Building Bridges?

So, someone I consider to be a good friend just deleted me on Face Book. Not hid me, deleted me. I can't even reply to her now, because that was my only connection. Why did she delete me? Because she's a bridge builder, or so she says. Funny, I didn't think you built bridges with a torch in hand.

She didn't like my article about Natural Born Citizens, and how I came to the conclusion that the founders intended the Constitution to only allow people born of two American citizens to become President. Thought I was Xenophobic or something, because I thought it made sense that the possibility of being a dual citizen in charge of the nation's armed forces could be a reasonable conflict of interest. But no, she's an enlightened intellectual, and couldn't be bothered to actually deal with me on my well reasoned position. So instead of being honest with me, she just deleted me. As I say, funny way to build a bridge.

You see, I've been thinking a lot about building bridges lately. So here are some observations: first, you don't need to build bridges to people you agree with, you're already on the same side! So, when you're building a bridge you are only ever doing so with people you disagree with. Secondly, bridges must be built from both sides. You can build your bridge to the middle, but if one is not built in return, you'll never connect. Third, and most importantly, you have to be able to see your bridge "from the other side." Otherwise, you won't be able to build your bridge in the right direction.

That's all well and good fanciful fluff, but how about some more practical knowledge. Try this: the other person is always right. How's that you say? You're finally embracing post-modern nihilism? Hardly. What I mean is, the other person thinks they are right, just as you think you are right, and so you must treat them as such. That is, you must respect that they believe they are right, and act accordingly. No one will build a bridge back to you if they do not feel respected.

So, assuming she ever reads this, let me try applying these pearls of wisdom to the situation at hand. Case 1, I write a heartfelt and carefully considered piece detailing a nugget of knowledge I have recently gained, and I share it honestly and excitedly with my friends, and ask for and receive honest feedback (mostly negative, but honest) on my opinion and idea. I felt respected that other people considered my idea as something I was interested in, even though they disagreed. I felt respected that they were willing to share their disagreement with me. It was hard work, pushing past those disagreements to share honestly with them, and for them to respond in kind. We didn't change each other's minds. But we built a bridge!!! I now trust them a little more, and they trust me.

Except for my friend. She was offended by my piece, but she wouldn't tell me so. But I believe she was offended. That is, whether or not I think the offense was legitimate, she believed it so, and therefore it most certainly was, to her at the least. And when you're building bridges, that's all that matters! And so if you ever read this, know that I did not intend to offend, if you can accept that. Know that I accept you were offended, and I only wish you had trusted me enough to tell me so. I also wish that you had given me the trust to recognize that I honestly believed in my work. You cannot build bridges any other way, and it takes the sting out of the offense to be molded in this way. To know someone is honestly committed to an idea that you find offensive can give you the strength to hold that connection, but it still takes work and you must continually try at it.

Case 2. A current event initiated by a group of people has our family in a stir. This group has caused offense, yet they and their supporters refuse to recognize the offense. They do not wish to build a bridge, or give the offended the respect of holding honest feelings of offense. A writer pens an article detailing exactly where the offense comes from, in an effort to enlighten those who do not understand the source of the grief. My wife posts said article on *her own* wall. Our friend reads and takes her own offense at the article. But instead of respecting that my wife indeed holds these things honestly and openly, and reacting as such, she blatantly insinuates she is a bigot. After my wife, who has had it with being slandered as a racist, bigot, etc., without so much as a single shred of evidence, lets our friend know that she's had it with being slandered as a racist, bigot, etc., without so much as a shred of evidence, our friend the bridge builder deletes us from her friends list.

Was she honestly offended by the article in question? I believe so. Was she justified in insinuating my wife is a bigot? Maybe she honestly believes it to be so, but she did not respect her enough to say so honestly to her face. "But you know so much about building bridges, why couldn't you build one with her?" you say. Ah, but remember it takes two to build a bridge.

Natural Born Citizen

The waters on this issue have become so muddied with “Birthers” and myriad claims of dubious (and not so dubious) natures that even discussing this rationally has become difficult. It is so emotionally charged that considering the issues involved and not the implications has become impossible, rather like a tainted jury pool. However, I will attempt to lay out the facts as I see them one more time, with the addition of a new wrinkle from current events.

From all available information, our President, Barack Obama, is a Citizen of the United States of America. However, he is not a Natural Born Citizen, but rather a Naturalized Citizen of the United States. A Natural Born Citizen must be born of two Citizens of the United States (who, themselves, do not have to be Natural Born). A Naturalized Citizen may be granted citizenship under a variety of circumstances, and in the case of our President, he was Naturalized by fact of one of his parents being a Natural Born Citizen (his mother).

However, since his other parent was a Natural Born Citizen of Kenya, he (Barack) could not therefore be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. Only just today, August 5, 2010, the nation of Kenya ratified a new Constitution. This new Constitution grants citizenship to anyone who is or has been born of at least one parent who is a Citizen of Kenya. Therefore, our President is automatically a dual citizen with citizenship in Kenya as well as the United States.

Finally, the United States Constitution retains a clause that requires Natural Born Citizenship for Presidential eligibility. The intent was to prevent individuals with divided allegiances from taking power of the executive branch of the country. Surely someone with dual citizenship is precisely the case these gentlemen were considering when they wrote this clause. That is, any Naturalized Citizen would have at least the possibility of claiming citizenship in another country, and thus divide his or her loyalty accordingly, whereas a Natural Born Citizen would have (at the least) none of the entanglements of dual citizenship and the burden of the inherent loyalties therein.

If I had to conjecture, I would say that they (the Founders) had in mind the bewildering array of entanglements existing within the European Continent at the time. The intermarriage among the ruling classes of the different nations caused a nightmarish maze of loyalties and duties and alliances that I believe the American Colonists wished to avoid in their new country.

Given the above, what are the implications to us now? Well, they range from the inane, to the bizarre, to the quite serious. In the matter of trivia, Barack Obama is the first openly publicized Naturalized Citizen to become President (the actual first would have been Chester Arthur, whose father was Irish and who may have been born in Canada). In a bizarre twist, the People of Kenya could now levy requirements on our President, to fulfill the duties of a Citizen of Kenya, unless he actually revoked his Citizenship (which would then prove he was indeed a dual citizen!). Aside from strange legal entanglements, it is quite apparent that Mr. Obama indeed has two home countries to contend with. We may never know the extent to which he is ultimately loyal to one or the other, as it is a matter of the unseen heart (he may not know himself!), which I think is why our Founders wished to spare us the trouble.

Finally, there is the most obvious and glaring point, which is that his election as President was not in fact Constitutional. Rather, his candidacy was deemed to be Constitutional by one federally appointed authority (the Chief Justice), his main opponent in the contest (John McCain), and a majority of the country (53% of the voting public). However, he was not deemed so in the correct fashion under the Constitution that he has sworn to uphold, namely the consent of three fourths of the states by Constitutional amendment. What does all that mean? Not much, just add it to the list of the many items our Government has deemed by its own standard to be legal when they are clearly not. But when will the camel’s back break? When will the list become so onerous that the Constitutional authority of our Government ceases, and only the authority of Force remains? This is the thing that we ought to be concerned about most of all in this strange affair.