It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What does Natural Born really mean?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


I can't answer that question, because I've never found a satisfactory answer for myself.

When I do, I won't be shy about sharing it. I can't promise that will be any day soon though.




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


There is nothing comical about it at all.

Like Aptness, you only show that you haven't researched into what the Founding Fathers themselves opined concerning Vattel's Law of Nations.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Yes, I'm actually quite aware of this video.

Thank you for sharing it again though, perhaps there are some who haven't watched it.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Also OP a further question would be: How would the relatively recent invention of the "corporate person" be affected by the 13th and 14th Amendments? That is to say, do I as a human, benefit by adhering to some corporate person and becoming a resource of that person? It would appear that if the Amendments do not apply to the corporate personage of peoples, but applies only to control the human resource, then I guess it makes sense to become a worker. So I guess working enough in America might qualify as 'naturalization', so long as the work was slave-like enough, according to the compromise of the 13th and 14th amendments.


I wanted to highlight this bit above, because it seems key to me, anyone else have any comments?

That is to say, weren't there human resources departments prior to the Dredd Scott decision where SCOTUS said with all authority that slaves were not humans, but were chattel? Wow, that would have to be the biggest human relations failure in the history of all mankind I would guess. 1857 was the day the company fired and rehired us all. The War was basically a birthing process with Lincoln versus the Papists. Lincoln had to choose the machines and the industrialists because only there could he gain artillery suitable for defense against Rome and its Southern collaborates like Jefferson and other Papists (Booth, Surrat, et al).

Yep, 1857, biggest human resources disaster in the history of the US. The Amendments that followed, seemed to work pretty well. I do not think Lincoln would have become a tyrant, I think he would have created something godlike and sublime. But no, the Papists/Jesuits eliminated him and just kept the human resources machine going.

One thing is this: If you are a "freeborn traveller" within Ireland, as an example, it is understood that you can prove to the cops that you were born there, either so-and-so knows ya or nobody knows ya, and you ain't from there. Now, as to if you adhere to the Irish State, that is a whole nother matter entirely. So you can can freeborn and still be respected within a truly enlightened land such as Ireland, but in other lands, they do not understand such high concepts.

As personal testimony of this, I will say that as I walked along the road into Limerick, I saw a travelling family and their camper by a trash filled stream creek to the road. These people were very happy, and gratful for the bounty of Irelands rivers which in that region are ocean-tide driven. Well, there this fellow was and simple doing some laundry by the river. He smiled at me, as I was on his level, as the Irish shat-box modern vehicles roared by on the road which had not been designed for foot travel, at all. In that moment when he smiled at me, I knew right where I was. I was in the most amazing country on Earth. Now as I walked back, the man and the camper were gone, and only the little creek remained, sadly there was trash all over the whole road so modern life hasn't been kind to the countryside I can tell you. But what's funny is that as I walked on out of the city and past that creek, then I walked past a pre-manufactured housing development which had a clear sign out front that such and such MacFergal or whomever, had built these cold and concrete Stalinesque shacks to house the travellers. I laughed out loud.

No traveller of Ireland would ever settle for some Stalin concrete shack. Yet still, the core of the Irish, especially in Connacht and the outer regions, are sympathetic to the travellers who were born within their lands, and these are seen as being very different from refugees or displaced persons.

Finally I must gove a shout out to that great film "Children of Men" in which we see the future of "Fugees" being just non-persons. Now, that film is very disturbing to some Britons, and yet it is also probably comforting to more Britons, than it is troubling. Can you see what I mean? In that movie we see that the UK power still exists at its core, protecting the works of Europe, which one would assume, has become a wasteland of war. They will deport anyone who crosses the channel.

So as I have said so many time, Hollywodd gives you the archetypes. Just stop all the superflous twitting and bs, and consider the futures which have been laid out, or choose some other path, but face forward at least! Further note: Aldous Huxley, biggest shroom/acid fan ever, wrote a book about the future in which "MOTHER" is the one word which can get you DEATH from the mother-government. Do you see? So this thread is epically important. Someone said there are other threads on this subject? No, there are not.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


You definitely have a unique view of these issues, a view I have not explored in any great detail.

Thank you for appreciating this thread for what it really is.

I have thing to go do now, real life and all that.
I guess we'll see where this goes in my absence.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The stipulation is ridiculous to begin with. Why not just go all the way and only allow people of Native American ancestry be president?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
The stipulation is ridiculous to begin with. Why not just go all the way and only allow people of Native American ancestry be president?


Your oversimplification and laughing smiley, suggest that you aren't too smart.

Can you clarify as to if you are being serious or are you just appealing to the absurd?

The Indians had established peace between the tribes of the Northeast, before Jefferson ever came and took their ideas.

So what is your point other than to be a laughing smiley who cannot add anything to the discussion?

If the Indian way was followed, America would be a peaceful nation. As it is, we have the opposite, America is a nation that creates tinpots dictators just to knock them down. Over and over this stupid game is played. The Indian ways could save us, yes. Shall I go there?

No, just let this thread sit quietly. why challenge your belief systems? I will only erode them and cause you pain. Please just let this thread sit. Do not stir it.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Originally posted by Cuervo
The stipulation is ridiculous to begin with. Why not just go all the way and only allow people of Native American ancestry be president?


Your oversimplification and laughing smiley, suggest that you aren't too smart.



Your accusation and name calling, suggest that you are a jerk.

I don't know why you think I was saying something negative towards my indigenous ancestors but I think you clearly missed my point. I think that the fact that there is any stipulation of being president based on where you were physically born is totally absurd. So absurd that they may as well keep narrowing it down to only include Native Americans. It was an illustration to show how ridiculous it is to begin with. How you read into it further than that, I have no clue.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


Did the Founding Fathers really put that in there or was that added to the constitution later? lol



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
Your accusation and name calling, suggest that you are a jerk.

I don't know why you think I was saying something negative towards my indigenous ancestors but I think you clearly missed my point. I think that the fact that there is any stipulation of being president based on where you were physically born is totally absurd. So absurd that they may as well keep narrowing it down to only include Native Americans. It was an illustration to show how ridiculous it is to begin with. How you read into it further than that, I have no clue.


Probably I am a jerk. Sorry about that.

If you have some natural voew of the world, or some politic to add, then do so. Part of my desire was to provoke you, all these threads are meaningless tripe anyway so I am at least glad to get some real verve out of you. But don't be mad at me because I can sense you meant well, though your post was shallow.
edit on 30-4-2011 by smallpeeps because: Oops wrong thread...



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
President Arthur would be surprised to learn he wasn't eligible to be president
edit on 30-4-2011 by syrinx high priest because: I really can't spell



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


You are a different cat, that's for sure. I guess I just haven't encountered your brand of provocation. I'll just chalk it up to a misreading.

As to "If you have some natural voew of the world, or some politic to add, then do so." Well, I did. And you called me stupid. You know that emoticons do not equate to IQ, right?

ps edit - No offense taken, by the way.
edit on 30-4-2011 by Cuervo because: We all just need to lighten up.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


You are a different cat, that's for sure. I guess I just haven't encountered your brand of provocation. I'll just chalk it up to a misreading.

As to "If you have some natural voew of the world, or some politic to add, then do so." Well, I did. And you called me stupid. You know that emoticons do not equate to IQ, right?

ps edit - No offense taken, by the way.
edit on 30-4-2011 by Cuervo because: We all just need to lighten up.


Yeah, again, sorry if I was brusque Cuervo, I can see you are good and deserve better words.

It's been a rough time for all of us since 1963 when JFK was gunned down. Though I was born ten years after that, I felt the unease all around me whilst growing up. Seems like being effective is bad for ones health in the Executive office. Better to be obedient and live? I think that was the point of those events.

Were you alive when JFK was shot? See because for me, I feel a strong desire to look back to that, as a real pinion of what came afterward. So yes, I think we need some real depth to these discussions, not to have them just be about silly issues or flippant suggestions. If the current Executive could lead or speak extemporaneously then nobody would care where he was born! In fact, even if he could speak well, we may never know because his handlers or just plain old common sense will tell the Executive to STUF and keep his head, right? So even if he could be eleoquent, what could cause him to possibly shake his handlers? Not many forces can cause that to happen, it would take massive testicular fortitude on his part to make JFK type moves.

Well anyway, I dig your kind reply to my assishness. Sorry about that.

So let's talk about the absurdity of saying we want a Native American president. I think it would be okay. In my case, the Natives I have met, down to a single one, would be better choices than this Executive or the last. No seriously, I must repeat that: Every Indian I have met in America (maybe 20 or so I guess I have met) seemed more real and honest than any politician can EVER appear.

So yes, I think a culture can be associated with a certain expectation of that culture. Muslim culture is cruel, and thankfully the current executive hasn't been persecuted for his faith in Jesus (lol). But the Native rituals are very sacred and get little attention. What can you tell me about your thoughts on the ways of respecting nature and the animals? These are the attractive threads for me.

Seriously though, what would the Indian Messiah "Chief JFK" or whatnot, end up ultimately doing for America? He wouldn't want his head exploded like Jack Kennedy. So I guess he'd be more like the fake indians on F Troop. Haha, that's some funny stuff not one real indian in the bunch.

In the end, for a leader, its not really about if you were born in America, but did you try to turn the power to the people? Because I think Crazy Horse and JFK had much of the same mojo. You have to being farkin nuts to act like they did. If Arnold S. for example, were to really act like an American and start talking crap about Vienna and Austria then I might believe him, but I think most leaders can be expected to wuss out. Not many Crazy Horses or Quetzoqoatls or JFKs around, they tend to die.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


Man, following your train of thought is like watching the free-flow of consciousness from a large ten-piece KFC bucket full of Hunter S. Thompson and myself. If you can dig it.

In any case, I think we are on the same page. Thanks for clarifying what you meant.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Short form legal definition if I am not mistaken :

Any person born within the current or or then current legal jurisdiction of the 50 states tha comprise of The United States is classified as a Natural Born Citizen.

I was born in JC, NJ and live in the house I was born into today means I am Natural Born.

Naturalized Citizen is someone who was born in another country or territory foriegn to the United States who is a cuurrent resident swearing allegiance to The United States from that point in time until death via oath and affirmation upon citizenship ceremony.

I am not a lawyer just know a whole lot about a whole lot.

Obama being born in Hawaii in 1961 means he is a legal Natural Born resident. Hawaii was established as the nation's 50th and thus far final state in 1959.

Any document can be disected and made into a exploded view A 50 year old system considered to be top of the line back then had flaws in stamping a problem that became so bad it forced the digitalization of every file on record sometime in the 1980's or 1990's making this problem a thing of the past. Older typewriter machine stampers were known to sag from their location causing a shift in the line meaning it could be touching or in the line above or below. Nowadays we don't have to worry about this issue anymore thanks primarily due to inkjet capable machines.
edit on 1-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


You left out the part where the parents have to be US citizens. Convenient. Obama Sr was never a US citizen. In fact, many lib pro BO use your definition and call it Native Born.
edit on 1-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Naturalized Citizen is someone who was born in another country or territory foriegn to the United States who is a cuurrent resident swearing allegiance to The United States from that point in time until death via oath and affirmation upon citizenship ceremony.

I am not a lawyer just know a whole lot about a whole lot.


Well even if you were a lawyers, it wouldn't mean anything except that you had obediently studied the black letter cases and passed the tests and sworn allegience to the BAR Ass. They even built a little pagoda on the site of Runnymede where King John signed the Magna Carta. Why put their pagoda there? Because Magna Carta in 1209-1215 is where the Barons of the European mainland, took over the UK via their parliament.

Now I couldn't care less where the Executive was born, if only he could lead. Similarly, there are millions of American born tards who would still need telepromptor and all the crutches of not being a good leader. So from my perspective, this Executive is exactly what you ordered up. I did not vote, and I feel good about that.

Now some would say: "Oh! You didn't vote so you can't say anything!" ...That is untrue, because not voting is the best vote you can give. The problem is that the leaders will take say 30% turn out and they will call that a real election. They do not even have enough balls to admit when their candidates are poor, they will proceed as if 30-40% turnout is valid. Haha, it's funny how little permission they need from you, to screw you utterly.

What I do, instead of voting, is rattle cages all across the IP domain. Because the IP space is so far superior to any other communications medium, it is laughable that Diebold and similar mega-corps are still trying to have voting machines while the "Poll" applet exists on every damn domain/website. My point is this: If they wanted to have a real Plebiscite they could do it with IP very quickly. I have explained this in the "one million people" thread on some other domain in the gamespace, I won't mention the name here or risk having something lopped off, Haha.

Seriously though: The COTUS is a control device. Yet, a nation needs a control device. Therefore we need the COTUS just like we need a nation. HOWEVER the key point is this: The electoral college process is the pinion of the control which COTUS wields. If the college is populated by rich assheads who promoted two Bonesmen for your choice, one blue Bonesman or one Red Bonesman, well, that is the right of the electors. See, they felt it would be best if Yale U. won that election, and so it was in the people's best interest that they recommended a process that somehow resulted in two dudes from the most elite entombed-cult and Yale U. a completely talmudic control school (Ezra Stiles' rabbi has a huge portrait there I read). So it is the college of electors, that choose the college of the Executive. Make sense?

So the process above, of how the 14th Amendment gets applied, is the legal definition, but all that won't mean jack-squat once the people realize that the COTUS contains the power to amend. In the hands of the people, and out of the hands of the college, the COTUS will last for 1000 years. So in the hands of evil, it is eventually doomed because they'll just keep cheapening it's value by offering milqetoast Executives who are all dissimilar to JFK who showed ultimate chutzpah and will never ever be forgotten by the American people, ever.

So the process above, fails the 14th Amendment in spirit, because being naturalized is supposed to equate to being born (having mom's womb water hit some particular piece of Earth). Well that means that "naturalization" means being "born again" does it not?

Yes, just like baptism, in which a person is submerged then breaks the water to reemerge, born anew, the naturalization process should be more spiritual and should really effect an adhesion of the person, to the ideals of freedom. If this thread lingers, I would describe some better naturalization processes that we could have, but some oath just doesn't cut it. Anyway the point is: The whole trust relationship is based on the Mother and her either being a tool of the state or a vassal of the state or the third choice would be that she decides to go off into the woods and give birth all alone, which women did all the time back in the day. So if she comes out of the woods with an infant, but refuses to tell you where her water broke, then does that make her less of a mother? Doctors, administrators and world designers would say, yes.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


You left out the part where the parents have to be US citizens. Convenient. Obama Sr was never a US citizen. In fact, many lib pro BO use your definition and call it Native Born.
edit on 1-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


7 other POTUS' have had at least one foreign born parent so if it did not matter to them it clearly does not matter to Obama and 41 has held dual citizenship with Germany and the US and apparently that does not matter.

C'mon and say the real reason why you think he's inelligible, he's a BLACK MAN IN THE WH! Nothing more, nothing less. Get real.

My stance is the only one that matters as I do not view the Constitution with a leftist biased as when you read it from one political side of the aisle it will be seen incorrectly. The doc must be seen from the centre or else there is an automatic biased.

To add one something stated earlier, like you know a baby grand or a grand piano, the hammer inside that when a key is pushed the hammer comes down making a sound , if they get worn out they will snag and not make full contact the way it should, the same thing occurs with an aging typewriter, most of these bc's issued prior to say, 1995 had to be hand typed.

The reason why it took 4 days to process the bc was that first day you are born, day two the hospitals bc is sent to the Bureau Health & Vital Stastistics office, day 3 it is in the mail, day 4 it arrives at the location and is entred into the recordbooks. Hence the 4 day delay between birth and recording. No one is born at say 830am and has their bc recorded with the state by 5pm.
edit on 1-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
the law has been changed at least once....
for one, they made it so the children of servicemen and women are citizens regardless of where they were born, if the parent was stationed out of the country.
the other change I believe that made was to make it so that children who are born from american citizens in other countries, will be considered natural born as long as the birth is registered in the US in a reasonable amount of time....(a time is actually specified in the law, I just don't know what it is.)
according to the defination in the op, well if obama's daddy wasn't an american citizen, then he wouldn't be either, because well, the citizenship is passed down from father to son...wouldn't matter what mommy's was....

which, I wouldn't be surprised if that was just how the founding fathers saw it..
this stipulation was put into the constitution to prevent people from other countries from coming here and putting themselves in seats of power and work on the behalf of their country of origin. It is a good stipulation I believe and should be preserved and enforced.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Not the worst idea I have heard.

Does my 1/16th slice of Cherokee get me in?...lol.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join