Of War & Taxes, Subjection & Citizenship

~expanded at 1:15 same day posted.

The world of nations, both large and small, is comprised of two separate realms.  One realm hardly knows that the other exists, while the other knows fully well of the other’s existence and nature.   The ignorant world is the civilian world, and the knowing world is the military world.

Until you’ve signed your liberty away to the unquestionable absolute authority of the military world, and spend your first day in combat boot camp, you have no idea of what being a citizen means.

Unless you are a previously convicted prisoner, nothing in your life prepared you for it, and you never comprehended it (nor reality) until confronted with it.  Only then do you begin to understand duty, honor, fidelity, obedience, acquiescence to suffering and humiliation, endurance, patience, direct authority, orders, loss of liberty, and treason.

Nor do you understand subjection and what it entails; -namely the responsibility of citizenship.  That responsibility is not normally hanging over anyone’s head because the only string tying society together is citizenship duty.

They are not the same thing.  You have a fundamental responsibility or obligation to adequately feed and cloth your children, but you also have a duty, or moral obligation to nourish their hearts and minds.  That is not a legal responsibility because it is not mandatory.  But the necessities of physical life are and so they are covered by a legal obligation or responsibility instead of merely a moral obligation or duty.

Similarly, one has a duty to vote and submit to jury duty, but that is not a responsibility because they are not legally mandatory.  But one has a responsibility to pay their taxes (but not a moral one  since government is not moral nor was the passage of the income tax amendment moral, -nor its bastardization by the federal courts and Congress which inflated it like a giant balloon).  Paying taxes IS mandatory so it is more than merely a duty.  It’s a legal obligation.

Civilian citizens also have certain rights and privileges, like running for office, serving in government, voting in elections, all of which are off-limits to non-citizens, and some are off-limits to those in the military.

Civilians think that they understand the world and their nation, but they do not understand even basic reality because they are incapable of understanding that their whole civilian world is simply a bubble of liberty inflated by the service of the citizens in the military who exercise American power to protect them.  Without that service, the civilian bubble would burst and all would be enslaved or die.  Do civilians comprehend that stark fact?  Only in a vague theoretically way, but with no connection to the real world.

As the Khmer Rouge entered Phenom Penh  in Cambodia, the civilians went about their lives unperturbed by the sound of gunfire, they ate at their restaurants, played tennis, and went about their fairly Western civilian lives without concern.  Within a year most of them were dead, slaughtered by the millions.  They knew nothing about reality and it cost them everything.

The civilian world cannot grasp fundamental things because of a lack of experience of fundamental things, -the real forces that determine the destiny of individuals and nations.  But those in the military can if they are paying attention.  They understand subjection and are fully subject to the jurisdiction of their national government because it can send them to their death in battle and execute them for treason.

Some of those in the military are not citizens, but they have taken the oath of allegiance and are bound by it.  They too can be executed for treason even though they are not Americans.  But they are fully subject because they are a part of America through their military service obligations.  They are in a real sense American Nationals even though not officially so, and the government will do for them all it can do on their behalf that it would do for one of its own unless that crosses respected international lines of jurisdiction.

It such a serviceman or women returns their foreign home during vacation, and is arrested, they cannot be represented by the U.S. government since they are not an American, but if arrested in another country, their interests will be defended since they are a part of the American military world, which seeks to avoid leaving its own behind.

Service personnel are fully subject to military authority, which is fully subject to the civilian authority of the national government, which in peacetime was originally subject to State authority except for in areas of its enumerated powers, and State authority was subject to citizen authority.  The citizen was the sovereign, and was so first and foremost as a member of the State in which his citizenship was exercised.  The States were sovereign over the central government since they created it and populated it by employment and election.  They were also sovereign over non-citizens.  They were of three kinds;

1.  foreign representatives; 2.  foreign visitors, tourists, and guests; and 3.  foreign immigrants permanently living in America.  The first two groups were not subject to the authority of the central government but the third group was because they were permanent members of American society.

Something attached to that status and it was the same thing that attached to children of citizens, and that was the duty of national of defense.  [Since only males were fully subject to that duty, only males were treated as citizens.  All others, (women and children) were treated as American Nationals only.]

A quote from E. Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” (1758)

§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. ~

That duty was not mandatory, but if war was declared, it became mandatory and evolved into a full-blown legal responsibility.  If one shirked their responsibility they would find themselves either involuntarily inducted against their will, or, if an immigrant, in prison; because they are fully subject.

That is why their U.S. born children are deemed to be American by the 14th Amendment common law.  The son is born subject if born of an immigrant father who definitely is subject due to his voluntary request for and grant of permanent legal residence.

Is a child born with U.S. citizenship if born in the U.S. of immigrants?  Yes, it’s a common law constitutional right secured by a Supreme Court opinion defining the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s nationality clause.

If a Canadian couple with permanent U.S. residency had eight children over two decades, all of their children would be born as constitutional citizens.  The oldest may be an American college student while the youngest is in kindergarten.  If their final child was born across the border in the home of the mother’s parents instead of in the U.S., would it also be an American, or only a Canadian?

It would not be an American because the common law as written in the 14th Amendment is inflexible.  The child absolutely must be born in the U.S. and subject to its authority.  There’s nothing that anyone can do for it.  It can only become an American via the naturalization process at adulthood because the parents never became Americans.  [But neither it nor its siblings are eligible to be President since they all were born of aliens.]

Congress can’t fix the situation with legislation because it is not a short-coming in any statute.  It is carved into the Constitution which they cannot change.  Why is the child not allowed to be an American?  Because it was born outside of American authority and its parents could not transmit American citizenship to it by their blood relationship.  Both it and its parents, -and its birth, had no connection to America since the parents remained no more than immigrant aliens.  They only lived in American by permission, not right.

But the father’s presence, and the parents’ membership in society, created an obligation that the father defend his new society and his family’s home, (the nation of their children’s citizenship) if needed and called.  It was his duty to register himself with the Selective Service when he was under 25 years of age, and it would have been his responsibility to answer the call of duty if it was sounded.

That is well shown via an example.  A 18-19 year old Jewish Israeli travels to the U.S. in order to escape his mandatory obligation of military service.  Does his citizenship obligation end at the national borders of Israel, or is it attached to his innate political nature or national character?  Like every male American citizen, it is a part of his national character and borders mean nothing.

If the Israeli government petitions for his extradition, it will be promptly granted.  He belongs to them when it comes to a fundamental obligation that must be fulfilled.  If all young men refused to comply, the nation’s military would be depleted and defense capability would have to fall on the shoulders of older and old volunteers who had probably already served.

If a visitor to Israel was a Jewish American, the government could not conscript him because he would not be under their jurisdiction since he wouldn’t be an Israeli Jew.  But the U.S. government could conscript him while he lives in Israel as a resident because he still belongs to it in regard to his national defense obligation.  Since he was born with citizenship, that is true even if his parents are still aliens living in the U.S.

But if a foreign-born child of immigrant parents were to not register with S.S. at eighteen but instead were to move out of the country, he would be under no obligation to serve because he would be neither a member of American society nor a citizen.  The National Defense obligation and mandatory subjection would not attach to him.  He was not born subject as were his siblings born in the U.S.  If they moved out at 18, it would not cancel their obligation because they would be citizens and not merely residents.

But what of foreign guests?  Are they subject to conscription and U.S. taxation?  They remain subject to their own government, not the U.S., so they can’t be conscripted, but they can be required to pay taxes on income earned in America.  But if they leave the U.S. that obligation ends, but not so for Americans.  It follows them anywhere they go in the world unless and until they renounce their U.S. citizenship officially.  They are forever obligated to that responsibility of citizenship, although it is not an innate responsibility and was never meant to exist, being disallowed by the Constitution.

So the citizenship obligations or responsibilities for taxes and national defense follow young American men anywhere they go in the world, but no so for foreign guests in the U.S.  Their required obedience does not extend to citizenship obligations but solely to obeying civil and federal laws regarding all things pertinent to the civilian world within U.S. borders.

U.S. sovereignty does not follow nor attach to them outside the borders.  Since they are not subject to its rule over American men, they cannot be a source of subjection to America in regard to any child born to them in America.  Any such child is not born subject to the American citizenship responsibility.  Its responsibilities lie with the foreign father’s homeland.

The duty of national defense passes from father to son.  Without it most or all nations would fall to stronger ones.  That is what the Civil Rights Act of 1866 meant when it declared that any child born in the U.S. and not subject to any foreign power, was a U.S. citizen.  The sons of immigrants are seen as subject to the duty to defend America and not their father’s foreign homeland, but the sons of guests to America are not.  Their fathers are not subject to such a duty and therefore they cannot inherit such subjection from him.

Barack Obama was such a father, and his son BHO Jr. was thus born not subject either, (-other than provisionally to the colonial Kenyan government).  That means that by the Supreme Court’s reinterpreted meaning of the 14th Amendment, BHO Jr. is not an American citizen.

The “common knowledge” misconception that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen is based on any typical person, but the atypical person is not a citizen because the circumstance of his or her birth did not meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment.  Obama Jr. is just such an atypical person, regardless of where he was born.

All that mattered was the issue of who fathered him.  An alien?  -a non-immigrant alien not subject to the political authority of the American government?  Or an immigrant father fully subject?  The answer determines whether or not he is a legitimate President and not a travesty against the Constitution, as well as whether or not he is even an American citizen.

~     ~     ~     ~     ~

That angle of reason as to why Obama is not legitimately eligible is joined by another angle, which is the truth about the phrase used to describe the sort of citizen that the President must be, -it being a natural born citizen.

Those who deceitfully pretend that he is such a citizen resort to a misrepresentation of the origin of those three words.  To understand the truth, all one needs to do is suppose the scenario in which those words had never been used anywhere except in America following the revolution.  Actually, that is essentially true, but I’m referring to what the Obama eligibility defenders view as its antecedent phrase, namely the British term: “natural-born subject”.

Suppose for a moment that that phrase never existed.  Under that supposition, Obama is immediately ineligible because something happens to the meaning of its supposed successor.  It changes in character from being supposedly a legal term of artifice with an arbitrarily defined unitary meaning, -a single, artificial word-block meaning, into a normal use of ordinary language.

The words “natural born subject” originally meant only those born to Englishman, -those who were “natural-subject born” but after a nationality-rule altering case known as the Calvin case, it came to include anyone and everyone born within the limits of and under the authority of the King’s dominion, including children born of aliens present in Britain.

They were considered “subject born” but not really naturally so.  Nevertheless, the rule made them equally subject and equally included in the British nation as equal benefactors of all of its laws.  There was essentially no difference between them and true natural born subjects, so the term came to be indiscriminately applied to both since there was no need to split the hair that separated them.  But we see the difference between them in this British reference:

A New Abridgement of the Law  ~by a gentleman of the Middle Temple, Vol. I  1736

By the 7 Ann., it is enacted that the children of natural-born subjects, born out of the Ligeance [out of the country] of her Majesty, her Heirs, and Successors shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this Kingdom, -to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.
(B) OF NATURALIZATION AND DENIZATION, THE DIFFERENCE AND EFFECT OF THEM
The Alien born may become a subject of England two ways; by denization and naturalization… ~

Those words reveal a few extremely important facts, -facts which expose the illegitimacy of Obama’s presidency.  Lastly they show that “the alien born” had two means to become a “subject” of England.  Such foreigners, made subjects by the King (denizens with limited citizenship rights) or remade from being foreigners to being natural Englishmen via the fiction of natural-ization accomplished by edict of Parliament , were not said to become natural-born subjects or Englishmen, -only “subjects”.  (a deliberate distinction on their part?)

  That is because they were artificially produced subjects, made from foreign material.  Like oil being turned into plastic, with oil being a natural substance (like one’s natural foreign nationality), and plastic being what it is transformed into, -an artificially produced (by arbitrary legal authority) new official member of the kingdom but not via the natural method of birth to English parents.

Secondly, “the alien born” is a comparative phrase, -being in comparison to others not born as aliens.  They being the natural born or natural-subject born, meaning those born of English parents.  The existence of that term in British legal exposition (and perhaps law as well) demolishes the foundation of Obama’s eligibility, since it means that one is so described by being born of a foreign father.

The inescapable truth is then that the alien born cannot be natural born, just as the natural born cannot be alien born.  An Englishman cannot father an alien within the King’s dominion just as an alien cannot father an Englishman outside his dominion.  Different paternal nationalities produces different results.  But by legal means, an alien in Britain can father a British subject but not a natural born subject.

But because both the alien-born and the natural born subject had the same legal rights and standing, they eventually were both referred to as either simply subjects or as natural-born subjects since both were subjects from birth, -with a hyphen between the words (and that being the first revelation of the above quote).

The hyphen is the mark of an artificial legal term of art (an artifice of law) which carries a meaning beyond or apart from the words themselves.  The American term “natural born citizen” has no hyphen.  That is significant because it follows a different logic and philosophy than that of the British phrase, and if so, then it can’t be claimed to be its equivalent.

If it can be claimed to be equivalent, then one who was alien born can be said to be natural born since the same words were used to label them under the invented English common law.  Like a “mash-up” of disparate origins.  It’s vitally important to discern if that equivalency claim is valid or false.  A few simple examples reveal the truth.

Pretty young woman.  Young pretty woman.  pretty-young doctor.  Pretty-boy actor.  Three completely different uses of the same and similar words

Wise old man.  wise-old man (?)  old wise man.  old-wise man. (?)

What is telling regarding the meaning of the words “natural born citizen” is found in their original source which was a letter sent to George Washington (president of the constitutional convention) by John Jay (whom he appointed as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court)  in which he implored that the power of the Command in Chief not be given to any but a natural born citizen, -with his underling of the word “born”.  That reveals volumes.

One cannot underline the word “boy” in pretty-boy actor because it would be counter to the meaning of the word combo.  Also, one can underline the word “young” in pretty young woman, as well as “old” in wise old man.  But one cannot place a hyphen between “wise” and “old” unless one is creating an unknown artificial meaning to the combined words.

With natural born citizen one can rearrange the adjectives because the first one does not modify the second one as is implied in “natural-born”.  There is no such implication without the hyphen, and that is why it is used or it is not.

One can use them together or use them apart, as in “natural citizen” (a term similar to “natural subject” in Great Britain) or as in “born citizen”(meaning one who was citizen born, or “subject born” as in Great Britain. Together or separately they can be used because the words “natural” and “born” both modify “citizen” and not the first modifying the second.

One cannot reverse the adjectives in the combination of “natural-born” since there is no conceivable usage of “born-natural” in nationality jargon when there’s a hyphen between.  That would be the equivalent to “old-wise” of “old wise man“.  “Old-wise” is nonsense because it creates a unitary meaning by use of a hyphen.  Only as separate words, with no hyphen, do the words have meaning.

One might have said “a natural subject” or “a born natural subject” (apposed to being made a natural subject by natural-ization) or “an alien-born subject” but one could not have said “an alien born subject” (no hyphen) because it would be either an ambiguity or an oxymoron, (-self-contradictory). One can’t be an alien and a subject simultaneously.

So you can see that the presence or absence of the hyphen is nothing less than a requirement to define the meaning of what is being conveyed.  Clearly, “a natural born citizen” without a hyphen is not directly analogous to a British “natural-born subject” because that term came to include two opposite origins of subjectship.

Without the hyphen, those words would only refer to a child of English parents with all such being natural subjects by being born as subject by descent, by blood, by natural connection to their country.  And they would be in contrast to “an alien-born subject”, -one born of domiciled aliens who were subject and not hostile.

The term “natural-born subject” is a synthesis of natural subjects and alien-born common law subjects.  That mating is seen in the modern terms “Rhythm & Blues” and “Country & Western”  Those are synthetic terms which do not represent real genres of music but a combination of genres.  They do represent the name of a genre or category of radio music but not as a single genre but as two, or more.  Rhythm was one very popular form of music and Blues was another.  Similarly, Country is and was one genre of music while Western is and was another, but they had a mostly overlapping audience of fans so they combined them together under one radio title.

But by hearing them together all of one’s life, it naturally seems like they are a unitary form of music when that is false, -except to the degree that synthesis has occurred between them.  So one’s impressions do no necessarily reflect reality.

The British did the same with “natural subject” and alien-born subject”, producing the hybrid term “natural-born subject” which was used for both types of citizens.

So we see that both legs of Obama’s presumed eligibility are false legs which crumble on close examination.  The devil is in the details, -and now you know them along with the reasons Obama is the greatest constitutional violation to ever occupy the White House.

At least President Chester Arthur, who also was not a natural born citizen since he was born of British parents (and became President via assassination) was born of an immigrant father and  future citizen, but Obama was born of the rarest of the rare type of alien father; one who was a non-immigrant and definitely not subject to American political authority.

So natural born citizen does not come from natural-born subject, and Obama’s father was never subject anyway so he could not produce a common law citizen son, much less a natural born one.

by Adrien Nash  May 2014,  obama–nation.com

~future composition?: Traitor Loki & Natural born Thor, -Odin’s Son & Natural Successor as Asgard’s next Sovereign & Commander-in-Chief

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 70 other followers