Moses & The Half-Blood President

The organization and governance of any sizable group of people must be based on simple rules that are easily understood so there is no excuse for breaking them.  That avoids one being able to claim that they were confused and didn’t understand the rules since the rules were confusing.  An early historical example is that of Moses and the 10 commandments given on Mount Sinai.  They were short and simple and clear.  Anyone hearing them would understand them without the need of a scribe (or lawyer) to explain the nuances of the words and phrases.
All fundamental law since time immemorial has followed the principle seen in that example, including our own United States Constitution of Government.  It was written to be concise, not verbose; simple, not complex; crystal clear, not ambiguous.  It wasn’t enough to just write the document, it had to be easily understood by the literate and illiterate alike because they all were going to have to make a choice as to whether or not they would accept it, ratify it, and thereby make it the fundamental law by which they, and all others, would have to abide for the rest of their lives.

The simplicity and clarity of the Constitution laid out the skeleton of the government.  The flesh would be added later by the Congress in conformity to the skeleton.  Building and administering a government around the wording of the Constitution required that everyone fully understand it.  That universal understanding was not muddied by uncertainty here and ambiguity there.  Its meaning was not confusing, vague, or open to various interpretations (with the exception of the power to tax -having no limits placed on it).  Those problems came later via the amendments added to it.
But in the body of the Constitution there was no confusing language.  The only uncertainly resulted from what was not written, -from the details that were missing and had yet to be fleshed out.  One example would be the elements of eligibility of the Vice-President.  The fact was overlooked that in order to replace an incapacitated President, the VP would have to fulfill the presidential eligibility requirements.  [That oversight was later corrected via an amendment.]

The point of explaining this is to refute the contention that one of those requirements wasn’t exactly clear.  In fact, it is contented that it is downright confusing, vague, and probably ambiguous.  It is contended that only the Supreme Court can interpret and explain the true meaning of the words of the Constitution regarding who is eligible to be President, -when that is false.  The true meaning is evident to anyone with a brain, just as it was when those words were written, read, ratified and adopted.  They were crystal clear when written, easily understood by all, and it is only our distant modern ignorance and bias that prevent the universal acknowledgement of their meaning.
To which words do I refer?  These:  Article II, Section I, Clause V:  NO PERSON,…except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible to the Office of the President…”

It is strongly in the interest of a particular party in American politics to distort, confuse, obfuscate, deflect, and dilute the meaning of the words; “natural born”.  Everyone understands the meaning of “citizen” but if everyone understood the meaning of “natural” and “born”, then a certain sitting President would be found to be illegitimate.  That is a conclusion that the establishment cannot allow because it would result in a constitutional crisis like this nation has never seen and probably would never see again.  But in defense of the truth, let’s examine the facts as they existed when the Constitution was written, -as well as throughout all of human history.

The meaning of “natural” and “born” are derived from natural law.  They are so closely related that together they create a sort of reinforced redundancy.  The meaning of natural is uncontestable, but dishonest minds have worked to completely twist the meaning of “born” thereby creating confusion and an impression of ambiguity.  Their goal is to convince all that “born” and “birth” are somehow synonymous with geography, namely national boundaries, and the magical power of being born within them.  They do this by using false logic.  The concept they push is that anyone, by simply being “born in the United States”, is automatically a citizen “by birth”, -regardless of the fact that there is no basis in American law to support that claim, -and in fact, there is a long history, both administrative and constitutional, that counters and refutes that claim.

The falseness of their logic is exposed by untwisting the concept that by being a citizen at or upon birth, one is therefore a citizen by birth.  Reality is understood by looking at what is natural.  One is not a human being merely at birth, but is a human being “by birth” to human parents.  Being human does not begin at birth but at conception.  One is human by nature, not by the event of birth nor the location of birth.  This relates to the two types of citizenship connected to birth.
One is natural, the other is artificial, otherwise known as statutory citizenship.  It’s dependent upon the laws passed by Congress as naturalization statutes and their interpretation by the Supreme Court.  But natural citizenship is not dependent on any law ever written because Congress was not granted any authority by the Constitution to regulate or legislate in regard to that which is a natural human right.  Rather, we are endowed by our Creator with an unalienable right to our own children and they have a natural right of membership in the family/clan/tribe or nation of which their parents are members.

There’s a principle that pertains to children born to foreigners.  In many countries, (the U.S. included,) such children are only considered to be members of the nation where they are born if their parents are immigrants and not mere visitors or diplomats.  By law they are considered to be converted (naturalized) from the foreign citizenship of their father and/or mother into domestic citizenship and that automatic naturalization begins at birth.  They are natural-ized citizens from/at/ upon birth, but they are not natural citizens because they were born to foreigners.  If foreign parents first become natural-ized, then their children will be natural American citizens because they would be born to citizens and not foreigners.

Now let’s look at the word “natural”.  In every group, whether family, clan, tribe, or nation, the most fundamental element of group association is that of identification.  Is one an enemy or a friendly?  Is one a member or a non-member?  Is one a natural member or an adopted member?  One’s status is determined by the answer to these questions.  Natural membership in the group is the result of being born into the group.  No persons who were not born to group members will ever be describable as natural members.  What is true in a family sense, is also true in a tribal and national sense.  Outsiders become members by adoption.  The group leaders agree to adopt outsiders into the group and allow them all the privileges of natural members except one, and that is that they cannot be permitted to assume the office of the Chief, King, Czar, or Pharaoh.   That is a responsibility reserved solely for natural members because their allegiance to the group is unquestionable.

The case of Moses is instructive.  He, as a Hebrew baby in the land of Egypt, had a death sentence on his head so his mother left him where Pharaoh’s daughter would find him.  She did, and adopted him.  He became a son of the Pharaoh and a Prince of Egypt, but was he a natural son?  Of course not.  If the  Pharaoh had secretly been his father and a Hebrew woman his mother, would he be (a.) a natural Eygptian or (b.) something else?  He would be something else because his geneology wouldn’t spring from only Eygptian sources but from mixed sources.  No Eygptian aristocrat would accept a half-blood prince inheriting the throne of the Pharoahs.  To be Pharoah one would have be not just a prince but also a natural Eygptian.

But what if the daughter of the  Pharaoh was impregnated by an outsider, perhaps a Hebrew, and gave birth to a son?  What will his status be?  It depends on how they choose to deal with him.  They can kill him, or they can adopt him.  Whatever they choose, the result is one that is determined by human choice and not by nature.  If he is adopted, his adoption into group membership is by permission, not by nature.  He would be an adopted member, not a natural member because he was not begotten by a father who is a member.  Only male members can pro-create natural members, natural natives, and natural citizens.  Outside males cannot pro-create natives or natural citizens.

Consider the example of artificial fertilization.  If a woman is married to a King who is sterile and she therefore resorts to achieving pregnancy via another man’s sperm, is the off-spring truly the King’s seed and of his blood-line?  Certainly not.  Such a son would be a half-blood heir but only from a legal perspective.  If later, the King becomes potent and impregnates his wife, the child will be his full-blood heir.  Which will the King choose to inherit his throne?  The half-blood first born or the full-blood son born later?  He would choose the full-blood son because he is his natural off-spring and carries his blood-line.  One is fully natural while the other is artificial, or half-blood.  The same natural principle applies to citizenship.
The citizenship that is natural is never half-blood. Rather, it’s always full-blood.  Any mixture of another bloodline/group membership/nationality results in an off-spring that is accepted by the principle of adoption, not natural creation.  The fact that such an adoption is from birth does not make one a natural member, it only makes one a life-long member with all the privileges of membership except one, -ascent to the Throne.  Or in the case of the United States, -the Presidency.

In 2008 the Constitution of the United States was ignored like it didn’t even exist.  All the powers-that-be remained silent least they be accused of racism for attempting to lawfully block the first mixed race candidate from attaining the American dream.  Now it is too late for them to say what they knew or suspected because they would look like the cowards that they are.  So we as a nation are riding on a giant train that is no longer rolling on the tracks of constitutional restraints because we have been bamboozled into thinking that everyone couldn’t get it wrong, and especially not get it wrong on purpose.  But that is exactly what has happened.

Congress is either stupid or complicit because the Senate passed a resolution declaring that John McCain is a natural born citizen of the United States because he was born to American parents.  They got that right by a vote of 99-0, but what of his fellow Senator and presidential opponent who was not born to American parents but was instead a half-blood statutory citizen?  They and everyone else remained silent as he was illegitimately certified by the Democrat Party leadership to be a presidential candidate in all 50 states -with the exception of Hawaii because they had no evidence that he was born in the United States.  But after secret talks with the authority that blocked the ballot certification, suddenly it became OK.  The fix was in and it was in big time.

And now we will soon be witness to a repeat of this deliberate deceitful travesty against the Constitution and rule of law as he is again certified to be eligible in all 50 states because all of the systems of our society and government have been slowly but surely infiltrated for over 100 years by the enemies of the Constitution and the principles on which our nation was founded.  They can’t get their way via constitutional amendment so instead they resort to simple majority legislation, supreme court decision, and by totally ignoring any fundamental law that impedes their goal of creating a centrally planned and controlled benevolent utopia of sheep who obediently follow the wise orders of their masters, -the elites, the academic and professional class that knows for certain that it is superior to the masses and far more capable of wisely making all the decisions for them.  “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to  govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” –Thomas Jefferson
Welcome to the impending future. -the paradise of a Democratic Marxist Autocracy.

In this Bizarro world, the American people have ignorantly elected the man that spoke with the greatest voice and platitudes even though he is constitutionally barred from serving as President.  Superficiality and self-interest are what gets people elected in contests that in the end boil down to a beauty contest.  Obama was more attractive than McCain and promised more.  Words matter, but ones voice and appearance matter perhaps as much or more.  Would Barack Obama now be President if his voice was similar to Barney Fife’s voice?  One will win any contest in which personal appeal and big promises are combined into one nice big package of Hope and Idealism.

Why shouldn’t such a candidate be allowed to win?  Because he isn’t what he’s supposed to be.  He isn’t a natural American.  He’s an adopted, half-blood, statutory, naturalized American and he isn’t even that if he was born abroad, -in Kenya or Vancouver, because his mother was too young when he was born to convey citizenship to him if born abroad.  So we had an attractive, unvetted affirmative action candidate with Marxist friends and a black hole where a public background should be, legitimized by a concocted Certificate of Live Birth that was never authenticated by anyone, and instead of being a natural American citizen with only Americans for parents, he is the off-spring of a foreign outsider, the product of two disparate continents, countries, empires, societies, and nationalities.

Diversity can be a good thing, but it is not a natural thing.  Just ask the Japanese if they prefer the natural uniformity of their nation to that of the unnatural, chaotic, un-integrated Islamic diversity of say London or Paris.  But even with the politically correct American lip-service toward diversity, no outsider’s son is permitted to become Chief.  No half-blood prince is permitted to become King, and “NO PERSON, except…a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible to the Office of the President”.
Now, what part of “natural born Citizen” do you not understand?

Jan, 2012  http://obama–

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

6 Responses to Moses & The Half-Blood President

  1. constitutionallyspeaking says:

    I found this very interesting in light that we are in Exodus in our yearly study of bible. I would however like to respond to a couple of items.

    1) parentage. It is only important as to the blood of the father(natural head of the household) unless the child is born out of wedlock. According the Laws of Nature & of Nature’s God, a woman is always immediately adopted into the society of the husband upon saying “I do”. But thanks to women’s lib, that part of a family as a cohesive unit has been shredded.

    2) half blood. There hasn’t been quote “pure blood” since the flood. Even Noah’s son’s had married outside the camp prior to embarking on the boat, thus mixed blood came off the boat and will forever remain as long as heaven and earth are still here. From time immemorial, it was never doubted that a wife’s loyalty was to be to her husband first which naturally ties her to the society in which the husband built their home in. However in all honesty, it has never really been about the blood, it has always been about relationship and loyalty. There is natural relationship that begets natural loyalty and then there is adopted relationship that begets adopted loyalty.

    • arnash says:

      I’d like to share in insight that I believe the Judeo-Christian and Islamic worlds have never recognized even though it is right in front of their faces. It’s something in Genesis that sounds rather like a divine command but is in opposition to almost all of human culture. I refer to: “For this cause shall a woman leave her father and her mother and shall cleave to her husband.” That is how the whole male-chauvinist world imagines that marriages and societies should be grounded, but it doesn’t actually say that. Rather, it says the opposite. “For this cause shall a MAN leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife” That is the opposite of all Muslim, and probably Hindu, societies tradition. Male dominance requires the woman to leave her whole world and become a foot-servant to her husband in his family’s domain. But it seems the pattern the God prescribed was the opposite. The woman should stay in her mother and father and grandparents realm where she has sisters and brothers and it’s there that the husband is to become a family member, leaving his world behind and becoming a man in another realm, not a mama’s boy staying at home. There the children would have lots of maternal security.

      The point about the importance of paternal parentage is widely overlooked in this politically correct age but it is what reflects the reality of human society throughout human history. I’d be very interested in discovering and reading the U.S. statutes that support the tradition of the man being the head of the household and only the unwed mother passing her U.S. citizenship to her off-spring. I’ve often stated that Obama’s mother conveyed her U.S. citizenship to Jr. via a U.S. statute that has not been identified, but now I have to doubt that it even exists since she was a married, not single mother and when he was born the law very well could have ascribed citizenship to her son based solely on that of the father. But I expect that through a U.S. birth to an American mother he would have citizenship based on the ruling in Wong Kim Ark. But that would not be natural citizenship. It would be a form of automatic naturalization at birth.

      • constitutionallyspeaking says:

        I disagree. Genesis refers to a man leaving his father and mother and becoming a self sufficient head of his own household. For further clarification one needs to go to Genesis chapters 28-31 and the story of Jacob. Jacob left as his parents commanded, then he spent 21 years working for Laban as a dowry payment for Leah & Rachel because Laban had tricked him. But during that time Jacob grew wise thus when he left, he left a very rich man because of his obedience to God. Women only stayed with the parents until the dowry was paid.

        As far as the U.S. code and the fact of women following the citizenship of the husband, one can find that in the very 1st act of congress wherein it states that upon the naturalization of the husband/father, the wife and children of that husband/father automatically attain citizenship. The library of congress states …

        Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103)

        The 1st major exception to this 1790 Act was that “derivative” citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen.

        (Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father.

        Further confirmation comes from the SoundexIndex to Naturalization Petitions for the United States District and Circuit Courts, Northern District of Illinois, and Immigration and Naturalization Service District 9 (1840-1950)

        Under the section on the background of Naturalization . . . .” (A1, S8, C4) this official government document states that:

        Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

        Finally you referred to the feudal law of automatic naturalization at birth. This can be found in the Law of Nations, Ch 19, Sec 214

        § 214. Naturalization.(58)

        A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

  2. arnash says:

    I think we’ve both assumed facts not in evidence re Genesis and the statement about a man leaving his father and mother. It doesn’t say that the approved pattern involved the man living with the wife’s family nor say that it involved not living with it. But they would have to live somewhere, and like the case of Jacob, that involved living with the wife’s family, albeit not forever.
    You wrote:
    “As far as the U.S. code and the fact of women following the citizenship of the husband, one can find that in the very 1st act of congress”. Your logic got a bit derailed there since a non-existent repealed act is not current U.S. code. While legal history is quite interesting, it doesn’t inform us as to what the law is today, -or in 1961.
    You’ve quoted several examples of laws that have been on the books but what is relevant is only what the law is today, and what it was in 1961 regarding American woman and whether or not they retain their American citizenship after marrying a foreigner (which would provide their children with inherited U.S. citizenship, instead of solely foreign citizenship, if born in the U.S). The pertinent quotes in your reply use the past tense and are accompanied by no mention as to whether or not they are current law. Thus the mystery remains.

    The question I have never seen an answer to, along with the question itself, is by what law is Barack Obama a citizen? Is it solely via the 14th Amendment or is there a statute allowing American women the right to retain citizenship after marriage to a foreigner? They had no such right when the 14th Amendment was written and ratified, therefore it is a puzzle as to how it could apply later. Thus, if it has *never* applied to U.S. women, whether by later law or court decision, then Obama’s citizenship may only be derived from a later law that perhaps does not even exist, -a law that covers not single women only, but also married women. No one has identified such a law in all the zillions words I’ve read about Obama so far, so I’m no longer confident that it even exists. If it doesn’t, and there’s no case law ascribing citizenship to any person with a birth circumstance similar to Obama, then how is he even a U.S. citizen by actual law, rather than by errant administrative policy? If no one is asking the question, then no answer will ever be given. It will just linger as the question that was never asked.

    • arnash says:

      After many hours or perusing through official Interpretations of U.S. Law by the Justice Department, I’ve finally learned how Obama is considered to be a U.S. citizen. The weeds are pretty thick in that section but it boils down to a Supreme Court decision that ruled that American women do not lose their citizenship by marrying foreign men unless they take overt concrete actions intended to renounce or abandon their citizenship, and marriage is not considered that kind of action. Therefore her children from her foreign father inherit not only his citizenship but hers as well. So Obama inherited his mother’s citizenship, -unless he was born outside of the United States because his mother needed to be several months older in order for that to not be the case. Of course reasonable minds can’t conclude that there is any basis on which to assume that he was born in the United States because if he was, then there would be no need for fake birth document images.
      Even though he was born a citizen, he was not born a native, nor a natural born citizen. He can’t be a native without a native father even though he was supposedly “native-born”. Only native fathers can father natives. And only citizen fathers can father natural citizens. Foreign fathers can only father hybrids and hybrid citizenship is not natural. Foreign fathers can’t produce natural Americans anymore than natural Americans can produce foreigners. It’s that simple. Check-Mate.

  3. arnash says:

    PS. You wrote: “Finally you referred to the feudal law of automatic naturalization at birth. This can be found in the Law of Nations, Ch 19, Sec 214”

    Actually, I clearly did not refer to the feudal law but to American law. It is American law that children of legal un-naturalized immigrants are Americans at birth because their parent(s) are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Since they are not natural citizens it is therefore the case that they are born as automatically naturalized citizens. That is the result of the SCOTUS ruling in Wong Kim Ark 1898. It’s still the law today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: