by Chrue Blue
March 27, 2014
There has been great effort paid to the definition of Natural Born Citizen. There seems to be as many definitions as those who wish to use such extraordinary definitions to underwrite their particular purposes. However, since there is a finality to all arguments (one would hope that to be so) as to what constitutes one thing or another, it is compelling that someone should examine the basis of that term, that we may put an end to this ongoing (and remarkably redundant) exploration.
It
is well known that the definition of Natural Born Citizen (NBC) is
not persuaded in the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it
has been widely accepted that to find the definition, recourse must
be made to avail ourselves of other means of description as pertains
to the term and it's final meaning.
We
cannot find it in the Federalist papers, nor can it be found
in James Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention, nor in
Alexander Hamilton’s notes on the same. It should be pointed out that, during the lives
and times of those noble men of our foundation, such a required
definition was not necessary; just as it is not necessary to explain
what the meaning of pizza is, nor what it normally consists of, to
have absolute general agreement as to what a pizza IS (for crying out
loud). Any 4 year old knows what a pizza is!
Yet
examine it we must, to bring finality to this exhaustive inquisition.
Let
us resort to the most commonly held understanding of the Framers and
Founders of our nation that were held at the time of the writing of
the great manuscript which gave composition to the under-structure of
the country we call the United States of America, and to the man who
advanced such understanding to their usefulness: Emmerich de Vattel.
In
1758, Vattel's “Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature,
Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns” was
published .
Vattel drew heavily from Christian von Wolff and Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz's writings, preferring their examinations of natural
conditions more valuable than John Locke's or Thomas Hobbes'
utilitarian collectivism. Additionally, Vattel considered that
Christian values were the underpinnings of natural law. Vattel showed
that Christian charity was far more instructive of natural law, by
advancing Christ's commandment to “love you enemies” as more in
keeping with the Creator's form of natural law than any other
resource.
In
order that we may fully appreciate what is going on in this mass
hysteria over the definition of NBC, let us consider how this concept
was formulated by the writers and philosophers just mentioned (not
that there aren't others, but since that would take much more space
and time to read than this short exploration, we will confine
ourselves to the shortest possible route to the answer).
Let
us first take Leibniz: In philosophy, Leibniz is most notable for
his optimistic view of man. His conclusion that our universe is, in a
tethered sense, the best possible one that God could have designed.
Leibniz (along with Descartes and Spinoza) was one of the great 17th
century advocates of rationalism, even though in that advocacy as it
anticipated modern logic and analytical philosophy, his personal view
drew back to the scholastic tradition, in which conclusions are
produced by applying reason to first principles (or prior
definitions) rather than to empirical evidence. “Faith is the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”.
Christian
von Wolff was a student of Leibniz, but went on to form his own
philosophy on rationalism. “ Wolff emphasized that every occurrence
must have an adequate reason for happening or there arises the
impossible alternative that something might come out of nothing. ”
Thus, even though Wolff was slanted to the more sterile philosophy
that there must be a rational basis for all things, he advanced the
same concept that something cannot logically be created from nothing.
Let
us now turn to Locke and Hobbes. John Locke is widely regarded as the
father of Classical Liberalism. Locke contended that labor creates
property, but that it should also have containment to its
accumulation: ie, man’s capability to produce and man’s capacity
to consume. According to Locke, unused property is a waste and an
offense against nature. This is antithetical to the law of nature,
since God Himself pronounced that man should be fruitful, to produce
and become plentiful in his results, thereby having the ability to
share with those who could not accomplish such amassing of goods.
There is still an Orthodox Judaic command that the corners of fields
should remain unharvested, for the widows and the orphans to come and
gleen from, for their situation is less favorable than the owner of
the fields. Thus, it is proper to be generous with one's over
production for the good of the unfortunate; Another of Christ's
teachings to be merciful to others. (This is not meant to be an endorsement of the rampant welfare nanny state however).
Hobbes
is even more pernicious however. Thomas Hobbes published his work,
“Leviathan” , which
argues for a social contract and
rule by an absolute sovereign. Hobbes wrote that civil war, and the
brute situation of a state of nature could only be avoided by a
strong undivided government. However, Hobbes did not mean a divided
but equal condition of governing
(such as our own 3 supposedly
co-equal branches of
government); indeed, Hobbes greatly favored a form of elitist
government, along the lines of Plato's “Republic” and Thomas Moore's
“Utopia”. Such types of structure lend themselves only to
tyranny from the Elites over the serfs and favoritism to those of a
nobility, whether
artificially produced or through monarchical inheritance
and/or
hierarchical position. This is counter-intuitive to our original form
of a Federal Republic.
We
shall now take on Vattel and his divine understanding of natural law.
In Book 1 of Laws of Nature, Chapter XIX, §
212. Citizens and natives,
he writes this:
“The
citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society
by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally
participate in its advantages. The
natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of
parents who are citizens. As
the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The
society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to
its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that
each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the
right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is
therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely
by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to
the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they
owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that,
in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born
of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a
foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his
country.”
In
1775, Charles Dumas wrote to Benjamin Franklin and sent along with
that letter 3 copies of Vattel's Law of Nations. Franklin wrote back:
“I
am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition
of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a
rising state make it necessary frequently
to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept
(after depositing one
in our own public library here and sending the other to the College
of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the
hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much
pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and
just esteem for their author...”
Going
on, in §
213. Inhabitants,
we find this:
The
inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are
permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by
their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they
reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants
them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of
citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom
gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the
right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an
inferior order, and are united to the society without participating
in all its advantages. Their
children follow the condition of their fathers; and,
as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence,
their right passes to their posterity.
Also,
here: §
215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It
is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country
are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several
countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By
the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their
fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth
produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish
any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;
I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for
particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father
has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If
he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of
another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children
will be members of it also.
From
just these few examples,
(and
there are a vast number of others) we
can ascertain that in the understanding of the Founding Fathers,
the
writers of the Document
giving
this
nation it's
bedrock foundation, the issue of NBC needed no further definition. A
natural born citizen is a person born in the country (this country,
for our purposes here) to 2 citizen parents. Since Mr. Obama aka
Soetoro aka Dunham-Soetoro, aka Soetoro Sobarkah or by whatever other
name he would like to present for his own depraved purposes, has only
admitted to a paternal individual known as Barack Hussein Obama (Sr)
and since that individual is well known by legitimate
documentary
evidence of two
well known
university's to have been a foreign
student
on
temporary scholastic visa
with the nationality of Kenyan, and therefore a British subject to
the Crown of England
(Kenya being a British
protectorate in 1961),
it is impossible for Mr. Obama-Soetoro-Sobarkah-Dunham to be a
natural born citizen, according to the understanding of the writers
of the Constitution of the United states under Article II, Sec. 1,
Clause V.
Since
Mr. (Whatever his name is) is therefore not an NBC, it is technically
and
constitutionally
impossible
for him to be eligible to the office of the Presidency or
the Vice Presidency,
since the requirement extends to anyone who may have to serve as
President, the VP being second in line of succession and most closely
apt to assume office under the incapacitation of the POTUS.
Furthermore,
the oath of office recited
by Mr.
(?) is not legally binding to the performance of the office since
he is not eligible to OCCUPY the office; however,
it's
illegal issuance is
certain to endanger the man (and
those with foreknowledge of the fraud who participated in it's
continuance and/or
cover-up) under
various and wide ranging felonies, up to and including treason. Many
of the abstractions, misconstructions and egregious violations of law
that have been committed under his hand, toward
the enrichment and comfort of US enemies has left the United States
undefended by a legitimate Commander in Chief, and vulnerable to
hostile forces from without our borders.
Under the massive fraud of
this unchecked usurpation and the serpentine actions of previous
administrations, we are on the very precipice of utter
economic collapse. The unchecked allowances those in the seats of power have gifted themselves with, their unmistakable attachments to international concerns and ideologies, along with the brazenly unscrupulous extortion of the morality of their offices (by way of the massive financial benefits reaped from intertwining nefarious associations), not to mention the vacancies of their virtues, our governmental environment has become a cesspool of mercenary corruption that knows no limit to it's scandalous depravity!
If that isn't enough, consider the nearly incomprehensible
constitutional crisis that has been imposed upon our country in view
of the fact that we have a fraud, a Usurper, an imposter in the most
powerful office of our nation, who has access to the most delicate,
sensitive and secret national security information our country can
possibly
possess. His closest advisers
who
are demonstrably progressive socialists are
also privy to this extremely classified information. The
treasure, fruit and preservation of our
nation is
in the hands of the enemy!!
It
makes the thinking man delirious with apoplectic disquietude...HOW IN GOD'S
NAME DID THIS HAPPEN??? How did our nation suffer this great and
overwhelming seizure?
Disengagement.
Apathy. Complacency. Evil
succeeds when good men do nothing.
There
is an enemy in our nation. It is destroying her with it's toxic
infection from Powers that you cannot see, but are ever so real...and
even more deadly than you can imagine.
No comments:
Post a Comment