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”.