Comparing Opposite Forms of Citizenship

Life is confusing enough, but language makes it even more confusing because of ambiguity and logical inconsistency, especially regarding the subject of citizenship.

The opposite of life is…?  Death.
The opposite of birth is…?  Death.
Therefore life = birth?, -and birth = life?

The opposite of an indentured servant (or serf) is a freeman.
The opposite of a slave is a freeman.
Therefore a slave is an indentured servant?

The opposite of a native-born natural citizen is a foreign-born natural citizen.  False, they’re not opposites.
The opposite of a native-born legal citizen (with immigrant parents) is a native-born natural citizen.  False also.
The opposite of a native-born legal citizen is a foreign-born natural citizen.  True -nothing in common but citizenship
The opposite of a native-born natural citizen is a foreign born legal citizen (one US citizen parent).  Almost True
The opposite of a natural citizen is a naturalized citizen.   True.
The opposite of a naturalized citizen is a natural citizen.   True
The opposite of a domestically-raised citizen is a foreign-raised citizen.   True.
The opposite of a foreign-born natural citizen is a foreign-born naturalized citizen?  Not fully true.
The opposite of a foreign-born-&-raised natural citizen is a domestically raised naturalized citizen.  Almost completely true.  Foreign birth location is what they have in common.
The opposite of a domestically born-&-raised legal citizen (with immigrant parents) is a domestically raised natural citizen or naturalized citizen.  False.  All are raised in America.
The opposite of a domestically-born but foreign-raised legal citizen (with immigrant parents who returned to their homeland) is a foreign-born but American-raised natural citizen. True.  Nothing in common but citizenship.

How does a half-American, half-Indonesian United States citizen who was mostly-raised in a quasi-American environment far, far out in the middle of the Pacific ocean, in the most socialistic state in the union (with welfare benefits for non-workers totaling the highest of all at about $60,000 per year) and a history as an independent sovereign nation & people who were crushed by American power, -how does such an individual fit into the picture of being born and raised as an American-loving patriot son of American soil and up-bringing? What “American values” were ever inculcated into his psyche when he was raised by socialists and mentored by a Communist, and steeped in reverence for a religion which basically wants all Americans to either surrender or die?  (The word “Islam” means submission)

You can claim that he is a U.S. citizen.  You can claim that he is an American.  You can claim that he was born in Hawaii, but you cannot prove any of those things because of the truth about actual legitimate document certification, -the nature of his mind-set, -his up-bringing and college indoctrination, and the fine-points of American law and Supreme Court rulings.  The “Devil” truly is in the details of his life and background, and he and his ilk do not want those details made public.

Why not?  Because Americans have been deluded for a very long time by the belief that the basis of your  citizenship is the location of your birth rather than the parents that created you.  We’ve all grown up feeling that we were blessed to have been born in America as American citizens and not in some horrible third world country.  But in fact, we are not Americans because we were born in America, but because we were born of Americans.  It didn’t matter where we were born.  It only mattered to whom we were born.

If we were born of American parents anywhere in the world, then we were born as Americans, -as natural born citizens of our nation.  That is our law, and yet it is recognized by very few because of the conceptual delusions that are ingrained in our culture and thinking.

We also think that slavery and indentured servitude are outlawed in the United States, and yet that is equally false.  They are still perfectly legal and that fact is made clear as day by the actual words of the 13th Amendment.  They are merely restricted to certain conditions, namely as punishment for crimes for which one has been duly convicted.  Even that limitation is not applicable to the federal government and its territories, -only the States are limited.   How can that be?  Simple, sloppy construction of thought and language resulting in misconceptions and/ or ambiguity.

Who is a natural born citizen?  A.  Any native-born citizen whether a legal citizen or a natural citizen.

B.  A native-born natural citizen only.

C.  Any natural citizen.

What does the word “born” relate to?  Everyone is born but not everyone is born a citizen.

What does the word “natural” relate to?  Everyone is natural since they are not mechanical, but not everyone is a citizen naturally since some are a citizen by law and not natural inheritance.

In addition, all citizens are natural citizens by the American fiction of law known as the doctrine of citizenship equivalency.  By it, in the eyes of the government, all citizens are equal because all citizens are natural citizens, including those who have been natural-ized.

So how do you go about excluding from the power of the presidency all of those who were made into natural citizens after having been born and possibly raised in a foreign land as foreign citizens, -along with those who were born in America to foreigners?

You have to require something more than simply saying that any natural citizen can be President [as long as they’re male, white, educated, of good moral character, and northern European descent, -and mature enough, besides being a resident of the United States for 14 years].
You have to require that they be born as a natural citizen and not merely made a natural citizen by a fiction of law.    They must be natural citizens by birth, -be born as natural citizens, -be natural born citizens.

Barack Ozamba is not such a citizen, -he is in fact not an actual American citizen at all according to American law.  But he is considered to be a citizen because of a century-old brain-dead misconception that all babies delivered on U.S. soil are magically born as American citizens.  That is certainly the delusion that is embraced by the entire government / legal-consensus establishment, but it is not founded on actual American law.  \

By actual American law we not only are not under the reign of a legal President, -one who is a natural born citizen as the Constitution requires, but one who is not even a legal citizen.


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”.

One Response to Comparing Opposite Forms of Citizenship

  1. arnash says:

    If humans could clone genital-less babies, how could you tell them apart by sex? Let’s see, the girls have nipples while the boys have….the same! So then they all must be identical? Analogy: All babies born in America have that fact in common, just like all babies have nipples, but that does not make them all the same. Some babies will grow up to be strong and brawny, rough & tumble, competitive, while some will grow up to be round and soft and gentle and affectionate. They clearly are of different stock just as native-born citizens may grow up to be of a different stock, -with some being strongly pro-America while others…not so much.

    Although nearly all babies born in America are literally identical in every legal way regardless of the national origin and citizenship of their parents, life doesn’t end in infancy. It’s a continuum of evolving awareness, and absorption of ideas and values and preferences and attachments.
    The founding fathers and framers of the United States Constitution weren’t concerned about disloyal or treasonous babies but about native-born grown adults with values that are not American values, and attachments that give a higher value to a foreign monarch or power center than to American society. Hence they didn’t view foreigner-fathered male babies as less worthy or less trustworthy because all babies are the same, but it is what they grow up to become that could not be taken lightly. The vast majority would be raised by American fathers and instilled with American values, but where was the guarantee that the sons of foreigners would also? There was no such guarantee.
    When 97% +/- of the sons of Americans constituted a pool of sufficient size to produce a qualified and capable American president, why take the risk of allowing sons of foreigners to also hold the reins of authority over the United States Army when that risk could very easily be avoided altogether?
    Well, they were very cautious and learned men who knew very well the nature of humans and ambition, and the history that they had produced, and they wanted to avoid such a history since it had produced war and wreckage all across Europe. So they limited the powers of the President by tying his authority to the limitations of the Constitution, including the advise and consent authority of the Senate.
    They also limited who could be the President in order to avoid treachery. When you entrust someone with a very powerful bomb (like a hydrogen bomb) you damn well better know that you can trust them with your life, -like you trust your own twin brother or parents. When you entrust someone with authority over *all* of the bombs, you damn well better have no doubts whatsoever about their loyalty to their country, but that assurance is missing if one was raised by a foreigner. You can’t know what his values are because you can’t know how he was raised and what he believes and what his attachments are. So he had better be a native-born son of America, but not just a native-born son because a native-born son could be raised in an unfriendly foreign nation by an unfriendly foreign father and mother.
    To avoid that, the President must have a background that prevents such a possibility, and that is accomplished by only allowing sons of Americans to be the American President. What could be simpler or more reasonable? That is what John Jay, the president of the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court strongly suggested to the president of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington, and that is what he and the convention wrote into the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land. “No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”

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 )

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: