2. The exercise of authority; direction and restraint exercised over the actions of men in communities, societies or states; the administration of public affairs, according to established constitution, laws and usages, or by arbitrary edicts. Prussia rose to importance under the government of Frederick II.
3. The exercise of authority by a parent or householder. Children are often ruined by a neglect of government in parents.
Let family government be like that of our heavenly Father, mild, gentle and affectionate.
Webster clearly defines government as a concept innately caught up with family and kin-ties. Government is then, at root, a family affair. And as one would then expect, he defines the related term “Protector” as a matter of kin-ties as well:
But where did Noah Webster acquire such clannish notions of governance? Deut.17: 14-15 reads:
Samuel Rutherford comments on this passage in his magnum opus, Lex, Rex:
“Saul was chosen out of the tribes according to the law of God; Deut. Xvii., They might not choose a stranger;…The law provided one of their own, not a stranger to reign over them; (pg.8) …God hath made them heads of tribes and princes of the people; (pg.120) …Power is not an immediate inheritance from heaven, but a birthright of the people borrowed from them;…The king is a relative.”(pg.123)
Belloc would go on to further Rutherford’s exposition and propound even upon the title of Rutherford’s work:
“Now what is the meaning of that word Rex? It is usually translated by our word “King.” But it does not here mean anything like what our word “King” means when we apply it today…Centuries and centuries before, indeed a thousand years before, the word Rex had meant the Cheiftan…The Rex of, say, Batavian auxiliaries, the commander of the Batavian Corps, would probably be a man of Batavian blood, with hereditary position,…” (pg.80-81) which was extenuated by, “underlying national feelings, older than the Empire, Gallic, Brittanic, Iberian;…” (pg.85) Which is to say that the concept of regency (i.e. federal headship) originates endemically in the context of tribe and family. (Europe and the Faith)
In light of these redoubled definitions drawn ultimately from both the created order and biblical attestation, we are without excuse for even entertaining the notion of promoting a non-White to the highest office in the land—the Presidency. A man such as Barack Obama is wholly unrepresentative of our people and is on such a basis, according to scripture, precluded from office.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution manifests itself as the codification of this principle in American law but the Babelites would have us believe that, “No one knows exactly what the nation’s Founders had in mind when they wrote that ‘No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.’” (John W. Dean, legal Columnist and Councilor to the President)
Mr. Dean could not be more mistaken. As proven by the 1986 study at the University of Houston, atleast sixty-four percent of our American Constitution is derived either from the book of Deuteronomy or from commentaries on the book of Deuteronomy. The ‘natural born’ clause was contiguous with the traditional canon and common laws; moreover, it is a mirror reflection of the biblical Law back of them.
But it goes further still: If, as Rutherford says, the King must be a relative, borrowing the parental authority invested by God in a certain people, it is then presupposed that ‘the people’ in question must be of a distinct and identifiable continuum of relation. The biblical Law of regency then necessitates homogeneity. If ‘a people’ be undefined genealogically, no federal authority could be said to accurately or appropriately represent them.
“The ancient fathers… were concerned that the ties of kinship itself should not be loosened as generation succeeded generation, should not diverge too far, so that they finally ceased to be ties at all. And so for them it was a matter of religion to restore the bond of kinship by means of the marriage tie before kinship became too remote—to call kinship back, as it were, as it disappeared into the distance.” (Augustine~ City of God, book XV, Chpt. 16)
If kin-ties be too dilute or indefinite the chain of authority (individuals in families in communities under their Elder-representatives) is impeded. Such impediments not only obstruct social coherence but also erode claims of lawful jurisdiction. Heterogeneity thus encourages lawlessness both from above and from below. A regent-representative who be of remote blood to the people is by definition a usurper and a tyrant. He can be nothing else.
Even the ‘natural born’ clause was itself to work synergistically with and within the context of the original concept of American citizenship, which was open only to Whites, as the Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) plainly reads:
Not only is Obama unfit for President, he’s unfit for citizenship. And if unfit for citizenship, how much less is he to be regarded as a fit representative of our people! One such as himself may lawfully attain no status beyond the common law title of “Denizen”—i.e. a foreigner habitually dwelling in our country.
Of course, someone like Mr. Dean or Barack himself would likely invoke the 14th Amendment as the legitimation of non-White citizenship but this is all just smoke and mirrors because the 14th Amendment is nothing but legal fiction top to bottom. It was never ratified by the states as is required in the Constitution itself. And it runs contra the common law biblical principles back of the ‘natural born’ clause. The 14th Amendment, if maintained, not only violates the Constitution but actually invalidates it. You cannot posit any doctrine, legal or otherwise, with the force of law if that principle undermines the broader continuum of the law or the foundational principles thereof. Such a self-refuting addition is in essence, the dissolving of our national covenant.
I conclude this article with God’s declared outcome for all nations which parcel off the birthrights of their children to the lowest bidder, for mere mammon:
“Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, and your eyes shall look and fail with longing for them all day long; and there shall be no strength in your hand… So you shall be driven mad because of the sight which your eyes see… You shall beget sons and daughters, but they shall not be yours; for they shall go into captivity… “The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail. ‘Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.’”
(Deut. 28:32-45)
The very idea that our people are now entertaining the notion of promoting a Denizen such as Obama over us and our posterity is an ominous bell-weather. It means that the course is almost run. This multicult dystopia is nearing its ultimate objective—our destruction.
Nations such as the one we are becoming do not come to any good end. They simply end.