Citizenship from God vs Citizenship from Government
December 22, 2014 28 Comments
Natural Citizenship vs Cinderella Citizenship
Every member of the human race can be placed somewhere within the spectrum of belief regarding origins. At one end are those who look at the perfection that is the universe and can’t escape the conclusion that it is all just too perfect to be the result of infinitely long odds, -or they are simple primitives, modern or “caveman”, who believe in the supernatural and two great competing forces in the universe: good and evil.
For the modern thinking person, the question of Deity, of Theism vs Atheism, is rooted in the origination of everything. Darwin opened a Pandora’s Box of ideas that have gripped the minds of those opposed to personal religion and it’s concept of a creator. The belief in the random origin of life only takes the non-theist so far back in time and no further because facts, and even fact-based theories, don’t exist to explain how it all began.
The word of the book of Genesis uses language which a segment of the Judeo-Christian community have taken as literally accurate, and this is the use of the word “day”. They declare it to mean a twenty-four hour day and nothing else. Others, in deference to modern knowledge of the age of many things, reject such dogmatic simplicity and opt instead for allowing the imaginative language of the story of creation to mean distinct epochs that could last perhaps a billion years before the next one began. That entails common sense and reason allowing that no one has any idea of how long it took for the earth to rotate on its axis long before it cooled and became a semi-stable planet, nor how long it took after it was smacked by a massive body that is believed to have resulted in the formation of the moon.
But what both sides can agree on is the fundamentals of origin; -that some things cannot be explained without any explanation of causation. The list of things to explain is not very long but is very profound, beginning with the creation of Matter & Energy, accompanied by the pre-existance of the Laws of Physics, along with the essential perfection and precision of Mathematics. A universe of matter and energy eventually came to include something totally unexplainable, -which is Life. Then Life came to include something equally unexplainable; sentient life. Then sentient life came to include something most unexplainable of all; Intelligent sentient life. Where did it come from?
Those who believe in the biblical account of creation in Genesis have an answer, whereas those who do not believe do not have an answer. They are deficient in their ability to explain the origin of the things that make up the universe, but believers can point to a supernatural power beyond human comprehension, and they can confidently assert that we humans ourselves were his highest creation since he created us in his own likeness, -having a free will and the means to exercise it. But something more; the Right to exercise it because he endowed us with an unlimited freedom to do what we want, -a freedom which proved to be extremely risky. Like a drug addict with unlimited access to drugs… the human race devolved into depravity according to Genesis, and the only remedy for the creator was a great flood to wipe almost all of the human race from the face of the earth.
But free Will continued to exist and man could exercise and defend his rights, his God-given rights which no one and no authority had any right to infringe, and prominent among them was the right of belonging. No man on the face of the earth could rightfully claim that another man’s children or wife belonged to him and he had the right to take them. Nor could any government claim such a thing for itself because the right of belonging and ownership was an innate primal sense felt by every feeling mother and father and child.
Of course the world was full of selfish, arrogant, ambitious, prideful, aggressive, totalitarian men who claimed the lives of others via war and slavery, -converting humans into property, as knowledge of a moral Deity and his laws and the rights given to his creation were absent. But in the 18th century they were rediscovered openly via the writings of men such as John Locke. An age of “rights enlightenment” thus was born, and our founding fathers were its children.
They understood the nature and origin of natural rights as being that which the creator had ordained for and in the very nature of his creation. The rights of Man and human Free Will were seen as central to life itself, -at it’s very core. That was very different from European philosophies of “Natural Law” which were subject to loyalty to royalty and the Divine Right of Kings doctrine. Americans, in time and suffering, came to totally abandon and reject the monarchist and atheist versions of Natural Law, and embraced instead a biblically based understanding of the nature of the origins of human rights.
Those rights began with the right to life, to liberty, and property, -all of which were required for the pursuit of happiness. The one right that was universally embraced by all civilized people and thus did not even need stating was the right to belong to others and for others to belong to those who pro-created them. The Right of Belonging and the Right of Ownship are inextricably linked via a blood relationship; parent-child, child-parent, sibling-sibling.
Atheist philosophies of government to not believe in the unalienable right to belong because if the family is the hub of human existence then The State cannot fill that role (which is the role at the heart of their God-less view of human life and civilization). The State has the parental right of owning, -and all souls should be linked evermore directly to it in every way as they grow older. So in a sense, they believe in the right of belonging, only it is not to the family into which one is born, but to the State into which one was born and raised.
That seems like similar views of the same subject, but in fact it is not since The State believes the individual does not have individual rights because The State controls the belonging of its members according to its almighty wishes and permissions, -not according to the unalienable God-given right of the individual.
I speak of the right of belonging to The State itself and the society that makes up its membership. With which side does a natural right exist? Does the individual have a natural right to belong to his own family and clan and country, -or does The State have the sole right to decide who belongs and who does not? It has to be one or the other at the fundamental level even though at a management level dealing with foreigners the People endow the government with the authority to regulate the process of allowing outsiders to become insiders; i.e., Citizens.
Inclusion in every sort of entity goes by the description of “membership” with the exception of membership in a political entity. Such membership goes by the name of citizenship, having been adopted from the Medieval name for permanent members of cities. They had certain rights that outsiders did not possess, along with responsibilities towards each other and the governance of the city.
It is no doubt safe to say that they were people who owned their own homes and property and so they had a significant stake in the survival and success of their limited jurisdiction. Part of that stake was in regard to defense against conquest, fire, disease, and criminality. Outsiders did not have as much stake because they were not permanent members domiciled perhaps for life in that locality. They were not city-zens, aka; denizens on a permanent basis since their roots and ancestral home were somewhere else, but the citizens could trace their ancestry back perhaps a dozen generations. They were born as citizens because they were born of the denizens of the city just like their ancestors.
They, unlike outsiders, aka immigrants, were automatically members of the city not just from birth but by birth, -i.e., by birth to citizens. They had a right to be accepted as natural members of the city since they were born of members. Members had an unquestionable right for their children to belong to that which they belonged, -from their ancestral family lineage to their own family and ethnic or religious group, -as well as to their parents’ trade group or guild.
Guild membership was passed from father to son from generation to generation, along with city membership or citizenship. Their inclusion in all of the entities of which they were a part was never a thing that anyone could question because it was an absolute unquestionable right, -in other words, an unalienable right.
City membership, or citizenship, extended outward to include inclusion in the province in which their city was located, and ultimately to the nation in which the province was located. They all had one king, one language, one Church, one governor within their region, and one local government, to all of which they owed loyalty because they were members or citizens of all of the entities to which they belonged. Or not… because outside of local governance, they had no say in government since they were all just “subjects” of the King and his authority.
That was the way of mankind except in Britain where Parliament existed, and whose House of Commons was comprised of persons popularly elected. Democracy and citizen duties and responsibilities, and, chiefest of all, citizen rights had been established following dark eras of horrible despotic kings ruling for their own avarice and pride and not for the good of their people. Such kings believed and were taught that the nation existed solely for their own personal benefit because they were almost an equivalent to a demigod being as their authority supposedly came directly from Heaven itself.
But rebellion and revolt put such despots in their place and compelled them to sign agreements acknowledging the civic rights of Englishmen based on the equality of all natural members of the nation and certain unalienable rights of property and justice. So in Great Britain, it could be said that its members were not only subjects of the Crown but also citizens of the nation. But in America, upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Crown was banished from American civic life and was replaced by the sovereignty of We the People. Instead of The Divine Right of Kings there was something new on the Earth, -the unalienable rights of Man, one of which was the right to belong to one’s own people.
That right was innate in every American man. He owned it. It was like his property which he could pass on to his children. The government that he would create with the other members, and the laws that it would pass, would not touch in any way that fundamental right. It was as fundamental as any and every other God-given right because without it there would be no true freedom since it would then have to be a matter of the power and authority of government, bureaucrats, politicians, governors, and judges instead of a matter of natural right that could not be questioned or infringed in any way.
If the individual owns his own membership and it is not owned by government or under its control, then it is something that he can pass (just like everything else that he owns) to his own children who are blood of his blood and flesh of his flesh. Such a right is primal and preexists all government and law. It comes before all of the legal trappings of civilization. It pre-dates all government and all law because it is a right with which Mankind was created.
The right to belong is inviolable when it is based on a blood relationship. It is not something that is given by government nor something that it can infringe or abrogate since it is a natural right. Why do you never hear of someone being stripped of their citizenship? It is because no one wants to go there, -no politician or judge wants to assume such a god-like authority because it touches on the hallowed center of human life, -the right to belong. Treading on that ground is treading on sacred ground and few feel worthy of such action because of their knowledge of their own corruption, back room dealing, under-the-table gratuities, reciprocal voting, lying, cheating, and treasonous assaults against the Constitution. They do not feel worthy because they are not worthy.
That was not always the case. For about 80 years the Congress felt it had the right to treat naturalized Americans in a second-class manner, (the so-called Bancroft Treaties) putting restrictions on them that did not exist for natural Americans. No one even conceived of questioning the almighty authority of the Great and Powerful Congress, until a naturalized citizen was stripped of his citizenship by law because he returned to his home country and lived there for two years. He did something that no one had done in eighty years or so, he sued the government on constitutional grounds, and the stupid government lost in the Supreme Court because it had failed for all of that time to revere and adhere to fundamental American principles of Equality.
Either Americans are all equal or they are not. Either all citizenship is equal or it is unequal. Either all Americans are natural citizens or they are various classes of citizens. You cannot have equality as well as legal classification simultaneously in one nation, because it must be the one or the other. Just as in Islam, you cannot have equality as well as classification of citizens into Muslims and subject infidels with limited rights, or subject women with almost no rights. It is either equality or inequality. It can never be both.
The Supreme Court ruled that inequality is unAmerican an unconstitutional, and so the government had to drop it stance of classifying naturalized citizens as being a group with inferior rights. By our fundamental American doctrine and fiction of law, all citizens are equal because all citizens are natural citizens possessing God-given rights of belonging, including to their own natural or adopted nation.
Once naturalization has taken place, the new citizens enter the pool of the 97% of citizens who are natural citizens, and our fiction is that they are one of us. They are not adopted or Cinderella citizens. They are NATURAL CITIZENS also. Other nations, such as Mexico, do have Cinderella citizens who are forbidden many of the opportunities of the natural citizens of the nation. In Mexico, naturalized citizens cannot be policemen, mayors, governors, legislators, or President, -nor serve in the military.
Can you imagine an America in which naturalized citizens were forbidden such roles? It is unthinkable. Why? Because of our fundamental fiction of law that all citizens are EQUAL since they are ALL natural citizens. Are all of your children equal as members of your family? Or are some superior and some inferior? If they are all of your blood then differentiation is ridiculous and impossible, but if they are adopted then it is not. But if you truly believe is total equality then all adopted children assume the status of being your own natural child and can never be treated differently.
And so it is in the foundation of American law and political doctrine. We do NOT have second-class citizens and we do not have subjection to the will of government when it comes to our right to belong to our own people and society and country and nation. Our rights, including our right of inclusion or belonging precede and supersede the authority given to politicians, unelected federal officers and judges, except as we have allowed differently due to the human right of Justice. Crimes are punished by rescinding fundamental freedoms such as liberty, property, and life itself.
What or where are the limits on our natural right to belong, -to national membership? The answer has never been established, and hopefully will never need to be, but all agree that the extremist example of the end of that right is when an American commits acts of treason, thereby making evident a willingness to reject one’s U.S. citizenship in favor of another alien allegiance. Yet even in such cases, like Anwar al Awlaki, or Hamdi, no one (including on the Supreme Court) mentions a word about canceling their American citizenship because there is no precedent for doing so and thus no one has a clue as to how it should be done. It is terra incognita, -unknown territory and so no one speaks up to proceed in that direction.
It is essentially like it is presumed that the right to citizenship is greater than the right to life, as was the case with Awlaki (who, like Hamdi, was actually not an American citizen by American law but merely erroneously presumed to be because of an institutionalized error that is over a century old). So he, as a presumed U.S. citizen who remained one regardless of his treason, was killed by a drone missile. Did the government have the right to do such a thing to an American citizen? Does a military officer have a right to warn a would-be deserter that he must stop in his tracts or be shot? If desertion in combat is grounds for the use of lethal force to prevent or punish it, then certainly treason against the entire nation is grounds for execution in times of war.
Just ask yourself; if you were President Lincoln, and a Major Hassan had executed 13 of your soldiers while they were eating dinner, do you think that he would not have faced a firing squad before the sun set on that day? There would be no basis whatsoever to delay justice. It was witnessed by all, it was not contested by the killer, it was outside of the expansive parameters of civilian justice since it was done under military command. Clearly, justice would have have been prompt and final. (There is only one conceivable reason for the unending delay in bringing a mass murder to justice and that is the fact that he is a Muslim, like his Islam sympathizing Commander-in-Chief.)
Americans have rights, and among them are the right to belong to their own. That right is inherent in them provided they are born and live as Americans and not as foreigners. If you were born of Americans who were born and raised abroad, and who never lived in the United States, that right would not pass to you from them because you would be a citizen of the land of your and your parents’ birth and membership. That fact is the stated limits of natural belonging, and has been a part of every naturalization act since the first one.
The actual first one was in Britain and was incorporated into America’s regulation of naturalization. But that limitation had no authority over the children of native or naturalized Americans because their right of belonging did not vanish anywhere on Earth, -not at the border or the water’s edge. It was an innate right that the children of American couples would inherit their membership in all that they belonged to, including their nation because they were the sovereigns of the nation, not the government. All rights belonged to them except to the extent to which they assigned them to the government. The nationality of American children was never assigned to government limitation at any time in any way under any circumstances except in the scenario mentioned above.
Where people get confused is in the matter of parentage. What I’ve illuminated as the truth does not apply to individual Americans but solely to American couples (although it was originally purely a matter of patrilineal inheritance since the mother was absorbed into her husband’s nationality along with his name and family).
As in all of nature, there is no off-spring without the union of two of a kind. Two of a different kind will, if even possible, produce off-spring of a different kind from both of the parents, and thus not be a natural member of either of their two groups, but be instead a hybrid. Mules, tigons, ligers, zeedonks and such are members of their mother’s group but not natural members since their nature is outside of that of the parents. They are different. So parents of the same kind (i.e., nationality) are needed to produce natural members of a nation. If one of the parents is a foreigner, then the off-spring will not be natural members of either nation by blood because they were born of mixed blood, -political cross-breeds.
With those two facts in mind, when one reads about the laws regarding children of Americans born abroad, one will realize that if a delineation is not drawn between children born of American couples and children born “of Americans” as a general class of possible parents, then ambiguity is absolutely unavoidable and thus confusion will reign. One will erroneously presume that laws that were specifically written to deal with children of mixed-nationality couples must also apply to all couples include American couples.
But that is an outright falsehood because there are no laws prescribing how natural children of American couples must be naturalized in order for them to have the same American citizenship as their parents. In fact, the government’s own statement on their status says emphatically that such children ARE NOT NATURALIZED regardless of the irrelevant location of their birth.
All that is required of citizen parents is that they establish by various forms of proof that the child is indeed their own biological child (not adopted). That is necessary because there is no presumption of citizenship via native birth nor any state birth certificate to prove it, so proof of birth is necessary since adopted foreign children have no natural right to American citizenship since it is inherited from the American couple who produced the child.
The natural requirement of parents of the same nature for producing natural off-spring of the same nature and group membership can be best illustrated by the analogy of a safe deposit box. The box is analogous to a child. It is singular in nature, but in order for it to be available requires the presence of not just one master key but two. One, representing say the father, is held by the bank, while the other is held by the patron of the bank. One key alone is insufficient to open the box. It requires both, just as natural citizenship requires that both parent contributors to the nature of the child be of the same group. They both must have a key from the same bank just as they must have citizenship in the same nation.
If they are not both Americans then their children will not be born as natural citizens of their nation but will be legal citizens only. That could mean that they were born of a father who was naturalized and a mother who was not, or born of immigrant parents, or born abroad having a foreign parent, or born in the U.S. with a foreign parent. Regardless of the circumstances, the children that make up that tiny sliver of the population are not natural citizens of the United States.
There is no down side to that fact unless they are the one in three hundred million who is elected to be President or Vice-President. For that office alone, no legal citizen is allow. One must have been born as a natural citizen of American parents. No one born of a foreign subject of a foreign monarch is constitutionally allowed to be President.
But there are few monarchs ruling in this world anymore. Does that change the Constitution? Not in the least. Today it would be said that no subject or citizen of a foreign power, democracy or dictatorship, is eligible to serve as President because the President of the United States must have been born as a natural citizen via birth to citizen parents. That prohibition would have been a great defense against the unnatural presidency of one Barry Soetoro, aka BAIR-ek o-BAM-uh or Barry for short , but it is also a prohibition against even those who are strong defenders of the Constitution such as Ted Cruz.
In this day and age, his ineligibility is a constitutional technicality that not only does not serve the nation, nor the purpose of the founders and framers of the Constitution, but is actually an enemy of what is best for America’s future. What “conservative” Constitution-honoring American would face the choice of the presidential candidacy of Jed Bush or Mitt Romney, (instigator of Romneycare) or John (accommodationist) McCain and gladly vote for them over a Ted Cruz? Which one offers some hope for the future and the restoration of some semblance of Constitutional fidelity? Which one offers resistance to unconstitutional insolvent government? Which one stands up for the God-given rights of the individual and not just the security and benefit of the wealthy and ruling class?
If there was a law written to protect families from the dangers of guns, and it prohibited ammunition from being stored at home with one’s weapon, and you lived in a crime-filled neighborhood, would you follow the rule of law for the sake of the rule of law or would you do what was necessary to protect your family?
Now just substitute your nation for your family and the Constitution for the law against ammunition. It’s purpose was for the security of the family/ nation, but its effect might be just the opposite. Which do you defend? Your family/ nation or the law designed to do so but with undesirable side-effects? The future may require that you, and millions of others, make a choice. I hope that choice is a wise one because the future and survival of our nation may depend on it.
by Adrien Nash Dec. 2014 obama–nation.com