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, also machine-gunned by one of her Secret Service equivalent bodyguards who was of a different and antagonistic ethnic group. By being inclusive in her hiring, and trusting of those made insiders, she brought about her own death.
That is the fate that was the founder’s worst-case scenario nightmare concerning what a foreign-favoring President and Chief Commander could bring about for the country. That is why he must not only be a “natural” citizen, but must be one by birth, and not by process.
But wait, …I used the term “by birth” which is as ambiguous as a hermaphrodite. It won’t do because some are common law citizens “from birth” or “at birth” and are thus mistakenly considered to be citizens “by birth”.
They, with foreign parents, must be differentiated from those with American parents. That is done by referring to those who are allowed to be President as “natural born citizens”. They are nature-made Americans and not fiction-made Americans. They are not border-made, birth-place made, law-made citizens but are blood-made citizens because they are born of American blood.
by Adrien Nash May 2014 obama–nation.com