Petition Regarding the Dual-Citizenship of Public Officials

Russian Dual CitizensFor the past few years the mainstream media has been relating how Russia influenced the elections in favor of Donald Trump, costing Hillary the election, and while I have my own doubts as to the veracity of this narration it does bring up a valid point: foreign-influence on our elections is unacceptable. Indeed, foreign influence in our government itself should be highly scrutinized because of compromised loyalties.

Here’s a petition regarding dual-citizens within government, which is actually rather important. Important enough that the Constitution put an explicit requirement on the office of the President — “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 reasoning here is obvious and, just as Jesus said in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other.

The threat they were concerned with, in particular, was someone with foreign loyalty obtaining the Constitutional appointment of the President to the role of Commander in Chief, and thus able to command the armies and navies in suppressing the people themselves. During the constitutional conventions they were debating on how to do this until John Jay sent a letter suggesting that “natural born Citizen” be the qualification for President.

Now, if this was (and still is) a concern for the President, an argument could be made that there is some concern to be had for the Congress and Judiciary as well — especially considering how much money is given to foreign nations while we are more than $20 Trillion in debt for the former, and how the latter seems rather antagonistic towards border sovereignty.

Here is the text of the petition:

Whereas dual citizenship introduces the possibility of divided loyalties we request that the citizenship statuses, current and past, of all Legislators, Executive Appointees, and Federal Judges be made public — all of whom are public officials, and whose day-to-day duties impact the People of the United States and all corporations in the United States.

Moreover, the “Emoluments Clause” (Art 1, Sec 9, Cl 8) clearly prohibits acceptance of presents or emoluments by foreign states to Officers of Profit or Trust, which all the aforementioned are, and the advantages conferred by foreign citizenship may well violate this clause, the purpose of which is clearly anti-corruption, and therefore should be available to public scrutiny to ensure such corruption does not exist.

And here is the link:

Israel Dual CitizensThere’s an article I came across, with the mind-bendingly stupid title of “In Praise Of Dual Loyalty” (archived) which lauds fractured loyalties, claiming that it’s time to celebrate “the complexity of 21ST century identity” and conflates ‘loyalty’ and ‘love’ — ignoring that you can love someone and still dislike, even hate, them (anyone with siblings will understand) — trying to square the circle saying of a hypothetical Israeli-American war: “I would work for a moral resolution, whatever that means, whether by the victory of whichever side is right or by negotiation.”

While that sounds good, it is a blatant falsehood: no man can serve two masters. In that case the author would hold to one, and not the other, and likely in an emotional judgment side with whichever had its story out first. As Proverbs 18:17 says: “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” — But in such a case would the other side even get the chance to state their case? — Obviously one side or the other will strive to control the story and, if they assume control of the proverbial airways, will strive to prevent ‘the other’ from said cross-examination.

In any case, the question stands: Who are our leaders loyal to?


FacebookRedditTwitterGoogle+WordPressBlogger PostStumbleUponShare

Edward Fish For Senate

Edward Fish For Senate


I have recently decided to run for one of New Mexico’s seats in the US Congress.

Why should I be interested in supporting you?
My platform is very simple, consisting of only two or three* points:

  1. Constitutionalism: The Constitution for the United States should be treated as the supreme law of the land.
  2. Justice: Having a Just government is imperative not only to the peace and stability of the country, but to the legitimacy of the government itself.
  3. Anti-Corruption: It seems to me that a great many of our laws are optimized to foster and facilitate corruption (especially tax- and campaign-laws).

For these reasons my goals in the District of Columbia are to repeal and simplify many of the current Federal laws; to reign in abusive and out-of-control agencies like the NSA and their blatantly unconstitutional domestic espionage program; and to propose these constitutional amendments.**

Are you a Democrat or a Republican?
Both the Republican- and the Democrat-Party are all-talk and no action.

The Republican party bills itself as for government accountability and fiscal responsibility… yet what did they do in response to the NSA’s espionage program? Nothing. And when the Debt ceiling was reached, did they as-a-party push for expenditures to be cut rather than the debt ceiling to be increased? Nope.

Likewise the Democrat party bills itself as for the working-man… but did the Democrat party push against the H1B visa fraud scams that are so prevalent in the technology industry? Nope. And let’s not forget the collusion and conspiracy the party did to promote Hillary Clinton above Bernie Sanders.

So, which party are you running under?

I’ll run under whichever party will take me. — Given my platform I don’t imagine I’ll “make friends” in the Senate, precisely because a lot of people, even in the Senate, are benefiting from the current culture of corruption.

* — Justice and Anti-corruption could be considered the same thing.
** — Tax reform, balanced budget, term-limits, etc.