Citizenship: It Is A Parent Thing, Not A Child Thing

Our Founders established the criteria of Natural Born Citizen upon our President for a very important reason. Natural Born Citizen meant, to our framers, a child born of two parents who were citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of the child. If you are not sure of this, or perhaps disagree, please read this article based upon fact & history before you go on: https://goo.gl/sFkKUm  

A person who is born of just one parent who is a citizen of the United States is a citizen by birth, but not Natural Born Citizen. Someone cannot hold or have held dual citizenship with a foreign country and be a Natural Born Citizen. The fact that we are confused by this qualification, or perhaps even wish to alter this qualification, must be because we do not understand WHY this qualification was established in the first place. So, before we take a stand either way, we must consider the reasons why this qualification was established by the framers of the American Constitution.

The whole reason the president must be a Natural Born Citizen is because our framers had a history full of foreign kings imposing foreign law and foreign favor upon the people, and they knew how dangerous foreign influence was to Liberty. George Washington spent a great bit of effort trying to drive this understanding home in his Farewell Address of 1796:

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

Washington knew from his history the real dangers of foreign influence. Part of Washington’s British Constitution was a document called the Grand Remonstrance of 1641, in which the people of Great Britain listed many grievances against their King, Charles I. They indicated that these grievances were indicative of a larger design to overturn and undermine Liberty of the people and the Law of the Land. One of the grievances illustrates how foreign influence and foreign law have contributed to that destruction of Liberty:

“Such Councillors and Courtiers as for private ends have engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign princes or states to the prejudice of His Majesty and the State at home.”

In another part of the British Constitution, this time the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the people of Great Britain actually require an oath of their King and his council to shun all foreign influence:

“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

Protecting the United States from foreign influence was very prominent in the minds of our framers, especially in the office of president. At the time of the creation of the Constitution by the States, there were no Natural Born Citizens; so an exception was made until that qualification could be met. Article 2, section 1, clause 5 reads:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The exception to the Natural Born Citizen requirement was that the President must be a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Joseph Story, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833,” explains that this was to ensure that people who were “Patriots of the Revolution” could be considered for this office.

“This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country.”

This is an important distinction that helps us understand WHY the Natural Born Citizen requirement is a must. The President is the commander in chief of the military. Our framers knew from their history that it would be extremely dangerous to allow someone of foreign influence to exercise power over our military. Founder John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington on July 25, 1787, expressing this very point:

“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 devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The commander in chief could have no fractionalized loyalty. The commander in chief must be loyal to the United States, first and only. Prior to being a Natural Born Citizen, a candidate for president would have proven that loyalty by having been a “distinguished revolutionary patriot.” Once time established the availability of Natural Born Citizen candidates, that unbroken loyalty would be proven in party by the fact that both parents were citizens of the United States, establishing that the candidate would have been raised in a home with loyalty only to the United States.

When a child is raised in a home where one or both parents are citizens of a foreign country, then that child will naturally be raised with an attachment to that foreign country out of love for that parent. Our framers knew that in time of military crisis, our commander in chief must be free from all attachments and bias with a foreign country; it mattered not if that bias was for or against the foreign country. The president must not hesitate or haste in matters of war. He must only act upon the best interest of the United States, free from internal conflict. George Washington explains this fact in his Farewell Address:

“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.”

Alexander Hamilton gives another perspective of the Natural Born Citizen requirement. He postulates why a foreign country might actually want to raise up someone to become president of the United States, and the inherent danger in that possibility:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

Just as the birth of a child on US soil does not create citizenship in the parent, the birthplace of the child does not establish the status of Natural Born Citizen. Throughout history, citizenship has been based upon the criteria of the parents. It has not been linked to the child. This criteria of Natural Born Citizen does not deviate from that norm.  

In summary, the entire reason for establishing the criteria for a president to be a Natural Born Citizen was to help to eliminate any possibility that the commander in chief of the military would be influenced by love or hate of a foreign nation. Because of this well established and historically justified reason, we should think very long and hard before we consider altering or diluting this established requirement through modern interpretation or modern court opinions. Our framers did what they did on purpose and with a purpose. We only endanger our Liberty when we assume they didn’t know what they were doing, and our advanced intellect means we can disregard their reasons for our own personal preferences. We would do well to learn from this history, instead of dooming ourselves to repeat history’s mistakes.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Ferguson Is Sick—But What Is The Proper Cure?

We are barraged again by war in our midst, a war over something as nonsensical as skin color. This war has been with us since the creation of man in God’s own image; and its root is an innate hatred towards God, best reflected in the discriminatory destruction of our fellow man due to any quality, as seen in the case of Cain and Abel. This hatred is a sickness we bring upon ourselves when we agree with the enemy of God that men are not created equal, nor endowed by that Creator with unalienable rights of life, liberty, or pursuit of Happiness.

The Gospel of Peace teaches people of every color and nationality that hate is synonymous with murder. Clearly, a stop must be put to incidents of hate of all parties concerned like those in Ferguson, but how?

Many have looked to force of law, civil education, and Government to cure this sickness. Force of law says bring in more troops; civil education says empower the same adverse mind that enhanced this hatred; and government’s schizophrenic personalities are ignoring it altogether or embracing and exploiting it for political gain. 

None of these are solutions, and there is no solution to this epidemic in man-created systems.  

George Washington declared: “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Champion of equal rights and Baptist Minister Martin Luther King Jr., stated: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

So who is responsible to instill love into society? Government? Secular education? The law?

I have previously highlighted the response of the Charleston Emanuel AME Church after the tragic shooting during their worship service, and how they created a foundation of restoration, unity and love from which human and societal blessings can flow. What the Church did not do is take the incident of hate as an opportunity to protest, vandalize, rob, loot, or hate back. Instead, we saw singing, praying, and forgiveness. 

This is the answer! The American Church body is responsible for the jurisdiction of love. The Church instills the necessary religion and virtue into our society. 

Frederick Douglass once said: “The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.”

My conclusion: Ferguson will remain sick until the Church takes its rightful role to speak the prophetic Word of God to restore unity and heal a wound that has continued to breed and destroy lives of all skin colors and backgrounds.

It is time America looks to the God of the Bible as the solution just as so many great leaders, like George Washington, Frederick Douglass, or Martin Luther King Jr., once did.  We won’t be healed without Him.

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Founding Fathers To Americans: Don’t Forget God

Many argue the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with U.S. law, that the depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandments carved into the architectural structure of the U.S. Supreme Court building only represent one concept of several “early written laws.”

The marble frieze, “Justice the Guardian of Liberty,” located on the Court Building’s eastern pediment, depicts Moses as one of three Eastern law givers (Confucius to Moses’ left, Solon to his right). Some historians argue that by including Moses holding two blank tablets (the Ten Commandments) as part of the frieze, Moses represents only one of three Eastern civilizations whose laws primarily influenced American law.

Image credit: shutterstock.com

Image credit: shutterstock.com

Likewise, others argue that the South and North wall friezes inside the Court’s Chamber where the Justices rule do not emphasize Moses over any other lawgiver. Moses is only one of 18 lawgivers whose images are carved: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses (holding an inscribed tablet), Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, St. Louis, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon.

Yet, above the bench where the justices rule, carved on a marble relief are two men sitting on either side of a tablet on which I through X are carved. The allegorical figures represent “The Power of Government” and “The Majesty of the Law.” The numeric tablet represents the Ten Commandments, not any other law.

Entering the Court’s Chamber from the central hallway of the Supreme Court building are two oak doors on which there are carved two tablets with roman numerals I through X. These numeric tablets represent the Ten Commandments, not any other law.

The images of tablets with inscriptions all depict the same roman numerals I through X, not any other number or letter in any other typeface. The numbers specifically represent the first ten letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which are widely acknowledged and understood as interchangeable with the numbers one through ten (1-10).

Many oppose recognizing the Ten Commandments’ influence on American law. Many also demand that any public displays be removed from public property. Yet the majority of Americans oppose their removal. In fact, according to Pew Research polls, “Americans overwhelmingly support displaying the Ten Commandments on public property, with more than seven-in-ten saying they believe such displays are proper.”

Stephen McDowell of the Providence Foundation clarifies why:

“A NATION’S MONUMENTS AND NATIONAL SYMBOLS REFLECT THE HEART OF THE PEOPLE AND IDENTIFY WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE SOURCE OF THEIR NATION’S GREATNESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS. AMERICA’S MONUMENTS AND SYMBOLS CONTAIN THE DECLARATION THAT THE SOURCE OF OUR BIRTH, LIBERTY, AND GREATNESS IS GOD.”

McDowell surveyed and found numerous biblical inscriptions on government buildings from the Library of Congress, to the U.S. Capitol, the National Archives, the Washington Monument, the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, and others.

Interestingly, despite public opposition, the National Park Service repositioned the Washington Monument’s metal cap on public display in order to block visitors from being able to read its inscription: Laus Deo (Praise be to God). It has not, however, covered or removed the blocks embedded in the inside walls of the structure on which numerous references to God are inscribed, including “Holiness to the Lord,” “Search the Scriptures,” “In God We Trust,” “The memory of the just are blessed,” and others.

George Washington undoubtedly would be appalled by the National Park Service’s actions. He himself actually insisted that America as a nation must do more than just publicly acknowledge God. He wrote a proclamation (published in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal on October 17, 1789) in which he emphasized:

“IT IS THE DUTY OF ALL NATIONS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROVIDENCE OF ALMIGHTY GOD, TO OBEY HIS WILL, TO BE GRATEFUL FOR HIS BENEFITS, AND HUMBLY IMPLORE HIS PROTECTION AND FAVOR.”

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and many other presidents concurred with Washington’s directive. They understood that public displays and public acknowledgements of God were not coercive measures. They were instructional expressions of free speech and free worship. National monuments served as reminders, encouragements, and examples of American leaders who publicly emphasized the importance of valuing, relying upon, and honoring God.

No Founding Father argued that America as a nation should forget God. In fact, they argued the opposite.

Further still, they and their predecessors evidenced through their own actions that they opposed any legal prohibition of inscribing biblical verses or expressions on the very structures and monuments they themselves had commissioned to be built.

This column was first published by Constitution.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

We Don’t Need Another Conservative!

How many of you would be frightened at another Clinton presidency? Or perhaps another Bush Administration would cause you to throw your hands up and say: “I have had enough. It’s pointless to try.” In my travels around the United States, I meet many people looking for a “conservative candidate.” I may shock you with the following statement, but I believe it to be truth.  We do not want a conservative candidate!

Let me explain.

When any elected official takes his oath of office, he invokes the wrath of God against himself if he is unfaithful to that oath. To substantiate this, George Washington started the presidential tradition of swearing his oath of office with his left hand on the Bible and then kissing the Holy Writ after his oath was complete. You also may find it fascinating that, three days before Washington took the oath of office as the first president of the United States, Congress passed the following resolution:

Resolved, That after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice President and members of the Senate and House of Representatives, shall proceed to St. Paul’s Chapel, to hear divine service.”

Accordingly, Rev. Samuel Provoost, newly appointed chaplain of the United States Senate and first Episcopal bishop of New York, performed “divine service” at St. Paul’s Chapel on April 30, 1789, immediately following Washington’s inauguration. The first act of Congress was to direct the new president to go to church and hear the Word of God – something they felt was intimately connected to the fulfillment of their oaths to God and the people.

An oath is a serious thing. A specific standard is pronounced and declared. The oath taken by all government representatives and armed forces declares a specific allegiance to the United States Constitution.

The oath does not say, “I hereby solemnly promise to be conservative”. It does not say, “I hereby swear to follow what are presently considered to be conservative principles”. As you know, these things called “conservative principles” vary not only from person to person, but from time to time – and that’s the trap.

You see, wishy-washy words like ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ really have come to mean nothing. In fact, it almost goes without saying that political positions thought to be ultra-liberal 30 years ago, or maybe 30 minutes ago, are now seen as the accepted conservative position. At least for the moment.

So what’s the alternative? Well, we seem to need a fixed standard, don’t we? One that isn’t slick or squishy. One we can depend on. Happily, it does exist; and it’s called the Constitution. It was intended to be a fixed standard and ought to be seen and taught that way.

As Americans, we shouldn’t seek out and support another conservative of yesterday’s godless liberal (or otherwise) agenda because we will only get more unrestrained central power in DC.  Juxtapose that option with a Constitutionist, and it will be clear to see what we have been missing.

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Messianic Rabbi’s Warning To America Goes Viral

New York Times bestselling author of The Harbinger and The Mystery of the Shemitah and celebrated public speaker Jonathan Cahn issued a warning to the nation last week from the heart of the U.S. Capitol building. Video of Cahn’s remarks has already been viewed over 5 million times online.

Cahn, speaking at the annual “Washington: Man of Prayer” event on April 29, delivered a message in the vein of Israel’s ancient prophet Jeremiah about what he believes the future of the nation holds, short of a major course correction.

Quoting the prophet, he asked, “Has a nation ever exchanged its gods? Yet my nation has exchanged their glory for that which cannot help them.”

To the members of Congress and others gathered in the Capitol’s famed Statuary Hall, he first made the case that the United States was dedicated to God by the Founders.

Cahn pointed out that the very date they were meeting was the anniversary of the first settlers planting a cross at Cape Henry, Virginia, and dedicating the nation to God on April 29, 1607.

The Washington: Man of Prayer event itself draws some of its inspiration from George Washington’s actions and words during his inauguration as the first president of the United States on April 30, 1789.

It was Washington who decided he would swear his oath of office on the Bible (which every president has done since) as recognition of who holds ultimate authority. He also added the words, “So help me God” to the oath.

Cahn noted that following Washington’s inauguration, the newly sworn-in president and the Congress went to nearby St. Paul’s Church in New York City and dedicated the nation to God.

Their actions were consistent with the call Washington had just made in his first inaugural address, saying:

…it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe…that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes… No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.

Later in his address, our nation’s first president warned: “we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”

Cahn quoted Washington’s warning and his belief that the United States has disregarded those “eternal rules of order and right,” citing the over 50 million babies that have been aborted in the United States and the rise of homosexual marriage as two examples.

Like ancient Israel–a nation dedicated to God, but which ultimately turned away from God–the United States now too has “celebrated immorality and persecuted righteousness” and “profaned the sacred and sanctified the profane.”

Cahn pointed to the Supreme Court hearing regarding whether homosexual marriage should become a constitutional right, which had taken place the day before the Man of Prayer gathering, saying: “The very fact that the event should take place is a sign in itself that this is the America of Washington’s warning.”  He added: “We are a nation at war against its own foundation.” The Messianic minister observed that the Supreme Court opens each session with the call, “God Save this Honorable Court!”

If this court should overrule the word of God and strike down the eternal rules of order and right that heaven itself ordained, how then will God save it? Justices, can you judge the ways of God? There is another court and there another judge, where all men and all judges will give account.

If a nation’s high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you then be surprised God will pass judgment on the court and that nation? We are doing that which Israel did on the altars of Baal.

Cahn ended on a hopeful call to action, which brought the crowd to its feet. He said “let us determine not to bow our knees to false gods of this world”:

We will bow our knees to Jesus the Messiah, the King of all kings, the Lord of all lords, the Judge of all judges, the light of the world, the glory of Israel, the foundation stone upon which this nation came into existence, the only answer, the only chance that America has, that it might once again shine again with the light of the presence of the living God, and not go to hell, so help us God!

h/t: Q Political 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth