Of Truth & Fiction; Power & Treason
October 19, 2013 3 Comments
~ What You Damn Well Better Know For Certain
A whole lot of intellectual foolishness is relied upon in the pursuit of legitimizing the presidential eligibility of an unconstitutional President, and the most fundamental element of that pursuit is seen in the elevation of English common law to a position of supremacy, -and not just in Britain but also in the United States, -the very same nation that rebelled against not only British rule but the foundation of that rule itself.
The Ground Zero of the Obama defense in attempting to “prove” that all native-born citizens are “natural born citizens” (as the Constitution requires of all Presidents) is the notion that the people of the sovereign American States did not shake off that rule but continued to embrace it in perpetuity.
That extrapolates to the subsequent presumption that therefore we are still bound by it all simply because we encoded its best features of liberty and justice into the Articles of our foundational charter (-the Constitution of the United States, and its follow-up Bill of Rights) as the law of the land by which the States bound themselves to each other and to the rule of law and the defense of personal liberty.
The notion that we are prisoners of an invisible fundamental law of another nation, (which itself contained a misinterpretation of their fundamental law) further extrapolates to the notion that the most fundamental issue or question of civilized life (“what determines one’s nationality?”) is decided in the ether of an unwritten foreign doctrine that acts like invisible handcuffs on the United States government and all of the people of our nation, -as if we, and our values, have no say in the matter. As if we wear an invisible collar that restrict our freedom and determines our fate, -by determining who or what we belong to.
In addition to that central philosophical issue is another central issue in life, and that is the authority of our universal understanding regarding the meaning of words. In other words; -the Law of Language. In order to pervert the meaning of an order, a command, a mandate, or a law so that an outcome other than its intended outcome can be effected, the meaning of words must be bastardized via an illegitimate usage of the words, -a perversion of the actual meaning, and in its place a substitute with a new meaning. We see that exemplified in Alice in Wonderland, Animal Farm and George Orwell’s 1984.
To win people’s minds and gain supremacy in the contest regarding the meaning of the presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution, both of those two major falsehoods must be combined because both are necessary elements of the deception needed to legitimizes the notion that Barack Obama was a qualified presidential candidate and thus is a constitutional President.
The assertion that a native born subject is essentially indistinguishable from “a natural born Citizen” is the language perversion that Obama’s defenders engage in, although he himself has never allowed the subject to enter the main stream media by opining on it, -calling himself merely “a native-born American” but never once describing himself by the words which are actually required of a President, namely that he be “a natural born citizen”.
Barack Obama grew up not thinking of himself as a natural born citizen of the United States but as a citizen of no particular nation since he was a citizen of multiple nations, -perhaps as many as four.
So here’s the order of the perversion: 1st. Claim that the United States is a helpless manacled descendent of an un-rejected doctrine of British monarchs that was based on the Divine Right of Kings.
2nd . Claim that the doctrine itself is defined in terms that suit their purpose, -terms that require a perversion of the language that defines its principle, -namely via changing the meaning of “Allegiance”, -defining it in terms not of LOYALTY and OBEDIENCE but territory. That results in “born in the Allegiance of the King” (as the son of an Englishman) being claimed to mean being born within the territory of the King (even if born of a foreign father).
3rd. Elevate to a position of absolute authority the perversion that the English came to adopt by conflating “native born” with “natural born” as if they are one and the same. By that perversion, the children of foreigners who were residing in England would come to not just be known as “native-born subjects” but also “natural born subjects” as if there was no difference between sons of foreigners and sons of native Englishmen.
The truth of the matter was that the difference depended on where and how they were raised. Was one raised in England to be a loyal obedient subject of the British Monarch, or raised in their father’s homeland to be a loyal obedient subject of his king?
No label existed to differentiate between such persons but those raised in England benefited from the gracious perversion of calling them the King’s “natural born subjects” because that put them on the same level playing field as the natural subjects of the King; -the sons of Englishmen.
Those perversions of language are not so arcane or nuanced as to be intellectually invisible, but the notion on which they are based is. That notion was invisible to many of the highly accomplished men of even the founder’s generation, and continued to be embraced by statesmen and jurists of every generation since.
They unwittingly embraced an idea that is quintessentially un-American. That idea is that of the continuation of the authority of “the” English common law, -or in a more limited sense, the colonial English common law in all of its permutations without any distinction between what was embraced as the official source of established common law in the individual States (in the absence of legislated state statutes) and what was rejected as un-American, and even anti-American by the States and also the Congress.
The use of the general term “the common law” is equivalent to using the term “the human race” when discussing racial matters. It is too broad and non-descript to have any solid meaning because it encompassed all “laws” of England that came from any source other than Parliament; -that means the dictates of the King, the traditional laws of the Church, and the rulings of executive magistrates and judges. Consider the Roe v Wade ruling of the Supreme Court.
There is no constitutional right to have an abortion, but because of a court ruling, it became the law of the land. So it is with common law. It is all inclusive of everything that is not codified into statute law by Parliament. And that includes all ecclesiastical law, or Anglican Church law.
That is where things get very, very fuzzy in America when discussing the English common law and its relevance to the most fundamental issue in national life: do we own the government or does the government own us? To whom do we belong, and why?
These questions absolutely must be answered because without answers we are just treasonous mutineers who rejected the rightful and righteous rule of law over us. Are we that or are we something else?.. -something from another realm, another zeitgeist, another ideology and philosophy, another fundamental attitude about what humankind is and what our position is in this world?
If we are the same as the colonial English, then our founders and forefathers were all criminals worthy of hanging. But if we are different, we need to know just how different we are, and what exactly those differences are.
The Loyalist & Slave Owner’s Declaration of Independence
“Some of us hold these truths to be self-evident, that some men are created equal (but none equal to Government) while others are inferior, (-including women and minorities). That they are endowed by their Government with certain constitutional rights, among which we don’t find a right of the People nor the sovereign States to challenge the authority of the gods of the U.S. Supreme Court over anything, nor do we find the right of the People to be sovereign over the authority of the Government and its incontestable reign, nor the right to Liberty and Property except to the degree that bureaucrats permit. That to pursue these limited rights, governments are empowered with supreme authority over all souls within their jurisdiction (with the usual exceptions allowed for the ruling elite)”…etc.
Death and the Ultimate Government Power
What is perhaps the most egregious example of the unlimited authority of Government in the USSA? It is the estate tax, aka the Death Tax.
The act of dying and being alive no more is a highly taxable event as if it were a financial transaction that the Government has an absolute right to TAX regardless of the fact that the assets that one built up over their lifetime have already been taxed to the fullest extent. So it is a “tax” on what remains after already paying one’s taxes, -and not a real tax but a gigantic confiscation unjustified by anything in legal philosophy.
Or so it would seem until you think about it. It has to be justified by something but that something is something that no Government would ever admit. In thinking about what that is one reaches the inescapable conclusion that there exists an unspoken conviction that actually Government owns everything that you own and is only allowing you to “borrow” it while you are alive.
How is the truth of that revealed? By the fact that there is no principle by which Government can tax that which has been maximally taxed already, nor any principle of limitation on how high of a percentage of assets that confiscation is allowed to rise to. There’s no government wizard that can articulate a justifying principle because one does not exist.
That reveals one inescapable implication. Government is the ultimate owner of all things, and at death its authority is manifested if you owned in your life more wealth than it is willing to allow you to pass to your progeny without major confiscation (which is actually a form of theft of previously tax property). But it is not theft if the Government is the true owner of that property and not you, the pseudo-sovereign citizen.
How is this made clear? By the fact that the Government asserts the supreme authority to decide how much of its property your children will not be forced to surrender to it. In other words, it decides the amount, the percentage of estimated wealth that your heirs must return to its ownership.
It is not theft if it is merely retaking what belonged to it all along. If you go to your neighbors yard and return to yours with a shovel, it is not theft if it is a shovel that you own and merely loaned to him. So it is with the taking of accumulated wealth of American citizens.
That can’t be called a tax because death is not a taxable transaction, nor is post-taxation confiscation describable as taxation. The authority to confiscate wealth after life has ended is solely legitimized by one unalienable right, and that is the position that Government owns everything that you think you own but is refraining from taking most of it until you die.
After that it’s free to assert its ownership right.
There is no philosophical rule that it must wait until then because the only rule is that the property that you think you own is actually the property of the Government, and it is its unchallengeable right to take it whenever it desires and to take it in whatever amount that it desires because it is the true owner. That is the philosophical position of the United States Government because that is its law and policy and they are based on an unstated principle, -the one you now understand.
It can be further illustrated via the example of the counterpart of death, which is birth. By the principle of total ownership of all property by Government, a portion of a couple’s savings or wealth could be confiscated due to the trigger of the “taxable event” of birth. A Birth Tax. How would that be different in principle from a Death Tax? It wouldn’t. [The Chinese would probably love it if they could get away with instituting it. Actually, they might have one.]
It’s the same principle but no one would go along with it because we are not all brain-washed enough yet. It’s too Orwellian. Yet, like the frog in the slowing heated pan of water, we are just too relaxed with the Death Tax to realize its true nature, and what could be around the corner, -as a possibility. But birth is the same sort of life event that is justified as a reason for imposing a huge confiscation on citizens without any stated moral, spiritual, or Natural Law principle to defend it. It is 100% Marxism. The Government owns everything.
You, the “sovereign citizen” own nothing in the final analysis because Government is the owner of all things, and its minions feel better about themselves when they exercise some restraint regarding when the government takes what it wants and how much it takes of what has cost you in effort, sweat, sleep, freedom, and time to acquire, -property that is supposedly your unalienable right but which, in the eyes of the Statists, you do not ultimately own.
That is now a primary element of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which allows the military and federal departments to confiscate any and all property that they want to have in order to deal with a “national emergency” of an undescribed nature, included all food products, raw materials, manufactured goods, and stored water.
Equally bad is the authorization to detain, imprison, and interrogate anyone for an unlimited length of time without right of council or visitors or bail, and all based merely on suspicion that you might have had some connection to people who might seek to do harm to American citizens or property.
Now ask yourself, with this as the attitude of the elite oligarchy in power in Washington, is it really surprising the extent to which secret elements the U.S. Government hid and protected Nazi war criminals after the collapse of the Third Reich? Or conducted secret radiological, chemical, and disease experiments on American citizens without their knowledge or consent, including regions of cities?
The attitude of our government towards its citizens is not much less authoritarian than that of Hitler’s Government, but they manage to keep it hidden in the basement until the basement door is opened and curious freedom-loving minds peer-into the darkness of such things as the fine-print of the NDAA and the Health Care Act and which embody the authority to turn us all into serfs on the Government plantation.
But I digress.
If humans could clone genital-less babies (but not genderless) in giant test tubes, 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 native-birth 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, and competitive, while some will grow up to be round and soft and gentle and affectionate. They clearly are of different stock. 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 and the United States Constitution.
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 of babies 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 98% +/- 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 chaining his authority to the limitations of the Constitution, including the advise and consent authority of the Senate, and the power of only Congress to declare war.
They also limited who could be the President in order to avoid treachery. When you entrust someone with a very powerful weapon (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 sister 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 fathered by and raised by a foreigner.
You can’t know what such a person’s values are because you can’t know what he or she was raised to believe in, and what attachments may have been cultivated. So the President had better be a native-born son of American soil, right?
What does that guarantee? A native-born son could be raised in an unfriendly foreign nation by an unfriendly foreign father and mother, so it guarantees nothing. To avoid that, the President must have a background that prevents such a possibility, and that is accomplished by only allowing children 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,..”. Article II, Section I U.S. Constitution
Can anyone interpret that to mean whatever they want it to mean? Here’s an answer I came across recently:
“a staunch constitutionist would be careful to remember Joseph Story’s admonition that acceptable constitutional construction…
‘can never abrogate the text;
it can never fritter away its obvious sense;
it can never narrow down its limitations;
-it can never enlarge its natural boundaries.’” (the word “natural” is limited to its natural meaning)
But that true and important admonition has been buried by constitutionally treasonous actions of commission and omission by members of both political parties, and, as a follow-up justification, the meaning of the Constitution’s words have been utterly bastardized in the defense of an unconstitutional, ineligible President.
That is supported by equating CITIZENS with subjects; -equating “natural born CITIZEN” with the bastardized “natural born subject” which equates “natural subject” with “native-born subject” (which is an alien-fathered subject) thus arriving at equating “native-born citizen” with “natural born citizen”.
The falsity of that equation is seen in the example of a question: Would you equate a “natural born beauty” with “a native-born beauty”? Or, a “natural born athlete” with “a native-born athlete?” I rest my case.
The wording of the presidential eligibility clause could have been done differently, but no change would have resulted in the exact same meaning because different words have different meanings or they are ambiguous. It could have been written as: “No citizen except a native-born citizen shall be eligible…” Or, “No citizen except a citizen by place-of-birth shall be eligible…Or, “No citizen except a native-born natural citizen shall be eligible…” Or, No citizen except a native-born citizen or a natural born citizen shall be eligible…” Or, “Naturalized citizens shall not be eligible to the office of President.”
There are three other ways it could have been worded and yet still mean the same thing as the wording of the Constitution, and they are: “No citizen except a born natural citizen shall be eligible…” Or, “No citizen except a citizen by patrilineal descent shall be eligible…Or, “No citizen except a citizen by right of blood shall be eligible to the office of the President. Barack Obama is not such a citizen, -he was born not being such a citizen and can never become one.
by Adrien Nash Sept. 2013