Tale of A Dead President & His Twin Brother’s Charade
Tale of A Dead President & His Twin Brother’s Charade
There once was a patriotic, loyal American ex-Green Beret who served multiple times in Iraq and Afghanistan and went on later in life to be appointed Ambassador to England and also Canada. While serving in Canada his wife became pregnant with twin boys. At 8 months, 2 weeks into her pregnancy the couple headed south to give birth in an American hospital which served their health plan. Just before reaching the border, one of the twins decided it was time to make his exit, and so he did, -just yards inside the Canadian border. The other twin was born an hour later in the American hospital.
They both grew up loving their country and being proud of their father’s service and so they both enlisted in the military and served honorably for 4 years. Later in life, one of them, John, was groomed for political office, while his less ambitious brother, Jim, supported him and campaigned for him. After serving for 8 years as a governor, John ran for the Presidency and won. He chose as VP a likeable lout who was popular with the seniors but not really presidential material.
One day after a couple years in office, he and Jim decided to get away from it all for a while and go for a flight in a private plane which John piloted. But there was a problem and the plane crashed killing John, the President, and burning his body into ashes. Jim was thrown free from the wreck and suffered minor injuries but was fortunate enough to land in a lake, and thus survive in good shape.
Jim was unmarried, as was John, so he faced a very unique situation regarding his future. Should he go on living the unremarkable life that he was stuck in, and let the incompetent VP assume the office of the President, or should he assume the position and keep the nation going in the direction his brother was working toward? Well, he decided to go bold and pretend he was John, and had suffered some memory loss in the crash so he couldn’t be expected to remember things perfectly.
After a year someone noticed that a scar that John had had on his back was missing from his back now. After much head scratching and photo comparison, it was concluded that the President was a fraud. He was really John’s twin brother Jim. The repercussions began immediately. Some wanted to try him for fraudulent impersonation of the President, but there was no such law so how could he violate it?
Others wanted to charge him with the crime of unconstitutionally holding the office for which he was not elected, but that also was not a crime since there was never any conceivable reason to make such a law. Still others wanted to impeach him for unconstitutionally holding the office for which he was ineligible since he was the twin that the parents had said was born just over the Canadian border, and therefore he was not a constitutionally eligible “natural born citizen”, -having not been born in America, -or so they asserted.
So instead they simply decided to impeach him for being ineligible for office because he was born in Canada and not America. So even though the Vice-President was native-born to foreign parents, not Americans, they made him President nevertheless, and held Jim as not being eligible to be President because his mother gave birth a few feet short and a few minutes too soon.
So you have to ask yourself; was this a system that the founding fathers of our nation really intended our nation to follow? Were they really that clueless, -that dumb? Or did something go wrong in the public’s understanding somewhere during the passage of two centuries? The correct answer is the latter. The founding fathers cared not where American sons were born. They cared only that they were born to American fathers and not foreigners. American fathers were needed to instill American values, -something that national borders cannot do, and certainly foreign fathers cannot be expect to do.
But in keeping the Constitution simple and brief, that attitude was not conveyed in an unmistakeable manner. Therefore, to rectify the situation somewhat, in the first Congress they passed the first Naturalization Act. It was meant to deal with naturalizing foreigners and their children, but the Congress inserted an order to the U.S. executive and judicial branches that Americans born abroad were to “be considered as natural born citizens”. That was meant to protect their rights as citizens so that they wouldn’t be erroneously viewed a foreigners, nor as automatically naturalized children who were ineligible to be President.
Congress did not declare them to be natural born citizens because it had no authority to pass any law regarding the citizenship of natural Americans. The Constitution only grants Congress power to legislate regarding foreigners and their naturalization. It has no authority over natural American’s citizenship. But Congress felt the responsibility to protect it by clarifying the nature of foreign-born Americans. It intended by its insertion of a reference to them that they were to be considered to be that which they were by birth, namely natural American citizens. Their birth abroad did not cancel anything regarding the naturalness of their citizenship. It was derived from the very same principle as that of their domestic born fellow citizens, -namely the citizenship of their parents.
Those who argue and insist that citizens such a John McCain, a tortured war hero who spent five horrible years in a North Vietnamese prison, are ineligible to be President because his mother wasn’t in the U.S. when he was born, are as misguided as those who ignorantly assert that birth in the U.S. alone is qualification to be President, even if the father was Fidel Castro or Adolph Hitler. Both absurd views are polar opposites. By the one, anyone can be President by the magic power of U.S. borders as long as they are born within them. And by the other, no one can be President by the magic power of U.S. borders if they are born outside of them. These are like ideas that a child formulated. They sound clear and simple, but have no principle backing them. No principle whatsoever.
Either one is a natural American by being born in America, or one is a natural American because one was the progeny of parents who are Americans. It is one or the other. It cannot possibly be both. By one a person is eligible to be President based solely on the capriciousness of where their mother was located when they were born. By the other they are eligible because their father was an American and he, and his American wife, produced a natural American child.
One is fair and the other is unfair. One makes sense and the other makes no sense. One is based on a natural principle of natural law, the other is based on nothing but an idea, -an idea based on erroneous assumptions that loyalty to one’s birth place is more important than loyalty to the Constitution which every elected official of military and high office swear to preserve, protect and defend against all enemies.
When the nation was at a crossroads on the brink of a civil war, people had to choose where their allegiance would be given. To their country or to their homeland? To the Constitution or to secession? The Constitution lost and thereby the country lost because people choose to turn their backs on it and embrace their comfortable roots instead. But their roots did not embrace the Constitution. Instead they embraced self-interest at the expense of unity, morality, equality, humanity, justice, and a form of government that should never perish from the earth.
Where one was born has no part in a sense of national loyalty because no one can remember their birth or the years that follow it. They remember where they grew up, but even more they remember the patriotism and national devotion expressed by their father, -or lack thereof. But regardless of national loyalty, one comes into this world and society the same as what their parents are, whether it be their race, ethnicity, culture, language, or nationality. They are what they are by their natural connection to those to whom they are born, -not by place of birth.
by a.r. nash feb. 2012 http://obama–nation.com