February 14, 2015 2 Comments
~National Membership: by Birth Geography or Blood Lineage
The attacks on the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s constitutional qualification to be President come from two quarters. One is from the grounds of natural rules which explain the true nature of his supposed citizenship. The other is from the unnatural grounds of a sort of man-made Siamese twin concept which combines the natural rule with a man-made rule in an unholy alliance justified by nothing but gross distortion of logic in understanding the use of language by one Swiss societal-political observer, E. de Vattel who wrote about nationality in the French work: “the Law of Nations”.
Those who are deluded by that Frankenstein nativist concept are the followers of the writings of Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo. In their world, as in the world of the Obama eligibility defenders, the natural law influence of fundamental reality does not reign, nor even exist. That results in the lack of awareness of something that does exist, and that is fundamental “Organic Law” which contains the fundamental principles of law and government. America includes its organic law right in the U.S. Code, stating that it is comprised of The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and its amendments.
In the minds of the ignorant, American fundamental Rights and principles are not acknowledge in their full breadth regarding national membership and individual sovereignty, but are partially replaced by a contrived concoction, a mismash of polar-opposite concepts melded together to produce the result that they desire, -which is: Born IN America TO Americans.
The results of both sides seem really legitimate, and can, and have been, argued endlessly, but neither addresses the root reality behind the entire tableau of the debate.
The defenders of Obama’s eligibility base their defense entirely on two things: ancient custom and historical legal opinion about it. Legal opinion has been shaped by ancient custom through all of the generations of American history. The custom brought to America by the founders of the 13 colonies was that of Britain. But that custom and the legal doctrine from which it sprang, was overlaid on top of the natural rule of group membership that pre-dated all of human civilization.
That rule was the law of natural membership. Natural membership in all natural groups, and most man-made groups, was always via blood lineage. It was the ONLY rule in fact, and it was automatic. It required no rule-maker to bring it into existence. It was a universal law of life. It was a background reality like the fact that breathing is a necessity of life.
But in England that law was deliberately altered to accommodate an unnatural situation; the situation of having to integrate a whole lot of foreigners into an otherwise essentially natural nation. That was the Norman Invasion event which lead to the successful conquest of the English and their government. From then on an Englishman could no longer be understood to be anyone and everyone born of an Englishman, because the conquering Normans were not English, and yet they had become fellow countrymen in the combined nation.
The question that needs to be asked is: what existed before that unnatural situation? What had existed was what had always existed; membership by blood lineage.
“How did you become a member of the ancient royal line?” “I was born as a member through my father.”
“How did you become a member of the trade union?” “I was born as a member through my father.”
“How did you become a member of the Holy Roman Church?” “I was born as a member through my father.”
“How did you become a member of your aristocrat family?” “I was born as a member through my father.”
“How did you become a freeman?” “I was born as a freeman through my father.”
“How did you become a debt-indentured servant” “I was born indentured through my father.”
“How did you become a slave?” “I was born a slave through my mother.”
All of life’s relationships were derived from one’s blood lineage. That is why societies around the world were stratified and stultified. One could not move from one group into another because one could not change the circumstance of who their father (or mother) was. That is the entire story of the history and culture of nations like India in stark relief. The word “caste” means color. People were socially classified by the density of their inherited color. They were born into their color “caste”.
And that is how it was in England before the arrival of the Normans. Englishmen were English because they were born of English fathers. That was not a written rule. It never needed to be written and so it never was, not anywhere. It’s a natural law of life that everyone understands.
Who people are is determined by who gave them life. “How did you become Jewish?” … or German? or Japanese? Imagine a country like Japan on nationality steroids. Everyone in the country is Japanese by blood lineage, -as was virtually the case before World War II.
No one ever had the thought that “I”m Japanese because I was born in Japan”. Now imagine that a whole lot of foreigners are brought into the country (Koreans captured and enslaved). They are all aliens and are devoid of Japanese blood lineage. Their lineage is purely and only Korean, and it, like that of the Japanese, dates back thousands of years.
Now imagine that the war ends and the many hundreds of thousands of foreigners are still present in the country. They have no means to return home, or no desire, or nothing to return to but an impoverished, backward country. So they stay, …and have children.
What are the children in the eyes of both groups? They are what their parents are. Where they were born meant absolutely zero to both groups. That is the natural situation according to the unwritten natural rule of life.
That situation was the actual situation, and has never changed. Three generations after their ancestors were brought to Japan, the Korean descendants are still Korean, not Japanese citizens, because the location of their birth is still irrelevant to who they naturally are.
That is an example of the predominance of natural membership in human society. Now imagine that one day a constitutional amendment is ratified which declares all persons born in Japan are to be considered Japanese citizens. That new rule then takes effect and becomes an integral element of Japanese law and nationality thinking. It is taught as the law of the land for a thousand years and is the only conscious thought about why a person is a citizen in Japan. And yet the background reality of membership [citizenship] by blood lineage still exists and has not been explicitly rejected by any law.
To grasp the truth of the situation one must enter the conceptual realm and leave the legal realm with its circumstantial rule of birth-place determination. One can begin to grasp the undefined reality of the nationality situation by supposing that all of the Koreans left Japan. The population was once again purely Japanese. If a hundred years later, or two hundred, one were to ask a citizen how he came to be Japanese, what should his answer be, and on what would it absolutely and positively be factually based on? Birth place or blood lineage?
But let’s make one more supposition. Suppose that the law of native-birth citizenship never existed, but was merely a custom handed down from the Shoguns who allowed it. In that case there is no national law that declares all native-born persons to be Japanese. So how does one determine how they became Japanese when asked? Everyone was born in Japan, and everyone was born of Japanese parents. Now point to the one source of their national membership. The problem with that request is that “source” is ambiguous since there are two possible sources: custom, and nature. The customary source is native-birth; but the natural source is one’s blood lineage.
If the custom of the Shoguns was deeply embraced by the society for the benefit of the tiny percentage of alien-born children who entered life in Japan and became members of its society, how exactly would that custom apply to the Japanese themselves? Answer:
it would never apply since it was only a custom that existed for the benefit of outsiders, whose numbers might be only one tenth of one percent of the population.
ALL of the rest of Japanese society was Japanese, naturally, by blood lineage, by descent. They didn’t need a beneficent custom in order to be that which they naturally were already.
In America, as in all nations and former colonies, that same reality applied. That reality is not a legal reality but a natural reality, -one which does not disappear from the universe just because a new custom or law appears.
The background reality is that membership by blood relationship is the basis of every natural society and nation that has ever existed, but that is certainly not true of EMPIRES. They are the aggregation of many natural nations and peoples. They are only natural when those peoples are truly one people, as in America when the 13 nations of America united in a union under the Constitution. That was related to ancient Native-American empires in Latin America formed by the conquest of related tribes. That was the opposite of empires formed in the Mediterranean and Middle East by the Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, and Romans.
The American people constituted mostly a natural country in the sense that they were predominately of English descent, with all of the colonies being settled by Englishmen since the Eastern lands of North America were claimed by the British Crown. But there were numerous “flies” in that ointment since there were already natives occupying the land, along with the additional presence of African slaves, and non-English Europeans.
Regardless, all who became citizens of their colony, or State, gave birth to the next generation of citizens. Their children were new members through their fathers by the natural law of blood lineage or patrilineal descent. If someone asked them how they became an American, or a Virginian, or Georgian, etc, what should they have answered?
“Because my mother was located within the boundaries of such-n-such colony, or State, when I was born, therefore I belong to the colony and country where I entered the world.”? …Or simply “I was born as an American, -or Virginian, -or Georgian, because my father was one.”?
What the philosophically blind fail to grasp is that both possibilities do not represent fundamental reality. Those who were born of aliens had no natural right to be accepted as members, -like the Koreans in Japan. So custom and law were concocted to make an allowance for them.
To say that the custom and law that was concocted for outsiders applied also to insiders is like saying that the natural law that applied to insiders also applied to outsiders, (automatic membership by descent) when that is a complete impossibility.
One would never say that a child of aliens was born as a natural member of Japanese or American society via blood lineage, because their lineage is foreign, -not American or Japanese.
The natural rule for the 97-99% of the population has no application to the case of the foreigners. And in the opposite direction, the unnatural, concocted native-birth rule has no application to those born of insiders, aka; American citizens.
And yet all of the American legal thinking on the subject of nationality is brain-washed into thinking that it does, -even though no such American Congressional law or constitutional clause has ever existed. No one can point to anything in the United States Constitution which states that it will be the law in the Union of States that native-birth alone determines whether or not one is an American citizen in the view of the national government.
To claim that native-born citizenship was “the law of the land” is delusional or hyperbolic since it was nothing more than the common law custom of the colonies and the law of the States.
To be “the law of the land” it had to have been in the Constitution, or a statute that it authorized Congress to write. No such statute was authorized nor ever passed. So for a million dollar reward, native-birth can not be shown to be the actual Law of the American government because it is not law. It is only policy.
The national government had its own view of who was and was not an American, and it viewed the children of aliens as being the same as their father by birth; i.e., foreign. Where they were born had no bearing on what they were born as since they were the property of their father and mother and they, as a unit, were not free of subjection to a foreign power since they were still citizens or subjects of a foreign monarch.
Even the 14th Amendment itself is not such a law since it is merely an iteration by Congress and the American people of what already was the law in the States, -that the customary British rule of native-birth membership which was adopted by the States for the native-born children of their immigrants who were foreigners was henceforth to be officially accepted as the law of the land, a rule which would then apply also to the national government and its policy toward them.
That national allowance for citizenship for native-born children of outsiders was not an exercise of sovereignty by the American people to declare that the basis of national membership in the United States was purely one based on the circumstance of where one’s mother happened to be located when, in a brief moment, one exited the womb.
Rather, it was merely a statement that the inclusionary custom inherited from Britain and continued by the States was officially adopted as a national determinant of citizenship, (-not The Sole Determinant) thenceforth barring Congress and the executive branch from recognizing only the citizenship of those born of Americans.
The consensus opinion of the establishment was concocted when the Normans invaded England and then had to make it a law and custom that one’s ancestry and blood lineage were now worthless and irrelevant regarding one’s nationality, and all that mattered was the temporal, fleeting moment of one exiting the womb and doing so within the boundaries of King William.
Since that overthrow of natural membership, the thinking of the British legal establishment was focused solely on the new imposed artificial criteria of birth-location circumstance, and blood lineage was over-looked entirely except in regard to the king and his children. They (like those of sovereign Americans) could be born anywhere and still be what they were born as: British and heirs to the throne)
That thinking permeated the legal establishment in both Britain and America, and continues to keep everyone brain-washed to this day. Law schools do not teach fundamental American organic law. They teach established law & Policy only. I’m reminded of the commission salesman’s line: “Always be closing.” That means always be persuasively brain-washing a potential customer into thinking that they will benefit from buying one’s product and are not unwilling to do so.
People are highly susceptible to suggestion and authoritative presentation, -whether in public life, personal life, political life, or legal thinking. So the legal thought process of the nation has ingested the blinding, misconception-inducing, methyl-alcohol Kool-Aid of error by succumbing to the authoritative, establishment misconception that the tail wags the dog, and the rule of unnatural membership applies to all natural members (the 97%) as well as to those for whom it was concocted, namely; children of foreigners (the 3%).
It is an enormous intellectual error to suppose that existential truth does not exist and operate in the affairs of men, -that the only truth is human laws, legal opinions, and legal facts. Yet even in those limited realms, one can point to the fact that nowhere in American national law is there any declaration that citizenship for all citizens results solely from either one’s birth location or a statutory allowance of naturalization law, -and not from blood lineage, or right of descent; aka political inheritance.
Nothing in American Law even mentions the means by which one is naturally a member of his own country and thus a citizen of his own nation. The same thing can be said about the means by which one is naturally a member of his own family. Some things have never needed to be written.
The existential truth about how human society is bound together is totally absent from mention in American law. But that does not demonstrate that it does not exist as a fundamental fact and everlasting influence. Blood relatedness binds all natural groups together regardless of man-made artificial criteria employed to define the members of a political group such as a nation.
A lit candle still shines its light even in the land of the blind. Just because they cannot see it does not mean that it does not shine. Reality is not dependent on human perception nor is truth dependent on human knowledge. A tree that falls in the forest makes a sound whether or not any ears are able to hear it. The presence or absence of ears, like perception, can’t determine the actual truth about the natural world, and natural belonging is one of those truths.
Human beings are a part of that nature, along with their nations. Natural nations all evolved from natural relationships even though that truth has been overlooked and forgotten by the descendants of colonial powers with a history involving the merging of dissimilar peoples via the doctrine of native-birth membership. That history does not render non-existent the history that preceded the native-birth policy, nor the law of natural membership. It, like the air that surrounds us, goes unnoticed.
Imagine this scenario: a Hitlerian dictator’s minions are sorting people by tattoos in a land where every family has its own unique tattoo, which is not known by the overlords. An SS-like solider might grab people with a star tattoo and tell them that they were going to be lumped together and designated as the star-group. They are then the star group and belong to it by the force of government policy, but what about their family ties? Have they ceased to exist? Or are they the fundamental background reality of their connectedness?
The answer is obvious to those who recognize the facts of the situation, but the problem in America is that those facts are not recognized, and hence the policy remains misunderstood to be “the law of the land” regardless of the underlying truth.
What is also not recognized by most is the fact that their connection to their young puts their natural children within the sphere of the parents’ national membership by an organic fundamental right. The false doctrine that one’s native birth puts one in the American sphere by supposedly fundamental American law forces one to deny not only reality but also one of their own most fundamental American rights, which is the right to receive and pass on their national membership from their own parents to own their children.
If one denies that one is an American citizen because one inherited that status from their natural parents, then the extrapolation from that logic is that one has no inherent right to their own national membership but is only allowed it thanks to government policy, and thus one has no right to pass it to their children. But that view is utterly false.
Every citizen owns their citizenship, and government cannot take it away. And every child of a citizen inherits their American parents’ national status* since that is an organic unalienable right, -and is even expressed in American law in the naturalization acts which mention “the RIGHT of DESCENT”.
A Natural Right is NOT a privilege, a gift, a grant nor an allowance of lawmakers. Rights cannot even exist unless they are a fundamental element of the laws of life that reflect the will of the superior intelligence that created human nature and its unknown 4-dimensial potential.
What was the will of that supreme intelligence as understood by all Protestant minds that populated North America? It was that Man was to be formed in its own image; possessing and exercising Free Will as individuals who were therefore accountable for their actions.
We see the exact opposite in fundamentalist Islamic societies. Much of Free Will cannot be exercised by all mankind in their view because the Natural Right to it does not exist since Man was created as a slave by an egotistical god, and not as a Freeman by a caring and compassionate god.
In the absence of any Judeo-Christian origin of human rights which were “bestowed” on mankind, they simply do not exist since they would have no basis and no origin in an atheist universe of chaotic random chance.
Such a universe does not exist, as science has come to understand. Everything is order precisely and meticulously to an almost infinite degree, and one of the fundamental laws of the universe is the natural law of natural membership. It alone determines the natural population of families, tribes, countries and nations.
Adrien Nash Feb. 2015 obama–nation.com
* Due to the passage of the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote, along with changes in naturalization law which allowed them also to have a citizenship of their own, separate and apart from that of their husband, a misconception exists regarding foreign-born American children because of an ambiguity of language in descriptions of naturalization within either the U.S. Code, or its simplified explanation.
It, in effect, states that “children of American parents” born abroad are granted citizenship as a concession of naturalization law. But the statement to which I refer (sorry, don’t have the quote handy) does not distinguish whether or not it is referring to a child or single American parents or a child of American couples. Is “American parents” singular, plural, or either? Consider the striking similarity between the subjects of these two statements:
The American parents’ foreign-born children are U.S. citizens by descent and are not naturalized.
The American parent’s foreign-born children are citizens by naturalization.
The first, which contains the apostrophe, is plural since it follows the “s” instead of preceding it. The second sentence has it before the “s”, indicating a single American parent. So one is left without any answer to the question: What does “children of American parents” mean?
Without the presence of an apostrophe, it is impossible to tell what is being stated, but it is explicitly clear in another sentence that the (“legitimate” [a legal term]) children of married American couples are NOT naturalized (indicating that they are instead citizens by “right of descent”). That right exists only within a monogamous traditional marriage and pertains solely to natural children, not adopted foreign children. No such right exists for either single citizens nor married homosexuals because neither can produce a natural child. Only blood descent by natural parentage is the basis of natural membership.