May 14, 2013 Leave a comment
Are you a legal Native? How about a citizen Inhabitant?
How about a citizen Native? How about a citizen American? How about an indigenous citizen?
None of these questions are logically legitimate. They sound as awkward as they do for a very good reason, and that is that they combine concepts from two very separate, though related, spheres.
One of the spheres is the Natural sphere where Nature and it natural laws constitute reality. It’s a realm that has existed as long as there has been life on earth and will continue to exist as long as life exists.
The other is the Legal realm. Its origin came into existence when social species came into existence. Before them, only the law of the jungle existed. Which pretty much means there were no rules between living organisms. “Eat, or be eaten”.
When man came into existence, it was as a social being, -meaning a member of a human society. All societies have rules because not all behavior is acceptable, and all societies must have leadership.
Leaders enforce the rules, and in time, with the development of writing and government, those rules became written rules, which were then authoritative mandates or prohibitions. They were then more than just informal or unwritten rules. They were written in permanent form and that was the origin of the Legal realm.
The Natural realm and the Legal realm are two very separate things, but the legal realm is all about humans, and humans are natural beings and not robots, so their nature and natural behavior is a significant element of Law. [The other element is their Natural Rights]
The Universe is characterized by two things: The nature of its parts, -and how they relate to each other. That includes all things and all life. The nature of the human element is that it is social. Its parts relate to each other in the form of social associations. But because of friction and disagreement over desires and rights, humans also relate to others often by a legal association intended to secure their rights or procure them justice.
In the natural social realm, the primary association is either the mate bond or the parental bond. Both are central to the formation of a family. It is the foundation of all social associations of all societies. It is the model for larger associations. In the animal world they are herds, flocks, prides, schools, pods, etc.
In the human realm they include the greater family group that’s called a Clan. Clans that are related and live together constitute a Tribe. Tribes that are related though living at some distance from each other, constitute a country. That is the natural realm of human association.
Sometimes, often even, countries eventually come to be ruled by one conqueror who subjugates all of the other tribes, and then forges them into one nation. His hegemony, or that of his off-spring, often has not stopped there, and so his megalomania turns its eyes to neighboring countries and even neighboring nations. So he builds his armies into such a powerful size that he is able to conquer and subdue his neighbors and thus form a Kingdom, a melding of countries, nations, and peoples who are not naturally related (dissimilar language, history, culture, religion).
Such a kingdom is an unnatural thing, and so in time they disintegrate due to disloyalty, greed, distance, rebellion, or conquest by an even greater kingdom.
So Reality is seen as being comprised of those two very different realms; -the Natural realm and its natural associations, and the Legal/ Political realm with its artificial associations; -artificial meaning man-made, and not nature made.
Those two realms are dissimilar enough to be comparable to oil and water. They don’t naturally mix, but they can be forced to mix and remain together by the use of an emulsifier. The emulsifier in human society is fear.
The government has the power to punish and penalize, and so the fear of personal consequence for disobedience is the emulsifier that keeps individuals and natural groups in line. That was the case in unnatural nations such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Power keeps conflict in check.
But in everyone’s heart, there is no mistaking the difference between a natural mandate and a government mandate. You know that you must honor your mother on Mother’s Day, and that you must honor the law and the IRS by paying your taxes, but you don’t confuse the nature of those two requirements. One is from the natural realm while the other is from the legal realm.
Understanding the clear difference between them clarifies the reason why the questions that open this exposition are unnatural questions. They improperly combine terms that are from the two different realms when they should be used only with the realm from which they spring.
Are you a legal native? Clearly, “legal” is not from the natural realm, and “native” is not from the legal realm. They should never be cross-associated. It’s the same with the terms “country” and “nation”.
One can be a “legal citizen” because citizens are the legal memers of the political entity known as a nation. But one cannot be a legal American because the term “American” refers to membership in a country.
It existed even before the creation of the unifying government and its legal structure. “America” as a country pre-existed “The United States” as a nation. The country had members before the nation had citizens because the members created the nation and thereby became its natural citizens.
So one can be a legal citizen of the United States or a native American / natural American but one cannot be both. Because the natives of the country did not need to give themselves permission to be citizens of the nation that they decided to create. And so they didn’t. They wrote no rule into their foundational charter by which they were declared to be citizens of the nation, because their national membership did not spring from national law-making but from State law or the absence thereof.
Their citizenship was natural citizenship and so they were and are referred to by the unnatural cross-association label of “natural citizens”. That is the counterpart to the unnatural label “legal native”. Both are counter-intuitive in a sense because they combine concepts from different realms. But both are in fact grounded in reality.
A “legal native” of a tribe could be created by adoption of a non-tribal child. And a natural citizen could be created by birth to natural members of the nation. And from a legal stand-point, a natural citizen could also be created by birth to non-natural citizens since in the eyes of the law, all citizens are deemed to be natural citizens by a fiction of law.
That makes them all equal members of an unnatural nation. An unnatural nation is one formed by forces other than the dominance of a powerful leader using natural force to make himself ruler of all.
A nation formed by the intellectual and spiritual and natural bond between members who are related and equal is an unnatural basis of a nation, and had not existed on earth for about 2,000 years. It is based on a higher law than natural law, -a spiritual law that is founded not on the natural strength of the few or the one, but on natural rights.
So, if you are a natural American, then you are not a legal citizen. Rather, you are a natural citizen because your membership in the nation is not via the legal permission of the government and its legal structure. Instead, it is natural membership which was inherited from parents who were members when you were born.
Just as members of American Tribes are not “legal natives”, so also, you are not a “legal citizen” unless your citizenship is an allowance of the government, -including the allowance of citizenship from birth which required government permission (via the 14th Amendment) because you were not born of American parents but of foreign parents, [or a foreign parent].
The 14th Amendment only describes United States citizens domestically born, and did so to declare the parameters of citizenship for those born in America, thereby making non-citizen freed slaves citizens also, -as well as leaving the door open for domestically born children of immigrants.
But it had no authority to alter or regulate or legislate the natural national membership of those who were the nation’s natural citizens. Congress has never possessed such authority and it never will.
The citizenship of natural Americans is beyond the reach of Congress. Only the natural members themselves, with the accompanying votes of legal members, have the authority to alter the Constitution. Not the Congress. With the citizenship of ex-slaves and native-born children of immigrants written in the stone of a constitutional amendment, it also is beyond the reach and authority of Congress.
But what is not beyond the reach of its authority, nor that of the Attorney General and the President, is the supposed citizenship of those who are not described by the parameters of the 14th Amendment.
Besides a domestic birth location, it equally requires that one be born subject to the full authority of the national government. Children of illegal aliens are not under that authority unless their parents have been illegally allowed to become integrated members of American society. If that is possible, and I suspect it is, then their children, -their sons, must register with the Selective Service when they turn 18 years old. But since even children of legal immigrants, children who are not citizens since they were foreign born to foreigners, must register also, it is not a given that the intent of the amendment was to convey American citizenship to children of those who are in America illegally.
That is a toss-up, -a truly gray area without natural or legal boundaries. But there is a similar situation which is not gray at all, and that is the relationship of foreign guests to the United States government. They are not under any obligation to defend the nation that they are visiting and it is indisputable that they are not described by the 14th amendment regarding being subject to the national government’s full authority, -the authority that [male] citizens are under.
They are not under the obligation nor bear the responsibility of citizens to defend their homeland, and so a child born to them while within U.S. borders does not inherit such responsibility either and that fact eliminates them from the naturalizing power of the 14th Amendment
It requires that one be born fully subject to the national government, -meaning being subject to obedience to all of the obligations of citizens.
Since Barack Obama’s father was not under that authority, he could not inherit it and he therefore does not fall under the citizen-izing power of the 14th Amendment.
If one does not meet either of its requirements, then one is not an American citizen by law. [but don't forget that natural citizens are not citizens by law, but by nature]
If not born in the U.S., then one is not a citizen by the 14th Amendment. If not born subject to the national authority that governs citizens, then one is not born a citizen.
O.J. Simpson is innocent and Obama is a U.S. citizen
Understand this, by the authority of the 14th Amendment and its interpretation by the Supreme Court, Barack Obama is not a United States citizen. It does not make him an American citizen regardless of a possible birth location within U.S. borders.
One would then ask if he is a citizen via his mother, or via a naturalization statute, and the answer to both is “no”. Neither provide him with citizenship, and neither he nor his sycophants have ever claimed that they did.
He is presumed to be a citizen because everyone presumes that everyone born in the U.S. (except children of foreign diplomats) is a citizen even though that is in fact false. But that false presumption goes far beyond mere ignorance because it also intrudes into the area of absurdity by its accompanying presumption that everyone born in America can be President when that is even more false.
The United States Constitution does not limited the presidency to native-born citizens and no others, but limits it to only natural born citizens.
Not all natural born citizens are native-born, and not all native-born citizens are natural born citizens, but people don’t know that, nor understand what-is-what when it comes to the reality of citizenship.
But even if Obama’s citizenship was not simply “presumed citizenship” but was actual legal citizenship, he still would not be eligible to be President because legal citizens are barred from the presidency. They are a tiny minority of American citizens since they constitute only about 3 % of the American population. The other 97% is made up of natural citizens born of American parents. Obama is not one of them.
He is not even one of the small percentage of people born to immigrants since his father was neither an American nor an immigrant. He was a guest of the American government, as was the son born to him within the sacred and legal institution of marriage. That would not be true if his father was unknown, or unrevealed. Then he would have inherited the obligation of citizenship from his mother since she would be the “head” of the “family”.
But his story is that they were married, and so American law and tradition prevails, and by that law and tradition he was not only not born as a natural born citizen, but was not born as a citizen at all, -although always erroneously presumed to be one because of the story that his mother or grandparents told the Hawaiian Health Dept. -that he was born of a resident of Hawaii who had lived in the islands for one year.
That was true since his mother had lived in Hawaii for one year. Or was it? It’s known that her parents moved the family to Hawaii in summer of 1960, but where she was living from Feb. 1961 to late August of 1961 is unknown.
So not only is Obama’s birth location unknown, so also was the whereabouts of his mother during the full year that she was required to be living in Hawaii in order to legally be allowed to register her child as a Hawaiian resident and thereby receive a birth certificate which would presumably be “proof” that he was born in America, and therefore could be presumed to be a United States citizen.
Let’s delineate the facts as they are known and unknown.
Obama’s father was not an immigrant but merely a foreign student.
Obama was therefore not a citizen via the 14th Amendment.
Obama was not a citizen via any statute nor the naturalization process.
Citizenship through an American mother married to a foreign father is only transmitted by statute for a child whose birth occurs outside of the United States. Obama has claimed since about 2007 that he was born in Hawaii, although he claimed since 1991 or earlier that he was born in Kenya.
Obama’s two counterfeit computer-fabricated, digital, abstract, unsigned, unsealed birth document images provide only proof that he is willing to engage in criminal fraud and but not proof of where he was actually born.
No one in the Hawaiian government has ever sworn under oath to any facts regarding the nature of the documentation that is located somewhere in their archives, nor characterized it as being an original Hawaiian birth certificate.
Hawaii allowed those who were residents for a year to register children born elsewhere and to receive a Hawaiian birth certificate.
A Hawaiian birth certificate is then presumed to be proof of American citizenship even though it is not proof.
Obama’s mother’s whereabouts during that important first year of residency is unknown, unprovable, and possibly lied about by her or her parents in an affidavit submitted to the Hawaiian Health Dept. claiming him as a legal resident of Hawaii though born abroad or in another state, -or as born at home in Hawaii with no proof of either other than possibly a hidden, secret birth certificate from a foreign nation.
No actual hospital birth certificate exists, and the fervent Obama supporting governor was unable to unearth one, even with subpena power.
No hospital in Hawaii claims that it is the birth place of Obama, much less the provable birth place.
The hospital named on his counterfeit long-form 9-layer birth certificate pdf image would not allow the detective from Arizona’s Cold Case Posse to examine the public record book of hospital admissions and births for 1961 as he requested.
In May 2013 an Amicus Curiae brief was submitted to the Supreme Court of Alabama by Lucas Smith which contains a certified copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Obama II.
“On the 19th day of February 2009 Amicus (Smith) walked out of the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya with a certified copy of President Barack Hussein Obama II’s original hospital birth certificate.” – Lucas Smith.
He recounts that it cost him several bribes including a $5,000 remuneration for the clerk of the Health Dept. that held the original and issued a certified copy in under twenty minutes as he required.
Obama’s Purported Kenyan Birth Certificate Submitted In Alabama Supreme Court Case
That birth certificate, if a counterfeit, would have to have been fabricated by or for Mr. Smith. The question is “why would any sane person offer an image of a fake document to a state Supreme Court unless he had the original to verify the validity of the photocopy submitted?”
That would not be reasonable, but we can’t go on what is or isn’t reasonable, because the supporters of Obama’s eligibility, (based supposed on him being a natural born citizen) and birth certificate (if there still are any) and Hawaiian birth location believe their arguments to be reasonable, (or so they pretend) so instead we must look to known and proven facts and any inescapable deductions drawn from them.
But what we find is a black hole of missing facts, missing records, sealed records, falsified records, non-existent sworn testimony and non-existent witnesses.
It’s like trying to get to the bottom of Watergate, or Enron or World Com or Bernie Madoff before the truth was exploded into public light.
It’s like trying to get the facts about Area 51 and u.f.o.s. No one is talking. There are more secrets that we don’t know than facts that we do. Just ask anyone with a top-secret security clearance. Ask them how many documents are off-limits to public eyes. A million? Ten million? 50 million? Secrets are not rare, they are the norm, especially in politics.
So we are nationally governed by an Enron Administration. A Madoff presidency. An R.J. Reynolds government that swears under oath that cigarettes are not harmful to human health, and a President who is as much a natural born citizen as O.J. Simpson is an innocent man who just wants to find the real killers.
by A.R. Nash 2013 http://obama–nation.com