February 7, 2014 1 Comment
THE ARROGANT IGNORANCE OF AMERICAN STATISTS
American colonists inherited almost everything from the British, including their monarchical overlords, but there was one thing that was not “British” which was embraced in pre-Revolution America, and adopted as a keystone of the American philosophy of government and civilian civilization, and that was the principles of unalienable Natural Rights.
The founders had read all of the works regarding the Natural Rights of man and those works were not written in support of the monarchy but in opposition to it at the most fundamental level possible since the rights of freemen impinged on the sovereign rights of the otherwise royal dictator.
That’s because the matter was not a question of which of their possible leaders or what kind of leader should have the scepter of power but rather, “what is the only legitimate basis of holding power over one’s fellow man?”
Is the maxim that “might makes right” the legitimate basis of rule? Is the dogma that God selects the rulers of his kingdom on earth and their blood-line is his divinely appointed choice of who should lead? Or was it something else, -something involving Free Will and collective choice, -something egalitarian in nature?
The British mind-set, like that of all monarchists, viewed the exercise and structure of power vertically, -as it is in a family. The youngest child is at the bottom, and the father is at the top. In British and colonial societies, the slave and indentured servant were at the bottom, and the aristocrats of wealth, power, and nobility were at the top.
As for government, the kings ministers and magistrates and governors were at the top, and far away back in England, the Parliament and the King were co-Lords of all the land. -as well as in the distant colonies.
They were sovereign over all, -with the Imperial chief executive wielding almost uncontestable power. The motherland considered it uncontestable regarding the colonists because they were viewed as inferior subjects of his majesty, -not unlike tolerated step-children.
That meant that the rights of Englishmen did not extend to them since they were not present within the borders of the nation where the rights of Englishmen had come to be guaranteed by various rebellions against tyrannical royal rule throughout the centuries.
The colonist discovered in the 1770s that they were in a kind of nationality limbo or Twilight Zone when it came to unalienable rights of British subjects. It was as if they were somewhere between being British aliens and being conquered natives who must submit and comply with the haughty power of the royal sovereign.
That mind-set of superiority over a subject class was inculcated into the minds of the elite and law-educated class in America. They saw American power as the same sort of vertical structure, with the national government being at the top and being sovereign over the people in the same manner that the king had been sovereign before the revolution.
They were total failures when it came to knowing, understanding, and /or bearing in mind the new fundamental American principles of social equality and self-governance. They felt that those at the top of the pyramid were the rightful rulers of the People instead of the other way around, -with the People being the Sovereigns over their servants in the government.
With the arrogance of power influencing the mind-set of the elites elected to Congress (Congresses not composed of the former revolutionists, soldiers, and statesmen who put their all on the line for a new form of government and nation) were ignorant of their proper roll as servants of The People and thought of themselves as their lawful overlords to some degree.
They were that, to some degree, -the degree permitted and mentioned in the Constitution. It granted Congress certain powers over American citizens but what it did not give Congress was power over their citizenship.
Congresses through the ages, in their sovereign arrogance and ignorance of American principles, failed to recognize the difference between citizens (and lawful, constitutional requirements placed on them) and citizenship and its unalienable nature.
Congress was given no authority whatsoever over the citizenship of Americans because Congress was not sovereign. Rather, those they viewed as being their subjects were in fact their masters under the American egalitarian principles of democracy.
But those principles at many times in American history (or most) were out-of-sight; out-of-mind from the government mind-set, and so Congress saw itself as entitled to pass laws regarding Americans and their national membership (over which the Congress possessed no authority).
What authority did the Congress possess? Really only one is mentioned among the powers of Congress in the Constitution. It was authorization to write a nation-wide rule of naturalization. Some of those in past Congresses of the United States read that as authority over naturalization. And what is the essence of naturalization? It is the power to make and regulate the granted citizenship of aliens.
In time, making a gigantic leap into the stupidity of arrogance, they expanded their presumption of their presumed power to include the citizenship of Americans who were born as Americans and not as foreigners.
So then they were not only masters over the citizenship of naturalized citizens but also natural citizens as well. After all, they were the Congress of the United States, and could pretty much do anything that they felt was best for the nation without consulting that dusty old document stashed in the basement somewhere, namely the United States Constitution.
And what did it say that in effect banned all of their presumed authority? It said that their power was limited to making a rule of naturalization. Only it didn’t say that; instead it said “an UNIFORM rule”.
To make a uniform rule meant to take multiple non-uniform rules and replace them with one new rule that covers all jurisdictions that had previously had divergent rules. What were those jurisdictions? The sovereign States which had their own individual State laws governing their immigrants and their naturalization into State citizens.
How did the first Congress make those laws uniform? By writing and passing “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (1790).
By it, the number of years of residence before naturalization could be granted was made uniform throughout all of the States, and a requirement added that only free white persons of good character were to be admitted into the fellowship of American citizenship. That is the entire extent of the exercise of constitutional Congressional power.
First Congress; Session II. Chap. 4.
“…; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States.”
The Act did not end there because some basic principles needed to be explained to government bureaucrats in the executive and judicial branches of the States and any future United States department dealing with immigrants.
What were those principles? They were not stated, but the effect of them on citizenship was made plain by clear and unmistakable language delineating the effect of those principles.
To this very day, few comprehend that plain language for what it was because their minds are poisoned by the Royal-Sovereign-Elitist-Statist view of government power over its subjects, -which is in stark contrast to the People’s power over their government and its administration.
Only when fundamental American principles are born in mind when reading what was written, does one comprehend it as it was written and meant.
“And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”
That clause reveals something about the nature of children and their unalienable rights as human beings. It reveals that they naturally belong to their parents because the government must acknowledge that they belong to the group to which the parents belong, -and not to any old group that the government might capriciously choose to assign them to (its own).
The government has no choice in the matter because the children are of the parents, -not just of their family group but also of their national group; i.e., -the nationality of the parents (the father if living) is also that of their children because they are one and the same in nature and status, -one unit; -a family unit, -the basic building block of all societies.
So what the act did was not to grant citizenship to the children (and wife) of the naturalized father, but instead merely state for the record an official acknowledgement of their automatic citizenship through their connection to their head (the head of the family).
Their nationality followed his by Natural Law just as all off-spring follow the genus, species, and breed of the parents. They can’t be anything different.
And in the eyes of the Americans, like the British, international dual-citizenship by blood was rejected just as all allegiance and obedience and subjection to one’s former sovereign master was renounced and rejected in order to become an American via the Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation.
The father then had only one power over him, -that being American Law, and with his wife and children being subject to him, they were also thereby subject to American Law through him and like him.
So they became Americans not via the naturalization transformation like him, but through direct transformation without any oath of allegiance and renunciation. As his nationality changed, theirs automatically change also since they were all of one nature, one blood, one family, one membership, one unit.
Congress did not make that so via an exercise of constitutional authority. It was true automatically via Natural Law. But Congress knew that many people did not understand Natural Law and so it was incumbent upon them to put that fact down in writing. Which they did, -but only as an explanatory or declaratory statement of fact, not as a presentation of a gift from government.
The gift from government extended to the father only. Since his family was one blood with him, the gift flowed to them in an unavoidable manner. They could not be anything other than what he was, -anymore than conjoined twins can have different blood types. As a unit, a family, they were absolutely inseparable on multiple levels, including the political level.
That is one of the principle foundations of nations and societies. Indivisible unity. But Congress added a caveat in recognition of the pre-existing superior authority of the States to refuse citizenship to undesirable aliens:
“Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed [prohibited] by any State, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”
Congress recognized that it was given no authority to over-ride the right of refusal of citizenship that was in the province of the States. That right was so firm that if the statement meant what it says, then anyone prohibited by any State from citizenship could not be a citizen of the United States even if another State granted that person its citizenship.
Congress added one other thing, -something that had nothing to do with naturalization but did concern citizenship and the perception (or lack thereof) of its possession. It concerned the executive branch perception of American children born on foreign soil, -but not only a concern regarding their nationality, but the very nature of their national membership.
Was it second-class? Was it natural or unnatural? Were American children, like foreigners, foreign because they were born on foreign soil or because they were born to foreigners and not Americans?
Well, American children are not born to foreigners so they cannot be lumped in with them. That raises the serious question; “By what principle are foreigners foreign? Is it because of foreign soil and foreign law, or because of foreign blood and culture?”
The answer is determined by the issue of who they belong to and who they are subject to. Children of Americans belong to their parents who belong to America. They are subject to America and not a foreign nation’s political authority unless they grow up to adulthood as members of a foreign society. At that point they might have to choose which citizenship they wish to embrace as their nationality, -that of their parents’ American homeland, or that of their own?
Here’s what the authors added to the act (having nothing to do with naturalization of foreigners) because there was no other act more suitable to add it to:
“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”
That presents three very important principles, -the third of which, inherited from British law, bars U.S. citizenship to a foreign-born child of a foreign-born father who never lived in America; -the grandson of an expatriate American émigré. His foreign-born American father never left his foreign homeland and lived in the United States, resulting in the fact that he was never a member of American society, -immersed in its political, cultural, and philosophical environment. So neither of them were “Americans” and Natural Law no longer applied to them or their situation.
The second principle (revealed by the words; “the right of citizenship”) showed that natural citizenship is by right of descent through the American parents and not by a gift of government based on one’s mother’s location during delivery. Having been born of Americans meant one was an American by unalienable right, -not due to any gift or acquiescence of government.
The first principle (revealed by the words; “shall be considered as a natural born citizen”) reveals that place of birth is totally irrelevant to natural national membership, -just as in family membership.
All future Congresses failed to comprehend what those words of the founders conveyed. They thought it was a matter of asserting or granting or declaring the American nationality for all foreign born American children so that they would not be lumped in with the foreign-born children of foreigners and deemed by the executive branch authorities to not be Americans.
But the words of the first Congress were not added to the naturalization act for that reason. If they had been, then they would have used the wording of all Congressional replacements of the first act ever since.
They replaced “considered as natural born citizens” with “citizens of the United States”. -thereby assuring that they were understood to not be foreigners.
That was not the concern of the first Congress since they were only involved in writing a uniform rule for naturalization, and only foreigners need naturalization, -not blood-born American children.
So their purpose was something else, -and what that was is obvious from the words that they used, namely; “natural born citizen”. Those words have no connection to anything in America, with one constitutional exception, -that being the ultimate power of the nation over its military forces. That power, -the Command in Chief, was placed in the hands of the President, and so the nature of his citizenship had to be 100% American in nature.
That means he had to be American, -all American, and only American. No direct foreign attachment or connection through foreign fathers, -no subjection to a foreign sovereign, no loyalty to a foreign country or government or king. AMERICAN through-and-through, -with undivided allegiance to only the United States Constitution and the nation it governs.
What Congress was doing was correcting an absence in the Constitution of any elucidation of the nature of the citizenship of foreign-born Americans. They were not seeking (like later Congresses) to prevent such sons from being viewed as aliens, but to prevent such sons from being denied their American birthright of equal citizenship to that of their native-born brothers and fellows.
Such inequality would be from the ignorant denial of their unalienable right to serve as their country’s leader because of not being recognized as what they in fact were born as by the Natural Law principle of NATURAL MEMBERSHIP, namely fellow natural citizens by birth.
Citizenship was conveyed by BLOOD and only by blood. Citizenship as a gift of government, even if it’s from birth within the nation, is not a natural conveyance of anything. It is nothing other than a gift. -not a birthright.
A birthright is not connected to where one was born but to whom one was born, (and in what order and what gender). The ultimate example is the birthright of the firstborn son of the British royal family. It was his birthright to one day be king. It didn’t matter if he was born within the Kingdom or born on Mars. It was his destiny to be King because it was his birthright via blood conveyance.
So, if or when you read about soil-based birthright citizenship, know that the speaker was ignorant of the facts. Soil can’t impart anything to anyone, including any unalienable rights of Natural Law that come only from a blood relationship. That fact will be shown shortly via U.S. Law.
This all seems pretty clear when the facts are presented, but the facts were never presented before, and so confusion resulted from the fact that the actual order of the clauses was different from what I’ve presented.
Congress dealt with the naturalization of foreigners and their children, and then added their protection of the rights of foreign-born American sons to be understood to be natural born citizens. But then something else came up and needed to be added also, and that was the right of the States to refuse citizenship to undesirables. So they just tacked it on to what had already been written.
The result of that addition was that the protection for foreign-born sons was no longer an addition at the end of the act, and seen as an addition, but was then incorporated into the middle of the act, -as if it were an exercise of Congressional authority over citizenship, -even though it was no such thing.
The result of its final location between what were Congress’s exercise of authority, made it seem that it was an exercise of authority instead of clarification.
Since the act does both without specifying the nature of what is stated, its nature is open to presumptuous thinking on the part of those ignorant of American values and principles. Many, if not most, leap to the false conclusion that the all-mighty sovereign Congress has the power to command, not just the behavior of American citizens, but also their very membership in the nation, -when Congress was never given any such authority by those natural citizens who created it to protect natural American citizens and their interests, -not control their natural membership in their own nation.
So the errors in the thinking of the ignorant are multi-fold. They think that Congress was given authority it was not given, -and which it didn’t claim until after the work of the first Congress was accomplished and it was replaced by statists possibly ignorant of American principles, (which are not stated in any subsequent act).
The errors of thinking that followed resulted in a magnitude of damage to American principles that can hardly be exaggerated. The errors include: thinking that naturalization (and immigration) were federal matters when in fact they remained State matters. (The feds had port authority over imports and their taxation, not people.)
Thinking that Congress was sovereign over citizenship and its granting when for 98% of Americans, their nationality was inherited and not via any law at all.
-And thinking that by the change of wording of subsequent acts (dropping “natural born”) Congress was exercising an authority it did not possess and disenfranchising American sons born abroad from presidential eligibility by removing them from a class they were born into and placing them instead into another class devoid of those who were natural citizens, i.e.; the class of people known as outsiders, -foreign, -not natives, -with U.S. soil sovereign over U.S. blood.
Natural citizens by birth constituted 98% of the nation, and probably 98% of them were native-born while “citizens of the United States” constituted 100% of Americans -including the two percent who were naturalized or born of aliens. But foreign-born Americans were not among that tiny sub-set. They were a tiny sub-set also, even smaller in size, but a sub-set of the natural Americans group, -NOT the foreign group.
Later Congresses didn’t understand the purpose of the inclusion of reference to children born abroad [acknowledgement of their presidential eligibility] and misconstrued the purpose as being to distinguish them from foreigners, so to do that, a reference to presidential eligibility language was not germane, and thus eliminated.
And thus a rat’s nest of confusion resulted when later Congresses were unaware of the purpose of mentioning American children in a naturalization act meant for foreigners and their children, -that purpose being to properly label foreign-born Americans as natural born citizens and not simply “citizens of the United States” who may, -or may not, be eligible to be President.
Congress was stating for the record that they absolutely must be recognized as that which they were born as, -citizens by blood., -by the principle and authority of Natural Law, and indistinguishable from their native-born brethren.
~ ~ ~ ~
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual
Volume 7 Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1132
EVOLUTION OF KEY ACQUISITION STATUTES
7 FAM 1132.3 April 14, 1802
a.) Section 4 of this Act (2 Stat. 153,155) stated, in part, that: “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States:…”
b.) This Act’s formula of permitting transmission of citizenship by “persons who now are, or have been citizens” raised a question whether persons who subsequently became citizens by birth or naturalization could transmit citizenship to their children born abroad [in the future]. The right of such persons to transmit was clearly provided in the Act of February 10, 1855.
7 FAM 1132.4 February 10, 1855
a.) On this date, Congress enacted “An Act to Secure the Right of Citizenship to Children of Citizens of the United States Born Out of the Limits Thereof,” (10 Stat.604).
b.) It stated, in part, that: “persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States:…”
This exercise in legislative legalese stupidity is a great demonstration of the distorting effect of having a mentality suffused with legal thinking rather than simple clear thinking.
The 1802 Act contained wording that was unnecessary [“heretofore” “or hereafter to be born”] and consequently was noticed by a legal nerd of high repute to possibly imply that other than the circumstances stated, citizenship would not be conveyed to foreign-born American children.
It’s words that “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens” was trumpeted to imply that those “who shall be” in the future were excluded from citizenship by an over-sight omission in the wording. But even a child can comprehend that the absence of the preceding word “ONLY” implied that there was no such implication in the wording at all.
But muddy-thinking Congressmen thought they needed to listen to that legal scholar’s “sage advice” and “fix” the error that caused children born after its passage to be possibly born as aliens and not Americans. Yet none of them could manage to find the crucial and necessary word “ONLY” anywhere in the 1802 Act.
That showed that the inclusion of the verbiage “who now are, or have been” (past and present only) was completely superfluous to the Act. All it had to say was what it meant to say (instead of injecting legalese into it) as in this wording:
“the children born of citizens of the United States, are, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, citizens of the United States:…”
That would have avoided the presumptuous imaginary episode and the “correction” of the 1855 Act.
[-that reminds me of my discovery not long ago that a word I thought I knew most of my life didn’t even exist; namely e-phi-sode. I tried to learn its spelling while writing something and couldn’t find it anywhere. Strange, -very strange, …until I discovered that I had pronounced it wrong forever.
It was spelled and pronounced instead as e-pi-sode! Was I shocked. You think you know something, you have no reason at all to question what you “know” and yet what you “know” is wrong.
So it is with leaders, Congressmen, Presidents, and judges. Some erroneous concepts are not accompanied by any counter-voices of correction, so it is automatically assumed that the concepts are correct, even when they are not. That in a capsule, has been the history of the advance of science throughout the ages.]
The “correction” in the 1855 Act didn’t need: “shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States:…”
All it needed was one word: “are”, but over-complicated minds can’t settle on the clear and simple because they teach you the opposite in law school.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual
Volume 7 Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1130
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT
7 FAM 1131.2
Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S. Citizenship:
Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S. citizenship to children born abroad:
(1) At least one natural parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the child was born. The only exception is for a posthumous child.
(2) The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically present in the United States for the time required by the law in effect when the child was born.
[Note the use of the word: “transmitting”, -and recognize what it does not mean; namely: “granting” -as in granting by permission of government as opposed to conveying by natural inheritance.]
7 FAM 1131.4 Blood Relationship Essential
1 Establishing Blood Relationship
The laws on acquisition of U.S. citizenship through a parent have always contemplated the existence of a blood relationship between the child and the parent(s) through whom citizenship is claimed. It is not enough that the child is presumed to be the issue of the parents’ marriage by the laws of the jurisdiction where the child was born.
Absent a blood relationship between the child and the parent on whose citizenship the child’s own claim is based, U.S. citizenship is not acquired. The burden of proving a claim to U.S. citizenship, including blood relationship and legal relationship, where applicable, is on the person making such claim.
Applicants must meet different standards of proof of blood relationship depending on the circumstances of their birth:
2. Section 309(a) INA (8 U.S.C. 1409(a)), as amended on November 14,1986, specifies that the blood relationship of a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
7 FAM 1131.5-4 Maternity Issues
…“fraud by adoption” —
…a false claim to citizenship filed on behalf of a child by the alleged biological parents, who, in fact, share no blood relationship with the child and, therefore, could not confer citizenship on the child.
7 FAM 1131.6 Nature of Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parents
1. Status Generally:
Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One exception is that they may be subject to citizenship retention requirements.
[NOTE: The phrase “Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute…” is being very, very specific, -and likewise regarding the statement that follows it. Understand this: Natural citizens do not “acquire” citizenship at birth. They are born as organic citizens by nature, -the nature of their American parents whose blood relationship transmits their political nature to them. The difference is that they do not “acquire” their citizenship “by statute” but by inheritance.
Similarly, “citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment” also acquire their citizenship by statute; namely, the authority of the amendment. It gives the gift of citizenship to native-born children of immigrant aliens.
It is a gigantic mistake to presume that all citizens born in the United States depend on the amendment for their citizenship when it was they, the natural citizens of America, who wrote the 14th Amendment, -not for themselves (natural citizens) but for freed slaves, with the high court extending it to alien-born children also.
7 FAM 1131.6 - 2 Eligibility for Presidency
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency. ~
[-but it is determined by facts and Natural Law, -regardless of the distorted thinking of judges steeped in legalese and misconceptions about citizenship.]
FAM 1131.7 Citizenship Retention Requirements
a. Persons who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad were not required to take any affirmative action to keep their citizenship until May 24, 1934, when a new law imposed retention requirements on persons born abroad on or after that date to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent.
Retention requirements continued in effect until October 10, 1978, when section 301(b) INA was repealed.
c. Persons born abroad on or after October 10, 1952, are not subject to any conditions beyond those that apply to all citizens. [no more unAmerican discrimination toward the foreign born. Note the use of the word “Persons” rather than “Americans and aliens”, -as if parentage and its blood relationship didn’t exist? Not likely since Persons is used in reference to the foreign-born who “aquire” citizenship by statute.]
As I’ve explained in previous expositions, all citizens are equal under American principles of egalitarian democracy, -all being NATURAL CITIZENS, -either naturally or by the American legal fiction of natural-ization.
Regardless of how one came by their U.S. citizenship, all are on the same plane and are considered to be of the same nature, -equal in all regards, -with that one small, lone, singularly unique exception, -the all-powerful position of Command in Chief of all United States offensive and defensive forces. He must be more than anyone considered to be “a natural citizen”. He must have been born as one, -as the Constitution requires.
That does not mean anyone born with citizenship bestowed by the mercy of the 14th Amendment. That form of citizenship (native-birth dependent) is not natural in reality (even though the legal fiction makes all citizens the same) because it is citizenship given as a gift and not inherited as an unalienable birthright of all children of citizens.
Children of aliens are not born with that birthright because the birthright they are born with is membership in their foreign father’s nation, -not ours.
Instead, their American citizenship is a gift of the natural citizens of the nation who voted to pass the 14th Amendment, although they had no idea that it would one day be interpreted the way it came to be by the U.S. Supreme Court 30 years later.
Until that happened, native-born children of immigrants were considered to be State citizens in only some States but not most, -and weren’t viewed as U.S. citizens by the policy of the U.S. Government “for constitutional purposes”, -i.e., presidential eligibility.
Needless to say, the nation was of two minds. Some backed soil-based citizenship while others backed only blood-based citizenship, and still others backed both, -which is now the case.
Ninety seven percent or so of Americans are citizens by blood, while the remainder are citizens by naturalization or the 14th Amendment. As a nation of blood-based citizenship, it’s pure foolishness that dependence on soil-based citizenship has become the dominant misconception, -having skewered the national perception of reality into one in which the tail wags the dog, -the exception to the rule being misperceived as being the rule.
The lack of an understanding of principles results in no answer to the question: “if your American mother gave birth to you on or over a hypothetical border between the U.S. and North Korea, what would your natural nationality be if your father was also American?”
The laws of neither nation would be relevant to their governments. Only Natural Law would prevail, -as it does the world over as International Law. And it’s based on blood.
by Adrien Nash Feb. 2014 http://obama–nation.com