ESTABLISHMENT LOSERS, AMERICAN WINNERS, AND THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
by Cody Robert Judy, Presidential Candidate, ©2015
(Dec. 17, 2015) — In 2008 a new term was born in American Politics. The Birthers were seen as a pejorative in the mainstream media. They were the resolute Americans from both major parties who were struggling to represent the Congressional Mandate [natural born Citizen] requirement for the Office of President as born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
The term and definition has been assaulted in a cantankerous and abusive domestic relationship that penned even elected politicians against their contingency. Since 2000 the Judicial Committee of the House took it up in serious hearings, and since 2003 an unhinged eight attempts in therapy sessions of the Legislative Branch but every time the [natural born citizen] and its definition came out intact.
The Birthers were called ridiculous, old fashioned, absurd, delusional, even ludicrous for taking a stand for this simple term and understanding that had the vested interest of the nations national security at its heart.
Many chided, “There were no more foreign princes to be worried about taking over the American military”, expressing in their contempt a old fashioned rhetoric of the Revolutionary War period fashioning the concerns and fears noticed to have promoted the [natural born Citizen] requirement in the first place in a letter from preemptive first Supreme Court Justice John Jay to the Nation’s preemptive first President George Washington:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
The admission of foreigners, not foreign influence the anti-birthers blasted, forgetting the solemn charge of President George Washington’s 1796 farewell address:
[Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.]
[With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.]
It is this ‘foreign influence’ that is the consideration also depicted in the [natural born Citizen] definition of [born in the United States to Citizen Parents].
If we are to champion our Liberty and Freedom, we must understand that a simple child’s birth does not anchor a parent’s citizenship. Indeed we have seen parents abandon their country’s left and right for the promise of another. We cannot by hypocritical in our thinking and suppose that a child’s birth establishes a natural born Citizen status.
Linked to both the soil and each of his parents we do find a most [natural born Citizen] as President Washington advocated neutral in the partiality of his love for any foreign nation or excessive dislike of the same.
The excessive love understood in the core of a child’s nurturing circumstances will undoubtedly shape his love and hate tolerances out of the love for his parent. This fractured loyalty may become a hindrance to the requirements of a President in the duty to protect Americans.
If he loves a foreign nation in an undue respect, he might hesitate to denounce an atrocity as such. If he hates a foreign nation because of what it did to his parents, that also might be a weakness if he is called to defend it for reasons as an allied nation of America in the shifting political world governments. We see then a natural born Citizen of America as having no dual citizenship present in his parental heritage or of the soil and this is a requirement that keeps the ‘self’ free from an internal conflict.
How many times have we heard U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, or U.S. Senator Barack Obama refer to their foreign parental upbringing as a major character influence in their person? They are not expressing good characteristics for a President to have, but in contrast are expressing those characteristics that are in conflict with the duties of the office.
It is not only the influence of an individual as President acting upon a foreign State we are concerned about. It is also the influence of a person for a foreign state that may be compromised surrendering, as President George Washington said, the interest of the people.
Read the rest here.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.