The Seed of Natural National Membership

NATURAL MEMBERSHIP comes in different forms.  The primary form is family membership.  It’s followed by clan or “greater family” membership, followed by tribal membership where applicable, followed by town or city membership and guild membership, -all of which are inherited.

At the far end of the spectrum is national membership, -one of the best examples of which is seen in Japan.  When a people become one, whether ancient Greek or American, they form a nation with a national government.  We call national membership in a nation “citizenship”.

Natural membership in a nation is just like the other forms, -it also is inherited, -transmitted from parents to child as a form of political or national DNA.  One’s “political nature” is the result of being the product of parents with political or national natures, -usually the same nature.  In rare cases they have different natures, -or the same nature but a foreign country.  They cannot produce a natural member of any nation except their own nation which they have left though still remaining as members, albeit from afar.

Those who claim that natural membership doesn’t exist believe in either of two similar dogmas.  One claims that “natural born citizen” only means native-born person, while the other claims that citizen parents are also required, but neither follow the clear pattern of nature’s natural membership rule.  The rule is seen in families and in plants & animals.  I’ve written plenty about that but with the exception of plants.  So plants need to be addressed as a direct analog of natural national membership.

My apple trees grow along my property line.  If I remove some seeds from an apple, and plant it and it grows, -what kind of plant will it produce?  Something other than an apple tree?  Of course not.  But if my neighbor has orange trees on his property and one of my over-hanging apples falls and produces a sapling on his land, will its nature be that of an orange tree instead of an apple tree?
The answer applies directly to the issue of the political nature of children.  Are they not born with the same political nature as the parents who produced them?  They are a product of beings that have a certain national membership which is a part of who they are or what their global identity is.

That which they produce comes into the world with that same nature and membership.  It makes no different where the seed falls and sprouts.  All that matters is the kind of tree it came from.

Similarly, it matters not at all where one’s child is born if the parents are both members of one nation.  Their child will be born also being a member of their nation.  That is a natural right, -the right of belonging, -firstly to the parents, then to their society, then to their nation and no other nation except as an unwarranted gift (as is the case with the US and Canada regarding native-born children of outsiders).  Canadian law bestowed Canadian citizenship to the child of an American women and a Cuban man who were living there at the time of delivery.  He may be the President of the U.S. one day (in violation of the Constitution).  I speak of Ted Cruz.

But those who espouse the doctrine that citizen parents are incapable of producing a natural member of their own nation if the mother’s womb is not within U.S. boundaries when her child exits, believe that their child would be born as an alien, -the equivalent of an orange being produced from an apple seed because it didn’t sprout on the right side of my property line.

They believe that their child would have to be “natural-ized” by a naturalization statute.  It would have to be made into a natural citizen by permission of the all-mighty government because it was born as an alien due simply because of abstract, non-biological political borders that have nothing to do with natural membership which is from the natural realm while invisible borders are from the legal, man-made, invented, conceptual, conquest-determined, intangible realm.  Nothing from that realm is natural, including citizenship.

~     ~     ~     ~     ~


Mark Steyn
December 15, 2013
~it’s because of Peter O’Toole that I never dismissed the Obama-birther stuff out of hand. O’Toole had two valid, government-issued birth certificates — one stating he was born in Connemara in Ireland in June 1932, the other stating he was born in Leeds in England in August 1932. He had no idea which one was correct, but, being in showbiz,
And these are two of the oldest, most reliable birth registries on the planet.
Mark Steyn being a Birther is news to me. I can’t recall ever hearing that he was skeptical of Obama’s linage. Further, I’m not surprised that the rats at Conservative Media Industries will all want to claim they were on the right side of history when the shit hits the fan. Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly, Malkin, Coulter, and Levin can all kiss my ass. They did nothing for years as Obama destroyed America. I fully expect they will be the first to claim they brought Obama down single-handedly.

Yeah, It’s one thing to be threatened by your boss to stay off a topic and then quite another to be ridiculed and Alinskied by so called conservatives like beck, coulter o’riley and levin. They can all kiss my a** twice !

Couldn’t have said it any better, I called Levin’s show about two years ago, he just yelled over me and wouldn’t permit any kind of discussion of “natural born citizen” or what would happen in the case everything came out about this being true.
I suspect he doesn’t have the first damn idea what “natural born citizen” means, yet he claims to be a Constitutional Scholar.
Pretty damn ironic, when you can’t even delineate the three irrefutable and deliberate criteria for being POTUS.

Louis Gamber
Amazing how O’reilly is miffed about the fake interpreter, but totally avoids a Constitutional crisis unfolding before his and America’s eyes!
Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, Coulter, and Levin are all stupid!

13 Year Veteran Cop Discovered to Be Illegal Alien…

When Figueroa was hired to the state police force, she submitted a birth certificate from Texas and a driver’s license and high school diploma from California, Graves said.
Still determining if she should be fired.

H. G. Wells’ War of the Worlds used the radio as a medium to ‘express’ his ‘art’ to the world. No disclaimer was given to the public before the Halloween hoax aired. Even throughout the night as reports of trauma and terror occurred, no disclaimers were given to the public. When the sun rose, thousands of innocent people realized that they unknowingly played the leading role in Well’s ‘art project’ and were duped without knowing it. For some, the unintended consequences of the hoax were devastating; mass hysteria, panic, terror,trauma and suicide. In the light of day, people saw clearly that what they had heard all night long could not have possibly been true and everyone was amazed that so many had been so easily fooled by the radio.
Moon-Glo Drive-In Cruisers Fox mentioned the “accident” for about two sentences, the day after it happened. They DID say Fuddy was “the person who released the Obama birth certificate”, but after that one mention? Nothing. Apparently it’s in that large list of Barry Soetoro topics that Fox employees are told never to mention….birth certificate….place of birth…real father…Bill Ayers….ghost written “autobiography”…gay…Reggie Love…fake marriage…prop kids… Jeremiah Wright….reason for having to surrender law license… Larry Sinclair…Bill Gwatney… Alex Okrent.. Donald Young…Nate Spencer.. Larry Bland… the Dead Pool. On and on. Big list.
A.R.Nash writes:

Judge Arthur Schack is an idiot.  How in the world can he not be aware that the nick-name of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause is “the Naturalization Clause”?  It’s the first thing your read when you look it up on Wikipedia. Geeze!

And again, how can he be a judge and not know that naturalization does not have to involve any naturalization process?  The Vietnamese refugees, if memory serves me, were mass naturalized by Congress.  That was over 100,000 souls.

And what does he think “naturalization” means?  It means “made natural”, i.e., made into a natural citizen just like one born of citizens.  The United States does not have any naturalized citizens because all citizens are natural citizens by our fiction of law known as the doctrine of citizenship equality.  Natural-ized means made natural.  Citizen-ized means made a citizen.  The U.S. doesn’t have a citizenization practice that involves anything other than natural citizenship.

“Thus, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage.”

What stupidity!  And if the parents were sovereign Native Americans, or foreign diplomats?  Saying “anyone” is an asinine oversimplification, but then some people have overly-simple minds.
“irrespective of parentage”?  What exactly IS respective of parentage? Answer: Natural citizenship.  What is natural citizenship dependent on?  American parents.  Birth is everything, iow; birth parentage.  The momentary incidental location of birth is irrelevant to natural citizenship.

Just ask any Native American if they are considered aliens to their parent’s tribe if not born on the reservation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
“First, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) …a ‘natural born citizen’ is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens,”

That is bass ackwards. Yoda says: “The cart before the horse puts such wording.  True the reserve is.”

Correct & True: “A child born in a country to parents who are its citizens is a natural born citizen.”

Reversing the two segments completely alters the meaning of the statement and morphs it into a different statement.  In the correct order, the thing being described is “a child born…”  Such a child is labeled an nbc.

In the reverse order that changes and instead nbc is what is being described and it is labeled as “a child born…”

A key word is the word “a”, as in “a child”, -as opposed to “only children…”
You can correctly say that all children born…are nbc, but that only means what it means.  It does NOT mean that ONLY children born…are nbc. (Not all pure-bred dogs are <i>registered</i> pure-breds.)

NBCs are not distinguished from citizens of the U.S.  It’s the opposite.  Citizens are distinguished from NBCs because mere citizens lack something that NBCs have (American parents) but NBCs lack nothing that mere citizens have (other than <i>legal</i> citizenship.

The citizenship of NBCs does not emanate from “legal” Law but from Natural Law. It pre-dates, supersedes, underlies and surrounds the puny realm of human law which is established upon it.

While it’s vital to understand why Obama is not an American citizen by American law, it is also important to understand that he is considered to be an American citizen based on the entrenched institutionalized error of the Justice Department that goes back to Attorney General John Griggs in 1898-99 when he “interpreted” the import of the Wong decision, but did so ignorantly or dishonestly.

His executive order for what the U.S. citizenship policy would be going forward incredibly included those born in the U.S. but NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government (visitors, tourists, temporary workers, scholars, entertainers, illegals, etc.)

Once his policy was disseminated to the State Department it became the official policy of the United States and a form of de facto law.  But it is not real law.  Sanctions against Iran were at first just like that; simply policy with no force of Congressional statute.  Griggs’ policy has in a sense been codified but not by Congress nor the Supreme Court because the full meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” has never been “decided” by the high court.

Thus the codified language is entirely ambiguous and the policy could be changed by the A.G. overnight -making Obama an alien not just by law but also by policy.  AN

a.r.nash writes:

There is no such class as “citizen of the United States”, just as there is no such class as “human beings” (in juxtaposition to inhuman beings).  There cannot be one class and one only; -there must be more than one in order for contradistinction to exist.  The classes that exist include: 1. natural born, 2. alien-born, 3. mixture of both. Most sub-classes are in class 3.
All of the members of the American nation are known as citizens.  Citizens of what?  Answer: of the United States; -hence they are all citizens of the United States, but about 3 percent of them are not natural born citizens of the United States since they are children of immigrant aliens.  They are the naturalized-at-birth.

They are not eligible to be President because they were not born as natural citizens but were born as naturalized citizens due to US v WKA.

One percent or less of American natural citizens are born beyond US borders, but zero percent of the alien-born outside of the US are US citizens at birth because their citizenship is dependent on native-birth by US law as interpreted by the high court.

All of the alien-born absolutely must be born on US soil to obtain citizenship from birth.
None of the natural born need be born on US soil in order to be Americans because they inherit their nationality from the head of their family.  They are born subject to one who is subject to the jurisdiction of the American government.
Subjection and nationality are passed from the head parent to off-spring.  That is the way it always was and will always be.  It’s fundamental US policy, but if the head is an alien, US law now allows the mother’s nationality to be imputed to he child as well if born abroad, thus producing a dual-citizen.

No dual citizen is a natural citizen because that requires both parents having the same origin (ie: nationality).

If an alien father is not a Green Card permanent resident, then the native-birth of his child is irrelevant because he is not subject to US jurisdiction.  By US Law it is not an American.  By US <b>Policy</b> it <i>is</i> an American.  US policy does not follow US law.  That’s been the case since John Griggs made it be so in 1898. No one has ever contested his perversion of the Wong opinion.  AN

a.r.nash writes:

Mario wrote: A “natural born citizen” has a higher allegiance standard than does a “citizen of the United States.”

There is no standard and there is no allegiance.  Neither exist in the United States.  Citizens have a responsibility, in a democratic republic, to defend their nation and participate in the process of its governance.  The source of one’s nationality is irrelevant to those responsibilities.

It does not matter if you hate the military and conscription, you WILL serve if called or you will serve time in a federal penitentiary, -even if you are a foreigner.

All foreigners who are permanent US residents are fully subject to the authority of Washington if they are male, and they must register with Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 25.  They may be called to service up to around the age of 40.
Allegiance is not a factor.  What is a factor for the position of Command in Chief is having no direct foreign roots. Only third generation indirect roots are allowed (through grandparents, -NOT parents).  He must be born of Americans, -be 100% American by blood. Soil is irrelevant and is a legal determinant, -not a natural determinant.  Soil is actually a reference to sovereign borders, -few of which are ever natural.

Citizenship ascribed due to soil or borders is legal citizenship and no legal citizen is eligible to be President.
Only national membership inherited or conveyed by blood is natural membership. Natural national membership is known as citizenship. Citizenship is nothing other than membership in a nation.  It can be natural membership or legal membership.  It cannot be both.  About 3 percent of Americans are legal citizens and are ineligible to be President.   AN


“Fictional character”  -That refers to Barry’s fictional US citizenship.  It’s kind of like a unicorn with wings.  Everyone knows of the mythical Unicorn and also knows of Pegasus, the flying horse of Greek mythology, but what the heck is a flying horse with a unicorn horn?  If is the equivalent of Obama’s non-existent citizenship.  It is something that isn’t real in law or court opinion.  It’s purely fake, made-up, fictional.  He is not a US citizen and never was one even though many ignorant people believe that he is.  That is like believing in a flying unicorn.  It purely an invented thing that is not based on mythology, just as Obama’s citizenship is not based on actual American law.    AN

~  ~   ~   ~

There is a whole giant boatload of crap that Americans need to stop tolerating, beginning with the imposition of intolerance of Judeo-Christian morality and faith.  Political correctness that means “shut up!” should not be tolerated, especially when one is merely affirming values and views that go back to before the foundation of the nation and many that go back thousands of years, -being the bedrock of Western values.  Tolerating policies that are leading to national fiscal suicide is also a highly risky and ultimately destructive position to take, and yet the leadership of both corrupt parties do just that with every funding bill they selfishly pass.  Protecting the status quo is like protecting your future executioner.  AN