Presidential Eligibility and the Delusion of National Security.
July 3, 2015 Leave a comment
Conservatives are confronted with a unique dilemma. If they believe that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen as the Constitution requires, then they feel an obligation to oppose him even if he may be the most conservative candidate available and running.
Conservatives will fall into one of two categories, and which one it is will be determined by their intellectual maturity or immaturity. Those who patriotically and dogmatically insist that he is not eligible, (regardless of any possibility to the contrary), -and thus will never consider voting for him, will be in the immature group. Their attitude will be very simple and simplistic. “No eligibility? -then no vote, -no matter what!”.
That is a very easily-arrived-at and supported position. The problem is that it may get them and thousands of others killed in a bloody revolution as we’ve seen in countries like Egypt, Iran, Romania, Italy, Panama, and the Philippines of the Marcos dictatorship.
Such a revolution may occur if another RINO is chosen as the Republican candidate, resulting in a continuation of the current Statist course or worse, the election of a Democrat who will further the dismantling of the Constitution and rule of law.
If a President Cruz would prevent that, would it be unthinkable to vote for him regardless of the Constitution and its seeming prohibition against his eligibility? To answer that requires mature thinking, strategic thinking, Art of War thinking. Let’s look at a stark real world hypothetical analog.
Adolph Hitler was not a natural born German since he was Austrian, but the population and government ignored his ineligibility and look how that turned out. Such a truth would seem to argue against a Ted Cruz candidacy, but what if the situation was reversed and Hitler was a natural born German while his opponent was Austrian born? And what if you could predict what would happen to Germany if Hitler were to be elected over his opponent?
Who would you vote for then?? Would you refuse to vote and allow full-fledged disaster to befall the world just because of a rule meant to “protect the national security” but which would turn out to ensure its demise?
Ask yourself this: How many centuries into the future would you have to go before you would find a time in which the United States and Canada would become enemies and go to war?
A reasonable response is that that could never happen because we share the same values. Do you realize what that means?
It means that our neighbor, non-existent as a co-partner for liberty in the world in 1787, could not be seen as a source of foreign ambition for power over the United States military and the federal executive administration.
No such nation existed when the Constitution was written because America stood alone in the world as a constitutional bastion of Liberty and individual rights. But today we have many such partners, including Great Britain, Australia, and numerous European and Eastern European nations, along with South Korea and Israel.
It is to their shame that no Latin American nation is politically mature enough in the defense of liberty to be among them, nor are our allies Japan and Germany. But none of those nations, nor many more, are conceivably a threat to the United States. Instead, the real threat is not from nations or cabals of ambitious individuals, but from ideologies that have spread world-wide and infected many people and parts of the world.
They include Statism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Humanism, Environmentalism, and Islamism. What they all have in common is Atheism and amorality, -at least at the top, with the opposite being the case in fanatical Islamism.
But together they pose a huge threat of totalitarianism. And that threat most likely will not come from a foreign source, but from a natural born Benedict Arnold, Alger Hiss, Robert Hansen, or Aldrich Ames right in the heart of our own government. We cannot trustingly assume, nor did our founding fathers, that our fellow American citizens love liberty just as much as we do. The enemy may be the traitor within, -inside not just the city gates but inside the palace.
So how can the eligibility clause protect us against that threat? It cannot and has not, even though it was not adhered to with Barack Obama. With the main-stream-media not on the side of truth but only on the side of Leftist political power and ratings, it may actually, realistically be impossible to effectively inform the American people about the Constitution’s prohibition, and even more, make them care in sufficient numbers to bring back fidelity to it during elections. That’s a very real likelihood that is most likely tragically true.
So when it comes to national security and presidential elections, the paradigm has shifted considerable and is no longer what it was in the past, so we cannot point to the past in the defense of fidelity to the presidential eligibility prohibition. We must do what our founders did, and live in the present, and deal with the present in the wisest way possible in order to ensure the survival of the United States as the sort of nation it was meant to be.
If that requires making a non-constitutional choice for President, is that the greater of two evils? -or the lesser? Was not President Jefferson purchasing the Louisiana Territory just as unconstitutional? When evil is in the mix and our nation is under dire threat from tyrannical federal authority and fiscal insolvency, it cannot be ignored as if we are living in a time of placid, unthreatened peace.
We must respond to the reality that confronts us, and make the wisest choice that we can, the most strategically effective and defensive choice we can make, and making that omelet may have to involve breaking a constitutional egg (as Congress has repeatedly and unconstitutionally done ever since the Alien and Sedition Acts).
That would be a case of fighting fire with… fire! Of exacting an eye for an eye, making “right” by means of a necessary “wrong” because there is no possibility in our over-thrown democracy that justice will ever be done to make the unconstitutional BAIR-ek o-BAM-uh* and his treasonous fellows into the ink stain on history that he should rightfully be. [*the actual family pronunciation of the father’s name]
He and his ilk are attempting to overthrow American liberty via a health care and environmentalism dictatorship. The situation could hardly be much more dire or dishonest, -or overt. And yet intellectually immature patriots fail to grasp the situation and the consequences of the wrong person being elected President in the next election. It could mean the irreversible end of America as it was founded (which no longer exists) and the end of it as we imagine it (even though what we have always imagined is not real).
To illustrate the situation that we may be in, an analogy will help. Imagine that you work for a giant chemical or drug company, and as a scientist you have discovered that the company’s product is killing people. You try to raise alarm bells but no one will listen. So you try to contact the CEO, but cannot get past his people. Then you decide to wait for him where you know he will be walking to his limo.
You sidle up to him as he walks and reveal what you’ve found and your concerns. He says he will look into it. The next day you read in the newspaper that he has accused you of stalking him and harassing him as only a deranged fanatic would, and you therefore have been fired.
What would be your wisest response? I’m not asking what should be your “honest” response, but instead your “wisest”? Is an honest response in your best interest? Would anyone believe it or you? Would it have any effective result? “Probably not” to all of them.
The wisest response would be to fight fire with… fire! Lie just as egregiously as he did. Claim that he ran into you while you were walking to your car; he intimidated you, threatened you with defamation of your professional reputation, and implied that your job was hanging by a thread. Say that you are thinking about and seriously considering suing him for slander, defamation, and unjustified dismissal.
THAT would be an effective counter-punch to his big fat lie about you. An eye for an eye, a lie for a lie. A truthful feather-duster strike in response would not hurt him but would effectively be a detriment to you. You would need to hit him with big guns, even if you had to make them up. Counter a lie with an equal or bigger lie. That would be strategically the wisest response.
After all, that is not only something what the socialist Left would do, but is the first thing it would consider doing. It follows the Saul Alinsky play book: “Rules for Radicals”, which just happens to be dedicated to the first deceiver, Lucifer. If they bring a billy club to a fist fight, you either have to surrender, get beaten to a pulp, or pull out one of your own, -otherwise you lose. So how is losing in your best interest? And how is allowing the selection and election of a RINO or non-conservative Republican in the best interest of national survival as a nation that’s still free?
Well, Barack Obama and his demoncrat partners have used a billy club against the American people and their government, and deserve far worse than they will ever get. But if we can punish them with a President who will do the most to dismantle their ungodly monstrosity of a government then we are obligated to do what’s best for us and our posterity, as well as for Liberals and theirs, since we know better what is best for us and them than they do (which is exactly what they believe also but from their perverse viewpoint).
Finally, let’s look at a constitutional truth that should change the way that anti-Cruz patriots view his eligibility. I’ve shared that truth in:
Why No Female, Black, or Alien-born Citizen is Eligible to be President
What I show is that neither alien-born females, nor alien-born males, nor natural born American women, or natural born American Blacks are constitutionally eligible to serve as President.
Women were not allowed the civic rights of men, including voting, serving as Sheriff, Marshall, Police Chief, Judge, nor as General of the Army or Admiral of the Navy, nor as Secretary of War, nor as Commander-in-Chief. The female-born, and black-born (plus the black-&-female born) would have been unthinkable in those positions; and although the alien-born males were allowed all of those positions they were not allowed to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
Well, the Constitution that patriots so rightfully revere still holds the same intent as when written. So besides no alien-born citizen-at-birth, no American women or African-American citizen is allowed to be President. If Sarah Palin or Allen West or Dr. Carson were to run, the patriotic constitution-defending strict constructionists would have to oppose them as unconstitutional candidates.
It would require an amendment to the Constitution to allow their candidacy since under the Constitution as written they are barred from the position of Command-in-Chief and thus the Presidency that comes with it, and that fact has never been remedied by any amendment to undo it.
So how highly should one revere the principle of unwavering adherence to the real meaning of the Constitution’s clear prohibition against the non-natural born citizen?
That is one great question regarding the eligibility of Ted Cruz, and another is: “Who says that a natural born citizen has to have a father?” What if the father was dead when the child of an American mother was born? What if his identity was never known? What if he was a stateless person with no nationality?
In all three very rare cases, the only nationality, the only “allegiance”,-the only “subjection” under which the child was born would have been American. The child would naturally be an American through its American mother. He, or she, would be American and American only. That describes a natural born citizen.
Ted Cruz was either born to a Canadian father and American mother or solely to an American mother and a stateless father whose nation had ceased to exist while he was in exile in the United States as a refugee under asylum status.
He definitely was not a Castro-Communist government Cuban “citizen” since Castro’s Marxist forces formed a new nation with a new constitution while Rafael Cruz was not a apart of the island of Cuba.
So he was not “a Cuban citizen”, but he may have been a Canadian citizen, -depending on when he naturalized in Canada in relation to Ted’s birth. If he had naturalized before his son was born, what strategic difference did it make in his son psychological and national identity?
It made absolutely zero it would seem since according to reports, Ted Cruz was informed of the Canadian law of jus soli citizenship from a reporter after making it known that he was considering running for the presidency. How much more irrelevant could such “citizenship” possibly be?
It is important to recognize the nature of the conundrum: it is purely technical, and literal, -not psychological or subjective since in that regard Ted Cruz had only viewed himself as being American. He had no Canadian self-image or identity or connection. All of his connections were directly American and indirectly Cuban *derived from what his father told him about his native country).
Now let’s review that facts as they exist:
- Barack Obama and the treasonous Party have successfully pulled-off a coup de tat against the U.S. Constitution and the People of the United States.
- No one will ever be held culpable for that crime nor will his unconstitutional reign be negated or nullified by the RINO Party.
- The Constitution’s eligibility prohibition is effectively in a permanent coma.
- The public is totally ignorant of what a natural born citizen is and does not even care to know.
- To undo the damage of Obama’s eight years in office will require the diligent efforts of a dedicated constitutional conservative working night and day for at least one term, and probably two.
- The person best qualified and most dedicated to restoring the rule of the Constitution’s authority is the person who needs to be placed into power.
- The circumstances of his father’s nationality at the moment or day or year of his birth should not be considered as disqualifying provided that his father was not a willing nor dedicated member of a totalitarian nation (like North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, etc.) nor a nation that is a staunch competitor to the United States, such as China, Russia, and Iran.
- The idea that “two wrongs don’t make a right” must but be analyzed as with the understanding that capital punishment (the death penalty) is a form of “wrong” but is not truly wrong when it is duly exercised as a function of government serving the right of Justice.
- The “wrong” of voting for a man who was not born of an American father, or worse, born of a father who was a citizen of Canada, must be viewed in the realistic strategic light of a life-&-death struggle for the survival of the nation. All that matters is avoiding the fatal calamity of a Democrat or RINO presidential victory.
- Constitutional integrity and fidelity will not serve to save Americans or their nation if natural born American traitors are placed into the oval office.
- Better to have a Canadian-born and raised defender of individual liberty than a U.S. born & raised child of a natural born American couple that is treasonous to individual liberty and subservient to anti-colonialism, Marxism, Socialism, atheism, and/or Islamism.
Sometimes the medicine that is intended and expected to cure you can actually kill you instead. YOU have to be wise enough to not let that happen, to think smartly and strategically, and vote for the man or women who will be the greatest enemy of Big Brother, -the most committed to dismantling the insolvent leviathan that has become the American “Babylon the Great; Mother of Harlots” along the Hudson.
by Adrien R. Nash March 2015 obama–natio.com