Finding the Truth about what is Natural & True

~Everyone assumes that the place they are at, -that they have arrived at, -been directed to, (-confirmed by experts to be the right place), -the place of Truth, is just that, not having a single doubt regarding the certainty of that assumption.

They are not cognizant of the fact that when one begins a journey to the place of Truth, that one must face first in the exact right direction or else the destination that they arrive at will be off, even if it appears to be the place of the Truth, that truth will be a false truth perfectly pretending to be the real thing without them even comprehending that such a thing is even possible.

How does one determine what the correct direction to face is before beginning their journey? Answer: one must ask questions. But what no one knows is that if you ask the wrong questions, you will get answers anyway and they will appear identical in nature to the correct answers even though they are wrong, -although they are the right answers to your questions.

That is where everyone is deceived. They think that the right answers to their questions are the correct answers as to which direction to face when beginning their journey to the place of the Truth, -the actual Truth and not the false truth.

They don’t know that only the “right” questions will produce the answers that will direct them to face in the exact right direction since all questions produce answers, but none of them are the answers they are seeking to fulfill their primary motive; finding the Truth, -not just finding an answer and a destination that seems like the real thing.

The correct destination is a concept. The right concept, while all others are wrong concepts but seemingly just as genuine and legitimate as the right concept. The only way that they can ever get a hint that they are in the wrong place is if someone comes along and asks the right questions and presents facts which their “truth” can’t answer nor explain.

It is easy to ask questions and get directions and arrive at a conclusion (destination), but it is not so easy to ask the correct questions because they may never even come to mind.

So the determinant of arriving at the actual Truth is not in being given a direction in which to travel, but in asking the “right” questions to get the correct answers to point you in the correct direction.  And yet no one is aware before they even embark on their journey that their destination will be determined by the factor of whether or not they have the insight to ask the right questions.

If they don’t, then the answers to their questions will point them in the wrong direction and they will arrive at a false destination that seems perfectly real and legitimate and logical.  And yet it is a counterfeit for the actual Truth.

That is what has happened to both camps in the Obama eligibility fight, -with each side certain that the other speaks from a destination centered on a false “truth”.  And yet the right questions will expose the falseness of both of their concepts.

The right questions begin with:

“By what authority can anyone presume and declare that the term “natural born citizen” is a legal term of artifice and not a normal adjective phrase like ‘wise old man’?” What or who exactly legitimizes their basic, fundamental presumption?

And also:

“By what authority can anyone declare and insist that the word “natural” does not modify the word “citizen” and not the word ‘born’?”

Or: “By what authority can anyone declare and insist that there is no basis in the world of natural relationships and natural rights to the concept of being a natural citizen?”

And lastly:

“Does legitimate citizen-created representative government have any basic right or moral authority or delegated power to meddle in the primal issue of natural belonging, -whether at the family level or the nation level?”

Here’s a new analogy to the nature of natural citizenship: suppose you have a flock of sheep (representing the peoples of Earth).  And suppose that a mated pair of them have blue wool instead of white wool.  Suppose that the color of their wool represents a particular nationality, -national membership, -or citizenship.  What will be the color of the wool of the lamb they produce?

Will it be born with blue wool as its natural nature and not be like others who the flock owner decides to dye blue at birth?  To an outsider, they are both identical, -blue lambs from infancy.  And yet that impression does not reflect the reality of their difference.

One is naturally blue while the others are “made” blue, -just as in Britain there were natural subjects who were “subject born” and there were outsiders who were “subjects made” but labeled as natural subjects anyway in order to protect their equal rights by considering them to have been natural-ized.

The naturally blue lamb has an innate character of blueness from conception.  It isn’t alterable.  But the other lambs do not.  Their blueness was added to them.  It is not a part of their DNA, -as in political DNA or the national character with which a natural citizen is born.  They naturally have another color / character (nationality) making them the equivalent to a dual citizen.

But to clear up some confusion, it needs to be understood that there are two types of dual citizens, and they are very different.  One is the type that has parents from the same country while the other is the type that has parents from two different countries.

The former can produce a dual-citizen child by delivery taking place on the soil of another nation that grants citizenship to all of its native-born babies.  It will be a “natural born citizen” of its parents’ homeland and a statutory citizen of the nation where it was born, -like the U.S. or Canada.

But the child born of parents with mixed nationalities will not be a natural born citizen of either nation.  It will only be a statutory citizen in each of them; i.e., -a legal citizen.  It will be a like a lamb that has been dyed blue.

That once was not true in America (and most of the world) before the advent of the era of women’s suffrage and civic equality.  It used to be that when a foreign woman married an American man she automatically became an American citizen.

But that era is over.  Now she must personally become a naturalized citizen, -swearing a man’s oath of allegiance and renunciation, and the agreement to bear arms in national defense.

The new has been illogically grafted onto the old producing a philosophically aberrant hybrid result.  It’s not exactly of the modern age and not exactly of the by-gone age, -instead its of both; like a young man marrying an old women.  Not exactly what you’d call natural.

So, does “natural” modify “born” or modify “citizen”?  The answer is determined by the presence or absence of a hyphen.  In the term “natural-born subject” the two adjectives together form a unitary phrase all their own, and together modify the word “subject”.  But you cannot find the term “natural-born” in any historical legal dictionary.

That is because it has no meaning.  It is merely an embellishment and bastardization of what was originally a term meaning; “natural subject”, which meant one born of subjects and not aliens.

But take the term “native-born” and contrast it with “Native born”.  A “native-born citizen” (hyphen mandatory) is one born within U.S. territory even if born of aliens, but a “Native born citizen” is one born of natives; i.e., citizens.  Such a citizen can be born anywhere on Earth or outer space and still be an American by descent.

The same can’t be said about Koreans born in Japan because native is not synonymous with citizen.  There are fourth generation Koreans in Japan who are still viewed as Korean and are not Japanese citizens, -and many of them are viewed as citizens of North Korea since they ally with it.

So a hyphen makes a significant difference.  The British term “natural-born subject” had one and needed one because it was an almost meaningless term of art which came to mean simply a subject by any means allowed.

The Americans seeking to form a new national government did not turn back to a system that they had over-thrown and adopt its terminology and philosophy and doctrinal rules regarding nationality.  They turned instead to the same source of their newly embraced Natural Rights, with that being Natural Law.

They employed two of the three words that the now abandoned British term used; natural and born, but in a totally different way, -a natural way with the meaning of normal natural language.

The adjectives both modify the noun and thus no hyphen is used nor needed since they are not connected to each other any more than “wise” is connected to “old” in “wise old man”.  There is no such adjective phrase or term as “wise-old”, so there is no such punctuation as “wise-old man”.

It is exactly the same with natural born citizen.  It means simply one who is born being a citizen, naturally; -or… one who is born as a natural citizen.  Like a lamb that is born as a naturally blue lamb.

It’s not too complicated when you ask the right questions, adopt the right perspective, acknowledge the right context, and let the rules of language be the guide.

by Adrien Nash  June 2014,  obama–




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”.

5 Responses to Finding the Truth about what is Natural & True

  1. arnash says:

    The unrecognized error of the entire legal establishment regarding the nature of U.S. citizenship is in how they ascribe citizenship to Americans and foreigners.
    They falsely think that the rule that men have created for granting national membership to children of outsiders, -aliens who are born within our country, is the same rule that governs the citizenship of those who automatically have it and have no way to avoid it.

    That rule is the rule of native birth being the determinant when in fact it is only the determinant for about 2-4% of the population (those born of immigrants).
    The rest, the natural citizens, inherit their American citizenship from their parents without any man-made rule or law or court opinion. It is fundamental unwritten law, -as fundamental as was the lack of any right to vote for American women. That unwritten law required an amendment to the Constitution to nullify. The unwritten law of natural natural membership is simply a sociological reality of the real world, and is not infringible in any way because it is a fundamental Natural Right.

    It is an element of their nature. Something that they are by birth. A comparative analogy would be that of a flock of sheep (representing the peoples of the world) in which a mating pair happen to both have blue wool (representing American citizens). What color will their lamb’s wool be? Will it be determined by rules or laws or policies?

    When their blue lamb is born its owner might like what he sees and therefore decides to dye the lambs of other ewes blue shortly after birth. Then you have two seemingly identical kinds of lambs. One that is blue by nature and others that are blue by human intervention, -made blue, like British subjects were “made subjects” or “subjects made” via natural-ization by Parliament or fiction of law, (as apposed to “natural subjects”).

    The natural blue lamb was predestined to be blue from conception but the others had no such predestination. Their owner made a choice that made it so and could have made a choice to not make it so.
    They appear to be blue from birth, and the presumptuous mind will assume that they are in fact “blue by birth” when none of them was so born.

    In the eventual future when the blue-born sheep population has increased, there might a contest, a “beauty pageant” for them to select the best one for an honor. The rules of the contest will require that no sheep except those born as natural blue sheep are allowed to compete. That leaves out all of the other blue sheep dyed blue from their infancy who have been blue all of their lives, and indistinguishable from the natural ones.

    But the status quo federal policy in America is essentially that “all sheep are blue” because we make them all blue at birth. That provokes the question; “What about those that are born blue and don’t need to be made blue? Does the government make them blue as well?”

    When the cock crows pre-dawn, does he make the sun rise as a consequence since it happens every single time? Correlation does not equal Causation.

    Just because the alien-born are made citizens by law does not mean that the natural born are as well. What were they before they had even created the law made for the outsiders and their children? Not citizens of any nation at all?

    Why would they make a law to make themselves that which they already were?
    They were the natural members of their society, country, and republic. And there were 13 of them. Each separate and sovereign in their own right. The allied republics of America.

    And no government of any of them assumed any authority over the membership of the natural native members of the republic. Their membership was “a given”, incontestable, unquestionable, inviolable, and non-revokable. It was their right by blood and had nothing whatsoever to do with soil or borders, -although native-birth put it beyond any doubt in everyone’s mind. It is one of those unalienable rights for which our forefathers fought a revolution of independence & liberty.

  2. Bart F. says:

    Well, that must have taken a long time to write. Too bad it doesn’t mean anything.

    Our laws are written by legislators and interpreted by judges. Your idea of “Natural” has nothing to do with it, and there is not even one judge or legislator in the whole country that believes what you say.

    • arnash says:

      I would tend to agree with you, but have to suspect otherwise since law school courses include one in Natural Law if they aren’t narrow and short-sighted. I think they have to because too many issue are based on it alone and not legislative history. I’d guess that most of the issues are related to Natural Rights. I think I once read the phrase “unalienable rights” somewhere. Probably written by some anti-American crackpot.

  3. Bart F. says:

    “Inalienable” refers to something that cannot be taken away. It has nothing to do with Nature, since in Nature, everything can be taken away. Nature is the survival of the fittest, but even the fittest must lose everything and die. There is nothing more natural than “The Law of the Jungle”, which is why we have long ago rejected Natural Law in favor of Legislative Law.

    I always was suspicious of those who would hold that rights came from “Nature” rather than from G*d. The modern Natural Law cult is very old but also very new age, in that they want to substitute Nature, Earth, or Gaia as the source of what they call “Natural Rights”. If you get pleasure from writing about it, that is your business, but thank G*d what you write has nothing in common with the actual working legal system that exists in the real world.

  4. arnash says:

    It’s not often that one manages to get almost everything wrong, but you’ve just about succeeded. Starting with “inalienable”. where did that come from? I used the Declaration’s term of “unalienable”.
    You haven’t read much of what I’ve written yet or you’d know that I’ve already covered the fact that there are two -TWO principles of Natural Law; one is the law of the Jungle. The other is spiritual law based on the nature with which humankind was created. It does not connect to the animal plane but to the moral and spiritual plane, the realm from which we discern what man’s natural rights are. THAT Natural Law is the law of the Unalienable Rights people possess naturally. I’ve written quite a lot about them. You would have your eyes opened to a whole new understanding by reading those expositions.

    “but thank G*d what you write has nothing in common with the actual working legal system that exists in the real world.”
    To the contrary, most fundamental law springs from the natural rights of man and the attempt to legally protect them. That is exactly what the Bill of Rights is all about.

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: