Full-Blood Citizens & The Presidency
May 10, 2013 Leave a comment
The Whole Truth about Chiefs, Kings, Koreans & Vampires
Full-Blood Citizenship & The Presidency
Aside from survival and living in peace, there’s no aspect of the communal life of a natural group more important than that of who its leader is. Beyond the larger sense of immediate family, he is the center of their world and his decisions may one day make the difference between life and death, -freedom or enslavement for the group. So choosing him wisely is an important role for all adults who have a say in that choice.
Wanting him to be the best choice possible, they realize that they must always follow the ancient tribal guidelines in making their selection. But with or without guidelines, they want something about him that is not related to his wisdom or experience. It is his nature.
Is he one of them? Was he born of them? Is he wholly of them and of no other people? In other words, is he a full-blood member or just a half blood member, -or worse, a no-blood member? Only full blood members have no distraction of divided loyalty from being half something else.
So even before they weigh whether or not he is wise enough to lead them, they must be certain that they can fully trust him because their lives will be in his hands.
When one is about to testify in open court, one must raise their right hand and swear before God and man that they will tell the truth. Is that “tell the truth, period”? Or is there more? Everyone knows there is more, because one must swear to not just tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth. Merely telling “the truth” is not good enough because that is not complete. It could and would be missing something, -something potentially vital and life changing for the person on trial for his or her life. One’s whole future could be ruined for lack of the full truth. And so it is also when it comes to leadership and the lack of full loyalty.
A half loyal leader could make choices that would destroy the future of the tribe. His being of two minds when it comes to where his strongest allegiance lies could redound to the tribes detriment and have dire consequences. So full loyalty is the first and foremost essential quality that a new leader must possess.
How could assurance be had that he would be fully loyal to the tribe and not half-loyal to a different tribe that one of his parents came from? The answer is obvious; he must be a full-blood member of the tribe having neither parent from another one.
That is directly related to who would inherit the Throne if a monarch had only two sons and one of them was from his wife the Queen, while another was from a commoner, or worse, a peasant or princess of a competing king’s nation.
The royal ascension would require a full-blood heir, -not a half-blood heir. That would especially be true if the child was the son of an adulterous wife. Her illegitimate child would be completely ineligible to be king unlike that of his majesty the King.
There would, in both cases, be a rule that would need to be followed, and it would be the common sense requirement that he who would lead the nation must be a full-blood member of the group, (the Royal family) and thereby have undivided and unquestionable loyalty to his own people.
The rule, at some point in the tribe’s history, would be written down as the Law of the tribe for all future generations to follow, and the words used to express the rule would be something like these:
1. No member, except a blood member, shall be eligible to be the Chief.
2. No member, except a native born member, shall be eligible to be the Chief.
Now put on your thinking cap and bore down into the implied nuanced subtle meaning inherent in those two possibilities. Is one or the other ambiguous? Or worse, both?
The answer is “both”. If you can’t figure out why, then you need to think deeper, just as in being a swore witness, what is needed is not just the truth, but the whole truth.
It is not enough, in the first possibility, to be merely a blood member, because that leaves wide-open the possibility of being merely a half-blood member. That of course would mean that one could possibly have a divided heart that is half loyal to another tribe. So blood alone is not enough. It must be Full-blood.
The second possibility also contains a huge ambiguity because being native-born has two meanings. Does it refer to being born of two native members of the tribe, or being born within the tribe’s territory? Which would be more important to tribe loyalty? Would a son of outsiders, though born on tribal land, be more loyal to the tribe than the son of full-blood members who happened to be born outside of the territory, especially when such a son might be the son of a Chief who also was son of a Chief (as would be the case of a child of George W. Bush if born abroad, as during a stint as a foreign ambassador)?
The answer is obvious. Loyalty does not grow from the soil, nor from boundaries, but from blood connections. The full-blood son would be acceptable to lead the tribe because his loyalty would be unquestionable, while the son of the outsiders, though “native born” would not because his loyalty would be highly questionable.
Likewise in the situation of monarchs. When King Solomon of the nation of Israel was visited by the Queen of Sheba, he may have sired a child by her and the possible son that she may have produced would be the king’s half-blood heir. But when it came time to ascend to the deceased Solomon’s throne, only his full-blood Hebrew son would be allowed. Being a native-born half-blood Prince would not be good enough to be the nation’s king.
Likewise in the situation of pure-bred canines. No dog will ever be registered by the American Kennel Association as a pure-bred unless both parents were pure-bred members of their breed. Crossing a Dalmatian with a Poodle will not produce natural pure-bred puppies of either breed. It’s all about the parents and their origins. Is its parentage from within one single breed, or was one parent from another breed? Only full-blood off-spring are eligible for certification by the association as pure-bred members of a unique breed.
Likewise in the situation of Vampires. Who is eligible to the throne of the Vampire tribe? Would a recently bitten, “man-made” new vampire be eligible? Or would it have to be one who was born a Vampire?
Obviously, it would have to be a born vampire, but again, that term is ambiguous. Our founding fathers faced that same ambiguity when deciding who would be eligible to be President. Would a new man-made (naturalized) citizen be allowed? Or only a born citizen? Oops, there’s that ambiguity again.
One might be called a born vampire, or a born citizen even if one’s father was not a vampire or a citizen. If the vampire tribe accepted such children as vampires even though they were only half-vampire, and the American individual states accepted such children as state citizens even though they were half American and half foreign, then you would have an ambiguity of terms.
Being native-born of foreigners (or even foreign-born but very young) and growing up in America would make one an American, as would having a foreign father and American mother and raised in America, but by birth one was only half-American in reality.
Such a description was never used because it might sound biased, so such children would be described as “Americans”, or “citizens at birth” (via either a native-birth location or a citizen parent), or “native-born”, and even “native born Americans”, but never “natural born Americans” because that implies something altogether different.
So throughout much of American history, one could be an American but not necessarily a citizen if born of Native American parents, (Indians) or a Native American father, or of Gypsies. Such children, even though native-born and raised, would not be citizens of the United States because they were not born of American citizens; and some native-born persons, -being born of foreign government representatives, or foreign tourists, would be neither citizens nor Americans.
To avoid ambiguity, it is necessary to add an additional qualifier to “born vampire” and “born citizen”. You must make it clear that the king of the vampires must be born a full-blood vampire, and the President of the United States a full-blood citizen.
That sounds quite discriminatory. Why would that be allowed? Because of the power of those positions and the negative potential effect that divided loyalty might produce.
So the law of ascension to the Throne, as with eligibility, would have to be clear without any ambiguity, -just as the United States Constitution is clear without any ambiguity:
“No person, except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President,”
Let’s look at the alternate ways that could have been stated, and see if they would convey that same message.
“No Vampire except a blood-born Vampire shall occupy the Throne of the Vampire King.” Clearly ambiguous, requiring a change:
“No Vampire except a full-blood Vampire shall occupy the Throne of the Vampire King.”
“No American, except one born an American shall occupy the office of the President.” That would exclude naturalized Americans, but…it would be ambiguous.
Born an American by laws or by nature? By parents or by legal permission? By blood or by borders? To remove the ambiguity requires a change:
“No American, except a full-blood American shall occupy the office of the President.”
That eliminates the possibility of mere native-birth as well as dual parental nationality. A full-blood American is not the result of the borders within which one was born, but the parents to whom one was born, -and the word “full” requires that both parents be Americans, -not just one. So that eliminates all ambiguity.
So that leaves only one question; “Does full-blood mean the same thing as “natural?” To answer, we must resort to examining things that are not of the legal realm, but are of the natural realm.
“Natural” is not a legal term but is from outside of the closed system of law which exists within the natural realm of the universe as a man-made construct. But it can’t exist in a total vacuum apart from the greater natural realm in which it was created. So understanding that, let’s consider the principle of all life and how it provides the answer to the question.
Every form of life reproduces the very same form of life, always and forever. That is because by the Law of Uniformity, parents of the same species produce off-spring of the same species as well. The off-spring are the natural product of natural reproduction. Both parents are blood members of one and only one species, and so their natural off-spring are full-blood members of that species, just like their parents.
That principle is violated as in the cross-breeding of a horse and a donkey. They, like similar nationalities, are related (like American and British) but they cannot produce a natural member of either group because the off-spring will be a sterile mule. Mules are not natural because they cannot reproduce since they are not full-blood products of the universal principle of Uniformity.
So also, the product of an American parent and a British parent is not a full-blood American nor a full-blood Brit. It is a natural member of neither nation because its parentage violates the natural principle of Uniformity. So such a child could never be qualified to be the American President.
But just such a child did become the American President (Chester Arthur) but only by concealing the truth about his origin. His British father did not become an American until many years after Chester was born. So he was not a full-blood American from birth as are 97% of American citizens, which doesn’t include the current President since he is only a half-blood American, and by American law, not even a citizen at all, -although presumed to be one because of his presumed native-birth.
I say “presumed” native birth because he told his publisher and the American people, (through it) and the Kenyan people for around nearly two decades that he was born in Kenya, the land of his ancestors through his father. So Kenya was supposedly his home for all of those years. which he maintained as his biographical narrative. Were you to travel in a Time Machine back to 2006, less than a decade ago, you would find a U.S. Senator self-described as being Kenyan at birth. At that time it meant that he was not a U.S. citizen at birth because his mother was several months too young to permit his American citizenship to pass to her son by law. So by Obama’s own narrative, he was not even an American citizen by birth.
So that leads to one of two possibilities; either he is an unconscionable liar and will say anything that makes him appear more appealing story-wise, including being born in a far-off foreign land even though that is a flat out lie, or it is actually the truth and a birth certificate exists for him in Kenya, -one which they will not allow access to.
Since all records are non-existent or sealed regarding his life, all one has to go on is his two counterfeit digital birth document images and his counterfeit Selective Service registration card. But now there is a new one besides those. It is a registration in the British Archives of a son born in Kenya to to Barack Obama (Sr.) in 1961 but under the handwritten spelling of “Burack or Biraq Obama”.
The presence of two possible spellings must mean that the information was convey verbally and taken down informally by hand and not typewriter. That means that those spellings are not the definite spellings of the name of another individual with a similar sounding name, because there being two possibilities indicates that there is nothing certain about the spelling of the name, only how it sounds.
So where he was born is a total mystery, perhaps even to him, but that would be highly unlikely since his mother would have no reason to keep such a thing secret from him. But that information is the secret that he does not want the nation to know because it would reveal something that would make him clearly ineligible to serve as President.
Another comparison to citizens with a dual background and uncertain motives would be that of a hypothetical birth on top of the border inside the DMZ between North and South Korea. The child, born of a South Korean mother and a North Korean father, would definitely be Korean by nature, just as would a similar child born on the border between the United States and the Confederate States of American be American. But to which nation would the child belong?
Just because the question can be asked does not mean that it can also be answered, or that there is any logical answer. It can’t be answered because the situation, a very real though highly unlikely possibility, would be a totally unnatural situation since there is no analogy to it in the natural world.
How is the South Korean Constitution written regarding the eligibility of the President? Would it be enough to simply require that the President be Korean and not foreign? That would not bar the possibility of a North Korean serving, -nor one born to a South Korean mother and a North Korean Father and raised in North Korean. Such a possibility would not be acceptable under any circumstance. So a more specific requirement would have to be written.
So how about the requirement that the President must be a native-born South Korean? How would that preclude a son of North Koreans which was born in a more modern South Korean hospital from being a native-born candidate? It wouldn’t, and so a more stringent requirement would have to be crafted.
How about if it said that no Korean except a South Korean shall be eligible? That would work unless South Korea had the same kind of citizenship law as the U.S., -law which allows foreigners to become naturalized citizens, -law by which the native-born son of the foreign North Koreans would be considered to be a citizen based solely on where it was born. With such law controlling citizenship, a son of North Koreans could be the President of South Korea. Again, unacceptable.
Or similarly, if the South Korean law allowed children of mixed parentage to be accepted as citizens, including a North Korean father married to a South Korean mother, how would that prevent the child from being eligible to be the ROK President? The child would be considered to be a South Korean by such law, and so limiting the presidency to only South Koreans would not have the intended effect that was sought.
So how could they prevent and exclude naturalized foreigners and native-born North Koreans, (including half-blood North Koreans) from being the leader of South Korea?
They would have to utilize wording that referred solely to those who were neither.
They would have to require that the President be no one except one born of South Korean parents, -a born South Korean, but more; -a natural South Korean and not simply one born in South Korea to parents of any nationality.
The off-spring of foreigners (North Koreans) would not be natural South Koreans because they would have no attachment to South Korea even though allowed to deliver their child in a South Korean hospital. But all of the off-spring of South Korean parents would be the natural citizens of the nation, and therefore would be trustworthy to hold the office of the President.
If Barack Obama had been born of a North Korean General, -an authoritarian anti-American supporter of North Korean supremacy who also raised him, would Barack Obama be seen in the same light?
Would not the “alienage” of his paternal background be viewed in the way that the Founding Fathers viewed British paternity?
How would that not make an enormous difference in everyone’s mind? How would anyone suppose that he could fit the label of “natural born citizen?” What would be natural about such a father versus being a natural American child of only American citizens?
Another comparison to citizens with a dual background and uncertain motives is that of the person one might get to know through a match-making service, the person who presents him or herself in a carefree unscarred way but who in fact has hidden excess baggage.
It can’t be seen and isn’t revealed until some event triggers its revelation. Only then does the truth come out that there is much more to this person than was presented, -things that were hidden in order to win another’s affection.
In the case of the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, the hidden excess baggage was a strong affinity for the religion of Islam, and its “holy ground” of Saudi Arabia, along with its king, besides a lack of respect for the gospel of Christ and Christianity in general, -plus an affinity for Socialism and gigantic government, and the Social Gospel of Collective Salvation through collective good deeds (by Government) required of the citizenry through their taxes.
That was a whole lot of excess baggage that his similarly-minded three-monkeys media didn’t permit their spotlights to shine on. And so he successfully portrayed himself as something that he was not. -namely a centrist Democrat in the same mold as Bill Clinton.
My final analogy is the Coffee analogy. The CEO of a gigantic corporation hires a new secretary and informs her that he takes coffee in the morning, and only coffee, -not juice (i.e., no foreigners). She understands,…or thinks she does, until the next moring she realizes that she has no clue as to what kind of coffee he takes.
Or maybe she’s a person who also drinks coffee in the morning and only considers coffee with cream and sugar as ingestible. So maybe she prepares him just such a cup and brings it to him. Without looking he picks it while reading something and takes a drink, only to spit it back into the cup.
What’s this crap? he asks.
“It’s your coffee, like you asked.”
“I didn’t ask for this!”
Clearly, what you have here is a failure to communicate. That is due to ambiguity. Coffee can come in different forms; from sweetened and creamed (including with artificial sweetener and artificial creamer) to the straight full-on unadulterated black fresh ground & brewed stuff.
Citizenship also comes in similar varieties, -from that of one of the Boston bombers, to that of sons and daughters of the Mayflower, or of the later American Revolution.
But in the eyes of the government, there is only one type of citizenship. All types of citizenship are deemed to be the citizenship of the natives of the nation by a fiction of law. That way there is no bias and discrimination. That’s a fundamental principle of American philosophy and law. All citizens are equal, -equal to natural citizens because by that fiction they become natural citizens.
But that legal fiction generalization was not an adequate safe-guard against unrevealed foreign attachment in the heart of a European-fathered American citizen who might be elected to the highest and most powerful office in the land though secretly loyal to a foreign monarch. And so they qualified their description of what kind of citizen the President must be. He must be more than simply a born citizen or simply a natural citizen by a fiction of law. He must be both a born citizen and a natural citizen. He must be a born natural citizen. He must be in the words of the Constitution; “a natural born citizen”.
A natural born citizen is akin to a natural born slave but on the opposite side of the coin. Did you know that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, (a twin of the U.S. Constitution) banned the import of slaves? That ended the transoceanic slave trade. That meant that no more slaves would be coming to America.
That meant that the continuance of the slave trade was wholly dependent on the production of slave children who were not born free (in Africa nor America) since their parents were property and thus their children were property also since they were what their parents were.
That reveals the view of all that children inherited that status of the parents, which usually meant the father, since he was head of the family. That meant that the children of slave fathers and mothers were natural born slaves. Natural born slaves are not half-slave and half-free (like half American and half foreigner). They were 100% full-blood born slaves, just as children of Americans are 100% full-blood citizens, meaning they are born as citizens by nature, -by the nature of their parents, -whether born on the plantation (inside U.S. borders) or outside the plantation. Regardless of where born, they are what they are by birth, and not by borders.
by Adrien Nash May 2013 http://obama–nation.com