The Royal Law of Ascension & American Presidents

What you are about to read is a connecting of dots, a drawing of conclusions, and logical assumptions based on facts, deductions, and extrapolations.  Nearly all deductions are tied to facts, but one is tied to an assumption.  That assumption is in regard to who was the source of a serious constitutional error.  My extrapolation is that he was the person holding power when it was presumed by me to have gone into effect.  If that assumption is inaccurate then my assumption and assertion about when and by whom the error originated would be wrong, but not about the fact that it did appear at some (earlier) point in time.

The Marie Antoinette Electorate

& Their Cake President

When Marie Antoinette was asked what the starving peasant should eat since they had no bread (their dietary mainstay), she replied with a perfectly logical answer, -from her insulated perspective, “Let them eat cake.”
If you are out of one kind of food, like fresh fruit, you substitute another.  A non-brainer.  She was the Queen so she was an authority over others, -her words were authoritative because of her position, -but that was no preventer of her concepts from being dead wrong.  Being dead wrong isn’t something limited solely to insulated and isolated monarchs.  Entire indifferent, or biased and un-knowledgeable populations can be dead wrong in some of their concepts, -such as the Germans when it came to citizens of Jewish ancestry.  Americans are similarly ignorant of the errors in their own legal concepts, and mostly indifferent as well.  But that does not prevent them, and the authorities that support those misconceptions, from being dead wrong.

Marie Antoinette assumed that cake was a legitimate suggestion for what the populous should eat, but it was not in fact a legitimate suggestion.  But her ignorance didn’t allow her to recognize that fact.  The American people’s ignorance about whether or not a citizen such as Barack Obama is eligible to be President does not change the fact that his citizenship doesn’t allow him to be a legitimate President.  It doesn’t matter what the people or the authorities are aware of, the truth of the matter is determined by facts, not impressions or misconceptions.
Barack Obama’s presidency is as legitimate in the real world as was Marie’s suggestion.  He is the conceptual equivalent of cake as an acceptable solution.

Paper wrote: “Earlier you said all three words were necessary (natural born citizen).  Now you break them out into to different groupings (born citizen & natural citizen) to claim there is a historical source in the English language.”

When I started that sentence I was thinking of mentioning the three words individually, but since I’ve already done that repeatedly in previous expositions, and since they are self-explanatory, I changed my focus by namely the two phrases that they created when directly attached to “citizen”.
I think you’ll agree that the term “born citizen” expresses something real and not imaginary like unicorns.  But it is ambiguous since some are born as citizens by law, and some are not because they are born of Americans, not simply born in America (to immigrant foreigners) and are therefore citizens by nature, not by law.
Confusing?  That’s because there is no law by which children of Americans are Americans.

So it’s clear that citizens are real, born citizens are real, but what about natural-born?  What does that mean, if anything?  The answer is it means nothing other than a euphemism for out-of-wedlock children.  Well that is a use that is unrelated to the presidency as a requirement, so we can exclude it altogether.  That then only leaves for consideration “natural citizen”.  So are natural citizens something real or something purely imaginary?  Does their absence within American law mean that they are non-existent outside of American law?

The word natural defines what a natural citizen must be.  One who is a citizen naturally, -without the assistance or authority of law.  Law is not natural, and that which is natural includes no element of any man-made rules or laws.  It is only that which is related to life, living processes, blood connections and natural relationships.

That is almost self-explanatory since none of us would be here without those.  So we exist because of the natural, and not the legal.  The legal is purely a human construct, and not a natural force or principle.
We are what we are because of the life that created us.  That life made us the same form of life as our similar parents.  Whether by race, or ethnicity, or physical characteristics, or body type, or nervous system wiring, we inherit most of what we are via our genealogy.

Our relatedness to our parents is a natural relatedness, not a legal relatedness.  Nature governs.  But we are not alone in this life, nor alone in our family.  We have siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews, along with grandparents.  We all are a member of our family group, a natural group.  We are all group members and our membership is not a legal membership, or a commercial membership, nor a religious membership.  Rather, it is a family membership, and all natural clans & tribes, like families, are populated with the children of the natural members of the family groups.

Those who were adopted as youths or youngsters are not natural members even if treated as if they are.  They may even have equal civil and family rights, -like rights of inheritance.  But no matter how identical they are made within the family, -to the family members, they will never be natural family members because of having different parents.
Even if they are one of those individuals who looks almost exactly like someone else to whom they are not related, and they are adopted into a family with a child that looks exactly like them, they still would not be a natural child of the parents.

If the parents adopt a child before they become able to have their own, its younger siblings would have no idea when they later came along that the “firstborn” was born of other parents.
He could be indistinguishable from the natural children, -even have the same status in every way, but regardless of not knowing nor feeling that he was adopted, the parents know the truth, but never speak it.  They strictly maintain a pretense, a fiction that he is their natural child.

It all works out perfectly and everyone is happy, unless the family is one particular type of family, namely, the Royal family.  The Royal Heir must be a blood descendent.  And so, even in the face of having to hurt feelings by revealing the true relationship, the parents would have to discriminate against the “firstborn” who in fact was not a full blood member of the family.

And so the Royal ancient Law of Ascension must be read for all to understand what must be done, and it states clearly: “No child, except a natural born child of the crown, shall be eligible to ascend to the throne.”

To the dismay of many, the beloved “firstborn” is ineligible because of his non-royal parentage.  The position of King falls only to the true firstborn son, -a full-blood family member.

Some dislike the rule so much that they twist the mean of its words by claiming that under the law, all children are natural children by label, by a fiction of law, and therefore the adoptee is also eligible.  But they ignore and block out of their minds the fact that he must be more than a “natural child” by a fiction of law; he must be born a natural child, -not just labeled a natural child by a fiction of law.  So as the ancient Law of Ascension actually requires, he must be a natural born child of the King.

Who is an American?  And what does it mean?

Without the existence of law, native-born children of foreigners could not be recognized as being Americans.  I use the term “Americans” in the plural because if I use it in the singular then the answer is different.  After the Supreme Court ruled that the son of immigrant Chinese laborers (Wong Kim Ark, 1898) was a U.S. citizen regardless of his totally Chinese nature, (-appearance, dress, language, culture, and ancestry) and regardless of the Chinese Exclusion Act which barred “imported” Chinese laborers from U.S. Citizenship, he and those similar to him would be thenceforth known as Americans.
So if asked: “Are you an American?”  The answer would be “yes”.  But if asked: “Are you American?”  The answer wouldn’t be so clear, because his nature was not American, it was Chinese.
What is even more emphatically true is the answer to the same questions but asked of a naturalized Chinese who obtained citizenship before the ban.  He might be 35 years old, having lived in the U.S. for five years or more, and then naturalized.  He is then *an* American but he is not American.

Imagine you live among a large Mormon or Catholic family under one roof of a very expansive home.  The children in the home number so many it’s hard to keep count.  They could, if someone cared to, be categorized into three distinct groups.  Those who are full-blood children, those who are half-blood children from previous marriages, those who are no-blood children but were adopted from outside, those who are no-blood children but were born in the home and are being raised among the family by long-term guests of the family.  Then there is one more type of child and it is a half-blood child of a previous wife who gave birth in the home and left her child to be raised among its half-blood siblings.

So there are five distinctly different types of children.  Only one is a full-blood child of the father and mother.  If they all grow up and remain in their home as adults, and the parents have to travel to a foreign country for an extended period of time to care for a dying parent, they will have to decide who to leave in charge of the home legally.  Who would they pick?  A half-blood child?  A no-blood child? or the a full-blood child?
If they were to hypothetically be all of a similar age would it be impossible to choose?  Or would they simply and naturally choose their most capable natural child to be in charge?  What other choice would be better or even equal?

Parentage would make a difference, just as it does in nations.  Just because we in the United States maintain a fiction of law that all inhabitants are divided into only three groups;  citizens, immigrants, and non-immigrant aliens, that doesn’t make our fiction reality.

Where is the fiction in those designations?  It is in the simply title of citizen.  All citizens are equal citizens regardless of how they became citizens; (naturally or by natural-ization of some form, including naturalization at birth) but more than that, we regard them all as though they are natural citizens once they have been natural-ized.  And once they have been made natural, that is how our government then views them, -by seeing them as all equal through our fiction of law.

But when it comes to ascension to our throne, our throne of power, our ancient Law of Ascension distinguishes between American “natural citizens” by requiring that they be natural by birth, and not merely natural by a fiction of law.  Hence, they must be natural citizens by birth, -or born natural citizens, or natural born citizens (either way).  But it must be all three.

He who sits on the Throne can’t be simply a citizen, nor simply one born a citizen because some born of foreigners are natural-ized at birth by the 14th Amendment, making them “born citizens” also, albeit not naturally but by law.
So he must be a citizen, a born citizen, a natural citizen, i.e., -a natural born citizen.  The nature of his nature and origin must be describable by all three terms.

U.S. Constitution; Article II, Section I, Clause V:
No person except a citizen shall be eligible…
REJECTED.
No person except a born citizen shall be eligible…
REJECTED.
No person except a natural citizen shall be eligible…
REJECTED.
No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible…
ACCEPTED.

What brought all of this controversy into the open?  It was the election of a non-natural born citizen in violation of the United States Constitution.
And on what does it all hinge?  On the Supreme Court opinion handed down in the case of Wong Kim Ark in 1898.  Those who do not want to accept the obvious truth distort it by claiming that anyone birthed within our national borders is eligible to be President, and therefore the Constitution’s words must mean something other than what they mean; -they must mean what the royal British dictators decreed them to mean when it labeled for convenience and a fiction of law, all souls born within the king’s lands to be not just his subjects, not just his born subjects even if born of foreigners, but also his natural born subjects and equal in all respects regardless of whether or not their father was an English subject or an alien subject owing allegiance to a foreign king.
They claim that all our Founders and Framers were too stupid to discern the difference between reality and fiction and so incorporated forever an erroneous and ambiguous use of language following the pattern of the royal dictator whom they had utterly rejected.
By their reasoning, if the Framers of the Constitution really wanted to discriminate in favor of only sons of Americans, then they would have said that the President had to be a natural “natural born citizen”.  Does absurdity have no limit?

The true purpose and motive behind barring any children of foreigners from holding the reins of power held by the Commander of the American Army is illustrated by the very case on which they base their entire claim.

The founders wanted no foreign influence and ulterior motive secretly living in the heart of a U.S. birthed, alien-born & foreign raised royalist who won the office of President.

The defenders of the constitutional fraud known as Barack Obama maintain the fiction that where one is born is alone the determinant of one’s national loyal and attachment, and ignore the truth about the enormous influence that a British loyalist would have on his American-birthed son.  But ignoring reality does not change it.  Traitors do not become betrayers of their country because of where they were or were not born.  And loyalty is not instilled merely by that fact either, but by how one is raised and indoctrinated with pride in their family heritage and nationality.

The bond to one’s family homeland and relatives and society is well illustrated by the actions of Wong Kim Ark.  He was raised to know all about his parents’ parents and his parents’ homeland, and so as a youth he choose to make the long and possibly dangerous journey to China to connect with them for the first time ever.  A natural desire and human longing.  He not only then felt connected to them and their country but actually was connected by that direct exposure.

The bond between them was so strong that within about 5 years he felt compelled to make a second long and slow journey across half a world of ocean and return to China for a second visit, which lasted about a year.  It was upon his return to America that his trouble appeared when the port authorities in his home of San Francisco refused to allow him to enter the United States on the basis that he was an alien and not a citizen.

So his story is one to which we need to connect the dots regarding the meaning and intent of the framers when deciding that it would not be acceptable to allow any citizen who was not born a natural citizen from being President.

An American by birth and nature would have no similar attachments to a British family, history, ancestry, nobility, authority, and national pride in Britain.  His family would be American.  His tradition would be American.  His history would be American.  His national pride would be solely in America  His allegiance would not in the tiniest amount be divided between America and Britain.
His entire loyalty would be toward the Constitution and not the Crown.  His thoughts about government would be alien to the minds of Europeans that were loyal to their monarchs.  His philosophy would be rooted and grounded in the principles of Natural Liberty and Natural Rights, -including Self-governance and not dictatorship.

No acceptance of obsequious genuflecting before nobility.  No American man would ever again sheepishly bow to any king (including a Saudi king) unless he held secret feelings of loyalty and reverence which he kept hidden from all.  No American President would have secret longings to travel to Britain and connect and bond with his noble British brethern.  The thought of such a duplicitous allegiance was anathema and vomit to the very heart of the founders’ nature.

Wong Kim Ark was the poster child, if you will, of just what the founders and framers rejected.  The American leader must swear a solumn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, including those who are Americans.  And every American would-be citizen must swear an even stronger oath, -one by which they reject in the most absolute terms possible, all bonds, all devotion, all loyalty, and all allegiance to the beloved (or despised) monarch of their homeland.  All such ties must be utterly severed if they wished to become an American and solely an American.
The nationalism of the founders was absolute when it came to foreigners becoming Americans.  Why so strict?  Because there would be no second class American citizens.  The foreigners would be equal in all respects to their native natural American brethren and be free to serve in every single position of authority and representation in the land, including the national government, but with just one exception; -that being the position of Commander-in-Chief.  He must be American through-and-through, or almost.  He could actually be born of naturalized immigrants, but that is because they were, by a fiction of national law, natural citizens also.
~~~~~

~The blind lead the blind without even knowing that they are blind.
You are blind if you blindly think you understand that sentence.  It is inherently ambiguous.  It has multiple possible meanings, none of which is the clear meaning.  Your mind will stagger attempting to make sense of it.
Such is the nature of language, including that used in legal settings.  How does that impact America?  By allowing an ineligible candidate to run for the office of President, be placed on the ballots of all fifty states, (twice!), and then not be disqualified after being elected.

We are under the reign of an ambiguous, secretive closet socialist, -closet Muslim, black-hole background Griggs-citizen President whose citizenship is not the result of either natural transmission nor law but merely a policy established due to an error of understanding back in 1898.

If that erroneous, baseless policy had not been adopted by the U.S. Attorney General John Griggs, (who incorrectly interpreted a Supreme Court opinion to mean that all U.S. birthed children of all foreigners, including mere tourists, were American citizens, -except children of foreign diplomats) then Barack Obama would not only not be President, he would not even be a United States citizen.
Thanks to a seemingly insignificant mistake made over a century ago, our fate my be sealed due to a do-nothing President who happened to be one of those who obtained the appearance of citizenship by that error, and who is driving us straight toward a fiscal cliff at full speed.
~~~~

Advertisements

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”.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: