March 31, 2014 1 Comment
The Nash Natural Law Principle vs the Apuzzo Nativist Doctrine-Principle
vs the English Common Law Obamanists Dogma
Significant things can go completely unreported by the news media. Populations and nations can be ignorant of important truths while possessed of foolish or dreadful falsehoods. Entire countries can be brain-washed by nationalistic and/or religious ideas and doctrines which follow abhorrent bigotries including racial superiority and lie-based hatreds. That fact is seen in Islamic countries which have the same poisoned view of Jews as did the German Nazis.
They all can be wrong about the Jews and their accomplishments and their worth as human beings, just as populations of “advanced” countries can be wrong about things that they assume to be true.
“Common Knowledge” assumptions can be as wrong as urban myths, along with political and legal and scientific assumptions. There is no field of knowledge that is immune to error and ignorant misconceptions.
In matters of politics, one would assume that the public media would be a source of information to dispel erroneous ideas, -and yet in America they do just the opposite; they perpetuate utterly erroneous falsehoods about Barack Obama by perpetuating ignorance thanks to their lack of reporting of the truth. It’s like living in the Watergate era without the two lone voices of Woodward & Bernstein to explode the unreported truth about the President into the public awareness.
That’s where we are in regard to the presidency of Barack Obama, and that’s where we’ve been for six years. If any Woodward & Bernstein-like revelations are ever come to light, they will have only come through the public exposure given to the investigation of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse in Arizona.
Their efforts have so far been ignored by the media, and to an extent, that has not been a bad thing from the standpoint of the dissemination of the truth, because much of the truth they uncovered has been explained as being the result of the unique software used by Xerox Workstations like one in the White House which presumably was used to scan Obama’s “birth certificate”, producing a pdf output file uploaded to the internet by the White House.
The genuine/ authentic, or fabricated/ counterfeit nature of the document scanned is a separate issue. But either way, the issue has been buried, -but not buried nearly as deeply as the issue of the nature and source of Obama’s presumed American citizenship. THAT is the issue of the Greatest Political Debate of our lives because its impact would be so deep and far reaching that the full effect would be unimaginable if pushed to its rightful limit.
You see, if the public knew the truth, which it probably never will in any foreseeable future, then people all across the land would understand that there are huge issues regarding the birthplace, birth certificates, and citizenship of Barack Obama. At worst he was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, never had any birth certificate from there nor the state of Hawaii, and was never an American citizen by American law.
At best he was born at home in Honolulu, his mother could not prove it by evidence nor sworn testimony, he never was issued a birth certificate, and also was not an American citizen by actual American law (the 14th Amendment, -which only applies to children born of immigrants, -not guests like students).
Neither of those two possibilities exist in American consciousness, nor in that of the media, academia, nor government. Instead what exists are two false, erroneous presumptions, the first of which is that mere birth on U.S. soil confers U.S. citizenship, and the second is that mere U.S. citizenship makes one eligible to be the Commander in Chief of the American Military & Nuclear Forces.
Both are untrue, and yet like other ignorant populations, Americans do not know it because of the ignorance and silence of the press, and the decades-long dumbing-down of the population via the ever-degenerating quality and political/anti-religious bias of the people hired to teach in mediocre, amoral, Leftist, union-salaried government schools.
What they fail to learn, to know, to report or to teach is that of the four possibilities determining presidential eligibility, only one is true and the others are false regardless of who or how many people believe in them. Two of them embrace the possibility that the hypothetical Nazi wife of Adolph Hitler could have given birth in an American hospital, received a birth certificate, been deemed to be an American citizen, and further been deemed to be a natural born citizen and perfectly eligible to one day be the American President.
Those possibilities are based on 1.) Natural Law alone, 2.) Native-birth alone, 3.) Natural Law plus native-birth, and 4.) Natural Law or native-birth. Only the first one is true. The others are fantasies of human fabrication, and follow no principles since they are based purely on doctrines of human invention.
They are justified under the lie that the constitutional requirement that the President be “No person except a natural born citizen,” refers not to a natural citizen of the nation but to a “definition”, -to a “legal term of art” (as in artifice), -to a legal, fictional idiom determined by men and not nature nor natural language as described by the three simple common words.
That would mean that it can be defined however their dogma dictates, like redefining the meaning of “native born son” or “natural blond” or “natural woman”. Under their delusions, the use of the word “natural” requires either attaching the added meaning that such persons were born in the United States, or requires no more than simple native birth.
You may think that a bit far-out, but if you ask for an explanation, the ones you will get will not be satisfactory from an evidentiary point of view. And hence the truth must needs be illuminated, -and so it shall be via the sharing of these few posts and counter-posts at Mario Apuzzo’s NaturalBornCitizen blog http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ~ ~ ~
Mario said: “As I have told you many times over, the natural born citizen clause is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause which can be understood only through the definition of the whole clause and not its individual parts.”
In fact, if that were true, you would not be unable prove your assertion, as I’ve challenged you to do, which you can’t do because it is false, a fantasy, a delusion, a doctrine, a dogma. UNPROVABLE!!
Those words are common words and not a term of artifice, not a clause, and not an idiom. Just a phrase strung together to describe those born of citizens, -citizens by natural connection and not by legal permission as provided and granted to outsiders and their children.
Does “Mario’s natural born child” really mean: “Mario’s cat” just because he or I say it does?
Slartibartfast propagated the citizenship truth against Mario’s invented fiction, but pointing out Mario’s illogical transmutation of a statement by the esteemed Vattel in no way validates his own false assumption that native-born citizens are natural born citizens.
He wrote: “The obot theory requires only one simple assumption: the meaning of “natural-born” did not change,” (from the bastardized English common law meaning of natural-born subject)
That is false in two ways but he conveniently failed to trace the term back to when it was bastardized by the Calvin case, -or in its wake.
Before that case, everyone understood plain English, by which everyone born of an Englishman was naturally born an Englishman also, i.e., a natural born Englishman and a subject of the crown, -a natural born subject by blood-connection to a subject English father.
After Calvin, the focus shifted from the nation of England and its laws and people, to the King alone and his dominion.
From thereon after, anyone born of anyone under the king’s dominion, whether of Englishman or foreigner, was viewed as being (or equal to) a natural-born subject because the law applied equally to all, even though of very different origins.
The England-born child of a foreigner was “naturally” born in subjection to the king of the kingdom, and so it came to be in time that they were even referred to as “natural-born subjects”, even though they were only alien born subjects. That was change number one.
The mind-set of the bastardized language of the English common law then became the mind-set within the colonies up until the early 1770s (and even ’til today) when the mind-set of Americans began to change drastically.
In time they realized that ALL sovereignty resided in THE PEOPLE, and not the Crown, nor Parliament, nor Great Britain, nor the American governments, -and they completely overthrew the oppression of the British monarchy and its Parliament, along with its basis of national membership, which was the plantation/ feudal estate model by which “anything born on my plantation or in my kingdom belongs to me, -the king, -whether of plant or animal or subject.”
In America, free consent, -willful choice, and a solemn vow of allegiance to the revolution made the colonial traitors to the crown into blood-brothers in a new enterprise of freedom and self governance.
Instead of an artificial criterion (birth location) determining one’s national membership and subjectship for life, they made themselves the semi-united members of 13 new sovereign nations, and they ceded to no one and no thing the right of their children to inherit that membership as the natural born citizens of the new nations.
That was the second time that “natural born” changed, and that fact is illustrated by what John Jay did, -which could not be done with “natural-born subject“, -when he underlined the word “born” when suggesting to General Washington (serving as President of the constitutional convention) via a letter that the Command of the American Army not be given to any but a natural born citizen.
That had never, ever been done before because the term “natural-born subject” had devolved into a term of legal artifice with a unitarian meaning.
His emphasis was so that only one born as a natural citizen would receive the Command in Chief position, and all men made into natural citizens via the fiction of law known as natural-ization would be barred, along with all sons of foreigners, without regard to where they happened to be born.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said… It is quite evident as to why you are on my blog. You take my analysis and ideas of all that is natural born citizen and then just rewrite them into you own words. Then to cover your tracks, you claim that I am wrong in what I write and never agree with me on anything. But the only difference between us is that you contend that birth in the country is not necessary to make a natural born citizen while I do.
Mr. Nash, just know that I have been on to you for quite some time and that anyone who operates as you do is a despicable human being.
A.R. Nash responds:
“But the only difference between us is that you contend that birth in the country is not necessary to make a natural born citizen while I do.”
That is true, but the difference is worse than that. I contend, based on American principles, that your view about the nature of citizenship is not only non-American but is in fact anti-American.
You cannot respond by illuminating American principles that require native-birth because there are none. Native-birth as a criterion of national membership never was and never can be defined as a principle because it is purely an imposed factor and requirement derived from imperial fiat.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything natural. It is an arbitrary artificial criterion based solely on artificial borders.
“Typically, people have very low evidence standards for accepting the validity of things with which they agree, and very high evidence standards for accepting things with which they disagree.” Sam Sewill
“A new idea is first condemned as ridiculous, and then dismissed as trivial, until finally it becomes what everybody knows.” – William James
It is amazing how political parties, special interest groups, advocacy groups, religions, doctors, nationalists, philosophical schools of thought, and even scientists, are so narrow minded about information that contradicts their particular paradigm. Sam Sewill
No nation or people or tribe or clan or family before the English has ever based their membership solely on any other factor than blood inheritance. It is the foundation of all of those groups and has been since man first walked the earth. Membership by natural connection is the only natural membership. Anything added is an unnatural adulteration.
As soon as you add anything to nature, what you get can no longer be called natural. Just because you want to call it natural does not make it so. That is why both the deluded obots and the deluded birthers have their perspectives skewed.
Neither side can dent the Custer analogy which demolishes the basis of their native-birth doctrines.
They can’t explain how George Custer Jr. can be considered a member of the Sioux nation (and eligible to be chief) just because his mother gave birth to him within sovereign Sioux territory, nor why such a birth location is mandatory in order for a Sioux baby to be Sioux. What does his or its birth location have to do with what people and nation one belongs to? Does Jr. “owe” allegiance, and faith and loyalty to the Sioux people and not his own alone? Is the Sioux baby an alien foreigner to its own natural people because it happened to be born off of Sioux land?
Not long after the Western discovery of Hawaii, the islands were united into a single Kingdom. Aside from transient whalers, the population was totally homogeneous, -descendents of peoples that had arrive 1,500 and 500 years prior.
All the people of Hawaii were natural members of the the Hawaiian community. After unification by conquest they were all natural citizens of the new kingdom. They all had the same background. None of them were outsiders nor born of outsiders. They were all Hawaiians and nothing else. That’s what natural citizens are.
Yet the Apuzzian doctrine asserts that natural citizens by birth do not exist because if they do then they are competing with “natural born citizens” (quotation marks mandatory in the Apuzzian doctrine because the words cannot be considered to mean what they say and no more.
In fact they MUST mean more. They must mean that the native-birth factor is super-imposed on top of the natural factor of natural membership via blood descent.
By that doctrine, if a Hawaiian woman gave birth out at sea, her child would be a foreigner, an alien, and not Hawaiian since it wasn’t Hawaii-born, even though it was Hawaiian-born and not alien-born.
Thus you have a paradox. The child is a natural Hawaiian citizen by birth and yet is not “a natural born citizen” of Hawaii if you add the quotation marks to those 3 words since that would make them a term of legal artifice which includes the required factor of birth on Hawaiian soil.
So you have to ask yourself which one represents reality; -a natural American citizen by birth or a “natura-born-citizen” of America?
Term of art? -or no term of art? That is precisely what it all boils down to. But the claim by both sides that the words mean something other than what they say cannot be proven by either side.
All we get is distorted interpretations of very simple things. “Natural means native!”
“No, natural means natural PLUS native!”
No, you’re wrong!
No, you are both wrong because you both live in Flatland and only see two dimensions. Well why not look up?!!! There is another dimension! And it is one in which there is no term of art. There are only natural citizens by birth, (born natural citizens) versus citizens by legal permission, -including from birth.
Art wrote:”…the original birthers and the mistake some of them made in 1790, (in a Congressional Act) but which was corrected in 1795…”
Your claim is a fantasy, even delusional. The founders in the first Congress, of all the Congresses that have ever convened, were far and away the most attentive to not violate the letter not the spirit of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that they had help to write just a few years earlier, -to not go beyond it in any way, shape, or form. TO MAKE NO MISTAKES WHATSOEVER!
And they did make no mistake. The mistake is in your unAmerican doctrine borrowed from the British dictator. “All souls born on my land belong to me, even if they are alien souls and not natural Englishmen.”
Here’s a thought. The Naturalization Act of 1790 may have passed unanimously. You dare to pontificate that “some of them” made a “mistake”, when it is YOU who is making a gigantic mistake.
Presidential eligibility language (“natural born citizen”) was employed in the act regarding foreign-born Americans precisely to overcome the mistaken dogma that grips your unenlightened mind. When will you finally get it? It is all about NATURAL RIGHTS!
Every American man had and kept his natural right to pass his national membership on to his progeny.
HE DID NOT SURRENDER HIS RIGHT AT THE WATER’S EDGE!
Government is subservient to his natural rights. Were that not true, we would not have the BILL Of RIGHTS, nor the 9th and 10th Amendments.
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain RIGHTS shall NOT be construed (by you) to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the People.”
One of us is completely wrong and the other completely right, and it’s determined by RIGHTS, -not dogma.
“John Jay is starting to roll in his grave as I type, ’cause he’s just waitin’ to tell you to go fly a kite in a lightning and thunder storm and get in touch with original intent reality.”
~What you are saying is that the simple three word combination means something other than what the words convey. You are saying that they are, as the obots insist, “a term of art”.
Great, now you are both on the same page. Congratulations! You’ve managed to reinforce their dogma. And that helps your cause how????
If you were to assert that those words do not constitute a term of art, then you invalidate their entire fallacious structure. You’d make the word “natural” to mean nothing other than natural, -booting out the assertion that it also means native-born.
Without that logical and linguistic and legal distortion, their lie vanishes like smoke.
Why don’t you do that? Why don’t you ask them, as I’m asking you, to PROVE that a natural born citizen is truly not that but is instead a “naturalborncitizen” as interpreted via a nativist dogma based on a presumed term of legal artifice?
No one can prove the foundational premise of your nativist religion. So why hang on to it? Why proclaim it as if it were Holy Writ? IT IS UNPROVEN AND UNPROVABLE. All falsehoods are.
~Art redefined and mis-defined Natural Law. The Law of Nature is the Law of Nature’s GOD.
The American doctrine is that He made the universe for mankind, and then made mankind in his own image, -having certain unalienable rights, among which are the right of free will and natural belonging.
All rights and all relationships of belonging exist as elements of natural life. They involve only sentient beings, -not inanimate matter!
A multi-billionaire could create his own new nation in international waters, building on massive floating platforms. What role does soil play in his nation and its membership when there is none?
He might make a law that all who help to build his city-state will be the first generation of members, and all of their children will inherit their parents’ membership. And none who did not help to build it will be considered natural members but only members by investment with Paid Membership which can be revoked for bad behavior.
That is akin to the foundation of the American nation. Soil was irrelevant, but the free-will stand of the parents was determinative for their off-spring.
In the future of The Terminator, the population is replaced by robots and cyborgs. They also have relationships to each other. They also are created on American soil. And yet they possess no natural life.
That is why the Laws of Nature do not apply to them because those laws are the laws of natural life which govern the relationships of humans to each other, -not to inanimate matter.
In the distant future, Americans will be born in outer-space. Their nationality will be American by blood connection. They will still be Earthlings, although not born on Earth. Same with citizenship and foreign birth. It is not by legal permission but by NATURAL CONNECTION.
MichaelN errs thusly: Natural membership to the citizenry is not necessarily eligibility to be POTUS which requires a higher allegiance.”
All natural members of the States and nation were those born of natives, (as well as children of naturalized citizens who were loyal to the revolution). They were born as natural citizens. In English that translates (by compression) as meaning they were “born, natural-citizens”, or “natural, born -citizens”, depending on what you wish to focus on.
There is no mention of nor connection to a test of allegiance which natural citizens could fail or pass in order to be among the male population that was eligible to be President.
Any man born of citizens, who was chosen by the population and electoral college, could be President. Allegiance was not measured by anything other than the man’s record and writings, -not his birthplace. Birthplace would be a cheap, pathetic substitute for real allegiance.
Was Washington’s allegiance assessed by where he was born? How about Jefferson, -and John Adams? How about his 10 year old eldest son, John Quincy Adams, -future President, who accompanied him to Europe, twice, and lived there with him for over a decade? Did he acquired foreign “allegiance” on foreign “soil”?
What if he had been born there?
Would his father, the future second American President himself, have felt he had absolutely no right whatsoever to even think that his son was an American by natural right? What do you think he thought? How did he feel about his, and his son’s natural rights? Did he kiss them goodbye at the water’s edge?
If you think that the right to belong to your own people is not natural, then you can’t grasp the truth about what natural unalienable rights are.
The American loyalty of his son, if born in Paris or Holland or London would not have been tainted by any attachment to those nations because he was connected only to his father, and through him to his country.
He would have been American by nature, as was his father who had no foreign blood going back to the Puritans. 100% American, -by blood alone. 98% of the population were natural born citizens but less than 1% were among the group of citizens that were actually electable.
leo derosia said…
“The civil rights act of 1866 is one of many things that blow obots out of the water. Children of aliens are subject to a foreign power so barry would not even have been a citizen and was never a natural born citizen.”
Add to that the military conscription laws of the Civil War which exempted foreigners and their of-age native-born sons from the draft because they were not citizens since they were subject to a foreign power.
It’s conceivable that the language was ambiguous and native-born sons were not excluded, but you wouldn’t know it by how they were worded.
The isolated and insulated members of the high court in 1898 failed to understand what “jurisdiction” involves, and thus misconstrued the 14th Amendment’s requirement for it in order for citizenship to attach to the native-born.
By their re-interpretation of subjection to U.S. jurisdiction, Wong could have been drafted into the Army, but that was unthinkable to the U.S. military and U.S. government because of the Civil War conscription laws which codified U.S. policy towards aliens and the alien-born.
“...a child upon birth follows the condition of his or her parents.” YOU ARE CORRECT SIR! Stick with that! The “condition” refers to the social and nationality status. Nothing else.
“If babies do not have, as you advocate, any persona which enables them to have allegiance, loyalty, and faith to the nation…”
-Now I know you do not have any children and never did. No father would ever write words so detached from reality.
“Do you think that being born in England was not a big deal?”
If you were born in England then you were an Englishman protected by English rights.
Americans were not Englishmen and had no natural right to those protections since they were not a part of the nation. They were living on the personal foreign property of the Crown.
All rights were apart from the rights of Englishmen except as given by charter. THAT’S WHY THEY HAD CHARTERS!
Like the rights of Puerto Ricans or Guamians or American Samoans. Their islands are not integral elements of the union of the STATES. They are foreign territories. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to them on their own soil except by extra-constitutional means.
Mario continued: “does that not sound a lot like Congress’s naturalization acts in which it gave rights and protections…under the Constitution to children born out of the U.S. as though they were born in the U.S.?”
No, it sounds nothing like that. Charters were for all generations to follow, -not for presently living Englishmen who were visiting America with their wife gaving birth there. They and their child were under the protection of English law as free Englishmen. Their rights had nothing to do with the American native’s charter rights as non-Englishmen.
As for foreign-born Americans, Congress gave them nothing but the recognition of their natural citizenship, and by extension, their presidential eligibility.
In what dream world do you find in the Constitution any authority for Congress to grant to American fathers the natural right to pass on their nationality to their natural children? Show it or retract your false and unconstitutional claim.
As I’ve repeated shared, the ONLY REASON Congress mentioned such children was to PROTECT their natural right to “follow the condition of his or her parents” from people with your unAmerican, monarchical view.
There were plenty like you at the time of the founding because they had been indoctrinated all of their lives in the Kings system of human ownership based on birthplace.
The principles of the Revolution went right over their heads, as it seems they have with yours as well.
Until you focus solely on parentage alone, you will remain in confusion. ~ ~ ~
Mario likes to have it both ways.
Against the obot attack, he valiantly defends the truth that fathers were viewed as the source of their children’s national membership, and yet he adulterates that accurate message with the added fantasy factor of a requisite native-birth, thereby combining Natural Rights with the old policy of Royal Rights.
The question is; “How and by what does a father’s natural right to convey his national membership to his progeny get terminated?
The neo-nativist doctrine declares that his natural right gets cancelled as soon as his pregnant wife crosses the border and gives birth on soil other than sacred AMERICAN SOIL.
So then the question is “Cancelled? Cancelled by what, or who, or how????”
He can’t explain to us how a father’s unalienable natural right gets cancelled merely by his wife giving birth across some imaginary invisible boundary?
He can’t point out where in the Constitution the People of the United States agreed to surrender their God-given natural right to Almighty Government.
It wouldn’t help to refer to “American common law” being as there were actually 13 separate sovereign countries in America. Hard to show they all were in lock-step and not independent, especially in regard to a term that didn’t even have a need to exist except in regard to the Command in Chief position.
Aside from it, just simply CITIZEN would suffice for everything.
Mario said: “In any event, it does not matter where John Quincy was born, for regardless of the place of his birth, he was a citizen and grandfathered to be eligible to be President”
That is an utterly disingenuous response. The point was the principle of natural rights and nationality by blood. It absolutely matters what the principle is of denying a foreign-born John Quincy the natural status of a natural citizen, regardless of when he was born.
What is the natural principle that denies him that Right? None.
“…[as son of] an American ambassador, he would have been reputed born in the United States.”
That is some wonderful royal horse manure. “Reputed”? Is that an American concept or hatched out of the back-side of royalist sycophants? IT IS ROYAL CRAP!
It follows natural law but by ignorant human misconception.
Foreigners (ambassadors and tourists and guests) with no attachment to a land that is not theirs are not subject to the government that is not theirs. Their subjection is tied to their homeland, not to a foreign power. So,.. it would not matter whether or not his father was an ambassador. Only whether of not he was a permanently domiciled immigrant or not.
American Ambassadors, like tourists and guests, are not foreign immigrants when abroad, and that is why their children are not foreigners, just as Obama’s father was a guest (and not an immigrant) and his son therefore was not an American.
Mario wrote: “In any event, it does not matter where John Quincy was born, for regardless of the place of his birth, he was a citizen and grandfathered to be eligible to be President”
Since I failed to spell it out, Mario assumed a single hypothetical, but I’m postulating a double one.
Adams returned to America in 1788 but the Wikipedia source doesn’t say which month. So suppose it was after June of that year, or even the next year, and even following the ending of his Ambassadorship.
The Constitution had been ratified so John Quinsy, being born in England after the month of June would not have been eligible to be President according to the nativist doctrine, and worse, would not even have been an American by birth.
So someone needs to explain why that scenario is irrelevant to real American values and principles. A man who was the United States President, son of a President, whose only ancestors were Americans going all of the way back to the Puritans, should be labeled as being… a foreign born natural alien? Or if a citizen, not a natural citizen by birth?
Exactly what category are you shoving him into and why? Is it some legal category and not the one and only natural born category?
How could it be a legal category since there was no naturalization law yet? There was no central government yet either.
How would he not have been a natural son of Massachusetts by birth?
-not by birth-location, not by dirt, not by borders, but by the blood conveyance of those who gave birth to him?
How would the month of his birth make him an alien in need of the statutory blessing and allowance of almighty government simply to be what he was born being by natural & Vattelian principles by which the son takes after the father and inherits ALL of his RIGHTS and privileges?
That inexplicable scenario reveals a big fat flaw in the Matrix of your imaginary nativist citizenship theory.
The Matrix wasn’t real, and neither is the elaborate one that you’ve competently constructed. You have managed to convince everyone that it is real, but some know otherwise.
Adams made his now famous quote regarding making decisions based on the evidence: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
Sometimes you “know” something that is false even though you can’t see how it could possibly be false.
~I know that can happen because it happens sometimes when my computer’s spell checker underlines a word in red as misspelled. Several times I’ve looked, and looked and looked again as I “knew” the word was spelled correctly because I knew exactly how to spell it.
Well, after giving up and clicking to display alternate possibilities, I’d see one at the top of the list that looked identical to the one I’d typed. I compared them very carefully and could see no difference, but when I finally clicked on it, suddenly a missing letter appeared, -one my mind had seen but my eyes had not since it was not there.
Another example is one I recently came across. I has mistakenly typed “apposed” instead of the intended word “opposed”. When proof-reading, I caught the “error” but a strange thing was going on. It was not underlined in red as misspelled. I was perplexed. Assuming that the spell-checker wasn’t in error would suppose that “apposed” was a real word. But I had no recollection of ever seeing nor using such a word in my entire life. I pulled out my dictionary and looked it up. It meant exactly what I had intended by the use of “opposed”, having always assumed that is was a correct secondary usage of the word. But I was flat out wrong. Opposed had no secondary meaning and “apposed” meant what I though “opposed” also meant in a different context.
So something that I assumed I knew all of my life was flat-out wrong. That was very surprising and also very revealing of the truth that I knew about human opinions. They can be very certain, unquestioned, infallible, and yet flat-out wrong. And they are just that when it comes to the principles of citizenship and the nature of the nationality of Barack Obama. That which is “common knowledge, or common sense, or consensus opinion is totally ignorant and erroneous. We have been brain-washed all of our lives into thinking that something is so which is not so.
People’s minds are seeing presidential eligibility where it does not exist. It’s highly questionable as to whether or not they ever will. There’s about zero possibility that that will ever change. The truth can be known but there is no respected teacher to disseminate it, -and equally bad, there is no interest nor curiosity to know it.
by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com