Martians, Koreans, Kangaroos, and Natural Citizens

Everyone at the forefront of the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President pushes a theory about what the Constitution’s words mean regarding a necessary qualification to be President; those words being “natural born citizen.”

Those who adhere to a United States transmutation of the bastardized definition of what is a British “natural born subject” hold, like the royal dictator, that mere place of birth within his borders was sufficient to legitimize calling the child of foreign  parents a “natural” subject of the King regardless of the fact that such a child was born of aliens and not Englishmen who were real natural subjects.

By their warped thinking, you can call the child of aliens “natural citizens” of the United States if born within U.S. borders, thereby tying a child’s nationality solely to the same doctrine as that of the British Crown; -the Divine Right of Kings, making him, i.e., Obama, eligible to be President.  Thus place-of-birth supposedly determines one’s nationality, as well as the nature of that nationality, whether born of Americans or born of aliens.

The problem with that view is that place-of-birth has no place of any kind in natural membership.  As a consequence, they must assert falsely that all citizenship is government citizenship via an established tradition that was slavishly retained even after we over-threw the entire monarchy system and the principles by which it was legitimized.   In doing that, they had to throw out the baby with the bath water by rejecting the principle of natural membership as applicable in the United States.

They based that absurdity on a Supreme Court ruling that did not related to the natural citizens of America at all but solely to children of immigrants, -foreigners.  They then took its opinion and declared that what applied to about 3% of the population therefore applied also to the other 97% who were born of American parents and not aliens.
The baby that got thrown out was the principle of natural membership.  It is a universal principle that within its parameters has no limits or boundaries.  Its parameters do not include the membership that is gained by effort and achievement, including clubs of all kinds whose admission standards are based on criteria such as accomplishment or wealth.
Place of birth is not one of the criteria of natural membership in regard to human or animal  relationships and societies except in the minds of those who adopted it as an imposed criteria.

No animal or human that ever lived was born as a member of its parents’ group and species because of where it was born.  It’s nature and membership are, and always have been, organic and automatic by the immutable laws of life.

An example is the Kangaroo.  Is an infant kangaroo a member of the kangaroo family because it was born in Australia?  But all kangaroos are born in Australia so that fact must be central in determining its species, right?
That couldn’t be more absurd.  Where kangaroos are born is merely incidental to the concurrent fact that they are the product of kangaroo parents.  Two facts: one is determinative and the other is irrelevant.  But some argue that the law of natural membership doesn’t exist, or doesn’t apply in a sociological & political relationship fashion as it does with humans in regard to their family membership.

But as I’ve stated, the principle has no boundaries.  Every creature belongs to the family or genetic group into which it is born via its blood connection to parents who are members.  That principle extends and adapts upward in defining membership in tribes, countries, nations, and species.
Such membership is natural membership.
Can that principle be tested?  If a kangaroo is born outside of Australia, is it born as a member of a different species?  As everyone with a brain can testify, there are no exceptions to the rule.  Parents of one species or breed do not produce off-spring of another species or breed regardless of birth location.  So the principle of natural membership is without exceptions, -or exemptions if referring to human membership in non-biological groups.

But the belief that place-of-birth determines the nationality of the natural members of a society or country or nation is reliant on exceptions and exemptions because by its standards, they need to exist.  I speak of children born to foreign ambassadors or invading armies.  Place of birth is not the criteria for them being deemed to not be subjects of the king of the land wherein they reside even though they are foreigners on his land.

How do they explain that exemption to the rule?  They can’t because the principle by which they are exempt is not a part of their theory of place-of-birth being supreme.  Instead it is a part of the principle of natural membership which they are hell-bent on denying.  By it, such exceptions are not members of the society of the nation where they are resident.  They are aliens and so they cannot produce children who are natural members of a society to which they do not belong, and may even be trying to destroy.  It’s all about membership. Such children belong to a foreign group so their membership is not determined by where they are born.

The thinking of most people is muddied by the perceived situation of American births being akin to the reality of North Korean births.  What is that situation?  Like in America with Americans being born in America, North Koreans are born in North Korea.  But what is not stated in that simplistic and over-simplified statement is the fact that the reality of American births is not accurately described while that of North Koreans is.

What is that reality?  It is that many American are not born in the United States because five  million Americans live beyond U.S. borders, while virtually all North Koreans are born inside  North Korea. (unless they have some married ambassadors outside of their closed nation.  But why would they need them?  They would need diplomats and nuclear technicians to deal with their cohorts in places like Iran, but where else?)

Even though it can be said that essentially 100% of North Koreans are born in North Korea, that fact is still not the reason that they are PRNK citizens.  Their birth location is not the reason, but their PRNK parents are.  Children born of North Koreans are North Koreans.

Mission to Mars

If a North Korean manned mission to Mars shuttled 25 married couples to the red planet, and they bore children there, what nationality would those children have after a return flight to earth after 10 years of life on Mars?
Would they be considered Martians or North Koreans?  They weren’t born in North Korea but so what?  Would their parents’ nation consider them to be aliens, -foreigners, stateless persons?  Inhuman?

If the Mars crew was composed of Americans, and some of the women were impregnated by Martian men, what would be the nature of their off-spring if born in the United States after returning to Earth?  Would they be natural born Earthlings?  Would they be natural born humans?  Would they be natural born Americans?  Or something else…-something different?

Barack Obama is just such an alien-like child.  His father was not a North American.  He was not an American citizen.  He was not an America immigrant.  He was a non-immigrant alien, and as such, even if one considers his off-spring to be blessed with U.S. citizenship thanks to the 14th Amendment, one cannot defend nor logically propose the idea that such a person could father a wholly natural member of American society, and a wholly natural born citizen of the United States anymore than Earthlings could give birth to natural Martians or Martians could give birth to natural humans.

If a Martian couple, with the female pregnant, were to come to Earth with the crew, and she gave birth in America, would her child be a natural born American citizen, or something else?  According to our insane national policy it would an American citizen, but that would not make it a natural citizen because that is something that law can’t produce.

Only nature can do that via parents who are members of the country and nation when their child is born. Only the Law of natural membership can produce natural members, -not human law.  All it can do is produce legal members, and that is all that Obama is.

Not being a natural born citizen means he is an unconstitutional President, -a fact well known to him and to the Dumocrat leadership that selected him and pretended the issue did not even exist.  The Constitution did not even exist for that matter, and they could do anything that they wanted just as long as their choir, the presstitute media backed him and remained silent and complicit.

Folks, this is what it looks like when the inmates are running the asylum, -when the foxes are guarding the hen-house, when traitors within take over your country.  They’ve succeeded because after generation of dumbing down the population in government schools, people are so ignorant of all civic matters that anything can be put past them.  And it was.

by Adrien Nash  August 2013

PS  The Dandelion Analogy

The “common knowledge” that everyone  assumes is true (based on the fact that almost everyone that most people know is a natural American citizen born in America) leads to the certainty that they are Americans naturally by being born in America.  That is not illogical nor irrational, but it does not follow that therefore it must be true.

   General rules based on assumptions based on observed facts are usually correct, but can also be the opposite of what is correct.  Everyone assumes that it’s a rule that if you’re born in  America then you must be an American citizen because that is the common everyday apparent fact of life.  But such “rules” always fail to take into account the bigger picture, -the picture in which at the peripheral there are exceptions to “the rule”.

   An analogy that just presented itself to me while gardening is that of the rule that you always pull out the yellow blossoms of dandelions  before they have a chance to turn into wind-driven spore balls.  That is something that you always want to do, and which I’ve always done, -until just now.  I came across an exception which I had never seen before and was unaware of.  My general rule promptly was seen to not be absolute & never-to-be-broken.

   What broke the rule and disproved it?  The was a big fat bubble bee on top of the yellow blossom.  A dogmatic parent who insists that their little children always pull out the yellow blossoms would be requiring adherence to a rule that unexpectedly has an exception, and ignoring it would have a very bad downside.

   So it is with the assumption that all children born in America are Americans, no exceptions.  Well, there are exceptions, and two of them are openly acknowledged by the purveyors of the “rule”.

   They are children born to foreign ambassadors or to foreign invaders.  Now when did God himself say that there are two and only two exceptions?  Where’s the stone that that is written on?

   The authorities that they quote never say that there are only two exceptions.  They merely say that there are two exceptions, -but no imposition of the word “only” unless they are a non-authority misquoting a more ancient authority.  Such misquotes are the result of presuming something not in evidence.

  There is in fact a third exception, and it is the children of foreign visitors with no permanent residence in America nor the permission to establish one.  They are merely guests of the government whose home is back in their own nation.

   A child born to them belongs to them and they belong to their foreign homeland where they live and will raise their child.  So how exactly is such a child an American?  In what sense would it be a member of American society?

   It isn’t and therefore is the third exception to “the rule” that all children born in America are American citizens.  Only our government is too brain-dead to even recognize that there is a problem with the rule, and so the children of every sort of evil person can force the U.S. government to consider his child an American citizen by forcing it to follow its own….its own….law?  No, there’s no law that says they are.  Supreme Court ruling?  No, there’s not such ruling.  Federal policy?  Yes, there is such a policy, and it has been around for so long that entire generations have grown up and died thinking all along that it was not a policy but an actual law.


   It is what is known as “institutionalized error”, and such errors are rarely corrected, especially when there are loud and strong forces opposing it and few or none fighting to correct it.

   And so everyone goes about their merry way assuming that it is an American law that Barack Obama is an American citizen, when that assumption is based on nothing but erroneous presumption.



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”.

2 Responses to Martians, Koreans, Kangaroos, and Natural Citizens

  1. Hi Adrian Nash!!!

    I did a post today on your article, and here is something that you may find interesting. It is a quote from an 1898 American Law Review article about the Wong Kim Ark case:

    But the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit, and that the rule of international law does not furnish, ex proprie vigore [of its own force], the sole and exclusive test of citizenship of the United States, however superior it may be deemed to the rule of the common law. It further does not give sufficient weight, in interpreting the 14th Amendment, to the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.

    With respect to the superiority of the international law doctrine over that of the common law, it may be conceded that while the rule of international law, that the political status of children follows that of the father, and of the mother, when the child is illegitimate, may be more logical and satisfactory than that of the common law, which makes the mere accidental place of birth the test, still if the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of the common law doctrine, it is difficult to see what valid objection can be raised thereto, nor how the subject of citizenship of the United States can be deemed to be governed by the rule of international law in the absence of an express adoption of that rule, any more than it could be governed by the law of France, or of China.

    While this doesn’t trump,or replace, WKA, it does provide some perspective on the “parentage beats place” argument. Other people agree with your assessment, and did even back then, but also recognize the effect of WKA, and the actual status of the law. I did the original piece on this document about 2 years ago, and there is a link to the whole 8 pages on today’s post.

    FWIW, you have the most readable Birther website. Not that I agree with many of your opinions, but it is readable and different. And a lot smarter than the rest of them.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  2. Adrien Nash says:

    The beauty of that sort of comment is in how perfectly common sensical it seems, but behind its appearance of reasonableness are many serious errors of perceptions and conception. The author begins with a horrible misrepresentation of what the United States is : “the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit,”.

    That is flat out treasonous to We the People of the United States. The People are the sovereign power and the government serves them. That is why the government, as servant of the People, cannot adopt a law or policy that is inherently opposed to the People, its master.

    It can adopt policies in regard to other nations that are in the national interest, but that doesn’t include policies of the most personal sort, include membership in one’s own family, church, community, State, or nation. The only policies regarding membership that the servant can enact are in regard to aliens (and their children) who wish to live in the United States, or to become American citizens, or who are born to aliens in the United States.

    That is where the government’s authority begins and ends. It has no power over the national membership of the nation’s natural members. Their membership is above all laws, untouchable, irrevocable, automatic, and immutable.

    “the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.”

    “The doctrine” was the autocratic tyrannical doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings which gave his royal highness supreme and complete authority and power over all souls born within his domain.
    That doctrine, along with his royal ass, was given the boot on the day that the founders openly declared themselves to be traitors to the King and his doctrines of domination. From thenceforth they adopted a new doctrine, and it was the doctrine of citizenship, not subjectship. And even more than that, the doctrine of citizenship equivalency.

    ” if the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of the common law doctrine,” That “IF” is as huge as the Pacific Ocean! He does not and cannot substantiate it with anything other than the obfuscating blather of the long-winded and widely detoured explanation and exploration of the court in its Wong opinion. The court made fallacious assertions that were unsupported by historical reality and yet they are required to stand because two swing justices chose to go along with them.
    But as I’ve stated a thousand times, their benevolent holding doesn’t help Obama because he is not the son of an immigrant father and therefore the 14th Amendment does not apply to him. He was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but even if he were, he would still be ineligible to be President because native-born sons of aliens are not natural American citizens.
    That has been make crystal clear in the exposition I wrote today, titled: NATURALIZATION: The Key to Understanding Presidential Eligibility. I’ll release it on Tuesday.

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: