Of Presidents, Pirates, Indians, and Root Beer

~Understanding PRESIDENTS and PIRATES

Most people are either ignorantly deceived or deliberately deceived regarding the qualification to be President, -the one pertaining to his citizenship. The Constitution requires that he be a natural born citizen.
The self-deluded of both parties hold to one of three delusional concepts about what that means. One delusions is that it is defined by bastardized British common law and Parliamentary statutes, being supposedly synonymous with a “natural-born subject”.
Nothing could be further from the truth because in Britain almost everyone was considered to be a natural-born subject if they were equally subject to the law and the monarchy or born of a father that was. That included the alien-born and the aliens that Parliament “naturalized” into new natural-born British subjects.

Then there are those who suffer from the most common delusion and it is that being born in America is what makes almost everyone an American. That delusion lives strongly in the American mind because the two have gone together since the colonies were founded. But correlation does not equal causation, and mistaken ideas have a life of their own and tend to be perpetuate from generation to generation regardless of their falseness. The fact is that that situation was the real situation until the 4th of July, 1776, then it became, like the British authority, as overthrown as the tea in Boston harbor.

But overthrown does not mean abandoned because native-birth continued to provide citizenship to the alien-born children of immigrants before their naturalization.
That was the adopted law of the new States but it was not their fundamental law -which was not even written. It was so fundamental that it did not need to be written. So it wasn’t.
Just as there was no need to state in law that children belong to their parents and not the government, so there also was no need to state that children were members of their own family and belonged also to the people and nation of their father, -as new natural members. That truth is easily seen in a hypothetical situation regarding pirates.

In The Pirates of the Caribbean, Jack Sparrow’s father was the keeper of the Pirate Code. That code was like holy script and had to be followed no matter what. Suppose it had a rule regarding who was qualified to be elected as King of the Pirates. Suppose it said that no person except a natural born pirate was ever to serve as king of the pirates. Just considering the meaning of such a sentence causes a lot of confusion to dissipate regarding what “natural born citizen” means.

Everyone knows instinctively that a natural born pirate is not one who chooses to be one in adulthood, and also that such a one is not anyone and everyone who happened to be born where pirates are in charge. A proximal birth location does not make one a pirate of any sort.

It can only mean one thing; one was born of pirates, -being born into piracy. It cannot mean that one was born of a pirate wench and perhaps an officer of the government or a law-abiding subject. That would not produce a natural born pirate because the child would take-after the father and not the mother because the child, as well as the wife, belonged to the father and husband.
Within matrimony, they were his property before the law and society. So it could have meant only that one was born of a pirate father, -which would mean a pirate mother as well because she was married to whatever her husband was.

So the Pirate Code which might have read: “No person, except a natural born pirate, shall be permitted to serve as king of the pirates.” would have been equivalent to the Constitution’s restriction which reads: “No person, except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of the President.”

Pirate-born is analogous to Citizen-born. Non-pirate-born is analogous to alien-born. Place of birth is irrelevant, as was also the nationality of the mother because it was automatically determined by her union with her husband, -taking his nationality in place of her own, -becoming what he was and therefore establishing unity of the family, parents and children, ..one nationality, -one allegiance, -one nation, and only one loyalty.
That was the American way in 1789 and it has never been constitutionally altered by an amendment even though the 19th granted American women the right to vote in elections.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of Root Beer and the Disambiguation of Natural Born Citizen

Using a Time Machine, a man from two centuries in the past is brought into the present. He, with his handler, walks into a bar and says “I like to have a beer.”
To which the bartender replies “What kind?”
To which he responds “Uhhhh, how about one with root flavoring.”
The bartender is perplexed; “A root beer?”
“Yes, a root beer, please.”
“Sorry, we don’t serve non-alcoholic beverages.”
“But root beer is alcoholic. That’s what makes it beer.”
“Who ever heard of alcoholic root beer?”
“Who’s ever heard of non-alcoholic root beer?”

Clearly, there is a disconnect between reality and language. The same disconnect exists in regard to “natural-born subject” and “natural born citizen”. They also have a problem of being confused with each other when in fact they are essentially quite different. A “natural-born subject” was a legal term applied to all subjects of the British Crown regardless of the origin of their national membership, whether by patrilineal descent, by native-birth to alien parents, or personal naturalization by Parliament, or general recognition of a class of persons by statute.

That term was invented as a fiction of law and in time became even more fictional as a preferred term of legal artifice that made everyone equal regardless of the natural or unnatural origin of their national membership.
Those born of Englishmen, or Scotsmen, or Irishmen who were members of the United Kingdom were natural subjects of their one monarch because their fathers were subjects so they were born subject through their fathers.

The term “natural subject” naturally applied to them just as the term “root beer” naturally applied to beer that was once produced with extract of tree root flavor. Being made like all beer, using yeast for carbonation and flavor, it was the real deal. But then in time, as in British nationality designation, a distortion or artificial alteration took place. In British parlance it produced an artificial natural subject which was labeled a “natural-born subject” implying that one was a fictional natural subject based on being native-born.
In time everyone was brain-washed into the mind-set that anyone who was native-born, even if born of transient alien visitors, was a natural-born subject of the Crown because that is what the government had decided to call them (and eventually dropped altogether). But calling something by a label that is unrealistic is a bastardization of language and a distortion of reality.

Calling a sugary carbonated soda pop beverage with root flavoring “root beer” does not make it actual beer. The language and label are false. And calling an alien-fathered child a “natural American citizen” is just as perverse because the meaning of “natural” is disregarded as if it has no meaning whatsoever when it has a very real meaning.
“A natural born American Indian” means what? Anyone born on an Indian reservation? Anyone who identifies with Native Americans? Anyone admitted into the tribe regardless of actual ethnicity? Anyone with an Indian mother and a non-Indian father, or vice versa? Or does it mean nothing other than one born of an Indian mother and an Indian father?
The answer is self-evident, -as is the fact that the use of the term “Indian” is just as linguistically perverse as calling soda pop “root BEER”. Both are fake, false, erroneous titles. Indians in America are NOT actual Indians because actual Indians are from India.
Similarly, calling the off-spring of transient, illegal foreigners “natural born citizens” is equally fraudulent. But they are not a whole lot different from the off-spring of legal foreign permanent residents.
The legality of their presence and the native-birth of their child in no way is related to that which makes a child a “natural citizen” of the United States by birth because by birth their child was born as a natural citizen of their foreign homeland, -not the United States.

One’s natural national membership is that which they inherit from their parents, -NOT that which they are GIVEN as a gift of a government that is foreign to them by blood relationship.
Given, granted, bestowed, or legally permitted citizenship is never natural citizenship because citizenship that is natural requires no permission of the government, hence the significance of the word “natural”. Natural citizens are not legal citizens because legal citizens do not exist without the permission of law, while natural citizens exist without the existence of any nationality law, -as they did before the Constitution was written and ratified.
Every child of the citizens of the independent sovereign States of America was a natural born citizen of their parents’ country, of which there were thirteen.  They were the sort of citizens that the Constitution referred to in  requiring that the President be a “natural born citizen”.

Advertisements

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”.

2 Responses to Of Presidents, Pirates, Indians, and Root Beer

  1. slcraignbc says:

    The Ratification of the COTUS “made” U.S. Citizens of all of the existing State Citizens, and no others.

    A1S8C4 of the enumerated powers section of the COTUS mandated the Congress to ‘establish an uniform Rule of naturalization.”

    The 1790 Act did so with the effects of three (3) pertinent provisions;

    (1) And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

    (2) And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:

    (3) Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: …”

    The provisions 1 & 2 imply that the citizenship of the child is derived from the parents U.S. Citizenship and the 3rd provision confirms it and identifies it as “the right of citizenship”.

    From it comes the “established uniform Rule of naturalization”.

    The “considered as” natural born Citizen of the 2nd provision grammatically requires a “counterpart” of which comparisons might be considered, which necessarily are those being born “within the limits of the U.S.”

    The 1795 Act, with it’s “repeal and replace” language, merely “limited” the places in which U.S. natural born Citizens might be born, i.e., limited to “within the limits of the U.S.”.

    Women are not mentioned in the COTUS nor the naturalization Acts as their political status was dependent upon that of their closet male relative and when married by that of their husbands under the ANCIENT doctrine of matrimonial coverture.

    The ANCIENT doctrine of matrimonial coverture persisted in the U.S. until it was abrogated by the 1922 Cable Act creating circumstances that allowed for NEW forms of U.S. Citizenship, i.e.; single parent and dual-citizenship at birth, both of which had not been possible prior to the Act.

    Neither the Cable Act nor the 14th Amendment in any way abridged or modified the original attending circumstances that produced an Article II U.S. natural born Citizen under the COTUS and Acts made in pursuance thereof; i.e., a person born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents within the limits of the U.S., and no others.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~
    edited/abridged to eliminate unacceptable injection of error and bias.
    COMMENTS BY A.R.NASH
    The greatest error is that allowed in the final sentence; “within the limits of the U.S.”.
    That is a juvenile, low-brow, irrational leap of presumption based on nothing. Congress, in the rewriting and expanding of the uniform rule in 1795 did NOT express nor imply in any way that natural born citizens can ONLY be born in the U.S. That is a false conclusion drawn by a biased mind that injects its bias into words that don’t even exist.
    Congress switched from mandating that foreign-born American children be recognized as “natural born citizens” to simply declaring them to be that which they obviously are, which is citizens of the United States.
    As I have pointed out to this twit in numerous posts, Congress decided to extricate itself from the very contentious issue of presidential eligibility, -which it had stuck its nose in with the authoring of the 1790 act.
    By mandating that all federal and state officers recognize foreign-born Americans as being the same natural citizens that their domestically born brethren were, they were defining citizenship as descending from the father, -not given by government, limited by government, or proscribed by government.

    Government had no say in the matter of natural citizenship. Government cannot rearrange nature to fit its agenda. Natural Law is supreme over self-appointed government authority. And by natural law the children take after the parents, genetically, socially, religiously, and politically. That means that they inherit their parents’ national membership along with all of the rest of their standing in this world.
    The problem was that there were almost zero Americans born abroad while there there tens of thousands of native-born children born of alien immigrants before naturalization, and if the original language was maintained, then it would have indicated that only children of citizens were natural born citizens, and NOT children of aliens.
    Those foreign fathers who in time became citizens and voters resented the hell out of the wording of the original act because it meant that their native-born citizen sons could NEVER be President. So… the offending words were dropped. But reality was not altered anymore than by calling a Navy Seal “a Seaman” does not eliminate the Seal’s status as a Navy Seal. He is both a Seal, a Seaman, and a US Military member. What he is called alters NOTHING! ANY IDIOT CAN FIGURE THAT OUT!
    Calling a natural born citizen a “citizen of the United States” does not magically alter his innate nature because he is both and can go by either label.
    Ask yourself: “Does calling a citizen of the United States a “natural born citizen” make one no more a citizen of the United States?? That would be INSANE! (and yet that is the logic he is peddling). Well, it works both ways!

    It is treasonous to American Liberty and natural rights to declare that Big God-Government has or had any authority to reject the Natural Right of political inheritance by blood, i.e.; citizenship by right of descent. And yet this traitor continues to declare Government to be God with the authority to overthrow Natural Law. IT HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY!

    “The 1795 Act, with it’s “repeal and replace” language, merely “limited” the places in which U.S. natural born Citizens might be born, i.e., limited to “within the limits of the U.S.”.”

    THAT IS PURE STUPIDITY AND PURE TREASON TO PRINCIPLES OF AMERICAN ORGANIC LAW AND ITS FOUNDATION ON INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND NATURAL RIGHTS.

  2. arnash says:

    a comment I posted on Facebook:

    “Whether this is the ONLY instance in which one can be born a “natural born citizen” has never been clearly stated by the Court. I’m not sure, though, what other possible permutations there may be,”

    You are not sure because you have supplant the Law of Nature for the opinion of British Law-educated and distorted minds. The full truth is almost self-evident but not so if one wears the blinders that you, and everyone else, wear.

    Those blinders include looking to things and persons that you should not be looking to. What you should be looking to is nothing beyond the era in which the words were written and understood. Everything else is vague, uncertain, presumptive guesses based not on the meaning of the words but on meaning ADDED to them by a British law mindset, -a mindset abandoned and rejected utterly by the founding fathers who instead embraced individual liberty and natural rights.

    The States continued to allow jus soli but under a completely different rationale than did the British. The native-born children of aliens would grow up as Americans just like their peers, -not be shackled to the British Crown for life for the mere fact of entering the world within British borders.

    The chief natural right of married couples of any society, country, or nation is the right of ownership of their children, and the second natural right is membership for their children, NATURAL membership. That means automatic membership by the RIGHT OF DESCENT, BY BLOOD RIGHT, BY INHERITANCE, aka: by birthright.

    Anything that disputes that right is treasonous to American Liberty and Individual Rights. Your view commits such treason because it makes Big god-Government supreme over the sovereign citizens that created it, their child, -not their parent. How? By the anti-American belief that natural national membership is a gift that must be given by government based on its criteria and not based on the law of natural membership.
    That law does not care where an Indian baby is born, -on the reservation of off, it is a member of its parents’ nation (tribe) if its parents are native Americans. The same goes for every ethnic and racial group on Earth. And it also goes for members of other groups, including families and nations.

    If your parents were members when you were born then you were born independent of laws written to allow aliens to become members of the American group. The authors of the American Organic Laws did NOT pen statutes or clauses that were aimed at themselves! They were aimed at that tiny percentage of the population that were foreign immigrants. They NEEDED the benefit of Law in order to be considered members. Otherwise they would have been like the Koreans in Japan.

    Four generations of Koreans, (including three of native-born Korean children) since WWII and they STILL are NOT Japanese. They are foreigners. They cannot become Japanese except by the process of naturalization into Japanese identity and the abandonment of their Korean identity.
    THAT is how natural law citizenship works. It involves psychology and identity. Everything else is legal in nature and not natural.
    Children of American couples are ALWAYS born as Americans regardless of the insignificant location of their mother’s womb when they exited it (unless the parents have never lived in the United States and their child is also foreign-born (and presumably raised) like them.

    In that situation Natural Law and natural citizenship are missing because the situation is unnatural (even though some nations, like Greece, have adopted it). Greek forever! -an identity greater than nationality. That’s ethnicity for you. That is not allowed in America because we are a melting pot and not a salad. Or should I say “were”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: