Pastor Mike Hoggard of Bethel Church – A LIAR and FALSE PROPHET!

There has been a widespread and growing ‘deadly cancer’ in the Christian church as of late and that ‘cancer’ is the pulpits profusely proclaiming that anyone who wishes to do ‘JUST AS’ Jesus did and to walk in the same manner as Jesus did, those who choose this path have fallen out of grace and are claimed to have joined a cult. So is this true?

On March 5, 2013, Mike Hoggard vehemently shouted at the top of his lungs during his radio broadcast that the 4th Commandment of God was nailed to the cross. Now mind you, this is the ONE Commandment of God that contains the ‘sign/mark” of His Covenant with all mankind that dates back to the seventh day of creation. So could the Jesus that Hoggard preaches be the true Messiah that never spoke against or did anything in disobedience to God the Father? I would say without a doubt, NO, Mike Hoggard is not proclaiming the true Messiah that Moses and the Prophets wrote about but a different messiah and a different gospel and here is why.

Deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2  And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from (apostasy against, see 2Thess 2:3-4) the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Exo 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

Isa 56:1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people, …6  Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7  Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8  The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him. … 10  His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. 11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.

Mike Hoggard claims to be a watchman but teaches that His seventh day Sabbath is not for all mankind and those that claim it is are heretics and members of some cult. So what else do the Prophets have to say of His Sabbath as being valid for ALL mankind?

Eze 20:11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them (Rm 10:5). 12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.1 between them and Me, to know that I am יהוה who sets them apart. Footnote: 1See Ex. 31:13-17.

Eze 20:23  I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; 24  Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols. 25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live1. Footnote: 1Ps. 81:12, Isa. 30:28, Acts 7:42, Rom. 1:24-28, 2 Thess. 2:11.

Isa 66:19 “And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. … 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

So we see that it was NOT prophesied that the Sabbath would be nailed to anything, but rather it will be restored in all its glory as it was in the beginning. So did Jesus of Nazareth speak to the continuation of the Father’s perpetual and everlasting seventh day Sabbath for all mankind? Why yes Jesus of Nazareth certainly did.

Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. … 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity (lawlessness / transgression against the Law of God) shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. … 20  But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the SABBATH DAY: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”

So as this false prophet Mike Hoggard claims that his Jesus nailed the 4th Commandment to the cross and that we no longer are bound by this burdensome law, but as we can see, the true Jesus of Nazareth of the King James bible tells us just the opposite of what false prophet Mike Hoggard prophesies and that the true Jesus will be expecting us to keep and honor the 4th Commandment because as a disciple, one who imitates and emulates the Master, if one is a true disciple of Jesus, then one will joyfully do as Jesus did and not call ANY command of the Father burdensome.

Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

1Jn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (burdensome).

Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them (Ez 20:11). 6  But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Deu 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. 11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden (too hard, too burdensome) from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

interestingly enough, Hoggard did quote from Paul about making void the Law of God, but then in the same breath he denied that which he just spoke while also ignoring the fact that Paull also taught us that we are to ‘establish’ the Law of God by doing it through faith just as Abraham ‘established’ the Law of God by doing it through faith.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

1Jn 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

We are sons and daughters of God through the begotten Son of God and therefore, as He did, we are to do likewise so that through the Son, we also can be transformed into the likeness of the Father.

2Co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Therefore, according to Scripture Mike Hoggard is a LIAR and a FALSE PROPHET!

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Now I implore the readers to remember, these are NOT my words or accusations, these are the words and accusations of God the Father and His only begotten Son that Hoggard claims to represent yet in the same breath Hoggard denies both the Father and the Son. Therefore, in denying that the WHOLE Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation is for ALL mankind, Hoggard is denying the very existence of the authority of God the Father and His only begotten Son and creating his own authority upon the earth with a new Gospel message of lawlessness towards God the Father that the only begotten Son of God never taught or preached.

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

English as America’s First Foundational Language of The Scriptures

I think we can all agree that most, if not all, of us began our journey with the Scriptures as they were written in English. The only exception that I will use is the name of our Messiah. Names are to transliterated not translated and therefore if the proper name can be found, it should be used and therefore since God defined the name of His Son as Yeshua, that is the name I will use. In the English text it is endered Joshua, Jehoshua or Jeshua, even in the New Testament. (see Heb 4:8 … same name translated as Jesus, but from the beginning has always been Joshua, Jehoshua or Jeshua so this begs the question, why change the appearance of His name since Joshua is the prophetic picture of our Deliverer at His coming)

Every Bible worth its weight contains a ‘cliff notes’ version of a Concordance and sadly the 1998 version of the Scriptures does not, therefore, the reason I still continue to use the KJV / NKJV alongside it. So all the Scripture references given here are from the NKJV. Also, explanatory notes are great but they are far from being useful in determining the meaning of many of the passages that are used by Christian doctrine that distorts the Gospel Message and the true purpose of the Word of God putting on flesh.

I have also found that constantly referring back to the Hebrew or the Greek when discussing Scripture with my family and friends to be a total turn off. They don’t want to deal with foreign languages; they only want to deal with what is in front of them, their English bibles. So shouldn’t we first, with love and compassion, be able to show them the discrepancies in English first before we even think to go off into foreign territory?

Now there is another English tool that we can use here in America and that is the first English dictionary written for America and adopted by the US Congress for use in Congress as well as all schools of learning, the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary. It is a great tool if one takes the time to use it along with the ‘cliff notes’ Concordance and is available for free at books.google.com. Take for example the word ‘repent’ which has been watered down by Christian doctrine. How did America’s founding fathers and early American preachers define this word?

“repent: to remember with sorrow [et. repair] Jer viii.”

So we see that repent means to be sorrowful of something that is in need of repair. And according to Mr. Webster and the American government, we need to read Jer 8 to understand what repent means. OK, let’s read Jer 8

Jer 8:1 “At that time,” says the LORD, “they shall bring out the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests, and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, out of their graves.

Jer 8:2 They shall spread them before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have served and after which they have walked, which they have sought and which they have worshiped. They shall not be gathered nor buried; they shall be like refuse on the face of the earth.

Jer 8:3 Then death shall be chosen rather than life by all the residue of those who remain of this evil family, who remain in all the places where I have driven them,” says the LORD of hosts.

Jer 8:4 “Moreover you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Will they fall and not rise? Will one turn away and not return?

Jer 8:5 Why has this people slidden back, Jerusalem, in a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit, They refuse to return.

Jer 8:6 I listened and heard, But they do not speak aright. No man repented of his wickedness, Saying, ‘What have I done?’ Everyone turned to his own course, As the horse rushes into the battle.

Jer 8:7 “Even the stork in the heavens Knows her appointed times; And the turtledove, the swift, and the swallow Observe the time of their coming. But My people do not know the judgment of the LORD.

Jer 8:8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us’? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.

Jer 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, They are dismayed and taken. Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD; So what wisdom do they have?

Jer 8:10 Therefore I will give their wives to others, And their fields to those who will inherit them; Because from the least even to the greatest Everyone is given to covetousness; From the prophet even to the priest Everyone deals falsely.

Jer 8:11 For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of My people slightly, Saying, ‘Peace, peace!’ When there is no peace.

Jer 8:12 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed, Nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; In the time of their punishment They shall be cast down,” says the LORD.

Jer 8:13 “I will surely consume them,” says the LORD. “No grapes shall be on the vine, Nor figs on the fig tree, And the leaf shall fade; And the things I have given them shall pass away from them.” ‘ “

Jer 8:14 “Why do we sit still? Assemble yourselves, And let us enter the fortified cities, And let us be silent there. For the LORD our God has put us to silence And given us water of gall to drink, Because we have sinned against the LORD.

Jer 8:15 “We looked for peace, but no good came; And for a time of health, and there was trouble!

Jer 8:16 The snorting of His horses was heard from Dan. The whole land trembled at the sound of the neighing of His strong ones; For they have come and devoured the land and all that is in it, The city and those who dwell in it.”

Jer 8:17 “For behold, I will send serpents among you, Vipers which cannot be charmed, And they shall bite you,” says the LORD.

Jer 8:18 I would comfort myself in sorrow; My heart is faint in me.

Jer 8:19 Listen! The voice, The cry of the daughter of My people— From a far country: “Is not the LORD in Zion? Is not her King in her?” “Why have they provoked Me to anger With their carved images— With foreign idols?”

Jer 8:20 “The harvest is past, The summer is ended, And we are not saved!”

Jer 8:21 For the hurt of the daughter of my people I am hurt. I am mourning; Astonishment has taken hold of me.

Jer 8:22 Is there no balm in Gilead, Is there no physician there? Why then is there no recovery For the health of the daughter of my people?

Clearly the context of repent is to seek forgiveness in returning to the Law of God. In doing this, one turns their back on sin and moves forward by walking in His righteousness path rather than continuing to backslide away from the righteous path He laid out for us in His Law. And who does God blame for this backsliding? Everyone, even the prophet, the priest who continues to preach and teach falsehood as truth and especially the scribes who put His Word to pen, those who add to His words and take away from His words. So we must be careful when reading. If something is in italics, it is an addition and we must make sure that addition compliments what He says or if it changes the context of what He says so it seems to stand out on its own, not conforming to everything that is said around it.

Then there is the preacher or teacher who presumes to change the definition of a word. Take for instance the word ‘backslide’ used in Jer 8. I recently heard a local Baptist preacher say (and I am paraphrasing here for time and space), “I know the bible defines ‘backsliding’ as this, but I tell you it means this”. So now this preacher has just taken the authority away from our Creator to define His own words giving the impression that our Creator is not capable of giving us a proper definition of ‘backslide’ for today’s times. How arrogant and puffed up! To assume we know better than the Creator of our language, the English language! What did Webster have to say of ‘backslide(ing, er)’?

“to fall off, to apostatize, an apostate, one who neglects his vows of obedience and falls into sin, Jer v(5). 6

Let’s read it in context of what He says it to mean by backing up to Jer 5 verse 4.

Jer 5:4 Therefore I said, “Surely these are poor. They are foolish; For they do not know the way of the LORD, The judgment of their God.

Jer 5:5 I will go to the great men and speak to them, For they have known the way of the LORD, The judgment of their God.” But these have altogether broken the yoke And burst the bonds.

Jer 5:6 Therefore a lion from the forest shall slay them, A wolf of the deserts shall destroy them; A leopard will watch over their cities. Everyone who goes out from there shall be torn in pieces, Because their transgressions are many; Their backslidings have increased.

We see this defined by Paul in Rm 8 when he alludes to the backslider as one who is carnally minded, one who doe snot seek the Law of God, but rather seeks to find God on his own terms and in his own way..

Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

The ‘cliff notes’ version of the Concordance in my KJV refers us to Jer 3 and Prov 14 to understand what backslide (ing, er) means, so let’s test it.

Jer 3:19 “But I said: ‘How can I put you among the children And give you a pleasant land, A beautiful heritage of the hosts of nations?’ “And I said: ‘You shall call Me, “My Father,” And not turn away from Me.’

Jer 3:20 Surely, as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, So have you dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel,” says the LORD.

Jer 3:21 A voice was heard on the desolate heights, Weeping and supplications of the children of Israel. For they have perverted their way; They have forgotten the LORD their God.

Jer 3:22 “Return, you backsliding children, And I will heal your backslidings.” “Indeed we do come to You, For You are the LORD our God.

Jer 3:23 Truly, in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, And from the multitude of mountains; Truly, in the LORD our God Is the salvation of Israel.

Jer 3:24 For shame has devoured The labor of our fathers from our youth— Their flocks and their herds, Their sons and their daughters.

Jer 3:25 We lie down in our shame, And our reproach covers us. For we have sinned against the LORD our God, We and our fathers, From our youth even to this day, And have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God.”

 

Pro 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way, But the folly of fools is deceit.

Pro 14:9 Fools mock at sin, But among the upright there is favor.

Pro 14:10 The heart knows its own bitterness, And a stranger does not share its joy.

Pro 14:11 The house of the wicked will be overthrown, But the tent of the upright will flourish.

Pro 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Pro 14:13 Even in laughter the heart may sorrow, And the end of mirth may be grief.

Pro 14:14 The backslider in heart will be filled with his own ways, But a good man will be satisfied from above.

Pro 14:15 The simple believes every word, But the prudent considers well his steps.

Pro 14:16 A wise man fears and departs from evil, But a fool rages and is self-confident.

Now take notice of Prov 14:12 & 14, this is directly related to what Paul said in Rm 8. The one who God calls ‘good’ (wise) is one who is satisfied with the rules given from our Creator above. They see no need to add to or take away from His Word in order to build themselves up and create their own way to the Creator.

As Paul also states in his epistle to the Romans, not all are called for the same purpose, but all are members of the same body.

Rom 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function,

Rom 12:5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.

Rom 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us,

Therefore some are given to the study the Scriptures from a Hebrew or Greek perspective and others are given to the study from an English only perspective. I fully enjoy studying from all perspectives, but I understand that not all are called to do so and therefore, we must respect each ones individual calling in the body of Messiah and give our brethren and sisters in Messiah who are called to the study of His Scriptures from the English perspective their due respect as it does have its place in the body of Mashiach and His vision for the gathering of His lost sheep.

So as Paul and Peter called us to do, let us be prepared to give an answer, an answer in a language in which the one we are speaking to understands lest His words are brought to nothing but gibberish to the ones they are spoken to.

1Co 14:6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?

1Co 14:7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played?

1Co 14:8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?

1Co 14:9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.

1Pe 3:13 And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?

1Pe 3:14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “AND DO NOT BE AFRAID OF THEIR THREATS, NOR BE TROUBLED.”

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

1Pe 3:16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.

1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

1Pe 3:19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,

1Pe 3:20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

And now that one has a foundational understanding of repentance in light of backsliding according to an American founding era father in our English language, let’s move this into the context of His feast days. While Christendom has replaced all but Pentecost with ones of her own, and since these words cannot be found in the ‘cliff notes’ Concordance but being such important times, one would think they should be included, what hath Mr. Webster to say of the Christian festivals of Easter and Christmas?

CHRIST’MAS, n. [Christ and mass. Sax Aiassn, a holy day or feast ; D. hersmis.] The festival of the christian church served annually on the 25th day of ,December, in memory of the birth of Christ, and celebrated by a particular church service. The festival includes twelve days.

E’ ASTER, n. [Sax. easter ; G. ostem ; supposed to be from Eostre, the goddess of love or Venus of the north, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors, in April ; whence this month was called Eostermonath. Eoster is supposed by Beda and others to be the Astarte of the Sidonians. See Beda, Cluver, and the authorities cited by Cluver, and by Jamieson, under Paysyad.]

A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior’s resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.

Now considering that it was the false worship of God that continued to get Israel in trouble by continually replacing His instructions for worship of Him, with their own definition of worship, how does Mr. Webster define obedience to God?

DISOBE’DIENCE, n. [dis and obedience.] Neglect or refusal to obey ; violation of a command or prohibition ; the omission of that which is commanded to be done, the doing of that which is forbid ; breach of duty prescribed by authority. By one man*s disobedience, many were made sinners. Rom. v.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no Law.

So even Mr. Webster knew that without God’s Law, there is nothing to accuse one of even being a sinner, so God’s Law must therefore be active at all times and for all times for all peoples of the world as Mr. Webster shows us in his reference to Scripture in defining what defines sin is. So again Mr. Webster displays the need to let Scripture define what the words in Scripture mean, therefore since Mr. Webster does not reference Scripture in his definitions of Easter or Christmas, but rightly defines them as things that were added as a “REPLACMENT OF” and as an “ADDITION TO” what God had commanded, therefore these Christian days of celebration have no biblical foundation from which one can gleam the purpose of these times set aside for worship of the Creator by early Roman Christendom. Neither do they lead us to any Scriptural authority from God for enjoining them to His Name. And the fact that even Webster attaches Easter to pagan sun god worship should bring trembling to every American Christian who thinks to continue in the practice of such a tainted celebration that is so dearly beloved by pagan sun god worshipers to this very day!

But what of the Sabbath? Does Mr. Webster reference Scripture for either the seventh day or the first day?

SAB’BATH,n, [Heb, to cease, to rest] 1. the day which God appointed to be observed by the Jews as a day of rest from all secular labor or emplymens, and to be kept holy and consecrated to His service and worship. This was originally the seventh day of the week, the day on which God rested from the work of creation; and this day is still observed by the Jews and some Christians, as the sabbath. But the Christian church very early begun and still continue to observe the first day of the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ on that day, by which the work of redemption was completed. Hence it is called the Lord’s day. The heathern nations in the north of Europe dedicated this day to the sun, and hence their Christian descendants continue to call the day Sunday. Nut in the United States, Christians have to a great extent disregarded the heathen name and adopted the Jewish name sabbath. 2. Intermission of pain or sorrow; time of rest. 3. The sabbatical year among the Israelites. Lev xxv.

Although Webster does not include Gen 2:1-4, he does direct us to it being the source and definition of the Sabbath. But much to our dismay, Webster while pointing us to Lev 25, he leaves out Lev 23 in regards to the 4th commandment (Ex 20:8-11). But what is revealing is the fact that Sunday has always been associated with pagan sun god worship, so to disregard the seventh day in lieu of the first day, one has replaced the meaning of the resurrection of Messiah, as a sign of restoration, with the worship of the created flesh who was resurrected. But of course one would have to believe that Yeshua did not fulfill the Jonah prophecy by raising before the first day of the week, on His Sabbath Day, but rather stayed in the grave longer than the time He was prophesied to be in the grave in order to bring forth a new command related to an eight day week as is promoted in Christian doctrine. The eighth day according to God’s Word is always in reference to the duration of time for a festival or the number of days after a child’s birth, his eighth day of life. But the eighth day is never used in the context of the counting of a period of time regarding the time set aside for a completed ‘week’ that God defined for us in Gen 1 -2:4 in determining the counting of time regarding days, weeks and years.

It is in Yeshua’s resurrection on the seventh day that the promise of the eternal Sabbath rest was fulfilled. Therefore, to change the seventh day Sabbath to any other day of the week changes the meaning of eternal sabbath rest as beginning on the seventh day as He gave it to us in the beginning. A change from the seventh day denies the fulfillment of the prophecy of His resurrection, thereby denying Him and replacing Him with some other false deity that is said to have risen on the first day of the week. Yeshua never commanded us to worship either He or the Father on the first day of the week and Yeshua never uttered a word to us to honor His upcoming resurrection with a separate day of worship called the ‘Lord’s day’ or the ‘Eighth day’. Quite the contrary, Yeshua stated this in regards to His return to gather us so that we may enter into the eternal Sabbath with Him,

Mat 24:20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.

If the seventh day Sabbath was not to be continued, why does He tell us to pray we won’t have to take flight away from the adversary on the Sabbath as if He expected that we would still be honoring the Creator and His Word, by continuing to observe His 4th commandment regarding the seventh day of the week?

And what of the promise of Is 56?

1 Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, For My salvation is about to come, And My righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man who does this, And the son of man who lays hold on it; Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And keeps his hand from doing any evil.” 3 Do not let the son of the foreigner Who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people” … 6 “Also the sons of the foreigner Who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, And to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants— Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And holds fast My covenant— 7 Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices Will be accepted on My altar; For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

Or the warnings of Ezekiel 20 and 22?

20:11 And I gave them My statutes and showed them My judgments, ‘which, if a man does, he shall live by them.’ 12 Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them. [see Ex 31:13-17]

22:26 Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

Or how about the reiterating of the covenant of promise in Zach 2?

10 “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the LORD. 11 “Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you.

No, we do not need to use foreign languages to restore the Gospel message of Yeshua the Messiah, we simply need to understand and use our own English language and everything past that is merely for our personal understanding for whatever further purpose He has called us to serve.

Shabbat Shalom! May your journey in, through and of His Word in our English language be blessed and fruitful!

Who Owns the Copyright to All Creation?

John 1:3 tells us “all came to be through Him, and without Him not even one came to be that came to be”. In verse 4 we are told “in Him was life, and the life was the light of mankind”, therefore on the pashat, the literal level of the meaning of this passage, what this is saying is that His Word equals life for all mankind.

But now we must back up. Who created the Word? Who gave life to the Word?

Creation for we, the physical realm began ‘in the beginning’, in Genesis 1:1 but for the Father, creation began in His spiritual mind and thus the biography of mankind in the physical realm was born well before it came to be in the flesh. We see this kind of thing taking place in the physical realm daily. Let me explain.

An author writes a book and then some movie producer picks up on it and thinks to himself, ‘this would make a great movie’. And thus the 3-d version of the book is brought to life.

Now this begs the question? Who is the one who owns the original copyright of this book now turned into life, the author of the book or the movie producer who made it come to life? Do all royalties from the movie go to the producer or does the author still continue to own the original copyright and therefore reap royalties as long as the movie continues to sell?

Well sadly today, many authors sell out their right for a one time, looks good payment of money and then the movie producer is now at liberty to change, to take away or to add to the original text of the book. So is this also true of God’s Word? Did He sell His copyright to the Son so that the Son could bring life to all mankind in a way that seems right in the eyes of the Son? Two of the several witnesses in the Brit Hadasha testify to us as to whether or not this is true. John 10:18 “No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it again. This command I have received from My Father”. 1Co 6:20 “For you were bought with a price, therefore esteem Elohim in your body and in your spirit, which are of Elohim”.

So as it is here, it continues as we read and study the Brit Hadasha. We see that the Son did not take liberties with the already conceived Word of the Father, but remained faithful to the original Word that was born in the Spiritual mind of the Father.

But this process of an original author and then later a producer is not just manifest in books and movies; it is evident in every aspect of our daily lives in the products we use. There is an original concept born in the mind of an inventor, a patent is then procured for that product and then the minute details are then given to a manufacturer who brings that patent to life so to speak. And while the manufacturer reaps benefits from the original patented product, the original patent still belongs to the one who gave birth to the concept of the product and thus the manufacturer is constantly subject to the original owner as long as that product is being produced by the manufacturer.

Now the same holds true for manufactured products as does the book. The original can be sold for a price thereby forgoing any and all future royalties of said product for a one-time payment in full for the patent to the product.

In 1 Cor 15:28, Paul reveals to us that the original copyright of creation has always remained with the Father, “And when all are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself shall also be subject to Him who put all under Him, in order that Elohim be all in all”. The Son, the producer, was and is always subject to the original book and at no time was the Son given liberty to add to or to take away from the instructions given in the original copyrighted book. This is evidenced to Paul in the words of the Son in Mt 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done”.

And this copyright ownership was not revealed just at this one time during the Sermon on the Mount, but it was also reinforced when it was repeated to John in the closing of His book of life, Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the heaven saying, “See, the Booth of Elohim is with men, and He shall dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and Elohim Himself shall be with them and be their Elohim … 7 The one who overcomes shall inherit all this, and I shall be his Elohim and he shall be My son … 18 For I witness to everyone hearing the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, Elohim shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, Elohim shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and out of the set-apart city, which are written in this Book”.

Now notice the 2 distinct retributions, the former is punishment of suffering plagues and the latter speaks of those who diminishes His authority by diminishing His Word, he is the one who suffers eternal death. The one who says that this part or that part of His Book does not pertain to certain members of His creation should seriously, very seriously take heed these Words of His Book in Rev 22:19.

It matters not who speaks for the Father, the Son or we, the sons and daughters, the original copyright and its royalties have always remained with the Father and will always remain with the Father. Therefore, no one, no not one, not even the Son has ever had the liberty to make changes, to substitute one people for another, to release instructions when the Father had not released them, etc.

The Son, by the authority of the Father was granted the authority to shed His blood for our sins, therefore all royalties from that blood belong to the Father and what are the royalties? They are our lives, given to the Father through the Son by the authority of the Father given to the Son.

This is why we are told to ‘count the cost’. Are we willing to give, that is to subject our entire being to the Father according to the script of His Book that He revealed through the Son, the producer who has no authority to make even the tiniest of changes to the script or have we become partakers in the stealing of the script of His copyrighted Book by making changes to it that He did not authorize?

Who holds the royalties of your life? The true original owner who never relinquished those royalties or the one who first made himself manifest in the garden, the liar, the stealer of the copyrighted Book that originally belonged to the Father? As it was then, it still remains today, the lie continues …

“If you sin, if you do that which He told you not to do, you will not reeeally die”

There has been no greater lie told since the beginning of the production of His Book. As it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end, a world that really has no end as His Book truly has no end, but concludes with a revelation of the eternal life to come that was promised to mankind the day He breathed life into them, the life being His Word that put on flesh. He knows all the characters in the 2nd production to come but we do not, and that is why we must all ‘count the cost’ and then upon taking the oath, the confessing of the Son, we are legally bound to the terms of the original copyrighted Book, just as the Son was lest we one day find ourselves in front of Him hearing these words,

Many shall say to Me in that day, ‘Master, Master, have we not prophesied in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty works in Your Name?’ And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who work lawlessness!’” [Mt 7:22-23]

So to reiterate the point, the Son’s blood was not a ‘one-time payment’ for all royalties on the original copyright so that we all now own the copyright therefore allowing us to go and do what is right in our own eyes. And to prove this we need only to revisit the words of Messiah in Mt 5:17 in their proper context of Mt 5:17-20.

Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. 18 For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done. 19 Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter into the reign of the heavens.”

The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father and the Son in us therefore, the Father in us as it has been from the beginning. The Son came to complete the production of His Father’s Book and therefore, there has been no breach of contract between the Father and the Son. And if we are true to the Word, then there should also be no evidence of any breach of contract between we and the Father, the possessor of the original contract. This Book of the Father is still in the stage of production, therefore the contract between the Father and the Son is still valid.

Blessed are those persecuted for righteousness’ sake, because theirs is the reign of the heavens

As long as there is breathe in us, His breathe, it is never too late to exit ‘stage left out in the cold’ and return to His ‘stage of righteousness’. This is the plea of the Son. He wants us all in His production of His Father’s Book of Creation, the Father’s Book of Life!

Yes Virginia, In You is a Gift of Personal Righteousness

Virginia, you, as I were taught that we can only be saved through the Righteousness of Messiah. Throughout the ages children of God have been taught that we have no righteousness of our own and are totally covered under His. But is this Scriptural? Is this true? No it is not. In fact the truth is the exact opposite of what we were taught.

In Matthew 3:15 Messiah says “Permit it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fill all righteousness”. This means that John’s part in Messiah’s baptism was counted to John as righteousness.

Mat 21:32 “for John came to you in the way of righteousness…”

In Matthew 5:6 in the Sermon on the Mount Messiah says “blessed are those who thirst after righteousness” and then 4 verses later He tells us that in doing righteousness we will be persecuted and in that persecution for doing righteousness, we will be blessed.

Ok Virginia, I know, you are thinking, well Messiah is speaking to the Jews but do we really know for sure that they were all Jews, that they were all citizens of region of Judea which is the correct and proper definition for the word “Jew(s)” in the bible.

We can quickly understand who Messiah was speaking to by going to the book of Acts. In chapter 10 verses 34-35 we see Peter upholding Messiah’s righteousness teaching He gave during His Sermon on the Mount.

Act 10:34 And opening his mouth, Peter said, “Truly I see that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation, he who fears Him and does righteousness is accepted by Him.

You see Virginia, righteousness simply means doing what is right according to the instructions that the Word of God gave through Moses. (Mt 5:17-20, 22:37-40, 23:1-3) This is what it means to work out our own salvation. With all our heart, mind and strength we strive to do His instructions as He gave them, to do them to the best of our ability and not as a means of salvation but as evidence of our belief in Him that gave them to us to keep us safe and to bless us.

Act 7:37 “This is the Moses who said to the children of Israel, YHVH your God shall raise up for you a Prophet (Word of God) like me (Moses) from your brothers. Him (Word of God) you shall hear.’ 38 “This is he (Moses) who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the Messenger (Word of God) who spoke to him (Moses) on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the Living Words to give to us, 39 unto whom our fathers would not become obedient, but thrust away, and in their hearts they turned back to Egypt,

Heb 4:2 For indeed the Gospel was brought to us as well as to them (at Mt Sinai), but the word which they heard did not profit them, not having been mixed with belief in those who heard it.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we saw His esteem, esteem as of an only brought-forth of the Father, complete in favour and truth.

Every parent understands that as a parent, they know what is best for their children and we being children of God, God knows what is best for us. When we say that we know better than God and turn to worship Him and live in society according to our own will and not His, we are acting like ungrateful and rebellious children. What happens when we disobey our parents of the flesh? We are disciplined. The same is for our Father in Heaven. When we disobey Him, we remove ourselves from His safety covering (His grace/favor) from which all blessings flow and in doing so we are left exposed to the curses of the world.

Heb 12:7 If you endure discipline, God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom a father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become sharers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Moreover, we indeed had fathers of our flesh disciplining us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they indeed disciplined us for a few days as seemed best to them, but He does it for our profit, so that we might share His apartness.

Now knowing and understanding that in the flesh we can never be perfect as Messiah was perfect, God from the beginning has revealed an additional Righteousness to come. A Righteousness that has now been fulfilled for all to come under, all that have gone before us and all that are to come, as God’s Word and His promises are outside of time. They speak to all generations as if all generations existed at the same time.

Rom 3:21 But now, apart from the Torah, a Righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Torah and the Prophets, 22 and the Righteousness of God is through belief in Yeshua Messiah to all and on all who believe.

Heb 11:1 And belief is the substance of what is expected, the proof of what is not seen. 2 For by this the elders obtained witness. 3 By belief, we understand that the ages were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made of what is visible…8  By belief, Aḇraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he was about to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Aḇraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness … Gen 15:6 And he believed in YHVH, and He reckoned it to him for righteousness. Gen 26:5 because Aḇraham obeyed My voice and guarded My Charge: My commands, My laws, and My Torah.

Who and what was it that Abraham believed and in that belief Abraham obeyed?

Gen 15:1 After these events the Word of YHVH came to Aḇram in a vision, saying, “Do not be afraid, Aḇram. I am your shield, your reward is exceedingly great.”

Belief in the Son is belief in His Word as the two are one in the same and through Messiah’s Righteousness and His shed blood, we now have security to know that as long as we strive to do that same righteousness that John the Baptist did by being obedient unto death, as long as we acknowledge our sin, ask forgiveness then go and do that sin no more, we too can reach the goal of eternal life just as His only begotten Son, the Living Word did.

1Jn 2:28 And now, little children, stay in Him, so that when He appears, we might have boldness and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. 29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone doing righteousness has been born of Him.

1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one lead you astray. The one doing righteousness is righteous, even as Messiah is righteous… 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Everyone not doing righteousness is not of God,

From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible teaches us that there is righteousness for us to attain to. Not for salvation but as evidence thereof. We do what we believe because we believe in what we do. Salvation came in the form of the flesh to instruct and teach us the proper way to do righteousness in the flesh. He did not take it away for if He did then even His own Righteousness which we need in the end is also taken away. If that which defines what sin is according to God (the Father in whose Authority Messiah came in) is gone, then that leaves us in a pretty precarious state as then we have no need of a Messiah at all and everyone can continue to do what is right in their own eyes according to their own will rather than according to God’s will.

Yes Virginia, the Living Word was nailed to the cross, however, that Living Word then resurrected in all its Glory and Splendor as it was in the beginning so that it would forever shine forth throughout the entire world. Through resurrection, the Living Word defeated eternal death thereby obtaining eternal victory over the Adversary of the Living Word.

Know this then, if we are in the Light of the Living Word and He in us, then the Light of the Living Word and all His Righteousness reflects in all that we do because we believe and strive with all our heart, mind and strength, and in humble submission to the One who gave life to both we and His Living Word, if we do this just as the Living Word did while He was in the flesh that was according to what He was supposed to do according to the Father’s instructions, we too will achieve to the same righteousness as our forefathers did and in ‘That Day’ we all together will receive our own crown as Messiah did.

Heb 11:39 And having obtained witness through the belief, all these did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided what is better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

So Virginia, do not let anyone continue to deceive you. You do have your own righteousness in you and this righteousness is a gift, a blessing from God your Father and He is patiently waiting for you to un-wrap this gift, then share this gift from Him with the world.

 

 

 

Why Liberals & So-Called Conservatives on Both Sides of the Aisle Despise the 14th Amendment

US citizenship is the most sought after commodity on the market today. Yes, you read correctly, “commodity”.

Where else in the world can one go and be paid to retire, living off of other people’s property, when they have no work history? Where else can one go to have a baby and then, in the name of that baby, reap the property of those they have no loyalty or allegiance to? Where else in the world can one enter illegally and not be subject to the laws thereof?

Why the good ole’ US of Despotism of course!

The doctrine of old, that is still lawful doctrine as far as I know, is that a child can not be held responsible for the actions of the parents so long as that child is a minor. But when that child reaches the age of majority, the age of reason and knowledge of the law, the child themself becomes responsible to make sure they are in legal good standing. I, myself personally, don’t know one person who would deny a child brought here illegally or birthed here illegally, the right to citizenship if that child, upon reaching legal age of 18, stands on moral ground and takes the proper legal action to correct the indiscretion placed upon them by their parents to becoime legal and law abiding members of our society. This is the doctrine of all moral societies from the beginning of time, that every member of that society be bound to the same standard in all law. No classification of race or ethnicity required. We are all but of one race, the human race, in the eyes of a constitutionally bound & blindfolded justice system.

You ask then, just how did we get to where we are today when there are so many laws that pit one race against another & one ethnicity against another? Through judicial activism & greedy immoral citizens & non-citizens who found out they could vote themselves a paycheck via personal & corporate government welfare by voting in representatives that support everything but common sense, self-reliance & self-responsibility.

So let’s begin the lesson on the 14th. I’ll take it slow for those that are new to the issue and for those that have been entrenched with me in it for years, but still haven’t quite grasped this oh so simple concept.

Rule #1: Constitutions are not made to be complicated. They are written so that even the most common & uneducated citizen would be able to read and understand what is written so that they are able to obey the law without having to hire a lawyer every time they need to partake in society either personally or commercially. This is where I lose most of the lawyers as those of high education can’t seem to grapple with the law unless they make a complicated mess of it in their minds.

Rule #2: Every word or phrase, every jot or tittle in a Constitution is to have but one meaning when it is context pertains to a single subject matter such as the 14th Amendment. It’s subject matter is US citizenship, thus all words & phrases pertain to citizenship, how it is obtained, and what is required to obtain it …IN THAT ORDER!

But, before we explicitly break down the 14th, let’s go back to “the beginning” and see how US citizenship morphed from the days of old subjectship under feudal British monarchial rule to rule of law under a nation of sovereign citizens.

The year was 1775, oppression was abundant on this land of the freeman, each state a separate sovereign under the British crown, yet also under their own local colonial jurisdictional rule. Some of the colonies formed by the Brits, while others were formed by freemen of other nations who were later conquered and taken over by the Brits. The laws of these great colonies were as vast & nonconforming as the subjects that dwelt in them.

By July 4, 1776 all the colonies had personally declared their independence from Great Britain. The July 4th Declaration was merely a formal declaration that all the colonies now stood in solidarity with one another in order to break the chains of oppression that had been cast down upon them by their loving ruler. They adopted a Confederate Constitution, went to war & won. But soon, they realized that unless they united completely under a federal constitution, all they had fought for would be lost because after the war, they all went back to their individual states with laws still as vast & nonconforming as before. They soon found themselves pitted against each other with the ruler they had just defeated waiting in the wings to swoop in and conquer them once again.

One of the big debates they had was over citizenship. Just who were the members of this new Republic called the United States of America? The north wanted to abolish slavery right off the bat, but the slave states would have none of it, threatening to break away from the union. In a very wise decision, it was adopted that after a certain date, the slave trade would see a permanent end. In another very wise decision, the 3/5ths clause, the slaves states were not allowed full representation in the US Congress unless they freed all their slaves. Oh they tried to buck the 3/5ths clause, but the abolition states insisted that if the slave states wanted representation for what they called property, then the abolition states could also count all their property(furniture) for representation purposes. Well, very aware of the abundance of wealth the abolition states held over the slave states, it didn’t take long for the slave states to concede and adopt the 3/5th clause put forth by the representatives of the abolition states. There was also no talk of sex for at that time it was one household, one vote whether it be a woman or a man at the head of that household. A doctrine I whole heartily believe we should return to. And in many states, color did not factor into the equation. Black & white stood side by side in the voting line.

This is how a representative government works. The head of the household represents the house as a whole. The house as a whole elects representatives for local, state, US House & presidential electoral college members. The electoral college members represent the state as a whole in the presidential election and cast their vote for the candidate that best represents their state as a whole. Then last but not least we have the states who represent the body of the state as a whole and they were to elect the persons to represent the state in the US Senate. That is until it was usurped by liberals on both sides of the aisle.

But I digress. Back to citizenship.

Immediately after the Declaration of July 4, 1776, the states began repealing old feudal law & replacing it with the Laws of Nature & of Nature’s God as declared in the Declaration of Independence & reiterated in the Articles of Confederation.

Virginia, a colony with the deepest ties to Great Britain finalized their change in 1779 under the governorship of Thomas Jefferson.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

No longer did Virginia recognize British feudal law of subjectship as a definition as to who its members were. The only new members born into the state had to be born to parents who were already members of that state. These were & are the natural born. All others being aliens must be naturalized according to the laws of the state. The majority of the states followed suit, many adding religious requirements that were totally legal under the Articles of Confederation. On the other hand, a few states held fast to the feudal definition of subjectship, the state as the master & the individual as the subject slave. Quite repulsive isn’t it, to think that they fought a bloody war only to keep the members of their own society under the same legal oppression they had fought against.

Moving along, we come to 1790 and the passing of the 1st naturalization & immigration laws under the new Constitution of the Republic of these United States. This law held that all children born to American parents, regardless of soil of birth were natural born citizens. All others were aliens who were afforded the opportunity to become naturalized citizens, either at the time of their parents naturalization or upon their own accord at the age of 21. But the language was ambiguous at best. In 1795, the natural born language was repealed as it pertained to children born to US citizens abroad, however the language for children born to aliens remained intact.

In 1802 congress revisited the naturalization laws in order to correct abuses that had taken place under the previous administration. The Act of 1802 repealed all previous naturalization Acts and in their place, stated:

An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States

So, let’s break this down for those that are blinded easily by the chaff that hides the meat of the grain.

parents…united under one allegiance, upon marriage, international law & US state & national law recognized that the wife automatically became a citizen of the husbands country and the husband was the legal representative for the entire family.

the children…those born to alien/foreign parents on American soil

who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject(naturalized citizenship) by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof(laws of the state under the Articles of Confederation) … this refers to the feudal law of subjectship which at birth, naturalized the child of a foreigner and makes that child a subject slave of the state from the moment of birth, regardless of the parents wishes

being under the age of 21 at the time of their parents being naturalized…still a minor and under the authority & protection of the parents

admitted to the rights of citizenship if dwelling in the United States…they could only claim US citizenship if living in the US proper under the authority & protection of their parents who were living in the US & who had become US citizens

In other words, what we have here is the federal government stating in 1802, in no uncertain terms, that birth in this country is not the prerequisite to citizenship. It is the allegiance of the parents, the adults who are the guardians & protectors of the child, and unless the adult parents become citizens, the child has no other option than to try to obtain it at the age of 21. For those whose parents never did obtain US citizenship, the process was made easier and the waiting period was waved as long as the child had lived in and was educated in the US consistently for a certain period of time prior to their coming to the age of 21.

I have found no better voice to this than that of a Mr Saunders of the 28th Congress during debate on naturalization that finally ended with the above law being upheld:

28th Congress, 2nd Session
page 129

MR. SAUNDERS’S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.

It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States

And please don’t misquote me. This does in no way pertain to children born to parents after the parents are naturalized, for at that time, the child is legally born to citizen parents and thus is a true natural born citizen. One born with a complete & undivided allegiance to the United States of America under the color of the law.

So, thus far, the federal government has recognized but 2 paths to US citizenship, birth according to the laws of nature which produce the natural born citizens and the rest, regardless of place of birth, fall under the statute laws of immigration & naturalization. However, let’s move forward and see if it stuck.

In 1859, naturalized US Americans were still being held unlawfully in the countries of their birth so President Buchanan had his Dept of Justice, Attorney General draft a legal OP that was published nationwide and sent out to all embassies across the globe. The US Embassies then forwarded this legal memorandum to all foreign governments, declaring once again, the laws of citizenship of the United States, both at birth & naturalization.

“The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalizationthrew off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”

This OP was still being cited by Harvard law as precedent to the definition of US citizenship when Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkah was born.

This OP was also the legal document used to draft the 1866 Civil Rights Act that was ratified as the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of these United States in 1868. It is the legal document for the sister Act to the 14th Amendment which is the Expatriation Act of 1868, passed on July 27, 1868, immediately following the ratification of the 14th in order to finally & forever proclaim the US doctrine of a single allegiance to the US, either at birth or naturalization. It is the legal meat & the teeth to the oath of allegiance & renunciation all naturalized citizens must take and it is the legal meat & teeth that the US State Dept uses to protect its citizens abroad.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.

No dual allegiance allowed. It is hereby declared inconsistent with our form of government and is a bain to the keeping of public peace. One nation, one people under one allegiance to, one Supreme Law, the Constitution of the United States.

OK, now that we have traced the history and found out that nothing had changed regarding children born to aliens on US soil since the time of the adoption of the US Constitution to the ratification of the 14th, we can now return to the 14th. Using the precedent set forth in all previous legislation pertaining to US citizenship and the legal document that gave it its force that was cited & upheld by the Supreme Court in both the Minor & Elk cases, let’s see what the paths to US citizenship are? Are there really only 2? YES!

All persons … Chief Justice Waite in 1874:

The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”

born or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … again Chief Justice Waite in 1874:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

Then 10 yrs later Gray upholds the ruling of the court written by Chief Justice Waite as it pertains to the paths to Us citizenship as it stands under the 14th Amendment:

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which

“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,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized

So, the 14th defines persons as either born or naturalized. Then we take the next step to see which path they can legally gain citizenship thru by using the “subject to the jurisdiction” rule as defined by Congress & the courts since 1790; and we see that according to the 14th Amendment, the only ones who attain US citizenship via either path are those that have always had but one exclusive allegiance to the US since birth, the natural born, or those that formally & personally(individually) declared their one exclusive allegiance the the US upon naturalization.

It’s all right there folks. Both Supreme Court justices, both in the deciding opinions of the court citing the same legal precedent specifically sent forth by the US Congress in 1802 and reiterated in 1845 and finally by the Buchanan Admin OP in 1859 which became the legal document that formed the 14th Amendment, that thusly led to the constitutionality of citizenship as defined by 14th being upheld by the Supreme Court. Two paths to US citizenship, birth via the Laws of  Nature which produces the natural born citizens or naturalization by renouncing & swearing an oath of immediate & exculsive alliegiance to the Constitution fo the United States, neither the twix shall meet. One can not be born with allegiance to a foreign nation and claim natural born citizenship status later in life. The law does not suport it.

Thus finally I leave you with this historical evidence from the…Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization(1840-1950)

Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

Yes, this is the reason Harvard was still citing the 1859 Buchanan OP when Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkah was born. Obama was 1st & foremost a British subject at birth, just as his father was. This was the law recognized by all nations, that a child born in wedlock follows the nationality of the father, not the mother until such time as a divorce or an adoption may take place or upon the child reaching the age of 21. The only change in the 1950′s pertained to children born to single mothers abroad, NOT children born in wedlock.

Therefore, the crux of US citizenship is neither birth nor naturalization, it is allegiance to the US Constitution & the political system of the US  federal government and to them ONLY! However, birth is the only path to which one can attain to the office of the presidency . The highest office of the land which holds the responsibility of enforcing the Law of the land, the US Constitution and on each & every inauguration day, the person elected to that office takes an oath swearing to do so and is suppose to have had but one allegiance from birth. Exclusive allegiance to the United States of America and the US Constitution. Without the law, we live under despotism & tyranny of a doctorial government. Without the enforcement of our citizenship laws as they are defined in the 14th Amendment, we become a land without sovereign borders and are doomed to destruction through economic redistribution of our private property that the despotic governments seizes from us without authority of the Law of the land, the US Constitution, to give to others who are not legally authorized to receive it.

So, Welcome to the United States of Despotism under the tyranny of an illegitimate president who got there by the politically elite of all ranks disregarding the law and yet these so-called conservative politician and pundit elitists are astonished at how many times the British-American-Indonesian has ignored it.

GO FIGURE! AMERICAN IGNORANCE IN ITS PRIME ON DISPLAY FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE & LAUGH AT! AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/open-letter-to-all-south-dakota-national-media/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/birthright-jus-soli-citizenship-only-applied-to-state-citizenship-prior-to-march-26-1790/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/why-all-states-need-to-adopt-presidential-eligibility-laws/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/14th-amendment-birthright-citizenship-the-law-of-statelessness/

New US Doctrine Proclaims: Rinsing the Baby Down the Drain With Dirty Bath Water is Legal

If something is so precious, like say the US Constitution, then by all means necessary, don’t let it be rinsed down the drain with the filthy bath water

That’s the message we thought we had sent in the 2010 elections, but those elected to office, both state & national, seem to have already forgotten this important lesson. And now that things are heating up for the 2012 presidential race, and from what I have heard thus far from those wishing to attain to the highest elected office of this great land, I hold no hope that the lessons of the past that are so vital to our nation’s sovereign survival, will come forth with the light & the passion they so deserve. To say that US & State governments as well as their elected officials are so deeply entrenched in political correctness that the light of their founding is nearly at a full eclipse, is putting it nicely.

Entrenched in covering up for their despicable indiscretions against the US Constitution is putting it in its proper context.

What was done in 2008 by all parties on the ballots (not just the DNC or the RNC) was nothing short of putting the plug on the drain after the US Constitution had already entered the drain pipe. In that one fell historical swoop of hysteria in electing the 1st 1/2 white pResident, the precedent was forever set. From Nov 4, 2008 onward, it is now US doctrine that anyone born with immediate allegiance to any foreign entity will be allowed to lead our nation further into utter moral & economic destruction.

I am so sick & tired of all the political rhetoric I can’t stand it anymore. Especially when it comes from so-called God-fearing constitutional conservatives. Let me tell all you so-calleds something. If there was even an ounce of God-fearing blood in your veins, you would be standing with the truth rather than with obfuscations by claiming the only way to fight the pResident is by going after his policies.

HYPOCRITES!  LIARS! EVERYONE OF YOU!

And that goes for Lt Col Allen West who so freely speaks out against Islamic infiltration but refuses to immediately address the illegitimacy of the Islamic supporter & appeasers in “We the People’s” house. Not one elected official has the God-fearing Constitutional spine, including this brave war hero who went up against the system & won, to boldly & publicly proclaim & use the one Constitutional legal vice that could have kept this unpatriotic British-American-Indonesian from entering before Jan 20, 2009 or thusly removing him since.

I also believe in my God-fearing heart that this is the reason Thune backed out from running. He knows he has many God-fearing faithful constitutional conservatives who are not afraid to speak truth to power that would have made this an issue at every single stop he made in a bid for the presidency. It is also why Thune’s office still refuses to answer the last letter I sent him. They can’t because they know they will be exposed for the liars & obfuscates they are.

So to put it as plainly as one can, the only reason the pResident’s policies came to fruition is by those in state & national office abdicating their duty to their oaths of office. Therefore, the next time one of them needs, say, heart or brain surgery, by all means call in a prostate surgeon.  They shall do a right fine job according to these elected officials standards of qualifications.

AND NO! I will not now or ever retract that last statement until the all the above persons mentioned prove me wrong by standing with every jot & tittle of the US Constitution as it was passed, as it was written by those that authored each part therein! And as it IS STILL written to this day!

Matthew 5:17 ~ 20 “…one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law” (unless done so legally with the approval of 3/4 of the states; then finalized with the signature of a legally sitting president…to do so otherwise is to operate without the law as we now see happening at record speed..to do so without authority of the law is the means by which all societies have been and are destroyed, both morally & economically, and it is the unlawful aligned with the immoral that leads to the final step which is the economic destruction every time)

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/open-letter-to-all-south-dakota-national-media/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/birthright-jus-soli-citizenship-only-applied-to-state-citizenship-prior-to-march-26-1790/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/why-all-states-need-to-adopt-presidential-eligibility-laws/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/14th-amendment-birthright-citizenship-the-law-of-statelessness/

Open Letter to ALL South Dakota & National Media

Shad Olson recently had Sam Kephart on his show discussing Donald Trump and his prospects as a 2012 presidential candidate. When Sam said “the power of candor in the age of deceit“, he couldn’t have spoken more powerful words. Please bear with me while I explain a bit why Sam really hit the nail on the head.

Our country is in a full speed destructive mode because of the lack of  honor & integrity of our leaders & govt representatives, and just as important, their lack of knowledge of the US Constitution and what those Articles in it mean as well as American history.

I have spent the last 3 years doing indepth research & study of the Constitution, especially Article II qualifications, the 14th Amendment & its sister Act, the Expatriation Act. US citizenship is precious and our leaders are giving it away like penny candy. But more importantly, in a this age of deceit & George Soros, the leftist marxist socialist communists need to destroy the definition of “sovereign US citizen” so that their definition of “global, no-borders subjectship”, where the only rights we will have is what the elite are willing to give us, can fully emerge.

They nearly have common citizenship destroyed & now they are going after the White House and they thus far, with the help of the lame stream media”, may have forever set a dangerous precedent for presidential qualifications unless we pull the rudder & reverse course immediately.

“…the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety. ~ Thomas Jefferson December 9, 1805″ 

Until just recently when Obama announced his 2012 campaign bid, his FTS (fight the smears) campaign website stated:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.” 

I have the webshot saved.

With that said…why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than citing the United States Constitution & the 14th Amendment? He is after all, a constitutional scholar is he not? How many people know that it is the US Govt & White House policy that dual citizenship is forbidden but especially in the Executive Branch, even for the lowliest file clerk? How many people know that dual citizenship is not law? That dual citizenship is in fact, unconstitutional. Therefore, the US State Dept can not guarantee protection to dual citizens when they are in foreign countries, especially the countries they claim to be also citizens of and this is why the US State Dept has warnings about this in several locations on their website. 

“Matthew 6:24: No man can serve to masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” 

This is the “Law of Nature & of Nature’s God” that is stated in the Declaration of Independence. A child can not be made an alien to their parents lest he be made a slave to man. They are under the tuition of the parents (parens patriae) until they reach the age of consent and choose for themselves what nation/government they will attach their allegiance to. And don’t get me started on the destruction of the family as “One Unit” that began with the marxist feminist movement. 

The US Constitution does not recognize slavery. In fact it does the opposite and refutes it when it refers to representation in Article I. The slave states were constitutionally confined to a smaller representation as those states did not recognize their salves as persons, but rather property. The only way for a state to gain full representation in the US Congress was to free the slaves and recognize them as the free & equal persons they are under the “Laws of Nature & of Nature’s God” as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

We are slaves only to God, not to man. 

In his opening stement, the US House judiciary subcommittee chairman on the US Constitution during hearings on presidential qualifications in 2000, stated for the record:

The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.”

George Washington in his farewell address stated:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter…

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

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…”

Foreign influence, especially emotional influence that stems from an immediate familial foreign source, in a US president, is to be avoided at all cost and thus the reason for the president to be a “natural born” citizen. Natural born means exclusive allegiance to the United States at birth, the same as it is for immigrants upon taking the oath at the time of naturalization. “Subject to the jurisdiction”, as found in the 14th Amendment, has nothing to do with soil, it has to do with political allegiance; where one holds his political rights. Where one’s permanent domicile is & where he takes part in those political rights. That is why up until the late 70′s, when the Supreme Court legislated from the bench, voting in a foreign country was grounds for immediately losing ones US citizenship.

My research is extensive & grounded with historical evidence dated from our founding era to date. It is not personal supposition as many have been posting all over the internet, especially by those with some sort of law degree. The true law & its rich history must be exposed and I believe it will be at the state levels where it gets it foothold. We owe this to our Posterity, to our fine men & women in uniform & to the preservation of our society that the founding generations shed their blood for.

I encourage you to make use of my research and help spread the word so that we may reverse course & reclaim our sovereignty, our heritage & especially the US Constitution. Our national & economic security depends on it.

God’s Grace & Peace,

Linda Melin

dlmelin@unitelsd.com

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

main starting research article as well as the most recent research articles with the best evidence:

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/birthright-jus-soli-citizenship-only-applied-to-state-citizenship-prior-to-march-26-1790/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/why-all-states-need-to-adopt-presidential-eligibility-laws/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/14th-amendment-birthright-citizenship-the-law-of-statelessness/

14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship & The Law of Statelessness

The definition of “natural born” comes from the common law of nations. Under the law of nations, all treaties and the laws of the foreign nations must be considered if a child is born on foreign soil. Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is “exclusive allegiance to the United States” at birth. According the US Government, to answer the question, is one born without the soil (jus soli) a natural born citizen, we must ask ourselves this question…If the US denied citizenship to a child born abroad, would that act of the US government leave the child stateless?

Take for example, George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US. George’s parents never changed their citizenship. They never renounced their US citizenship & took Mexican citizenship. Under the citizenship laws of Mexico at the time, George Romney was born an alien/foreigner as Mexican law did not recognize him as a citizen by the mere fact that he was born on their soil. It was “jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” (the jurisdiction to make decisions) under the law of nations that governed George Romney’s status at birth. Therefore, if the US had denied citizenship to little George, he literally would have been left stateless because the foreign nation in which he was born never claimed him as a member/citizen of their society. His “exclusive” allegiance at birth was to the United States.

This is the same for children born to 2 citizen parents in the military, no matter where they are born. Vattel, Bk1, sec 217: For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

During the hearings and testimony on S.Res. 511, the revisionists brought in 2 highly respected revisionist constitutional lawyers to obfuscate the truth by using English feudal law. Feudal law is not common law. It is the law of the Sovereign King. It is statute law, not natural law. Had McCain or any of the other spineless GOP establishment known their history, they would have refuted that resolution and stood firm on the law of their birthright. This is especially disturbing to me because of the stress it is causing our men & women in uniform who are temporarily stationed overseas. By saying that they are subject to the citizenship laws of foreign nations is ludicrous and absurd.

Since 1920 & the right of women to vote, our country’s basic foundation, the family as “One” standing under one allegiance, has been usurped by statute law. Women already had citizenship. Voting is not a fundamental right, it is a privilege. I am a woman & I am sick of the feminist movement. There are certain things in nature that are vital to the preservation of a society/nation and that is unified allegiance of all households. When a man & woman get married they become “One” in the eyes of the law and this includes allegiance to the society in which they have their main domicile. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791:

[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good

[T]he most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

Children are a consequence of marriage, therefore they become in the eyes of the law part of that “One” union.

Jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” and the effect of statelessness should children find themselves born without the soil (jus soli) of the parents is the common law of nations.

The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance” to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization. All others are aliens in the eyes of the law of the US Constitution.

Harvard Law agrees with my assessment. The Harvard & Michigan Law Reviews used by SCOTUS are copyrighted and thus I am not able to publish the pdf’s. Those with Hein-online access will be able to access the entire documents:

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

See also the official government notices published nationwide by the Buchanan Administration. These documents were the founding documents for the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later was Constitutionalized as the 14th Amendment, the 1868 Expatriation Act(also still law, it is the authority for the oath of allegiance all naturalized citizens must take) as well as the 1870 Act passed to enforce the 14th Amendment and the basis of all citizenship treaties with all foreign nations since then. Click the link for each pdf file to save a copies of them. The state legislators need these documents to enforce their new election laws pertaining to constitutional eligibility:

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

Mark R. Levin: Dual Citizenship is Citizenship by Statute, Not 14th Amendment Citizenship

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE II

Sec 5  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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Let me be clear, nearly a year ago on August 13, 2010, Mark R. Levin with all his constitutional expertise stated the dual citizenship is not 14th Amendment citizenship. Rather it is citizenship by statute. If so, the how come he is ignoring Article II qualifications and promoting Bobby Jindal for president, knowing that Jindal was born a citizen of India? Would that not make Jindal a citizen by statute, not by nature? Also, he recently has been promoting Marco Rubio. I like Marco, but do we know for a fact that his parents were naturalized citizens at the time of Marco’s birth?

You have 65 seconds, GO!


Caller: Yes, how does dual citizenship work? How can person have dual alliances for example…… let’s say we got into a war with say Israel

Mark: hahahahaha

Caller: You know what I am saying

Mark: yeah, yeah, the jews, we gotta watch out for them

Caller: No, no, it could be that….

Mark: Let me explain something to you. In terms of dual citizenship, that is done statutorily, you understand? In other words, Congress determines, uh, the nature of dual citizenship, what qualifies for dual citizenship and so forth; which is why it is so absurd to argue that the 14th Amendment by itself confers citizenship on illegal aliens

Caller: Well, that’s a good point, that’s a very good point. I understand

Mark: Well, it’s the truth, it’s not even, yeah

Caller: No, no, I understand ya, I’m not arguing with ya, I listen to you to learn

Mark: Alright my friend, thank you, you’re a good man, I think…I’m no fan of dual citizenship either, I’ll be perfectly honest with you

Yello! Yello! Could someone get Mark on the phone & ask him to explain this to us please?

Natural Birthright Citizenship: Birthright of Blood According to English Common Law

My research has finally come full circle with an absolute and irrefutable conclusion and I want to thank all the patriots whom inspired me to research “out of the box”.

As I had already reported in my Congressional “Natural Born Citizen” series, in 1987 Michael Greve of the ‘Reason Magazine’ wrote that Prof. Lawrence Tribe is

[n]otorious for urging judges to go boldly where none have gone before…[T]ribe’s pretenses are a thin cover for their effort to mobilize the Constitution for left-liberal causes

As we already know, Lawrence Tribe was Obama’s law professor at Harvard whom Obama supposedly did extensive research for. What I conclude with, is research from the Harvard Law Review archives. Research that neither Tribe or Obama hoped would become public knowledge. For if this legal information cited by the US courts did become public; it would have immediately crushed Obama’s eligibilty for the presidency. And that is why, when it came to testimony for S.Res. 511, “A Bill Proclaiming John Sidney McCain III a natural born citizen“, Tribe was called in to give obfuscation to the exact meaning and intent of Article II qualifications for the presidency.

As I have said, the key to defining who the citizens are lies within the 14th Amendment phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and more specifically, what “jurisdiction” does it pertain to? Therein lie the question which must be answered. And as I have previously reported, the US Supreme Court has stated that unless otherwise specified in the Constitutional Amendment itself or in subsequent legislation, jurisdiction cannot have conflicting consequences. It cannot have one meaning for persons born and another for persons naturalized. The subsequent legislation, the 1868 Expatriation Act, passed just days after the 14th was ratified defined what the term jurisdiction in the 14th pertained to. It is political jurisdiction, owing exclusive allegiance to the United States, the same as it had been since the revolution. But how do we know this? By researching “out of the box” that’s how.

The legal premise that the founders grounded the revolution on was the “inalienable right of expatriation” that every person is born with.

Declaration of Independence ; July 4, 1776

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Expatriation Act July 27, 1868

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Expatriation is a God-given right that no man can take from another. And while there are plenty of revolutionary era documents supporting this, for the purposes of eschewing todays leftist propagandists like Tribe, the lame stream media & the Obama camp, who see only a revisionist theory based on their interpretation of what the United States future should look like. I will keep my argument within the scope of the 14th Amendment & the 1868 Expatriation Act ,which is still on the books and which gives Congress the legal authority to continue to require that all naturalized citizens must formally swear an oath renouncing & abjuring forever any & all foreign allegiances. This will also include the official US Government documents, with current supporting legal references, that contain the meaning of language of the 14th & the Expatriation Act. These 2 laws cannot be defined exclusively, they must be defined inclusively otherwise they completely cancel each other out leaving both of them wholly unconstitutional & without authoritative legal weight for the Federal or State governments & courts to act upon.

After decades of foreign nations, but especially those under British feudal law, ignoring this right of expatriation, the Buchanan Administration put out two official releases(9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859)) which stated:

 “The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”

These official releases were used by Congress who authored the legislation & later the Courts in defining the words set forth in the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later became the 14th Amendment as well as the 1868 Expatriation Act. The US government declared once and for all that exclusive political allegiance to the United States government is what makes a citizen. A person can be born a native to the soil and yet not be a citizen because upon their birth, they did not owe exclusive allegiance to the US Government. They were considered inhabitants either here permanently or temporarily depending in status of their parents at the time of birth. Only if the parents became naturalized prior to the child turning 21, or upon the child acting on their own accord at or after the age of 21 do they become legally & officially a US citizen.

So what has all this got to do with the 14th & the Expatriation Act? Fast forward to 1922 the US Assist Solicitor General, Richard W. Flournoy, citing ATT’Y General Black.

Attorney-General Black, whose opinion of July 4, 1859, concerning the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen of Hanoverian origin who was arrested upon his return to Hanover, has become a classic on this subject. It seems worth while to quote from this notable opinion:

“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”

Under the oppressive feudal law of perpetual allegiance, subjects had to get permission from the Sovereign, the King, before traveling outside of the limits of the territory. Everywhere they traveled, their allegiance and that of their children whether born in or out of the territorial confines of the Crown, was due first and foremost to the Crown. Likewise, children born to aliens within the territorial limits of the Crown owed fealty first to the Sovereign Crown and could not leave the limits of the territory without express permission from it.

This is not, nor ever has been the rule of law in the United States since the revolution. When independence was declared, the founding fathers declared that, from that moment on, the individual is Sovereign and needs no permission from the government to travel from state to state, or country to country. The fact that passports are required is so that while traveling outside of US territory, one has an official document stating that they are a US citizen and therefore the US Government has the right,  under the law of nations, to step in to protect them legally should the need arise as it did in the Ernst case. This sovereignty was expressed in no uncertain terms within the confines of US Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…

Article IV, Section. 2.The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

Throughout the early 20th century after the WKA decision was handed down by the US Supreme Court, by a Justice whose own appointment was questionable, many changes were made to the US Code. However, one thing that has remained constant is the oath that all foreigners must take before becoming a US citizen. Since WKA relied so heavily on English feudal law for its decision, what was the real original common law of England pertaining to those who were the sovereigns of the nation? For that we go to the Michigan Law Review (50 Mich. L. Rev. 927 1951-1952) that is cited by Harvard law professors.

 The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).

In the 50’s, there was still speculation as to whether a person born in a US territory, but not yet a state, could become president. There were also surmounting concerns over the dual nationality that children born on US soil to parents, either of whom were foreigners, but not diplomats, claimed to have because of the erroneous decision sent down by the Supreme Court in the 1898 WKA case. The one constant that the US had to rely on was not that of the soil, but that of the blood & of the 1868 Expatriation Act. Had WKA removed himself from the US after that decision, the fact that he had formally renounced the allegiance to China that he had at birth, is what gave him his right to his citizenship. At the coming of age, he made a declaration as to which country he wished to attach his allegiance to before the US State Dept. issued him a passport.

These questions would once again be laid to rest by Harvard (66 Harv. L. Rev. 707 1952-1953) and their repeated reference back to the 1859 OP released by the Buchanan Administration and ATT’Y Gen Black.

For most purposes, it is not necessary to determine the method by which citizenship has been acquired. But the problem of whether a citizen is natural born or naturalized is important in such areas as denaturalization, expatriation, and qualification for certain offices such as the presidency. (For a discussion of the distinctions made in expatriation, see pp. 739-42 infra.)

When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen’s qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship. (See 5o Mich. L. REV. 926 (1952).)

Only persons who held an allegiance to a foreign nation either at birth or naturalization are subject to deportation, because that person did not owe exclusive allegiance to the United States at either time. So how did Harvard determine who could & who could not lose their citizenship? For that we go to 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1512 1959-1960.

…later there was considerable controversy whether aliens who became American citizens could effectively cut their original ties. This was a different issue from that discussed in Perez and Trop. The earlier controversy resulted in the celebrated opinion presented by Attorney General Black to President Buchanan, and the Expatriation Act of 1868,” both upholding the individual’s right of expatriation. The vigor of the American point of view had its effect upon Great Britain, where in 1869 a Royal Commission recommended the end of a system of perpetual allegiance. (9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859). Act of July, 27, I868, ch. 249, I5 Stat. 223.)

A person born with conflicting allegiances, and who has never formally renounced & abjured one of those allegiances they claim to have, will not be left stateless. The big claim that the progressive revisionists make in their court arguments today is that somehow a child born on US soil to foreigners will be left stateless. This simply is not true. The revisionists use the argument to inject emotion & fear to further their cause which is to establish global citizenship, where there are no borders between nations. In other words, they are using our republican form of government to establish a “Global Republic” under one government of the United Nations.

So folks, it isn’t the government who forms (births) the citizens, it is the people themselves who’s inalienable right of expatriation gives them the right to choose which government they will attach their allegiance to. And since children at birth or prior to the age of consent (21) are not able to do so legally, they are therefore under their parents governance as well as the governance of the government in which the parents owe allegiance to. Their nationality & allegiance is that of their parents.

Under the laws of nations from time immemorial, their nationality follows that of their fathers.

 Under the laws of nations from time immemorial, a family is a unit comprised of but one allegiance, that of the husband/father. This is necessary for the survival & preservation of all civilized societies, but especially that of a Republic. A doctrine that has been written down from time immemorial.

Sovereign birthright citizenship is the common law “Right of Blood” in which every King of England depended upon to preserve to their posterity, their right to the Sovereign throne & the right to govern the kingdom. Since the July 4, 1776  Declaration of Independence & the ratification of the US Constitution, this birthright citizenship has belonged exclusively to the children, the posterity, of United States citizens.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This right does not, nor ever has it ever belonged to the children of foreigners who by chance are born on US soil, regardless or not that the parents happen to be diplomats . At birth, their primary fealty is to the foreign government of their parents’ allegiance & that allegiance is what establishes their nationality at birth.  Therefore, as Supreme Court Justice Waite, in Minor v Happersett, as well as Justice Grey, in Elk v Wilkins concluded, there are but two paths the citizenship, either by birth or by statute. Children who are born to an alien father/mother on US soil, are citizens by statute, not by birth. Their citizenship is one of election upon renunciation of the foreign allegiance should they so choose to claim it and by this fact alone, a loss of US citizenship could never deem them stateless.

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

Copyright 2011 : This article may not be reprinted for distribution or cross-posted on the internet without the express consent of and attribution to the author.

Why “ALL STATES” Need to Adopt Presidential “Eligibility Credential” Election Laws

Let me set the stage with “Propaganda: A Primer by Mark Levin”  (1 min 8 sec)


While the rest of the lame stream media & blogoshere have been trotting out Donald Trump and his birth certificate, they have failed/purposefully glossed over the immediate Constitutional issue . . . “natural born citizen”. Now don’t get me wrong, I think it is great that Trump has elevated this issue into the lame stream alphabet media, however that media is still pulling one over you.

Rewind to last Saturday night.  Mike Huckabee formally discloses, with a rather flippant attitude, the fact that neither the DNC, GOP, the US Congress or any of the states currently require that a presidential candidate must provide proof of “natural born citizenship”. Or for that matter, any citizenship at all. 

The only aspect of a presidential candidate’s life they are required to disclose is their financial history. WHAT? FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE? WHERE IS THAT REQUIREMENT IN ARTICLE II, SEC I OF THE CONSTITUTION?

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Arizona has the best legislation thus far  for determing the citizenship of all candidates. It requires everything needed for the AZ SOS to determine the eligibility of the candidate. It also contains protection for each & every registered voting AZ citizen to challenge a candidates eligibility within a reasonable period of time. The pertinent points are as follows:

16-507.01.  Presidential candidates; affidavit of qualifications; enforcement

B.  The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:

1.  A certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the candidate’s mother and father, including information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

D.  A member of the house of representatives, a member of the senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section.”

Today, Leo Donofrio published his latest research. In that research is reference to a 1968 US Supreme Court 14th Amendment case that clarifies what authority the states have in regards to interpreting the US Constitution and passing laws to ensure that the US Constitution is being upheld. The specific part of Justice Black’s concurring opinion of Justice White’s deciding opinion states:

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)

I have read the opinions and it is very clear that the states do have constitutional authority to interpret the term “natural born” as it was defined by Bingham & Trumbull who were the authors who submitted the amendment in their respective chambers of Congress. Bingham in the House & Trumbull in the Senate. According to the US Constitution, it is the states who are the sole protectors of the ballot. Therefore, any laws that are in compliance with the US Constitution are themselves constitutional. Including laws governing eligibility credentials.

How sad is it, that today we live in such a morally corrupt era, one can not trust that any given candidate is going to have the integrity & honor of former generations. The kind of integrity & honor that this great nation was built upon. But not only the candidates, we can not even trust our own state elected officials to do their job to ensure the integrity of our ballots.

click on photo for a larger view

I have already reported how former SOS Chris Nelson accepted & certified the nomination of Obama & Biden without any shred of evidence they were even eligible. Neither the State or National DNC, in which Nelson relied upon by faith not fact, certified that the persons they nominated were eligible under the provisions of Article II, Sec I of the United States Constitution. However in 2000 & in 2004, the DNC certification of nomination did contain the required language.

2000/2004/2008 HI Democratic Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates (funny business going on in Hawaii)

WHY THE CHANGE? WHY THE REMOVAL OF THE QUALIFICATION LANGUAGE? WHY THE SAME LANGUAGE FOR ALL 50 STATES IN 2000 & 2004, BUT NOT IN 2008?

Is this the new kind of integrity level for state elected officials, both public & party?

 2012 is going to be upon us very soon. What are you going to do to protect your state’s ballot from ineligible candidates? In 2008  Roger Calero, a green card holding alien from Nicaragua  and member of the Socialist Workers Party (communist party), was on the Presidential ballots in 5 states where he received 7,209 votes. He originally was on the ballot in 12, however was removed from 7 and replaced by another SWP member James Harris who received 2,424 votes. The states that allowed Calero, a Nicaraguan National, to remain on the ballot despite complaints to the Secretary of State in those states prior to the election were: CT, DE, VT, NJ, NY & Minnesota. 

2008 Governor of Minnesota & 2012 presidential hopeful, Tim Pawlenty, thinks presidential qualifications are a “DISTRACTION”.  And he also thinks that already debunked CNN reports are the almighty gospel truth:

So, just how reliable is Pawlenty’s CNN?

UPI NEWS: CNN Chief: Obama birth story ‘dead’; Published: July 24, 2009 @ 8:02 PM

NEW YORK, July 24 (UPI) — CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” the controversy over President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a “dead story.”

Klein wrote in an e-mail to staffers Thursday that CNN researchers had determined Hawaiian officials discarded paper birth documents in 2001. Thus, he said, Obama’s long-form birth certificate no longer exists, and a shorter certificate that is public is the official record. 

Umm, I thought I just heard Pawlenty say that he heard on CNN that they had actually saw the original long form document? Let me check? Yep, he sure did. Now since Klein wrote his staff in a ‘super secret’ e-mail that the original long form had been destroyed in 2001(how convenient), how could they have actually seen it? Does Jon Klein & the CNN research staff have some ‘futuristic-super-dooper’ telepathy that allows them to see documents that were supposedly destroyed 10 years ago?

The truth is, Hawaii still maintains all the archived documents from 1961. If Obama’s original long form exists, it would take but a 5 minute call to have it released. The truth is, per order from Klein, the CNN staff of “propagandists” have been lying to the American public since the eligibility questions all began in 2007. But it’s not just CNN having all their fun at our expense, NPR has been at it for years now too. I ask you, is this how our tax dollars are suppose to work? NPR”S astonishing admission comes at 1:38 into the video:

 
FYI to NPR: It was “Hillary” supporters who began the investigations into Obama’s birth back in 2007, not conservative commentators & their followers
 
It is now 2011 and Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkah-Obama has yet to prove his eligibility because Secretaries of State across the nation failed to do their job which is to protect the integrity of our ballots.
 
Stop and ask yourself one question: “Are you willing to risk going into 2012 relying purely on political blind faith in an age where each & every day politicians, as well as failing alphabet media “propagandists” prove how morally bankrupt they are?”
 

“Subject to the Jurisdiction”: You Can’t Have It Both Ways UPDATED with 2 Official Proclamations From The US Administration of 1859

Since the SD legislature has refused to address the birthright citizernship issue, I decided to give it another go with Sen. Thune on a national level.  As that “IS” the level of government in which it rightly should be addressed.

In my call to his office today I inquired:

Can the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” mean one thing for persons born and another for persons naturalized without it specifically separating the two in the initial language of the bill? If it does not, then that would mean that either there is no constitutional provision for anchor babies aka birthright citizenship for children born to parents in which one or more is an alien or that the oaths that immigrants must take renouncing any and all foreign allegiances is wholly unconstitutional and the US State Dept must immediately cease and desist in requiring it. If it is as some claim, that mere birth alone creates citizens, then it would also leave the Expatriation Act of 1868 formally known as “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” completely unconstitutional and thereby creating complete chaos of the laws of nations not to mention the treaties signed by our government from its founding. The Expatriation Act of 1868, known as the sister act to the 14th Amendment, is still in force today as part of Title 8, while some parts of it were transferred under Foreign Affairs. This law is the basis for the renunciation oath that all immigrants must take and is the law which gives Congress the right & authority to rebuke a naturalized citizen’s US citizenship status & have that person deported for “bad behavior”. It is also the law that states that dual allegiance is not now nor ever has been part of our legal system. The Act states: “whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed” and then goes on to declare ” is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government”.

From all the research into the congressional archives & past legislation that I have done from our founding to the present, and all the historical evidence that I have acquired, it is my conclusion that “subject to the jurisdiction” as it is written into the law can not suppose to repudiate itself nor are laws to be made that create redundancy. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995). I would like to hear how Sen. Thune, being a lawyer & writer/author of our laws can suppose a phrase mean two different things in the same law without specifically addressing them separately?

The 1995 Supreme Court case of  Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 concluded that:

[562] The Act’s structure and § 12′s language reinforce this view. In addition, since the primary innovation of the Act was the creation of federal duties-for the most part registration and disclosure obligations-in connection with public offerings, it is reasonable to conclude that the liability provisions were designed primarily to provide remedies for violations of these obligations rather than to conclude that § 12(2) creates vast additional liabilities that are quite independent of them. Congress would have been specific had it intended “prospectus” to have a different meaning in § 12. Pp. 570-573 . . . [563] The Act’s legislative history clearly indicates that Congress contemplated that § 12(2) would apply only to public offerings by an issuer or controlling shareholder, and nothing in that history suggests that Congress intended to create a formal prospectus required to comply with both §§ 10 and 12, and a second, less formal prospectus, to which only § 12 would be applicable. Pp. 578-584.

In other words, when a “term” or “phrase” of the law pertains to two different subject matter, unless otherwise stated in the statute by congress, the “term” or “phrase” shall be interpreted as to not repudiate itself.

The 14th Amendment is a prime example of this rule of law, i. e. birth & naturalization. According to Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the court in Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. on the rules pertaining to interpretation of laws, we can now surmise that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment shall have the exact same meaning for the one as it does for the other unless otherwise stated specifically by Congress in subsequent legislation or in the definitions of the “terms” & “phrases” of that law that is written in the US code .

Furthermore, according to Justice Kennedy the corresponding legislation to the 14th, the Expatriation Act of 1868 being that subsequent legislation, shall also have no affect on the law as to create any redundancy or repudiation of the 14th & the 1866 Civil Rights Act which held the verbiage of the codified law until it was changed in 1940 when the 14th & the 1866 Acts were consolidated into one.

Constitutional & legislative interpretation was written centuries ago and after the revolution there was but a couple of law schools in the US. It wasn’t until 1833 that Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, also founder of Harvard Law school, wrote in his commentaries about constitutional interpretation that is still cited to this day. Chapter 5 titled “Rules of Interpretation”, Section 188 & 194 of his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

§ 188.  IV. From the foregoing considerations we deduce the conclusion, that as a frame or fundamental law of government, (2.) The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred.  By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the constitution; that which will give it efficacy and force, as a government, rather than that, which will impair its operations, and reduce it to a state of imbecility.  Of course we do not mean, that the words for this purpose are to be strained beyond their common and natural sense; but keeping within that limit, the exposition is to have a fair and just latitude, so as on the one hand to avoid obvious mischief, and on the other hand to promote the public good.

§ 194.  VIII. No construction of a given power is to be allowed, which plainly defeats, or impairs its avowed objects.  If, therefore, the words are fairly susceptible of two interpretations, according to their common sense and use, the one of which would defeat one, or all of the objects, for which it was obviously given, and the other of which would preserve and promote all, the former interpretation ought to be rejected, and the latter be held the true interpretation.  This rule results from the dictates of mere common sense; for every instrument ought to be so construed, ut magis valeat, quam pereat (the interpretation that makes a contract valid rather than the one that makes it invalid; law.nyu.edu).

And this brings us to the power granted to Congress regarding citizenship. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Congress was afforded the power to naturalize citizens, but only nature could provide for the “natural born”. Naturalized citizens are required by law to formally renounce, in front of a judge, any and all allegiances they may have to any foreign sovereign, potentate or nation & relinquish any and all titles of nobility to or of the same. They must declare that they personally & individually consent to hold but one citizenship, that of the United States. Therefore, the term “subject to the jurisdiction” means owing allegiance to one & ONLY ONE nation which is also currently noted in the historical archives of the Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization (1840-1950 when women, under law, were formally granted the right to keep a separate citizenship than that of their husband thereby adding to the destruction of the unified family under the laws of Nature & Nature’s God).

Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

The one thing I have yet to find is a US law which specifically repealed the law of nations doctrine of transference of citizenship to children born in wedlock in a country where the father is a foreigner. All the citizenship treaties between the US and foreign nations were written based on the laws of nature & nations. I have yet to find in the international laws, reference that a child who is born in wedlock to parents who are citizens of different nations receives the nationality of both parents. As far as I can find, the doctrine described above from the Library of Congress pertaining to children born in these cases, is still on the books but hidden rather good in the extensive codes that are hard to manuever through. Common sense tells us that at some point these children will have to make a formal declaration as to which country they want to be a citizen of as an adult and it would require a formal renunciation of one of those citizenships they supposedly acquired. In my mind & from my understanding of the law, these children are really citizens of neither. They merely partake in the rights of their parents, the benefits & rights of which ever parent best suits their needs on any given particular day without having to show a complete and absolute allegiance to either nation.

The naturalization laws from 1790- reflected what was already required of those born in the United States from July 4, 1776, that they be born to parents who did not owe any allegiance to any foreign nation. Rep Bingham, framer of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment & the subsequent legislation of the 1868 Expatriation Act:

 “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 March 9, 1866 )

And later after the passing of the 14th & the Expatriation Act we find Bingham once again on the floor of Congress in 1872 debating legislation pertaining to a US citizen jailed in Cuba:

As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is no room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”.  Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. by Leo Donofrio, Esq.)

Mr Speaker, the next point in the issue is as to expatriation. Expatriation is one of the most imprescribtible right of men. To assert it the American government waged war against Great Britain, in what is known in our history as the “second war for independence,” for three years. The right of expatriation is one of the fundamental principles of American government. (Cong. Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 2nd Session page 2791)

First, the “second war for independence” that Rep Bingham is referring to is of course the “War of 1812″ in which Great Britain was not acknowledging the rights of former British subjects who had become naturalized in the United States as well as children born on American soil to former founding British subjects who had adhered to the American revolution. The British government was clinging bitterly to their feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance, once a Brit always a Brit, that the founders had cast off to adopt the laws of Nature & Nature’s God. Secondly, if the nationality of the parents at the time of the child’s birth was immaterial to gaining US citizenship, Bingham would have merely stated that “Dr. Houard is a natural born citizen because he was born in the jurisdiction of the United States“. 

Now previous to Bingham’s statements on the floor of Congress from 1862 to 1872 which was never disputed, we find an even earlier reference that was also not disputed regarding allegiance & citizenship and how children of foreigners born on US soil gain citizenship:

28th Congress, 2nd Session page 129 

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts…provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States: 

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children…who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United State (April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155)

There is no ambiguity here. “Subject to the jurisdiction” means owing allegiance to ONLY the Unites States, either at birth or by naturalization. Children of foreigners, whether born here or abroad do not gain citizenship as a child until the parents themselves become citizens. This is the doctrine of citizenship through tacit consent that goes back to the time of Adam & Eve. Society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation. It is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Law of Nations Bk1, Chap 19, Sec. 212)

Native refers to soil, Natural refers to blood. To this there is no dispute in the laws of God, of Nature & of man. (Webster’s Dictionary for the US Constitution (1828) Vol 1 and Vol 2 per request by the US Congress). And although according to Title 8 of the US Code, natives may be Nationals, not all Nationals are US citizens and they certainly are not natural born citizens because under the color of the law, one can not pass naturally to their minor child by the law of tacit consent that which they themselves first do not possess.

So No, You Can’t Have It Both Ways!

UPDATES:  NY Times 1859 natural-native defined by US Govt Administration  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

NY Times 1859 natural-native defined by US AG

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

  

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

H/T to Leo Donofrio, Esq. @ Natural Born Citizen & his citizens researchers and my many fellow citizen researchers at Free Republic

copyright 2011

No part of this article may be reprinted or cross-posted without the express consent of the author. However, the references contained herein that are linked are in the public domain and are there to ease the burden of others in their own research so they may write their own original articles.

Birthright “Jus soli” Citizenship Only Applied to State Citizenship Prior to March 26, 1790

There has been much hubbub in and around the lame-stream media airwaves as well as bloggers of all political affiliations regarding birthright citizen aka anchor babies. Now while much of it is coming from hosts that I respect; they just happen to not quite be the true constitutional conservatives they claim to be.  None the less, we are all entitled to our own opinions, however as the old saying goes, “you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts”. Especially when one can not substantiate one’s own facts with evidence that can be corroborated by independent researchers. 

One of the 1st pieces of evidence that was brought to my attention nearly 3 years ago and hundreds of hours of research since was the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v Wilkins in which Justice Gray stated in the deciding opinion of the court.

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which

“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,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized

One can not surmise from Gray’s opinion that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant one thing for birth and another for naturalization for no law can suppose to repudiate itself. Nor can 2 laws of the same effect at the same time suppose to repudiate themselves. Gray is merely reiterating the deciding opinion written by Chief Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett (1874).

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

Both the Minor (1874) & Elk (1884) cases pertained to the meaning of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment and thus we continue with Chief Justice Waite’s deciding opinion as to who the “persons” born or naturalized & “subject to the jurisdiction” are.

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners…It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”

And the 14th Amendment is merely the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ratified as a constitutional amendment with the 1866 Act itself remaining in tact and acting as the chief language used to enforce the citizenship laws until 1940 when Congress finally consolidated the two laws into one. We’ll touch more on this in a bit,  but until then make a note that  Title 8 of the US Code defining persons who were born citizens read as follows in the highlighted opening of the 1866 Act until 1940.

All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In the Elk deciding opinion written by Justice Gray, we find the dicta of the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) that was accepted unanimously by that court, including all the dissenters.

“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”…Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Brad­ley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitu­tionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which pro­vided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.

Thus, the Slaughter-House dicta was adopted in the holding of the opinion in the Elk case.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

And this is where most of the pundits derail themselves in reference to children born to aliens on US soil. They claim that only children born to ambassadors or diplomats are not “subject to the jurisdiction”. It is very clear here that the Supreme Court justices, including those who held dissenting opinions, determined unanimously that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” did not pertain to children born on US soil to aliens regardless of thei parents political duty to their country of allegiance.

Yes, prior to the adoption of the US Constitution, citizenship & immigration was controlled wholly by the individual states and the laws were as vast as there were states. While some held fast to the old English custom of feudal doctrine, many did not and they adopted the natural law, “jus sanguinis” in accordance with the Declaration of Independence which was also the law adopted by the US Constitution & the US Naturalization laws.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them

Case in point, the 1779 citizenship laws of Virginia.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

Already in 1779, even before the “Treaty of Paris” (1783) we see that the state of Virginia had cast off the feudal doctrine of birthright “jus soli” allegiance and children born in Virgina to aliens not yet naturalized were themselves aliens born. Thomas Jefferson was Governor of Virginia at the time and the drafting of this law is attributed to him. He also was the Secretary of State under Washington until he resigned in 1793. Jefferson was a stickler for detail in order that there would be absolutely no obfuscation of the intent of the laws and he carried it with him into the Presidency in 1801. In 1802 the US Congress revised the Naturalization laws, repealing the Alien & Sedition Acts put in place by Adams as well as clarifying important aspects of the Naturalization law.

In my most recent research of the Congressional Globe (H/T to bushpilot1 at Free Republic for directing me specifically to the 28th Congressional debates) I finally found specific reference to the much important Naturalization Act of 1802.

28th Congress, 2nd Session
page 129

MR. SAUNDERS’S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.

It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States

That last part intrigued me as I had read the 1802 Act several times but had never latched onto the pertinent part of the Act which states:

An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States

Under the Article of Confederation, the states & their citizenship & naturalization laws were independent of each other; each acting separately & wholly for the benefit of the individual state as if it was an independent nation in & of itself under the Laws of Nations. Birthright “jus soli” citizenship only pertained to state citizenship proffered to children born to aliens within the states that kept the feudal law in place prior to the adoption of the US Constitution & prior to the passing of the 1790 Naturalization Act. Therefore, children born to aliens on US soil prior to AND after the passing of the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not become US citizens until their parents, themselves finalized their immigration process & became US citizens as US citizenship did not exist until the ratification of the US Constitution.

According to Black’s Law, laws are to be specific and not made to create “Repugnancy” (Black’s Law 1171 5th Ed) Rule of Civil Proc. 8 ) if they refer to similar subject matter as did the Civil Rights Act of 1866 & the 14th Amendment that remained in place at the same time for 72 years. When the 1866 Civil Rights Act was consolidated with the 14th Amendment in 1940, it was a matter of common sense jurisprudence that a formal change in the verbiage of Title 8, from “not subject to any foreign power” to “subject to the jurisdiction”, needed to be made to reflect the verbiage of the law still in place. Not because the Civil Rights Act was repugnant, but because Congress finally made the decision that since the 1866 Act was constitutionalized by the amendment process, the law no longer needed to remain in place as the other aspects of the Act had been formally transferred to different sections of the US Code pertaining specifically to other civil rights. Also, parts such as expatriation had also been transferred & reflected in Title 22 under foreign affairs while some parts of the expatriation act still remain under Title 8.

Title 8> Chapter 1> §§ 1-18. Repealed or Omitted

These sections, relating to citizenship, were affected by the Nationality Act of 1940, former section 501 et seq. of this title.

That act was passed on Oct. 14, 1940, to consolidate and restate the laws of the United States regarding citizenship, naturalization, and expatriation, and, in addition to certain specific repeals thereby, all acts or parts of acts in conflict with its provisions were repealed by former section 904 of this title. See the notes below for history of individual sections.

Section 1, relating to citizenship of persons born in the United States, was repealed by act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. V, § 504, 54 Stat. 1172. It was from R.S. § 1992, which was revised from act Apr. 9, 1866, ch. 31, § 1, 14 Stat. 27. Similar provisions were contained in former section 601 (a) of this title. See section 1401 of this title. [emphasis mine]

And that is where I will close, with the Expatriation Act of 1868 formally known as “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” approved by Congress on July 27, 1868 that denounces any claim, notion or concept that the United States does or ever did adopt & recognize any form of dual nationality & that the Law of Nations as adopted by the United States government is the common law of the national government as it is the only law that remains constant when dealing with independent & sovereign states under a Republican form of government.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

Therefore, the 14th Amendment along with its sister act, “The Expatriation Act of 1868, any “claims” that there was anything such as dual citizenship was finally & formally declared to be inconsistent with the principles of our Republican form of government; and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” as ratified by the states has always meant “owing allegiance exclusively to the United States”. Birth on US soil & US citizenship are not naturally inclusive terms unless born to parent(S) (plural) who do not owe allegiance to any foreign nation. All others fall under the naturalization clauses of Title 8 and are citizens by statute, not by nature, thus they can never claim to be “natural born” US citizens. At most, they are naturalized citizens per old English feudal law as shown in Sec 214 of the law of nations. At the least, they are foreigners permitted to settle & stay in the country under Sec 213 of the law of nations. These persons may be citizens of their local community; but still owing direct allegiance to their home country, they & their children therefore are not US citizens for constitutional purposes.

Law of Nations Bk 1

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)

A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

copyright 2011

No part of this article may be reprinted or cross-posted at other blogs without the express consent of the author. However, the references contained herein that are linked are in the public domain and are there to ease the burden of others in their own research so they may write their own original articles.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:13

No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other.

Jeremiah 5:5-6

So I will go to the leaders
and speak to them;
surely they know the way of the LORD,
the requirements of their God.”
But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke
and torn off the bonds.
Therefore a lion from the forest will attack them,
a wolf from the desert will ravage them,
a leopard will lie in wait near their towns
to tear to pieces any who venture out,
for their rebellion is great
and their backslidings many.

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

Amen.

Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.

Oh how this rings true for today’s times.  We are not far from our founding in years, but oh so far from its founding principles that the chains of oppression are felt daily. Can we make it back? Only God knows. Say a prayer for His will to be done.

Jefferson On Citizenship Under A Republican Form Of Government

 Thomas Jefferson served in the Virginia legislature from 1776 until his election as Governor in 1779. It was Jefferson that drafted the legislation that passed in the Congress of Virginia on June 28, 1776 declaring their independence from Great Britain. In June of 1783, Jefferson was appointed to the Congress of the Confederation & was sent to France to serve as the US Minister. This left Jefferson unable to be physically in attendance at the Philadelphia convention, thus he stayed informed and involved through his correspondence with James Madison. Now, let us begin this short visit back into the year of 1803 and the wisdom & patriotism of Thomas Jefferson from his time in the Virginia state legislature…

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of-foreigners ? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours, perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect: the greatest number, of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth ; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for.an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

One has to remember that at the time of the Declaration, there was no formal federal government set up thus all laws pertaining to citizenship & immigration was regulated by the individual states with each of them adopting, regulating & enforcing their own individual laws in this area. Liberals today, including those of the Republican & conservative factions, claim that the States merely substituted the word ‘subject’ for the word ‘citizen’ when writing the new laws after the Declaration of Independence. Read & learn the truth through Jefferson himself as to which principles of the English constitution they rejected thus adopting better laws based on natural rights & natural reason…

Many of the laws which were in force during the monarchy being relative merely to that form of government, or inculcating principles inconsistent with republicanism, the first assembly which met after the establishment of the commonwealth appointed a committee to revise the whole code, to reduce it into proper form and volume, and report it to the assembly. This work has been executed by three gentlemen, and reported ; but probably will not be taken up till a restoration of peace shall leave to the legislature leisure to go through such a work;.

The plan of the revisal was this. The common law of England, by which is meant, that part of the English law which was anterior to the date of the oldest statutes extant, is made the basis of the work. It was thought dangerous to attempt to reduce it to a text: it was therefore left to be collected from the usual monuments of it. Necessary-alterations in ‘that, and , so much of the whole body of the British statutes, and of acts of assembly, as were thought proper to be retained, were digested into 126 new acts, in which simplicity of style was aimed at, as far as was safe. The following are the most remarkable alterations proposed :

To change the rules of descent, so as that the lands of any person dying intestate shall be divisable equally among all his children, or other representatives, in equal degree.

To make slaves distributable among the next of kin, as other movables.

To have all public expenses, whether of the general treasury, or of a parish or county, (as for the maintenance of the poor, building bridges, court-houses, & etc.) supplied by assessments on the citizens, in proportion to their property.

To hire undertakers for keeping the public roads in repair, and indemnify individuals thro’ whose lands new roads shall be opened.

To define with precision the rules whereby aliens should become citizens, and citizens make themselves aliens.

To establish religious freedom on the broadest bottom. (snip)

Hmm, to define with precision the rules whereby aliens should become citizens? So what was the law they enacted?

Thomas Jefferson, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens Of This Commonwealth

May 1779Virginia Papers 2:476–78

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

The clerk of the court shall enter such oath of record, and give the person taking the same a certificate thereof, for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar. And in order to preserve to the citizens of this commonwealth, that natural right, which all men have of relinquishing the country, in which birth, or other accident may have thrown them, and, seeking subsistance and happiness wheresoever they may be able, or may hope to find them: And to declare unequivocably what circumstances shall be deemed evidence of an intention in any citizen to exercise that right, it is enacted and declared, that whensoever any citizen of this commonwealth, shall by word of mouth in the presence of the court of the county, wherein he resides, or of the General Court, or by deed in writing, under his hand and seal, executed in the presence of three witnesses, and by them proved in either of the said courts, openly declare to the same court, that he relinquishes the character of a citizen, and shall depart the commonwealth; or whensoever he shall without such declaration depart the commonwealth and enter into the service of any other state, not in enmity with this, or any other of the United States of America, or do any act whereby he shall become a subject or citizen of such state, such person shall be considered as having exercised his natural right of expatriating himself, and shall be deemed no citizen of this commonwealth from the time of his departure.

So there you have it. Jefferson clearly declaring that ‘subject’ was not equivalent to ‘citizen’ and thus the feudal law of perpetual allegiance from birth on the soil was thereby abolished and replaced with the law of natural right & natural reason. Do you really think the states who had cast off the chains of feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance would have agreed to a return to it under the federal constitution? According to all the early philosophers as well as the framers such as Wilson, reason should be the basis in which all laws should be written & that is the crux of interpreting the constitution & the original intent of the framers. Without natural right & natural reason, there can be no just law.

James Wilson:

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge.

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction

The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good

Liberal Conservatism: A Bane to the Survival of a Constitutional Republic

“Folks, this is so damn clear-cut, but it requires a result that the political class doesn’t like, including way too many Republicans. The question is: are we too far gone on this issue to be able to get back to the constitutional requirements?” Mark R. Levin August 13, 2010

Liberal conservatism is alive & well. It has so deeply infiltrated every aspect of the true conservatism movement that some days it’s hard to tell a friend from a foe. Take for example Mark Levin’s latest attempt at explaining the original meaning the text of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution & the definition of the ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ clause therein. Mark has spent his lifetime studying the Constitution and he openly admits that he isn’t anywhere near done. To this later admission I whole heartedly agree because there are aspects of the 14th that Mark either conveniently leaves out or perhaps it is that he has yet to research these pertinent historical references & 1 major Act of Congress that are crucial to defining the 14th Amendment. Historical research from the annals of Congress that is easily available through the Heritage Foundation & Hillsdale College. As far as Mark’s neglect in this area, I am leaning toward that of political convenience as Mark has clearly stated his position that Gov. Bobby Jindal, LA is looking to be a good contender for the presidency in 2012 or 2016. Folks, Bobby Jindal was born a citizen of India as both his parents were students residing is the US on temporary student visa when Jindal was born. NEITHER of Jindal’s parents were US citizens at the time of Jindal’s birth thus the irony of Mark’s claim that we need to get back to the original text & meaning of the constitution.

As always, I will let my readers make the determination for themselves as to whether Mark is a genuine constitutional conservative or just another liberal conservative. Below is the audio of Mark’s dialogue from Friday, Aug 13th, 2010.


When the Constitution was drafted & ratified, there were only 2 paths to citizenship. You were either born into an American family (father had to be a citizen or if born out-of-wedlock, mother had to be a citizen at the time of the child’s birth) or you were naturalized. Naturalization came through parents(father) who was naturalized or you applied for it on your own at the coming of age if the parents had not opted to become American citizens.

Erler gets it right on the definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’. He quotes Howard & Trumbull but what he leaves out is another pertinent quote from Rep. Bingham, co-author of the 14th, in which Bingham states: 

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen – Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives (March 9, 1866 )

Mark also leaves out is Erler’s testimony of the Wong Kim Ark case of 1898 wherein Justice Gray uses the English feudal law definition of a ‘subject’ which is in complete contradiction to over a 100 years of US law. Gray uses an unsubstantiated argument that the founders had adopted some form of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance which is quite ironic since he objected to any notion thereof in a former deciding opinion he wrote that held that the definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ meant exactly what Trumbull & Howard stated to be:  ‘not owing allegiance to any foreign power’. But what Mark probably hasn’t researched and thus would probably cast off those who are brave enough to actually report the truth is the fact the Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur who was born a British Subject as Arthur’s father did not become a US citizen until Arthur was 13 yrs old. Arthur lied about the date of his birth to conceal this fact that would have deemed him ineligible for the Vice Presidency which later lead to the Presidency after to the death of Garfield. Having a president who has loyalties to a foreign nation according to Washington, was to be avoided at ALL costs. But enough of this little history lesson that has slipped through cracks and into the depths of the abyss of the progressive cover-up, what about the 100 plus years of US legislation on citizenship?

We know that the only power US Congress has regarding citizenship is to legislate in the area of naturalization & immigration. They have absolutely no power over natural law other than to restrict through positive law by the consent of the people which rights under natural law we wish to relinquish to them, thus giving them the power to regulate those areas. The constitution clearly cites 2 types of citizenship, citizenship in general which includes natural citizens & naturalized citizens under Article 1 &  then the specific natural citizen requirement under Article 2. Citizens born by the laws of nature require no act of congress as there was no foreign power at the time of the birth of the citizen that could lay claim to that person. This is the law which the founders spoke of in the Declaration of Independence as the law of the new nation, the United States of America. How do we know this? The most clear & concise example comes from Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the 1st citizenship law for the state of Virginia that was passed in May of 1779:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

This also is reflected in the 1st Naturalization Acts passed by the US Congress:

Naturalization Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, Speaker of the House of Representatives. JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, And President of the Senate. APPROVED, March 26th, 1790: GEORGE WASHINGTON, President of the United States

And the Naturalization Act of 1795: SECTION 1. BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise. First, he shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the Supreme, Superior, District, or Circuit Court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the Ohio River, or a Circuit or District Court of the United States, three years at least before his admission, that it was, bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject…that he will support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years. It shall further appear to their satisfaction that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same…SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization,…signed by: FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, Speaker of the House of Representatives. JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, And President of the Senate. APPROVED, January the 29th, 1795: GEORGE WASHINGTON, President of the United States

No where does the US Congress with the President concurring by signing the legislation distinguish the children of aliens as to the location of their birth. They merely declare that all children of the alien father under the age of 21 & residing in the US are declared citizens upon the naturalization of the father. This follows natural law. It was considered unnatural for a child to be considered an alien to the father. It was unnatural for any household to have immediate family members(spouse & children) that held conflicting allegiances, thus the reason that the wife also followed the nationality of the husband. This is the natural unity of a civilized society going back to its formation. It is the only way a civilized society could naturally protect its sovereignty & freedom.

From 1798 to 1855 there were 9 other subsequent Acts of Congress on Naturalization dealing with race, length of time an immigrant must be a resident before naturalizing, land holding and also clarification of the wife follows the citizenship of the husband per natural law, etc but the one fact that never changed was the fact that all children of any alien immigrant were aliens themselves until the father/single or widowed mother became a citizen. If the parents remained aliens, the child could apply upon coming of age.

Next comes the 1866 Civil Rights Act which states that “all children born to parents not owing allegiance to any foreign power” that was ratified into the Constitution per the 14th Amendment. What Mark and also Erler in his testimony leave out is the Expatriation Act of 1868. This Act was passed on July 27th, 1868 just 18 days after the ratification of the 14th Amendment (July9, 1868):

CHAP. CCXLIX – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. Approved July 27, 1868. 

Right of ex- patriation de- clared.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this princi-ple, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

Protection to naturalized citizens in foreign states.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.

John C. Eastman (also of the Claremont Institute) in his March 30, 2006 legal memorandum at the Heritage Foundation titled “From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenhsip” says this of the Expatriation Act of 1868:

“Thus, when Congress passed as a companion to the Fourteenth Amendment the Expatriation Act of 1868, which provided simply that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi­ness,” it necessarily rejected the feudal birthright citizenship doctrine of medieval England as fun­damentally incompatible with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. As Representa­tive Woodward of Pennsylvania noted on the floor of the House of Representatives: “It is high time that feudalism were driven from our shores and eliminated from our law, and now is the time to declare it…Such remnants of feudalism were rejected by our nation’s Founders when they declared to a candid world that they no longer owed allegiance to the king of their birth. They were rejected again by the Congress in 1866 and by the nation when it ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.”

And for even more resourses, I encourage you to read the Amicus Brief of March 29, 2004 submitted on the behalf of Rumsfeld by former US Att. Gen. Edwin Meese III (whom Mark Levin served under) and John C. Eastman of the Claremont Institute in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

In another of my research days at the online Library of Congress I found this SoundexIndex to Naturalization, Petitions for the United States District and Circuit Courts, Northern District of Illinois, and Immigration and Naturalization Service District 9 (1840-1950) Under the section on the background of Naturalization . . . .” (A1, S8, C4) this official government document states that:

Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

The Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization also states:

The 1st major exception to this 1790 Act was that “derivative” citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen. (Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father.

The current US State Dept website states that there is no law which prohibits dual citizenship. This couldn’t be further from the truth and that is why they also claim that one can lose ones citizenship by acts & words spoken by any person that holds citizenship of another country. Also, one can barely change the page of the US State Dept website without finding them contradicting themselves and sometimes they do so several times on the same page. In several areas of the website, the US State Dept states that it does not encourage the practice of holding dual allegiances. The reason?  The only changes made to the Expatriation Act (which has never been repealed) pertain to treason and the right of the US government to revoke the citizenship of a naturalized person convicted of treason or for acts by that person that the government deems treasonous. The last change came in 1952. The threat of communist infiltration into the US government was very much a threat and on the minds of the true patriots elected to office at that time. They were acting very “Washingtonian” and liberal progressive history has written them all off as kooks.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter…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... Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…(excerpts from Washington’s Farewell Address)

Who are the kooks now? We have the communist manifesto which includes multiculturalism (dumbing down of citizenship) unfolding right before our eyes right from the oval office of the White House from a president who was born subject to a foreign power and the so-called conservatives aka liberal conservatives are still wanting to pick & choose which parts of the Constitution they wish to define under original intent as it fits their liberal agenda. But I digress.

Going back to defining citizenship however, let’s not forget that we must look to international law. From the 1st day of our founding on July 4, 1776, the US has always respected the laws governing the citizenship of the immigrants or temporary resident aliens making sure that US laws do not override or veto that of the foreign government in which the person is a citizen or subject of. For further clarification we go to Dicey, Savigny, Philimore, Hall, Westlake but the one I go to most is Story’s Conflict of Laws Vol 1 & Vol 2.

First, the place of birth of a person is considered as his domicil, if it is at the time of his birth the domicil of his parents. Patris originem unusquisque sequatur*. This is usually denominated the domicil of birth or nativity, domicilium originis. But, if the parents are then on a visit, or on a journey, (in itinere), the home of the parents (at least if it is in the same country) will be deemed the domicil of birth or nativity.

Now I know, you are going to say domicil is a persons place of residence. You would be completely wrong. Domicil in the day was a person’s nationality. Later it was changed to domicil(e) and thus the confusion brought forward by many legal scholars who either didn’t bother to actually learn the difference or they purposefully meant to confuse the two definitions to push their personal political agenda as Justice Brennan did when he wrote that the founding fathers merely substituted the word citizen for subject leaving the feudal definition in tact. In Olson & Tribes most recent testimony to Congress on citizenship, they cite Brennan and I have to say although Mark was dismayed by Olson’s recent work on Prop 8, it came as no surprise to me.

We also have this cite from the 1903 Cyclopedia of law and procedure, Volume 7 (America Law Book Company, New York) By William Mack, Howard Pervear Nash. It refers to citizenship of parentage which is the citizenship of natural law & adopted by the United States at the time of the Declaration of Independence as referenced earlier by the 1st citizenship law passed by the state of Virginia in 1779:

Children Of Aliens. The child of a citizen father and of an alien mother is a citizen ; but one born of an alien father and of a citizen mother is not a citizen

You also will not find the term dual allegiance in the 1903 law cyclopdia either, it only speaks of double citizenship or as some in those days called it, double character and it is defined as:

DOUBLE CITIZENSHIP: In this country a double citizenship exists, for the term applies both to membership in the nation considered as a whole and to membership in the state in which the individual may reside.

The problem we have today is the usurping of natural law by both parties, but especially those who claim to be constitutional conservatives and spout off about original intent, yet they also turn a blind eye when natural law is inconvenient or not expedient to their political cause. The founding fathers knew full well that the sovereignty & security of the country came from unity in the home. But it wasn’t just the founding fathers or framers of the constitution such as Wilson who knew this. They got their wisdom through the study of the early philosophers, especially the wisdom of John Locke as quoted by Wilson in Vol 1 of his works:

‘Tis plain,” says he, ” by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government. He is under his father’s tuition and authority, till he comes to the age of discretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under ; what body politick he will unite himself to.”

Or how about this quote from Cicero that is also found in these works of Wilson’s:

” O glorious regulations!” says Cicero, ” originally established for us by our ancestors of Roman name ; that no one of us should be obliged to belong to more than one society, since a dissimilitude of societies must produce a proportioned variety of laws; that no one, contrary to his inclination, should be deprived of his right of citizenship ; and that no one, contrary to his inclinations, should be obliged to continue in that relation. The power of retaining and of renouncing our rights of citizenship, is the most stable foundation of our liberties.”

Now I think that a guy who was a signer of the Declaration & the Constitution, who was commissioned to write the 1st law books on American law & who helped establish the 1st American Law school would be the ultimate authority on the subject of US citizenship. And while congress may have the authority to pass a statute that says a child born to a legal alien resident may be a citizen at birth, it does not change the language of the constitution that requires a president to be born a US citizen & nothing else. But more importantly, Mark & Erler are right, there is no such thing as birthright citizenship for legal or illegal aliens. Permanent residents or not. I would also welcome Mark’s commentary on when & how US Statute changed the laws pertaining to conferring citizenship at birth. When did the law transfer that natural right from the father to the mother when the child is born in wedlock? Is this not in direct conflict to natural law, the law adopted by the founders & thus the law that defines who are the natural citizens of the United States? The natural law that is so well explained by Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke & Vattel, all of whom the founders where very well learned in & all of whom are referenced in the listing of “Laws of Nature” to whom they refered to that is archived in the annals of the Continental Congress of 1783:

The Committee [Mr. James Madison, Mr. Hugh Williamson and Mr. Thomas Mifflin] instructed on the motion of Col. [Theodorick] Bland to report a list of books proper for the use of Congress, recommend that the Superintendt. of Finance and the Secy. of Congress be empowered to take order for procuring the books enumerated below: the same when procured to be under the care of the said Secy.

Encyclopedie Méthodique.

Dictionaire de l’homme d’État.

    Law of Nature and Nations

Madison’s committee then goes on to list several versions from the different philosophers of the laws of nature which you will find by following the provided link to the Congressional record above.

We either have a Constitution or we don’t & the right questions to ask is: Is political expediency more important than the rule of law & is the true patriotism and meaning of constitutional US citizenship gone forever? Congress has been very busy over the past 60 years working to usurp the constitution, especially citizenship laws. It is either time to stand strong & steadfast on our founding principles & the rule of law or retreat into submission. I have never been one of the later and neither do I intend on becoming one lest it be at the barrel of a gun and still then I am unlikely to concede.

In closing, I encourage all my readers to listen to Mark Levin, take notes, but do not stop there. Expand on those tidbits that Mark throws out, employ due dilligence & research for yourself. The art of interpretaing the Constitution & the original intent of the founders is not rocket science.  As Justice Joseph Story stated, it’s mostly just good ole plain & obvious common sense:

In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it.  Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research.  They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.  The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.

The New “Touchy-Feely” Religion of Redistribution

Or as I like to call it, “Today’s twisted & watered down version of God’s Scriptures that are being heralded from the pulpits of the 501C(3) churches across America. Brought to us by the US Govt’s new age socialist “Linebackers of Religion Defense Corps”; because being true “Red, White & Blue” Ministers of God’s Laws is just too passe’ for today’s times of a touchy-feely religion of redistribution.”

I have been digging deep & studying the rich religious history of America for nearly 2 years now; especially the Annals of Congress, the Library of Congress online, the Belcher Foundation, the Avalon Project, the Heritage Foundry, Hillsdale College, the Kirby Center & the online Library of Liberty to name just a few.  Did you know that at google books (books.google) you can get free PDF copies of many of the original works & books from the founding Era and the immediate decades following the ratification of our Constitution such as the very 1st commentaries on American law written by James Wilson (1791) who was a signer of both the Declaration of Independence & the US Constitution & also the founder of the 1st official American law school?

Also, did you know that one of the 1st Major Generals of the revolution was a preacher by the name of Rev. John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg and that this guy was not afraid to preach the politics of what a moral government should be from the pulpit of the 2 churches he served in Woodstock, Va., one being a German speaking Lutheran church & the other an English speaking Episcopal church. Yes, it was common for preachers to give sermons on tyranny, taxation without representation, election sermons on what the qualities of ministers (elected officials) of the Civil (Man’s) Law should possess, what the proper role of government is & what type of government is the best in order for the members of a religious society to maintain its God given liberties. I found out that this was a common practice going back to the pilgrims first settling in America; (A practice that they brought with them from their native lands in Europe & Scandinavia). Also, did you know that 29 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were preachers? Imagine that; preachers who also knew it was their duty according to God’s Laws to serve as elected officials (Ministers of Civil Law) while still serving their congregations as Ministers of God’s Laws. In fact, the very 1st speaker of the US House of Representatives was none other than Rev. Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg, the brother of Maj. Gen. (Rev.) Peter Muhlenberg. You can find Frederick’s signature on the bottom of the “Bill of Rights”. I’ll be coming back to all this at a later date, for now let’s move onto today’s topic: the touchy-feely religion of redistribution.

I hadn’t realized how bad this practice of “twisted teaching” of the bible had gotten until several months ago when my UPS (United Patriots Service) driver handed me a package containing a much anticipated copy of the 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible. This bible was banned by the British Crown in all of its colonies & territories in order to keep the kings subjects under oppression and one could say that the pilgrims smuggled it with them when they came to America.

Once in my hands, an overwhelming thirst for more knowledge caused me to rip the packaging that kept this wonderful book of God’s laws hidden from the light of day & the packaging that kept its pages bound shut. I couldn’t help but wonder why this version of the bible had been kept so secret for the past 100 years or so. Well, no wonder…

Once light was cast upon the pages, one could plainly see that all that talk in the annotations (that were banned by the king) of duty & due diligence to God’s laws set forth in the bible, liberty, free speech, patriotism, limited government, qualifications of ministers of law (elected officials), self reliance & self responsibility for ones actions goes against every fiber & letter of the socialist agenda. The modern “Socialist” theologians have taken the true meaning of the text of the Scriptures containing God’s Laws & his instructions on the establishment of civil governments for a moral & religious society and twisted them in order to perpetuate their immoral & corrupt self serving totalitarian agenda of forming a new national touchy-feely religion of redistribution. These members of the new age “Linebackers of Religion Defense Corps” are aiding in the government’s stealing of our private property in the name of the good Samaritan by calling it God’s work. By promoting all these federal ‘AID’ programs that have nothing to do with true charity; these new age religious defense linebackers promote the exact opposite of the original & pure laws set forth in the bible.

The original laws in their purest form set forth by God are too harsh & just plain mean according to these socialist theologians. They are also no longer politically correct or expedient thus we must not teach them to our children lest they might travel a moral, knowledgeable & just road that is in opposition to the socialist agenda. Heaven forbid they would find out that there are consequences for immoral and unlawful actions. No, they must be taught that the new reading of the scriptures demands a touchy-feely definition of a law breaker by giving them an infliction which I shall call a psychological deficiency of the brain waves (momentary or long term lapse of moral judgment). If this deficiency is found in a criminal, an immoral person or select groups of immoral or criminal people, it allows the socialist law makers & judges to redistribute wealth from the victim to the criminal, from the moral to the immoral, from the hard working, self reliant achievers to the lazy, self-serving govt. trough feeders. Now mind you, I am not saying that ALL welfare is bad, there is a justification for some, but let’s get real here; when the govt. shells out 10’s of billions of dollars every year of other peoples money to people who were not qualified for or deserving of it in the 1st place, there is a breach of the civil law as well as a breach of the 8th, 9th & 10th Commandments of God’s Laws. You know, those 10 Commandments in which ALL civil law is to be based from?

Today’s example of the ‘socialist theologian’ propaganda came from a “Linebacker of Religion Defense Corps” pulpit member while I was listening to the Sunday sermon of a local church, whose denomination’s core principles have consistently deteriorated over the past couple of decades, but a denomination in which I am still currently a member of, just not a member of this particular local church. The sermon was based yet again on the new age ‘socialist’ text of a bible parable that has been transcribed by a modern day ‘socialist’ theologian. Now while these parables are integral in teaching, does anyone else besides me feel they are getting a bit mundane? Especially since these religious defense linebackers don’t use the entire text of the parables anymore. Has anyone else noticed how they chop them off right before the heart of the meaning of the parable is revealed? But I digress.

This week’s parable was all about the good Samaritan (Luke 10). Now while this parable is suppose to teach about loving thy neighbor as thyself while also doing ones duty of due diligence in following, spreading & teaching God’s laws, it seems that the these modern day ‘socialist’ theologians have written a new age ‘socialist’ theology of which the good Samaritan in now meant to mean the equivalent of the 21st century Robin Hood type Robber Barron and if there is a chance that the stranger on the side of the road “MAY” be an enemy, it is ok to turn & walk away. So, here we go:

Close your eyes & imagine listening to a sermon being given from a pulpit of God by a linebacker of the new age religion defense corps in which he includes a story of his missionary work in Kenya (I know, how ironic).

According to the religious defense linebacker, while there he had to travel a distance to get to the location of the missionary work to be done. Well, before departing, a fellow missionary pulled him aside and told him that if he came upon a person laying on the side of the road he was to keep going and not stop to ask if the person needed help because it “MAY” be a trap. He was to ignore what he saw & leave the poor soul laying there along side the road and forge ahead to the mission work site. “WHAT? BACK UP THE HORSE BESSY!” A preacher telling his congregation that it IS ok to turn your back on a stranger lying on the side of the road because of location? A preacher who IS suppose to be teaching his congregation that our enemies ARE our neighbors and we are to treat them no differently in their time of need than we would a friend? And let’s not forget the most important fact of this story & that is, he was to pre-judge the situation. Yes, it is the new modern day ‘socialist’ theology to teach your congregation & especially the youth to fear your neighbor instead of treating him like a friend.

So, keeping along that theme of his twisted text, this new age religious defense linebacker then goes on to reel in the sports fan in the pew by interjecting the LeBron James headline of the week: “LeBron James signs with the Miami Heat”.  Yes, LeBron James is now a sainted patriot of goodwill because he is moving to a new team in order to help “redistribute basketball championships among the less fortunate teams” who have yet to achieve that accomplishment. I KID YOU NOT! You just can’t make this kind of socialist ministerial propaganda up!

Meanwhile, still sitting in anticipation of hearing about the monetary part of the good Samaritan parable (charitable goodwill & honoring contracts), I found out that this was to be the sermon from whence nothing on that subject was to come. Nope, nada, not a word about how governments taking property from one in order to give it to another is unlawful under the laws set forth by God in the Scriptures. I also heard nothing about not expecting anything in return for the good deed that was done. You see that is not part of this new ‘social justice’ religion and according to the new age “Socialist Theology” is perfectly proper & lawful to be a modern day Robin Hood type Robber Barron. Also, if someone helps you in your time of need, in some cases you may be expected to return the cost of that charitable goodwill deed that was done for you, even if you can not afford it. This all depends if you are from the moral or immoral, criminal or law abiding class of persons.

By this time, the religious defense linebacker’s time was running to a close and there was still one part of the parable that he had not addressed; the part where in it tells of our duty to be diligent & unwavering in following, spreading & teaching God’s Laws & if we do this, he will always be with us. It is now 10pm & I’m still waiting.

In closing, here is what I learned from God’s pulpit by a member of the “Linebackers of Religion Defense Corps” of the 501C(3) socialist theologian society of the US Government:

1)      Civil laws do not apply to criminals or the immoral because they might be inflicted with a medical condition of the psychological deficient brain wave type. (momentary or long term lapse of moral judgment)

2)      The parable of the good Samaritan is about NOT helping a neighbor in need (especially a fallen enemy) unless the circumstances & location are pre-approved.

3)      The parable of the good Samaritan is about social justice via redistribution.

4)      It is no longer politically correct to call out from God’s pulpit the unlawful acts of a tyrannical government who is stealing its society blind in order to push their Totalitarian Utopian “redistributive socialist agenda” even though 501C(3) churches are exempt from any hindrance of free speech except for campaigning for a specific political candidate &…

5)      Duty to & Due Diligence in following, spreading and teaching God’s Laws is NO LONGER the core meaning of the parables according to this new age “Socialist Theology” & THEIR written word.

Coming this fall: The parable of the mustard seed: “PLANTING THE TYTHES THAT BIND & GAG”

Madison’s Letters: Defense of the American Party (Bumped)

The contents under this caption contain the material portions of eleven or twelve letters, written over the signature of ” Madison,” in vindication of the American party. The editor has examined carefully all the defences of the American organization, and considering this the most able of them all, written, it is said, by the Hon. A. II. 11. Stuart, of Virginia, he yields it a space in his work.

No. 1.

The vital principle of the American party is Americanism—developing itself in a deep rooted attachment to our own country—its Constitution, itsUnion.and its laws—toAmerieuo men, and American measures, and American interests—-or, in other words, a fervent patriotism—which, rejecting the transcendental philanthropy of abolitionists, and that kindred batch of wild enthusiasts, who would seek to embroil us with foreign countries, in righting the wrongs of Ireland, or Hungary, or Cuba—would guard with vestal vigilance American institutions and American interests against the baneful effects of foreign influence.

No. 2.

I closed my first number by stating what I conceived to be the vital principle of the American party—the principle which, like the main spring of a watch, imparts activity to its whole machinery.

Let us now consider what are the measures and policy which these Americans propose to adopt, to give practical efficiency to this great principle.—There is, doubtless, among the members of that party, as among the members of all other parties, much difference of opinion in regard to matters of detail; and mutual forbearance and concession must and will be practised in giving shape to their measures. No one can, therefore, tell with certainty what form they may ultimately assume.

For the present, I will refer to the action of the National Council as the most authentic exposition of the opinions of the party. It» creed, as expressed by that body, is embraced in the following propositions:—

2d. The perpetuation of the Federal Union, as the palladium of our civil and religious liberties, and the only sure bulwark of American independence.

3d. Americans must rule America, and to this end, native-born citizens should be selected for all state, federal, and municipal offices or government employment, in preference to all others; nevertheless,

4th. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily abroad, should be entitled to all the rights of native-born citizens ; but,

5th. No person should be selected for political station (whether of native or foreign birth), who recognises any allegiance or obligation, of any description, to any foreign prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognise the federal and state constitutions (each within its sphere) as paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action.

6th. The unqualified recognition and maintenance of the reserved rights of the several states, and the cultivation of harmony and fraternal good will, between the citizens of the several states, and to this end, non-interference by Congress with questions appertaining solely to the individual states, and non-intervention by each state with the affairs of any other state.

7th.  The recognition of the right of the native-born and naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing in any territory thereof, to frame their constitution and laws, and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the Union, whenever they have the requisite population li-r one representative in Congress.—Provided always, that none but those who are citizens of the United States, under the Constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed residence in any such territory, ought to participate in the formation of the Constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said territory or state.

8th. An enforcement of the principle that no state or territory ought to admit others than citizens of the United States to the right of suffrage, or of holding political office.

9th. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued residence of twenty one years, of all not hereinbefore provided for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, and excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of crime, from landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners.

10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State ; no interference with religious faith, or worship, and no test oaths for office.

llth. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public functionaries, and a strict economy in public expenditures.

12th. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws constitutionally enacted, until said laws shall be repealed, or shall be declared null and void by competent judicial authority.

These propositions may be classed, for greater perspicuity, under three heads.

I. Those that relate to reforms in the naturalization laws which require legislation.

II. Those that relate to the appointment and election of officers, which are purely ministerial.

III. Those that refer to the general policy of the party in the management of the government, which appeal both to the legislative and executive departments.

I intend to discuss these subjects in the order in which they are stated.

It is proposed to modify the naturalization laws in four particulars:—

1. To make them prescribe uniform rules of naturalization throughout all the states and territories.

2. To exclude convicts and paupers from the country.

3. To extend the period of residence of the applicant for naturalization, so that he may have time to understand our language and become acquainted with our laws and institutions, before he is intrusted with the right to participate in their administration.

4. To guard against fraudulent abuses of the right of naturalization.

I am aware that there is a very prevailing idea that Congress has no constitutional power to provide by law, that the rules of naturalization shall be the same in all the states; and

I have heard this difficulty suggested as being fatal to the objects of the American party. But the objection is wholly without foundation. The Constitution of the United State* provides in terms ” that Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule

This provision has repeatedly been the subject of judicial consideration and interpretation, and although the opinion was at one time expressed by the Circuit Court of th« United States for the District of Pennsylvania, that the power was concurrent in th* state and federal governments, that opinion has long been overruled, and it is now held by Judge Iredell, in U. S. r. Fellato. 2 Dallas, 370: Judge Washington v Gordon r. Prince, 3 Wash. C. C. U. 313: by Judge Marshall, in Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Whenton, 2(19: by Judge Story, in Houston c. Moore, 5 Wheaton, 40 ; by Chancellor Kent, 1 Comm. 423 ; and by Judge Taney, in Norris r. Boston and Smith v. Turner Howard, that the exclusive power is in Congress. The remarks of C. J. Taney are so clear, not only in regard to the power, but also as to the policy of exercising it, that I readily adopt his argument, as far more satisfactory than any I could offer. He says:—

” It cannot be necessary to say anything upon the article of the Constitution which gives to Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. The motive and object of this provision are too plain to be misunderstood. Under the Constitution of the United States, citizens of each state are entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, and no state would be willing that another should determine for it, what foreigner should become one of its citizens, and be entitled to hold lands and vote at its elections. For without this provision, any one state could have given the right of citizenship in every other state ; and as every citizen of a state is also a citizen of the United States, a single state, without thi> provision, might have given to any number of foreigners it pleased, the right to all the privileges of citizenship in commerce, trade, and navigation, although they did not even reside among us.

” The nature of our institutions under the federal government, made it a matter of absolute necessity that this power should be confided to the government of the Union, where all the states were represented, and where all had a voice; a necessity so obvious, that statesman could have overlooked it. The article has nothing to do with the admission or rejection of aliens, nor with immigration, but with the rights of citizenship. Its sole object was to prevent one state from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens, whom they were unwilling to admit as such.”

Another subject of kindred character, if nut indeed falling under the same head, will also doubtless engage the attention of the party. with a view to see if the Constitution does not supply the means of redressing an evil which is of the most flagrant character. I allude to the want of uniformity in the state constitutions in regard to the right of suffrage by foreigners. By the constitution of Virginia, none but citizens of the United States can vote, and as no one can legally become a citizen of the United States unless he has been a resident of the country for five years, it follows that no one can be a voter m Virginia, who has not been a resident of the United States for five years. But by the constitution of Illinois’, it is provided (Art. 2, s. 27), “that in all elections, all white male inhabitants above the age of 21 years, having resided in the state six months next preceding the election, shall enjoy the right of an elector.”

Now as the vote of every man cast in Illinois for members of the legislature which elects U. S. Senators, for members of Congress, and for Presidential electors, has a direct bearing on the interests of Virginia, it is well worthy of inquiry whether Virginia is, under the Constitution, to be governed by the votes of aliens. It is a new and a grave question. There is certainly a difference in form between the question of elective franchise and the question of naturalization. But is not this system of allowing aliens to vote before they are naturalized an abuse, if not an evasion of the Constitution ? A sensible writer on the subject has well remarked, ” if individual states can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the federal power over naturalization becomes a nullity, but a minority of actual citizens, by the aid of aliens, may control the government of the states, and, through the states, that of the Union.”

Who will deny that this is a crying abuse, and that all the constitutional powers of the government ought to be brought into requisition to correct it ?

2. It is proposed to exclude by state and federal authority, convicts and paupers from landing on our shores, to corrupt the morals of citizens, to plunder our property, to fill our penitentiaries and alms-houses, and to burden •our people with taxation for their support. This is no new policy, and it will at once commend itself to the favorable regard of all reflecting men. It is an evil which attracted the attention of the founders of the republic at an early day, and has from time to time been pressed upon the attention of the government, but thus far no adequate measures of prevention have been adopted.

On the 10th of September, 1788, the Continental Congress, then about to close its labors, adopted the following resolution : ” Resolved, that it be, and it hereby is recommended to the several states to pass proper laws to prevent the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries into the U. S.”— Journal, page 867.

On the 13th November, 1788. Virginia did

pass such a law imposing a penalty of $50 on masters of vessels who should land convicts in this state.

In 1836, the matter was brought to the attention of Congress by Mr. Davis of Massachusetts, who made a Jong and able speech to the Senate, on presenting certain resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts on the subject.

In 1838, Mr. Van Buren, in reply to a call of the House, sent a message to Congress, accompanied by many documents. A bill was reported to correct the evil, but amidst the press of business it was overslaughed.—See Congressional Globe 1837-’38, page 489, and 1838-’39, page 168.

In 1845, Mr. Berrien made an elaborate report on the subject, accompanied by a great mass of testimony establishing in the most conclusive manner the certainty and magnitude of the evil.—See Sen. Doc. 173, 28th Cong. No final action, however, was taken.

In 1847, Mr. Buchanan, as Secretary of State, adopted measures to obtain information on the subject, and a report was made by Mr. A. D. Mann, on the 13th September, 1847.

On 1st January, 1855, Mayor Wood, of New York, addressed a strong letter to President Pierce, invoking his aid. He says: ” It has long been the practice of many governments on the continent of Europe to get rid of paupers and convicts by sending them to this country, and most generally to this port, (N. Y.) 1*116 increase of crime here can be traced to this cause, rather than to defect in criminal laws or their administration. An examination of the criminal and pauper records, shows conclusively that it is but a small proportion of these unfortunates who are natives of this country. One of the very heaviest burdens that we bear, is the support of these people, even when considering the direct cost, but when estimating the evil influence on society, and the contaminating effect upon all who come within the range of their depraved minds, it becomes a matter exceedingly serious and demanding immediate and complete eradication.”* Mayor Wood, being a Democrat and in no way attached to the American party, I presume he will be regarded as good authority, and I will here rest this branch of the subject, and I hope I may console myself with the reflection, that as far as we have progressed in the examination of the propositions of the American party, nothing has yet hern discovered in conflict with ” the cause of civil and religious freedom.”

Did Common Law Really Grant Automatic US Citizenship Upon Birth Regardless Of Parentage? Part II (Bumped)

At the time of the revolution, citizens either renounced their ties to the English crown, taking up their arms and joining the cause for freedom, or they held fast to English Monarchy and took up their arms and joined the British army. The only middle ground during the revolution was for those that deserted the British army to join the cause for freedom and remained loyal to the end of the revolution.

After that bloody war was over and the United States were free from the feudal form of government & Orwellian laws of England, the founding fathers set out to draft a new constitution, with limited powers for a national government, to replace the current Articles of Confederation which were hindering interstate commerce & citizenship travel due to the lack of a set of uniform laws. From the time of the Declaration of Independence to the passing of the US Constitution in 1789, the Articles of Confederation, which included extremely limited powers to a national congress, allowed for each state to adopt and enforced their own individual laws regarding property, commerce & citizenship.

From the founding, American citizenship is something every stifled subject of some foreign oligarchy dreams of acquiring and for most that have acquired American citizenship either by emigrating & going through naturalization or being born to those emigrants, they never let go of that pride and patriotism, making sure future generations would learn & know what it meant to be an American.

In the new country, the citizens were sovereign. The government of the people, by the people, for the people was adopted to ensure true freedom for all citizens for all time. Well, that is for all time that they worked earnestly to ensure it.

As a protection against foreign influences & intrigues, the founding fathers carefully and diligently worked to draft a constitution that would protect this from happening. Strict requirements were put in place for anyone who wished to attain to elected positions in the national government.  The President, Vice President, Senator or Congressman must have reached a certain age as well as had residency in the US for a number of consecutive years prior to attaining election to office. Then we get to citizenship. The president must be a ‘natural born’ citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, however, Senators & Congressmen merely needed to be a citizen, so what is the difference. Why the 2 distinct verbiages?

To that, one only needs to go back to the debates of the Continental Congress & the Federalist Papers. Congress was comprised of many but the Executive was only comprised of 2. There was less chance for mischief to arise if only a couple of the elected officials in Congress were naturalized from foreign nations, however with only 2 in the Executive, there clearly was a need for more stringent requirements to guard against foreign influences & intrigues.

So, how do we define the difference between ‘citizen’ & ‘natural born’ citizen? Liberal constitutional scholars and progressive legalese rely on English common law that was in place prior to the revolution. Their interpretation is that if you are born of the soil, you are a natural born citizen and they wallow in diluted elitism by citing historical foreign law & case precedent, when in fact there is plenty of American law & legal case history for one to learn from.  Now, as I have said before, to think that the founding fathers & patriots fought a bloody war only to adopt the same definition of citizenship that they were oppressed under by the English Monarchy is to believe that there never was a bloody war to gain freedom from it. The feudal form of government that the British adopted did not allow for natural rights for all citizens. All rights were granted to the people by the government of the Monarchy, the Monarchy was the sovereign not he people. In the very 1st US Supreme Court decision (Chisholm v. Georgia) written by Chief Justice John Jay, we find our 1st clue as to the type of citizenship the founding fathers adopted for the new nation:

[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

Chief Justice John Jay was also the person who sent this historical letter to George Washington the summer of 1787 before the constitution was finalized:

[Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and 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 devolve on any but a natural born citizen.]

So, if the people are the sovereigns, not the government, then where did the definition come from? For that we go to the very 1st commentaries on US law, Lectures on Law by Justice James Wilson, 1791. In the lectures Wilson expounds heavily on early philosophers and the different forms of government from the earliest of times that have been recorded. When he finally gets to discussing the laws adopted by the Continental Congress and ratified by the states, he writes:

The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.

Natural law did not always elude that of the Monarchy though. Early definitions of ‘natural born’ subject confined it to children born to parents, both of whom were ‘natural born’ subjects. However, to replenish their depleting armies from the many wars & to increase the Treasury, the Monarchy expanded the definition of ‘natural born’ subject to include  all children born on the soil, regardless if the soil was that of England, provided that the father was a natural born subject. For foreigners whose children by chance were born on English soil, the Monarchy also laid claim to them. This is the feudalism form of government commonly known as a democracy or dictatorship. The reasoning of today’s progressives that any child born on US soil, regardless of parentage, is thusly a ‘natural born’ citizen of the US is not the original definition that was initially adopted by the Monarchy and the definition that the founding fathers were highly learned in.

So what did the law of nations say as to who were the citizens of a nation?

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

According to natural law which is that of the law of nations children follow the conditions of the father. But was this really the law adopted by the US? The 1866 act passed by congress stated:

“All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In 1885, US Secretary Of State under Grover Cleveland, Thomas Bayard, decided  that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ Thomas Bayard was the fourth generation of his family to serve in the U.S. Senate and was considered a prominent Bourbon Democrat.

Another interesting thesis  I recently had the pleasure of finding in historical archives is one of a George H. Yeaman, another constitutional scholar from the mid-late 1800’s who certainly would have been familiar with Kent, Story & Wilson’s works which were the only American works for law students to study during that time. Yeaman was the US Minister to Copenhagen from 1865-1870 and was also a professor of law at Columbia College. In 1867 Yeaman wrote a thesis titled:  Allegiance and citizenship: An inquiry into the claim of European Governments to Exact Military Service of Naturalized Citizens of the United States. In the thesis, Yeaman writes of the unconstitutionality of dual citizenship and its ill effects on sovereign citizens & the continued existence of our sovereign nation.

To quote from American writers and statesmen who maintain the liberal view on this subject would be to incur the objection of attempting to sustain our position by our own authorities. To accept as law the opinions of those  modern European writers who have maintained the theory of  indissoluble allegiance and continuing, unavoidable duty to serve the crown, would be to yield the contest for truth and right, to those who discover a supposed interest in. maintaining what we hold for error. It will be far more satisfactory to rely upon general principles, and, so far as authority is invoked, to seek for it in the works of those great European masters of the Laws of Nature and of Nations who built up and illustrated the science of which they are the acknowledged fathers…

Vattel discusses the matter more explicitly than any who had preceded him in the science of natural and public law and international jurisprudence…

every man, on coming of age, may determine for himself if his interest is to remain a member of the society in which he was born…

writers, statesmen, diplomats, and legislators who have treated allegiance, which is imposed by the accident of birth, as an indestructible tie, have labored against reason, against nature, against the highest authority and against common sense practical to mankind. The states which adopt this theory are far municipal regulations, an extraterritorial effect, in this, that though they may enforce them against those who under the laws of nations does not subject a foreigner to any but the command of his own government…

Progressive scholars and legalese of today would like you to believe that since the term ‘native-born’ was often spoken when discussing and writing about the presidential qualification, those scholars were inherently implying that the term native as adopted merely meant born and had nothing to do with allegiance.

Enter James Kent, who was the 1st professor of law at Columbia College from 1793-1798 during which time he also resumed his seat at the NY state assembly. In 1798 Kent then went on to serve as a Justice on the NY State Supreme Court where he became the Chief Justice in 1804. Here is the Kent citing that the very liberal progressives want you to see and uses adnausium.

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

The progressives cite from 2 completely different sections in Kent’s commentaries as if the above phrase was all part of the same section. What they do not tell you is that the latter part, natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States is cited from Kent’s lecture on A1, S8, C4, the power granted to Congress to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The actual text of Kent’s commentary on the qualifications for president taken from Kent’s original works, not cites from unknown sources and taken out of the original context, state something quite different.

(2.) The constitution requires that the President shall be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot ; intrigue for the office, and the qualifications of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome… (James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Part II: Of the Government and the Jurisprudence of the United States, 1826) 

Lets break it down:

As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot; intrigue for the office ( here he is speaking of the grandfather clause ( a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution),

Then he goes onto part II:

and the qualifications for birth (natural born citizen) cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war,

There you have it. As the President is required to be a native citizen AND the qualifications for birth. Kent was talking about each qualification respectively, not inclusively.

As you can see, the progressives go to great lengths to twist and turn the truth with no regard as to the law. Liberal progressive legal scholars believe that the meaning of the words written in the constitution are ever changing and that the constitution itself is a living, breathing blank vessel for liberal interpretation. The radically progressive Professor of law at Harvard, Laurence Tribe, writes in the opening of his newest book that [i]nterpreting the constitution is an ‘equal-opportunity’ reality that is not confined to the text of the document.]

Moving on, under the progressive interpretation of ‘native’, which is that of the feudal form of government, mere chance of birth on the soil is equivalent to perpetual allegiance. So was this really the case? Let’s continue with the Commentaries of James Kent, who wrote about just exactly what the term ‘natives’ meant. This is the actual text of the above mention cite the progressives had you believe was under qualifications for president, when in fact it is found under immigration & naturalization.

James Kent, Commentaries  1:397–98; 2:33–63(1826-1827)

We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations. There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives, and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.

(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation. If a person was born here before our independence, and before that period voluntarily withdrew into other parts of the British dominions, and never returned; yet, it has been held, that his allegiance accrued to the state in which he was born, as the lawful successor of the king; and that he was to be considered a subject by birth. It was admitted, that this claim of the state to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories prior to our revolution, might subject those persons who adhere to their former sovereign, to great inconveniences in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns might claim their allegiance; and, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it was, undoubtedly, a very strong application of the common law doctrine of natural and perpetual allegiance by birth. The inference to be drawn from the discussions in the case of M’Ilvaine v. Coxe, would seem to be in favour of the more reasonable doctrine, that no antenatus ever owed any allegiance to the United States, or to any individual state, provided he withdrew himself from this country before the establishment of our independent government, and settled under the king’s allegiance in another part of his dominions, and never afterwards, prior to the treaty of peace, returned and settled here. The United States did not exist as an independent government until 1776; and it may well be doubted whether the doctrine of allegiance by birth be applicable to the case of persons who did not reside here when the revolution took place, and did not, therefore, either by election or tacit assent, become members of the newly created state.The ground of the decision in the latter case was, that the party in question was not only born in New-Jersey, but remained there as an inhabitant until the 4th of October, 1776, when the legislature of that state asserted the right of sovereignty, and the claim of allegiance over all persons then abiding within its jurisdiction. By remaining there after the declaration of independence, and after that statute, the party had determined his right of election to withdraw, and had, by his presumed consent, become a member of the new government, and was, consequently, entitled to protection, and bound to allegiance. The doctrine in the case of Respublica v. Chapman, goes also to deny the claim of allegiance, in the case of a person who, though born here, were not here and assenting to our new governments, when they were first instituted. The language of that case was, that allegiance could only attach upon those persons who were then inhabitants. When an old government is dissolved, and a new one formed, “all the writers agree,” said Ch. J. M’Kean, “that none are subjects of the adopted government who have not freely assented to it.” The same principle was declared by the Supreme Court of this state, in Jackson v. White… 

According to Kent, the ‘natives’ were the adults who elected to renounce the Monarcy and take allegiance with the new nation of the United States and as so went their allegiance, so went that of their wives & children.

Looking into the legal definition of the terms that are used by the early scholars that were taken from the law of nations also helps us to understand what the original intent of the founding fathers of the meaning of ‘natural born’ citizen was is also a task one cannot divest themselves of.

tacit: Implied, inferred, understood without being expressly stated

assent: An intentional approval of known facts that are offered by another for acceptance; agreement; consent

Children at birth can not speak their consent to be a citizen and as it was in England and all nations at the time of the adoption of the constitution, it was the father who gave the consent for the child to be a citizen unless the child be born out of wedlock and if the father made no claim to the child prior to the child coming of age..

[A]s the child ascends from the father, so does his citizenship through tacit assent] as stated by Kent. Therefore the children become citizens of the society in which their fathers are citizens.

I also had a hard time conclusively finding specific government documentation of this that was not mere debate of congress or declarations made by those that drafted the 1866 Act, the 14th and the Expatriation Act of 1868. The halls on the online Library of Congress are exhaustive. One has to look at all the laws pertaining to all US citizenships to find a conclusive definition for ‘natural born’ citizen as required in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

The 1st finding came at a genealogy page in the National Archives on the history of immigration and its laws. For years now we have been stating that at the time of the adoption of the constitution, women & children followed that of the husband and father which is that of the laws of nations. Children of unwed mothers followed the condition of the mother which was that of her father and to this we now have government confirmation.

Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103)

The 1st major exception to this 1790 Act was that “derivative” citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen.

(Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father.

Further confirmation comes from the SoundexIndex to Naturalization  Petitions for the United States District and Circuit Courts, Northern District of Illinois, and Immigration and Naturalization Service District 9 (1840-1950)

Under the section on the background of Naturalization . . . .” (A1, S8, C4) this official government document states that:

Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

Illinois state voting law in 1919, which could not supersede the requirements for citizenship that was laid out in the US constitution stated that:

A woman born in the United States of foreign parents, regardless of whether either of her parents was naturalized, is a citizen, unless such parents were temporarily in the United States. (see above naturalization of children born on US soil to foreign parents after their coming of age) A woman citizen of the United States who marries an alien thereby forfeits her citizenship, whether such alien is a resident of the United States or not.

These official government documents conclusively support what we have been reporting and that is, at the founding of the United States there were 3 kinds of citizens. The natural born, children born to the US citizens that renounced the Monarchy after the Declaration of Independence and were subsequently the original native(inhabitant) citizens born on the soil, but some of the founding patriots were even native(inhabitant born overseas such as Hamilton) citizens by naturalization according to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who was also the founder of Harvard Law School, in Volume 3, Section 73: § 1473 of his Commentaries on the Constitution, 1933:

It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. 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 honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. (emphasis mine)

At the formation of a new nation, a citizen can be a native, but not all natives are citizens. Being a ‘native’, did not automatically make one a citizen according to Wilson, Kent & Story. Citizenship required complete allegiance and there was no law that allowed for one to retain the former while aligning with the latter. I also found it quite intriguing that everyone of these 1st scholars on American law & the US Constitution began their works by expounding on the Law of Nations as well as the different forms of government and that which was adopted by the United States was that of the Republic, not that of a Democracy.

In my previous series, The Congressional Natural Born Citizen, I laid  out dozens of attempts over the past 35+ years where Congress has attempted to change the qualification requirements for president as well as change the definition of natural born so that it includes children of not yet naturalized immigrants, whether they be here legally or not. Thanks to citizenscott, a commenter at The Right Side of Life (TRSOL), I now have another document to add to that file. It is a 1987  Oklahoma City University Law Review  wherein they conclude:

 [t]he natural born citizen qualification, although embedded into our Constitution, serves no useful purpose.

In 2008, another liberal progressive appeal  appeared titled: An Idea whose time has come—the curious history, uncertain effect, and need for amendment of the “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” requirement for presidency by Lawrence Friedman. Mr Friedman lists many more congressional attempts to amend presidential qualifications. His list dates back to 1961 but he also brings to light another challenged candidate in the 20th century and he also has a funny notion of what makes law. Hmm…assumptions are now the rule of law?

It is now generally assumed that the term “natural born” is synonymous with “native born. 

Many progressives to this date, claim the need for the amendment is simply because the requirement that a President must be a natural born citizen is barbaric and does not reflect the view of the mainsteam US public today and they base their findings on assumptions; however it is not the law of assumptions that we are seeking to define & uphold. It is the written law at the time of ratification that definitively sets the requirements for president. The written law which is still in place today. As George Washington proclaimed in his farewell address:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution  designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

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

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…

 

For more on the history on American Citizenship, Allegiance & American Law  please visit the Heritage Foundation.

 

 

America’s Beginning: The Law of God as the Basis for Colonial Laws (Bumped)

THE CHARACTER OF A GOOD RULER

[By Samuel Willard]

[1694]

II. Samuel 23:3.

He that Ruleth over men, must be just, Ruling in the Fear of God.

________

    Whether the ordination of civil government be an article of the law of nature, and it should accordingly have been established upon the multiplication of mankind, although they had retained their primitive [first] integrity–or whether it have only a positive right, and was introduced upon man’s apostasy, is a question about which all are not agreed.  The equity of it, to be sure, is founded in the law natural, and is to be discovered by the light of nature, being accordingly acknowledged by such as are strangers to Scripture revelation; and by Christians it is reducible to the first commandment in the Second Table of the Decalogue; which is supposed to be a transcript of the law given to Adam at the first, and written upon the tables of his heart.  For though, had man kept his first state, the moral image concreated [created] in him consisting in, knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, would have maintained him in a perfect understanding of, and spontaneous obedience to, the whole duty incumbent on him, without the need of civil laws to direct him, or a civil sword to lay compulsion on him; and it would have been the true Golden Age, which the heathen mythologists are so fabulous about.  Yet even then did the all-wise God ordain orders of superiority and inferiority among men, and required an honor to be paid accordingly.  But since the unhappy fall has robbed man of that perfection, and filled his heart with perverse and rebellious principles, tending to the subversion of all order and the reducing of the world to a chaos, necessity requires, and the political happiness of a people is concerned in, the establishment of civil government.  The want of it has ever been pernicious, and attended on with miserable circumstances.  When there was no governor in Israel, but every man did what he would, what horrible outrages were then perpetrated, though holy and zealous Phinehas was at that time the high priest?  and we ourselves have had a specimen of this in the short anarchy accompanying our late revolution.  God’s wisdom therefore, and His goodness is to be adored in that He has laid in such a relief for the children of men, against the mischief which would otherwise devour them, and engraven an inclination on their hearts, generally to comply with it.  But this notwithstanding, men’s sins may put a curse into their blessings, and render their remedy to be not better, possibly worse, than the malady.  Government is to prevent and cure the disorders that are apt to break forth among the societies of men, and to promote the civil peace and prosperity of such a people, as well as to suppress impiety, and nourish religion.  For this end there are to be both rulers, and such as are to be ruled by them: and the weal or woe of a people mainly depends on the qualifications of those rulers, by whom we are to be governed.  Hence that observation, Eccles. 10:16, 17.  Wo to thee, O Land, when thy King is a Child, and thy Princes eat in the morning.  Blessed art thou, O Land! when thy King is the Son of Nobles, and thy Princes eat in due season for strength, and not for drunkenness.  There is then much of God’s kindness or displeasure to be read in His providential disposing of this affair.  God says of them, Hos. 13:11.  I gave them a King in mine Anger.

   We have therefore the character of a Good RULER recommended to us in the Word of GOD, and exemplified in some who deserved that epithere, not only to let men know when GOD favors them with such a blessing, that they may return Him His deserved praise for it, but also, both to instruct such into whose hands it falls, how to demean [humble] themselves in their authority, so as to be a common good, and to direct those unto whose trust it is committed, what manner of persons they ought to introduce, if they would either please GOD, or consult their own and their people’s welfare.

    Such a character we find is given in our text, and we may suppose David intended for an instance of it.

    The words are introduced with greatest solemnity, to give them the deeper impression on the hearts of those that read them, and are concerned in them.  They are the words of David, whom God had exalted to the government over His people Israel, and instructed in His duty–who was God’s own anointed by an extraordinary calling.  And they are his last words, probably not that he ever spoke, but some of his dying words, and the last that he uttered by a peculiar [special] prophetical inspiration, and they were not his own words, but such as the Spirit of God dictated to him, and spoke by him, whereof he was only the instrument of their being committed to record.  They therefore came out of the mouth of the God and Rock of Israel–and surely there must be unspeakable importance in words ushered in with so majestical a preface.  I might here tell you the divers readings, occasioned by the curt expression of the Hebrew text, but I shall not spend time in it, since the general current of interpreters runs the same way with our translation.   And I need but briefly acquaint you that the import or sense of the words is variously understood: some apply them to God Himself, and accordingly read the words as a continued description of Him: he that Ruleth just men; that ruleth men to fear God.   Others apply them to Christ, as typified by David, and take them to be a prophesy of His mediatorial kingdom–and then they read it, shall be just, ruling the fear of God: i.e., Divine instituted worship–pointing to the abrogating of the legal, and bringing in of the Gospel administrations–but then the Type also must be respected, at least under a shadow–and so they suppose that David’s typical government is represented.   Others take them according to the sense of our translation, not to be a prediction but a precept, giving us to understand what manner of persons such are required to be, by the Divine mandate, and that it was left as a rule to them who should succeed.

    In the words there are two things to be observed.

    1.    The subject spoken of, He that Ruleth over men.  He that ruleth:  The word imports one that has any dominion, right, or authority over either persons or things, and is here applicable to all those degrees of men that have any mark of authority upon them, whether the king as supreme, or any ministers under him, under what character or title soever.

    Over men:  The word (Adam) is frequently used to express the commonalty, or people that are to be governed, but however, there is or ought to be a vast difference between the government of men and beasts, though some brutish men may deserve to be treated as brutes.  Man is a reasonable creature, and of the same order of being wtih them that govern him, and ought to be managed accordingly.

    2.    The duty incumbent on such a one:  He must be Just, Ruling in the Fear of God.  Some suppose that the double office of the civil magistrate is here pointed at, who is custos utriusque tabulae, who is to maintain justice towards men, and piety towards God.  Others suppose the latter expression to be exegetical to the former.

    (Just) i.e. one that makes conscience to observe and keep to the rule of righteousness in all his administrations; he ought not to exert his power illimitedly [unlimitedly], and arbitrarily, but in conformity to the Law of God, and the light of nature, for God’s honor, and the promoting of the common benefit of those over whom he bears authority.  And hence,

    (Ruling in the Fear of God.)    And if he does not so, he cannot be just–and by the Fear of God we may either understand a holy, reverential fear, entertained in his heart, which must govern him, or else he will never rule well.  For though every good man will not make a good ruler, yet it is scarce to be believed that a man will acquit this office well without piety.  Or else it [may] be taken metonimically, for the rules of God’s Word, and those particular precepts which direct men how to carry themselves in every station–which are therefore called the Fear of God. because they serve rightly to regulate our fear of Him.  Where it is said (he must) it does not suppose that all who have such authority with them, do so rule; woeful experience too frequently proves the contrary–but that it is their duty, and a matter of great importance for them to attend it.  Hence.

DOCTRINE

It is of highest consequence, that civil rulers should be just men, and such as rule in the fear of God.

    Where shall we find any one text in Scripture ushered in more remarkably than this?  I may not tarry here to draw out this character in its full dimensions, and give it all its colors, but must only make some brief glances.

    Civil rulers are all such as are in the exercise of a rightful authority over others.  These do not all of them stand in one equal rank, nor are alike influential into government.  There are supreme and subordinate powers–and of these also there are some who have a legislative, others an executive power in their hands, which two, though they may sometimes meet in the same persons, yet are in themselves things of a different nature.  There are Superior Magistrates in Provinces, and such as are of Council with them, and Assemblymen, the representatives of the people.  There are Judges in courts, Superior and Inferior; Justices of the Peace in their several precincts: and in each of these orders there resides a measure of authority.

    Now, that all these may be just, it is firstly required, that they have a principle of moral honesty in them, and swaying of them–that they love righteousness, and hate iniquity–that they be men of truth, Exod. 18:21.  For every man will act in his relation, according to the principle that rules in him–so that an unrighteous man will be an unrighteous ruler, so far as he has an opportunity.

    They must also be acquainted with the rules of righteousness; they must know what is just, and what is unjust, be able men, Exod. 18:21.   For, though men may know and not do, yet without knowledge the mind cannot be good.  Ignorance is a foundation for error, and will likely produce it, when the man applies himself to act–and if he do right at any time, it is but by guess, which is a very poor commendation.

    Again, he must be one that respects the cause, and not the persons, in all his administrations, Deut. 1:17.  Ye shall not respect Persons in Judgment, & etc.  If his affections oversway his judgment at any time, they will be a crooked bias, that will turn him out of the way, and that shall be justice in one man’s case which will not be so in another.

    Furthermore, he must be one whom neither flattery nor bribery may be able to remove out of his way, Deut. 16:19.  Thou shalt not wrest Judgment, thou shalt not Respect Persons, neither take a Gift; and hence he must be one who hates both ambition and covetousness, Exod. 18:21.  Hating   Covetousness; which word signifies, a greedy desire, and is applicable to both the forecited vices–for if these rule him, he will never be a just ruler.

    Finally, he must be one who prefers the public benefit above all private and separate interests whatsoever.  Every man in his place, owes himself to the good of the whole, and if he does not so devote himself, he is unjust–and he who either to advance himself, or to be revenged on another, will push on injurious laws, or pervert the true intention of such as are in force, is an unjust man–and he who is under the influence of a narrow spirit, will be ready to do so, as occasion offers.

    Nor is this justice to be looked upon as separate from the fear of God, but as influenced and maintained by it.  He therefore that Ruleth in the Fear of God, is one who acknowledges God to be his Sovereign, and carries in his heart an awful [awe-filled] fear [respect] of Him–who owns [acknowledges] his commission to be from Him, and expects ere long to be called to give in an account of his managing of it–which makes him to study in all things to please Him, and to be afraid of doing anything that will provoke Him.

    And accordingly, He is a student in the Law of God, and meditates in it Day and Night, making it the rule into which he ultimately resolves all that he does in his place.  We find that in the Old Law, the king was to write a copy of it with his own hand, and to make use of it at all times: Deut. 17:18, 19.

    If he has anything to do in the making of laws, he will consult a good conscience, and what may be pleasing to God, and will be far from framing mischief by a law.  And if he be to execute any laws of men, he will not dare to give a judgment for such a one as directly crosses the command of God, but counts it ipso facto void, and his conscience acquitted of his oath.

    Yes, the Fear of God will make him not to think himself lawless, nor dare to bear witness, by laws and penalties, against sins in others, which he countenances and encourages by living in the practice of himself–but to use utmost endeavors that his own life may be exemplification [exemplar] of obedience, and others may learn by him, what a veneration he has for the laws that are enacted for the good of mankind.

    In a word, he is one that will take care to promote piety as well as honesty among men, and do his utmost that the true religion may be countenanced and established, and that all ungodliness, as well as unrighteousness, may have a due testimony born against it at all times.  So he resolves, Psal. 75:10. all the horns of the wicked also will I cut off; but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted.

    It then follows that we enquire of what great moment or consequence it is that these should be such–and there is a three-fold respect in which the high importance of it is to be discovered by us.

    1.    In respect to the glory of God.

    Civil rulers are God’s viceregents here upon earth; hence they are sometimes honored with the title of gods, Psal. 82:6. I have said ye are gods.   Government is God’s ordinance, and those that are vested with it, however mediately introduced into it, have their rightful authority from Him, Prov. 8:15, 16. By me Princes Rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the Earth, and they that are from Him, should be for Him, and ought to seek the honor of Him who is King of kings, and Lord of lords–which they only then do, when they manage their whole interest and power with a design for His glory, and accordingly manage themselves in all their ministrations by the statutes of His kingdom, which none will ever do, but they that are Just, Ruling in the Fear of God.  Righteousness and religion flourishing in these, will be as a torch on a hill, whose light and influence will be vastly extensive: every one will be advantaged to see their good works, and to glorify God for and in them.   Their very example will have the force of a law in it, and win many by a powerful attraction, to the avoiding of sin, and practicing of righteousness.  They will be a good copy, that many will be ambitious to write after–and their faithful administrations will render them a Terror to Evil Doers, and an Encouragement to them that do well, which will advance the very end of government.  Whereas the evil deportment, and ill management of rulers, who are unjust, and void of the fear of God, is an open scandal, and of a more pernicious tendency than the wickedness of others, inasmuch as their example is a discouragement to them that are well disposed, and animates those that are set in their hearts for iniquity, and they are thereby enboldened to show their heads, and to declare their sin as Sodom–hence that remark of the Psalmist, Psal. 12:8. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.  Those that would bear their testimony against impiety and debauchery, are frowned on and neglected, and such as would nourish them are countenanced–and either good laws to suppress them are not provided, or they are laid by as things obsolete, and of no service–and thus all abominations come in upon a people as a flood, and the Name of God is woefully dishonored by this means–and hereupon the last and most excellent end of government comes to be frustrated, and what is there that we can conceive to be of greater weight than this?  If this be lost, the glory of such a people is gone.

    2.    In regard to the weal of the people over whom they rule.

    A people are not made for rulers, but rulers for a people.   It is indeed an honor which God puts upon some above others, when He takes them from among the people, and sets them up to rule over them, but it is for the people’s sake, and the civil felicity of them is the next end of civil policy, and the happiness of rulers is bound up with theirs in it.  Nor can any wise men in authority think themselves happy in the misery of their subjects, to whom they either are or should be as children are to their fathers: We have the benefit of government expressed, 1 Tim. 2:2. a quiet Life and a peaceable, in all Godliness and honesty.  And it lies especially with rulers, under God, to make a people happy or miserable.  When men can enjoy their liberties and rights without [...] [harassment] and oppression–when they can live without fear of being borne down by their more potent [powerful] neighbors–when they are secured against violence, and may be righted against them that offer them any injury, without fraud–and are encouraged to serve God in their own way, with freedom, and without being imposed upon contrary to the Gospel precepts– now are they a happy people.   But this is to be expected from none other but men just and pious: they that are otherwise, will themselves be oppreneur, and they that are influenced by them, and dependent on them, will add to the grievance.  They that should look after them will do it fast enough: Yes, everyone will usurp a license to do so to his neighbor upon an advantage–and such a people must needs groan under an intolerable burden.  Besides, it is a great truth, that the mercies and judgments of God come upon a people, according as their rulers carry themselves in managing of the trust which God has committed to them.   Just and zealous rulers are men that Stand in the Gap, and keep off judgments from a sinning people; God sought for one such, Ezek. 22:30.   They turn away wrath, when it has made an inroad; so it is recorded of Phinehas that he did, Ps. 106:30., and God is wont to bless such a people, as He did Israel and Judah in the days of David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah–whereas when these fall into such sins as God is provoked at, the people are like to smart for it.   There is such an influence with the prevarications of these men, that, in the righteous judgment of God, those under them suffer grieveously by it.  This the heathen observed in the course of Providence, and made that remark upon it, [....]   Thus David numbers the people, and seventy thousand of the men of Israel die for it, 2 Sa. 24.  Yes, such may be the influence of the mal-administration of rulers, though done without malice, and in an heat of misguided zeal for the people of GOD–as Saul’s act in slaying the Gibeonites is recorded to have been, 2 Sam. 21:2, that the guilt may lie long upon a land, and break out in terrible judgments a great while after, and not be expiated till the sin be openly confessed, and the Atonement sought unto.

    3.    With reference to rulers themselves.

    It is, as we before observed, a dignity put upon them, to be preferred to government over their brethren–to have the oversight, not of beasts, but of men.  But as there is a great trust devolved on them, so there is an answerable reckoning which they must be called unto: And however they are [...] [placed] in authority by men, yet GOD, who rules over all, has put them in only durante bene placito: they are upon their good behavior; they are stewards, and whensoever GOD pleases, He will call for a reckoning, and put them out.  GOD sets up, and he pulls down, and He has a respect to men’s carriages in His dealings with them. [* * * * *]  The only sure way for rulers to build up their own houses is to be such in their places as David was, of whom we have that testimony, Psal. 78:71, 72. He brought him to Feed Jacob his People, and Israel his Inheritance.  So he Fed them according to the Integrity of his heart, and guided them by the Skillfulness of his hands.  And although GOD does not always peculiarly put a brand in this world upon impious and unjust rulers, yet there is a tribunal before which they must stand e’re long as other men, only their account will be so much the more fearful, and condemnation more tremendous, by how much they have neglected to take their greater advantages to glorify GOD, and abused their power to His dishonor, by which they had a fairer opportunity than other men.

USE.

All that I have to offer by way of improvement, shall be in a three-fold commendation of this TRUTH to us.

   1.    Let me propose it to such in whose hands it is to appoint the persons that are to bear rule over this people, whether for the making of laws to govern by, or the putting of such as are made into execution–whether Counselors, Assemblymen, or Justices of the Peace.  Let this be your directory in exerting of this right. Civil government is seated in no particular persons or families by a natural right, neither has the light of nature, nor the Word of GOD determined in particular, what form of government shall be established among men, whether monarchical, aristocratical, or democratical–much less, who are individually to be acknowledged in authority, and accordingly submitted to.  Nevertheless the holy providence of GOD presides in this matter–sometimes, by a more immediate, and extraordinary pointing to the persons and families, when by revelation He declares His pleasure in it.  Thus was Saul set up over the Kingdom of Israel, and afterwards David was thus chosen of God, and an entail made of the Crown on his posterity, but this way has long since ceased.  Sometimes it is more mediate and ordinary, and that is, either forcible, when God judicially delivers a people up to the will of their enemies, and the conqueror gives laws to, and appoints rulers over, such a people at his pleasure, and they are compelled to accept of them, little to their content–which, as is not eligible, so neither is it wont to be of duration: things violent used not to be permanent.   Or voluntary, which is by the free consent of a people, orderly, and without compulsion establishing the fundamentals of government among themselves, and the methods of introducing persons into authority–which methods are not prescribed in Scripture, but remain points of prudence, and may lawfully be divers here and there.  There are yet general rules which both reason and religion do point men to attend in this case, and the weal or woe of a people do very much depend thereupon.  And as it is a thing very grateful to men to have some hand and consent in the appointment of their own rulers, so they do either make or mar themselves by the using or abusing of such a liberty.   When this power is immediately devolved upon some persons, they have great advantage to procure either the happiness or misery of their people.  Such electors therefore are under the obligation to be very wary in the application or themselves to the nomination of the persons for such a trust.  A good charter [constitution] is doubtless preferable to a bad one; it is a great privilege to be secured from being hurt by any but ourselves–but, let charter privileges be never so excellent, good rulers only can make us happy under them–and if they are not so, we suffer notwithstanding.

    Here then you are told what qualities are to be eyed in those whom you fix your choice upon.  Whatsoever other rules discretion may point to be observed in this affair, yet these must always be of the quorum.  It is true, there are none without their failings, nor can we expect that the best of men will never do amiss, but yet the best are to be preferred, as they that will do it seldomest, and never of [from] design.  They that fear God will be afraid willfully to hurt men; they that are just will do justice, and that can wrong none.   This is it which advantages all other [gifts], whether natural or acquired, to be truly serviceable to the promoting of the welfare of a people: Without this, the more that men have of these, they are so much the more advantaged to do mischief.  There is no misery greater, or less pitied, than what men foolishly bring on themselves, and none will be equally blamed for it, as they who were the guilty occasions of it, or more deserve it.   Choose such men, and then you may expect to be so governed: If you desire that holiness and righteousness may be promoted and encouraged, this is the best stroke that you can give to it; if you have a mind that prophaneness and debauchery should take place, and bear all down, here is the readiest way for it.

    And if you will keep to the rule prescribed in our text, beware of being misguided by special favor, bribery, or faction.

    When persons shall be crowded in, because they are our friends, or have gained a room in our affections, without any respect to their meetness [fitness], but what our blind passions judge of–or that they may have a way to support themselves by government–it is easy to tell what is to be expected.

    When places of trust in government are bought and sold, and he shall have them that will give most for them, we may well conclude that such a people are bought and sold, too, and must only serve to make a good market of.

    When a people are divided into factions, just and wise and good men are renounced and not thought worthy to be made use of, because they favor not the party that can sway, and such as are hotly zealous for the design, are counted, merely by that zeal sufficiently qualified, and to be of all most worthy; this will not promote the public good, but only gain to the one side a little more of advantage to do hurt.

    2.    Let me humbly offer this as a copy for all that either are, or may be, in place of rule, to write after.  Allow me the liberty to say this from GOD, that by whatsoever titles of excellent, honorable, or worshipful, you are known, you not only rule under such as are your superiors on earth, unto whom you are accountable for what you do, but under GOD also, who is your Great SOVEREIGN.  Your authority is from Him, and ought therefore to be for Him, else will you be found false to your trust.  You rule over His subjects, and that not only upon a common account, as the whole world is His kingdom, but one more special, as the people under your watch are the subjects of His GOSPEL KINGDOM: If you do that which is right to them, He will be pleased, but if you should do otherwise, their APPEAL is open to Him, and there is  COURT that will be called, wherein their CAUSE shall be heard, and adjusted.

    Be you entreated, to measure all your administration by this rule: Do all justly and in the fear of God.  This is the way to be blessings in your places, and to be the Blessed of the Lord.   By this course you will make your people a happy people, and you yourselves shall be established.  Thus shall you pull down a blessing on your own heads, and upon the land you dwell in.  This is the way to be the Repairers of breaches, and the Restorers of paths to dwell in.

    To this end, be entreated to take care that religion may flourish; the true fear of GOD, and right administration of His ordinances may be promoted and secured–that righteousness may be done for men, and that iniquity which defiles a land, and pulls down wrath, may be purged away–that drunkenness, and swearing, fornication, and Sabbath-prophanation, and whatsoever hastens the calamity of a professing people, may be duly born witness against.  Let this be your sincere unbiased aim in all that you do.

    Carry this with you, and let it rule in the making of laws; let the Word of GOD be consulted, and the common utility of the subject be designed.  For, though there be not a body of civil laws drawn up in the Scriptures, to which every polity is to be confined, yet there are sufficient general directions, and rules, to be gathered from thence, which may regulate in this affair.

    Take heed of any sinister aims in whatsoever laws do pass: Laws made to strengthen a particular separate interest never did good, but hurt, to a body politic; that which may serve the present turn, may in a little time prove more mischievous, than ever it was advantageous.  Remember, you cannot repeal such laws when you will, or when you have advanced a design with them.  Look then forward to the after-issues.  It will be no small aggravation of our trouble, to be wounded with a shaft of our own making.  Look for changes in a world of mutability, and lay in, as far as innocent prudence may direct, for your own, and your people’s safety.

    Keep to this also in all your administration or application of laws: Maintain a good conscience in it, and let the fear of God, and a principle of justice, make you to lay aside all sinister respects.  Let not persons but things sway you in all your dispensations, and when the case is the same, let the same sentence proceed from you; let neither riches nor poverty turn the scale; neither friendship nor enmity spoil the sentence.  Take no gift in secret to stop or pervert justice, nor misapply your power to take private or personal revenge.  When cases are plain, do not obscure them, and when they are dubious, search them out, and let not flattery or impudence prevail over you, but take His advice in 2 Chron. 16:9. Thus shall you do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully, and with a perfect heart, Deal courageously, and the Lord shall be with the good.

   Remember the cause is God’s, and He will have the calling of it over again, where He will either applaud your fidelity, or condemn your unfaithfulness.

    Do so also in your exemplary conversation.   Do not do that yourselves, which you ought in duty, and oath, to punish to others; embolden not wicked men to trangress by your example, and to excuse themselves upon your account.  That man who will violate the laws which he is to rule by, will soon neglect to excuse them on others, and bring reproach on himself where he does.

    3.    Let it afford matter of instruction to us all.

    Are these the eminent qualifications of good rulers?  It is no small concern that we have in this affair.  It tells us that we ought earnestly to pray to God that we may have such always–and we pray for ourselves when we so do.

    Whatsoever other influence we may have into the appointment of those that are to govern us, there is none that can hinder us of this but ourselves.  God overrules the lot; He determines the hearts of men, and He can make men after his own Heart.  He presides over every election, and if we can prevail with Him by importunate prayer, our business is done.  It is one of the blessings that He will be sought unto for, by the House of Israel.

    It calls us to be thankful to Him for such when He bestows them upon us.  God not a little displays His kindness to a people when it is thus, and expects their gratitude to Him for so comprehensive a mercy.  There is nothing will sooner lose us this benefit than ingratitude.

    Let us encourage them that are such, and that by a cheerful acknowledgment of them, contention under them, and candid interpretation of them.

    We are governed by men of like infirmities with ourselves; wonder not if sometimes they discover something of them, but when we know that their cordial endeavors are to do that which is right, and promote our peaceable and Godly living, let this please us.

    And beware of murmurings; GOD will not take it well of us, and can easily let us know a difference, and it is an observation that seldom misses, That they who are most addicted to, are soonest weary of, changes.

    In a word, let us beware lest we provoke a holy and jealous God to anger so as to give us men of another spirit to rule over us, or to withdraw His Spirit from them that do, and leave them to do things inconvenient.

    Evil doers, and the mal-administrations of good ones, are punishments which GOD does inflict on a people that have provoked Him to anger against them.  God gave Saul to Israel in His wrath, and he left David to number the people because His anger was kindled against Israel.

[* * * * *]

    But if we be a people fearing GOD and keeping of His Commandments, He will delight in us to bless us, and to do us good–and to give us rulers after His own prescription, Just Men, and Ruling in the Fear of God.

2 Sam. 5: 17-25 : What Do I Think About That Claim?

Last night/in the wee hours of today, I wrote to my pastor in regards to the official statement of Bishop Hanson of the ELCA on the flotilla to Gaza that ended in tragedy. I haven’t been happy with the direction the ELCA is going for quite some time now as every year that passes, they move further and further away from the true teachings of God and closer to the political correctness of the liberal left socialist propaganda machine that is the antithesis of God’s teachings & laws.

Fast forward to this afternoon when I went to 1john3one.blogspot.com for the daily scripture reading, 2 Sam. 5: 17-25.  Now while the scripture was not of a surprise, what was, was the discussion question, especially in light of my correspondence earlier in the day. 

“David seemed to have the LORD on his side. Such is the claim of some when current battles are fought. What do you think about that claim?”

Now, I do not comment at pastor’s site as I have a deep distrust of most things google since the company is tied so deeply with our new marxist/Islamic fascist regime and Open ID (so I can use my wordpress log-in) is not an option. So it is here today that I will make my 1st public response for the discussion.

What do I think?

I do not think it is a matter of sides. It is a matter of protecting God’s people from invasion while also upholding his laws & commandments. David gave an oath to God. He had spent many years in God’s training ground learning to teach & lead the people to walk in the light of the Lord.  In today’s scripture reading, David did not go forth on his own, he waited for God’s command and then he followed God’s lead. In today’s real world, the Israeli leaders did not go out looking for a confrontation, it was the flotilla flying Turkish flags carrying dozens of Al Qaeda extremists looking to slip into Israel from Gaza that forced the Israeli’s hand. God was leading the Israeli soldiers in a peaceful attempt to protect their people  and homeland from additional endless mortar attacks from the Gazan strip, but instead, their peaceful attempt was met with Islamic radicalists who had their minds set on the opposite.

The fact of the matter is, is that we do not live in a politically correct world. Civilization never has and God knows it. But, if we follow his lead/command, he will guide us through the most peaceful resolution possible and thus is his teachings. The Israeli’s are following God’s lead/command for the most peaceful coexistence possible with those that call for the death of Israel & her people on a daily basis. Yet instead of standing behind God and along side the people of his chosen land, those such as our own ELCA Bishop Hanson would rather lead with political correctness based on false propaganda.

Now I have a few scripture readings for the leaders of the ELCA church who took an oath to follow God’s teachings & laws, not the politically correct movement of those that wish to destroy Christianity and wipe it from history for all time:

Matt. 23: 28 ~ “Woe, to you, hypocrites!” This cry resounds seven times in Jesus’ address to the scribes and Pharisees. “So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity!”

~ James 1:25 ~ But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it ~ he will be blessed in what he does.

~ 2 Peter 2:18-19 ~ For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

1 Timothy 4  The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

 If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.

 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

 Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

 Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

 2 Peter 2: 2-3 ~ Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

 

Multiculturalism: A Plan To Destroy America aka American Suicide


Last night while listening the the free auto rewind of the Mark Levin Show, I was suddenly struck at how deep & for how long the statist aka progressive aka socialist aka marxist agenda had embedded itself into what we know as the Democrat Party as Mark read this revised speech by former Governor of Colorado, Richard Lamm (’75 – ’87) at the 2004 Immigration-Overpopulation Conference in Washington, D.C. The reading begins at 18:05 into the audio file embedded above.

Link to “I Have A Plan To Destroy America” by Richard Lamm which also includes the following cvommentary of the disgusting speech by Lamm:

AMERICAN  SUICIDE
         Wherever you stand, please take the time to read this; it ought to  scare the pants off  you!

         We know Dick  Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado (Democrat). In that context his  thoughts are particularly poignant. Recently there was  an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC,  filled to capacity by many of America’s finest minds and leaders.   A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Davis   Hansen  talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,”  explaining how immigration – both legal and illegal was destroying  the entire state of California He said it would march across the  country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American  Dream.

         Moments  later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning  speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound  as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United  States. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug,  too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It  is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the  ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations  rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that  all great nations commit  suicide.’”

         “Here is  how they do it,” Lamm said: “First, to destroy America, turn America  into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country.” History  shows tha! t no nat ion can survive the tension, conflict,
 and  antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures It is a blessing  for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a  society  to be bilingual. The historical scholar,  Seymour Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of  bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate  arehistories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.”  Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises  of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy,  if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria  suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficult times  with Basques, Bretons, and  Corsicans.”

         Lamm  went on: Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and  encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article  of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no  cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and  Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and  discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of  bounds.

         Third, “We  could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort.  The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As  Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently:  “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural  experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by  hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity  and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only  tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” Lamm said, “I would  encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would!  replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl  metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have  various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing  their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their  similarities.”

          “Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least  educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated,  undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have  this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from  high school.”

          “My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations  and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in  ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult  of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think that  their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start  a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority  population.”

       “My  sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and  promote divided loyalties I would celebrate diversity over unity.  I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse  people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other- that is, when they  are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or  stable society is against most historical precedent.  People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a  nation together.  Look at the ancient Greeks. The  Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race;  they possessed a common Language and literature; and  they worshipped the same Gods. All Greece took part in the  Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. !  Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors:  local patriotism and geographical conditions that  nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E. Pluribus  Unum” – from many, one. In that historical reality, if we put  the emphasis on the ‘Pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will  balkanize America assuredly  as Kosovo.”

          “Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to  talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a  word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped  discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’  halt discussion and debate. Having made America a  bi-lingual/bicultural country, having established multiculturalism,  having the large foundations fund the doctrine  of ‘victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our  immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration  has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make  every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative  impact of millions of  them.”

         In the last  minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence  followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor  Victor Hanson Davis’s book “Mexifornia.”  His book  is dangerous.  It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you  feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that  book.”

         There was no  applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above  every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room  knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically,  quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States  today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are  ripping the foundation of our educational system and national  cohesiveness.  Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital  mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’  American  jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create  a Third World in America – take note of California and other states –  to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is  reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.”  In that  story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of  Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,”  and “Ignorance is  strength.”

         Governor  Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference  that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply  in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get  this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will  rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path  especially The American Dream.  If you care for and love our  country as I do, take the time to pass this on just as I did  for you.

          NOTHING is exactly what will happen if  you don’t!

          [ Author of the book 'Mexifornia' is  Victor Davis Hanson  ]

Brooklyn Daily Eagle on US Citizenship & Presidential Eligibility; Feb 26, 1888

The following includes citations from Kent, Story & the Immigration & Nationality Acts of 1790, 1795 & 1802. It also mentions US Sec of State Thomas Bayard, whom I have already included in a previous article on the history of the definition of US citizenship. Bayard concluded in 1885 that the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because he was on his birth subject to a foreign power, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”.

Brooklyn-Daily-Eagle-Sunday-February-26-1888-p-6 Pres eligibility

A Constitution Town Hall

For those waiting for my next series of articles to start, the wait will be just another couple of days.

Today I am participating in “A Constitution Town Hall” hosted by Hillsdale College :

“Reviving the Constitution”
A Constitution Town Hall, brought to you by the
Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship

I am a subscriber to Hillsdale’s Imprmis  publication, which is free to the public, and the information in it is absolutely fascinating, informational & rewarding. Hillsdale is an entirely, privately funded college that does not accept government funding or government backed student loans, therefore they are not under obligation to shove government propaganda literature down their students throats. They also require all students to learn the Constitution & our conservative founding as a prerequisite for graduation.

The townhall runs from 9am – 3pm EST today and is sure to be jam packed with loads of American history & the background of our founding documents. We were given loads of prior information to read up on and I can’t wait to start taking notes and expanding on my knowledge so that I may pass it on to you. I am especially excited to hear the lecturers speak on citizenship as we know there are big plans for immigration & amnesty behind the closed doors of the statist in Washington. We also know that there are many areas where our government is turning a blind eye to the laws pertaining to aliens, immigration and how certain aliens obtain their US citizenship.

So, come back on Monday & begin a new journey with some fresh perspective.

Did Common Law Really Grant Automatic US Citizenship Upon Birth Regardless Of Parentage?

It has been a long debate for over a 3 decades now, but especially since the appearance of one Barack H Obama and his intentions for possible candidacy as a US President. The opposing views could not be further apart and then there are those who cling to the outside possibility that Obama may have been born outside of the US, but for I and many others who are strict constitutionalists, the mere fact that he was born a British subject at birth was the deciding factor that has kept us researching for the past year & a half.

The one factor that the Obama supporters cling to is some dilluted notion that the founding fathers & colonists adopted English common law that automatically granted citizenship to any child born on US soil. They also claim that the requirement for Congress as laid out in A1 that states one must be a “citizen” is the same and equal to the requirement laid out in A2 for the Executive Branch which requires one to be a “natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution” regardless that they are 2 very distinctly different types of citizens.

Researchers & constitutional experts from both sides of the debates agree 100% that the term ‘citizen’ that was adopted for congress allowed for naturalized citizens to attain to those elected offices. Where we have differed is the definition of  term ‘natural born’ citizen. We hold fast to the argument that both parents must be US citizens when the child was born on US soil( born with total & complete allegiance to the US) & the progessive crowd as well as many so called conservative constitutional scholars hold fast to their notion that parentage held no factor in determining citizenship of a child born on US soil.

If that had been the case then there would have never been a need for the grandfather clause in A2S1C5:

No person except a “natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution”

So, did the framers really adopt a common law rule that automatically granted US citizenship upon birth as England did? Let’s take a look at what the US government had to say about certain children born on US soil at the time of the adoption of the constitution from recently acquired documents from the national archives. As I’ve stated in the past, one can not limit their research to such a narrow alley that keeps pertinent information from being brought out into the light. You can not define what ‘natural born’ means without looking into all the laws for all types of citizenship and therein lies the answer to the proverbial question: Is Barack H Obama constitutionally qualified to be president under the definition of ‘natural born’ citizen that was adopted & ratified in 1789 by the colonists?

SoundexIndex to Naturalization  Petitions for the United States District and Circuit Courts, Northern District of Illinois, and Immigration and Naturalization Service District 9

1840-1950

Background

The process of naturalization has been a concern of the people of the United States since colonial times. One of the grievances against George III in the Declaration of Independence charged that “he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither . . . .” This concern was addressed in the United States Constitution, which provided that “Congress shall have the Power … to establish an uniform Rule of

Naturalization . . . .” (Art. 1, Sec. 8).

Congress passed the first naturalization act on March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103). The law allowed any free, white alien over the age of twenty-one to apply for citizenship after two year’s residency in the United States. The process simply required an applicant to visit “any common law court of record,” prove to the satisfaction of the court that he or she was of good moral character, and take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. A judge then ruled on the applicant’s petition. Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

And then from the national archives on geneology, we find this:

Naturalization Records:

Introduction

Naturalization is the process by which an alien becomes an American citizen. It is a voluntary act; naturalization is not required. Of the foreign-born persons listed on the 1890 through 1930 censuses, 25 percent had not become naturalized or filed their “first papers.”

This article is adapted from Claire Prechtel-Kluskens, “The Location of Naturalization Records,” The Record, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 21-22 (Nov. 1996).

The Courts

From the first naturalization law passed by Congress in 1790 through much of the 20th century, an alien could become naturalized in any court of record. Thus, most people went to the court most convenient to them, usually a county court. The names and types of courts vary from State to State. The names and types of courts have also varied during different periods of history–but may include the county supreme, circuit, district, equity, chancery, probate, or common pleas court. Most researchers will find that their ancestors became naturalized in one of these courts. A few State supreme courts also naturalized aliens, such as the supreme courts of Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, and South Dakota. Aliens who lived in large cities sometimes became naturalized in a Federal court, such as a U.S. district court or U.S. circuit court.

General Rule: The Two-Step Process

Congress passed the first law regulating naturalization in 1790 (1 Stat. 103). As a general rule, naturalization was a two-step process that took a minimum of 5 years. After residing in the United States for 2 years, an alien could file a “declaration of intent” (so-called “first papers”) to become a citizen. After 3 additional years, the alien could “petition for naturalization.” After the petition was granted, a certificate of citizenship was issued to the alien. These two steps did not have to take place in the same court. As a general rule, the “declaration of intent” generally contains more genealogically useful information than the “petition.” The “declaration” may include the alien’s month and year (or possibly the exact date) of immigration into the United States.

Exceptions to the General Rule

Having stated this “two-step, 5-year” general rule, it is necessary to note several exceptions.

The first major exception was that “derivative” citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen. (Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father. Unfortunately, however, names and biographical information about wives and children are rarely included in declarations or petitions filed before September 1906. For more information about women in naturalization records, see  Marian L. Smith, “Women and Naturalization, ca. 1802-1940,” Prologue: Quarterly of the National Archives, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Summer 1998): 146-153.

The second major exception to the general rule was that, from 1824 to 1906, minor aliens who had lived in the United States 5 years before their 23rd birthday could file both their declarations and petitions at the same time.

The third major exception to the general rule was the special consideration given to veterans. An 1862 law allowed honorably discharged Army veterans of any war to petition for naturalization–without previously having filed a declaration of intent–after only 1 year of residence in the United States. An 1894 law extended the same no-previous-declaration privilege to honorably discharged 5-year veterans of the Navy or Marine Corps. Over 192,000 aliens were naturalized between May 9, 1918, and June 30, 1919, under an act of May 9, 1918, that allowed aliens serving in the U.S. armed forces during “the present war” to file a petition for naturalization without making a declaration of intent or proving 5 years’ residence. Laws enacted in 1919, 1926, 1940, and 1952 continued various preferential treatment provisions for veterans.

Now a question to all those progressive legal experts & so-called conservative constitutional lawyers out there.

How is it that you can expertly claim that the US adopted some form of common law that automatically granted US citizenship to any child born on US soil; when clearly, as the government archives show, the laws of the day state otherwise? Your claims that the US has always granted US citizenship upon birth on US soil is utterly & completely…

BUSTED!

Progressives have been trying to eliminate or redefine the ‘natural born’ requirement for over 3 decades  and yet they all failed miserably. And even though there was sympathy towards immigrants who served in the military allowing for faster naturalization procedures for the ones that served honorably& who were thusly discharged honorably. This gives me further confirmation as to why the progressives thought they could get away with white-washing McCain’s problem of birth in the Republic of Panama.

2010: Know Your Opponent

Thanks to Trevor Loundon of the New Zeal Blogfor bringing this to our attention. Trevor was the man who 1st broke the Van Jones story, that was eventually exposed by Glenn Beck & FOX News. Trevor also was the 1st to expose a host of other radicals, members of the CPUSA(Communist Party of the United States of America) & the DSP(Democrat Socialist Party that is directly linked to the CPUSA in which Obama was a member of and whom boasted how they got him elected to the IL state Senate) in the Obama administration or have close/direct ties to them & their socialist threats of wanting to destroy our country & economy from within. Be sure to visit Trevor’s site to learn even more of whom we are dealing with and help us to put a stop to their election fraud tactics before this November.

David Horowitz and Democrat Pat Caddell Explain the Radical Take-over of the US. Must View!!!

more about “Pt1: David Horowitz and Pat Caddell N…“, posted with vodpod

 

more about “Pt2: David Horowitz and Pat Caddell N…“, posted with vodpod

Judicial Verbicide, An Affront to the Constitution

This should be required reading for all studying US history, our Constitution & US government. It is high time everyone learn and we put these oligarchs in their respective places, that of being under the rule of the people, not the other way around.

Judicial Verbicide- An affront to the constitution

Arguing With Idiots

I am not talking about Glenn Beck’s book, I am talking about Glenn Beck himself. For someone who claims to stand on the side of the Constitution, he sure hasn’t taken the time to learn about the qualifications of the ‘top dog’ who, as stated in the oath of office taken on Jan 20,2009, is suppose to be in charge of enforcing it.

And for all his chalk board drawings and references to the great partiots who fought to win our freedom, one can only conclude that it is nothing but mere window dressing for the ratings of his show which makes his “Refounders” project one of the most oxymoronic ideas he has had thus far which brings me to today’s subject.

After taking a much needed break to concentrate on the family front for a while, I come back to find Glenn Beck has joined the ranks of “O’Really?” and I must say, with all the adverts that the two are now working together it does not surprise me that Beck has now succumbed to O’Really’s influences. Yes, O’Really, you know the guy who says being born a British subject does not affect ones eligibility to be president.

And this coming from a former teacher. Geez, no wonder this country is in such a mess.

In his response to Beck, Stephen Pidgeon has opened the door for more dialogue from Beck:

Dear Mr. Beck:

You are ill-informed on the “birther” issue. Barack Obama, by his own admission, was a British subject at birth. He has never denied having a Kenyan father, who himself was a British subject as a Kenyan native. This is easly established under the British Nationality Act of 1948. He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments. The issue is very simple, and very obvious. Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.

Let’s see you deal with this one. There is nothing “nutty” about it, and it doesn’t depend on whether his maternal grandmother tried to cover up a foreign birth in Hawaii by placing newspaper notices. It is as plain as your face. BHO is a foreign national first, and an American secondarily, if at all. That is why he thinks there are 57 states; why he doesn’t understand the constitution; why he wants to give us Britain’s health care system (it’s all in the teeth, don’t you know); why he thinks Interpol should have greater authority in the US than US law enforcement; etc. He is a British subject and has no business holding the office of POTUS.

If you think you can overlook this constitutional crisis as not part of the Rubicon, you are mistaken. One constitutional overlook breeds another and the next thing you know, the financial industry is nationalized, the auto industry is nationalized, the health care industry is about to be nationalized, and the energy industry will soon be nationalized.

Ultimately, it is all going to be okay, because socialism only lasts until other people’s money (OPM) runs out, and binge spender BHO has spent all the money we have and all the money we will ever have for the next several generations. He spent all of this before he got his socialist healthcare on the table. He and his wife have partied like Eddie Murphy in The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) since taking office, while he has busied himself with overthrowing the constitutional republic, establishing a new Islamic empire worldwide, disarming and crippling America, and unilaterally dividing Israel and Jerusalem. The only budget constraint for Obama is ink and paper (and he is working his way around that) and his foreign policy advisor appears to be “mirror, mirror on the wall”. He has bankrupted the nation, which the sleeping Oprah watchers are now discovering for the very first time. The reality of the bankruptcy will hit home with gusto in 2010. Not only will we suffer with 30% unemployment, a complete collapse of real estate, and a complete collapse of the dollar, we will also suffer the slings and arrows of dramatic military defeats, as we let this foreigner steer the ship of state. Most Americans have no idea how bad it is going to get.

As for Obama: he will be one of history’s most reviled figures – on a par with Nero – as a fool who couldn’t even understand that when he denigrated the United States, he was destroying the very state upon which his safety and his legacy depended. He will suffer dramatic defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq – it will not be like Viet Nam, and his name will be tarred with it. It will be more like the disastrous defeat of Xerxes at Salamis, or the Ottomans at Sisek, or the Moors at Tours; a game changing defeat that will forever cement the destiny of the republic known as the United States of America. Obama will join the other names in history who suffered cataclysmic losses in the lands of Magog.

His legacy? A communist, collectivist fool, brainwashed by red diaper doper babies haunting the halls of ivy league academia whose agenda was to bring back the failed Bolshevik revolution worldwide, who brought his fully bloomed ignorance to power illegally in the US because of the needs of his narcissistic ego, whose illegitimacy caused the US to go bankrupt and to suffer its worst military setbacks in the history of the nation in just a few short months. History will marvel at the foolishness of Americans, and historians will wonder how we as a people could have allowed this to happen. Then, of course, historians will ultimately conclude that the demise of the greatest nation the world had ever known happened because the watchdogs whose duty it was to warn Americans of such possibilities – the so-called news media – conspired with foreign powers and global financial criminals to destroy America from the inside, as a result of their cowardice, malevolence and silence.

Contributing member: Glenn Beck, who simply could not bring himself to utter the truth about Obama – that he is a usurper, holding the presidency illegally and unconstitutionally, because he is without a legal birthright. Let us never forget who shirked their duty to tell the truth in these last hours, and let us not allow history to forget.

STEPHEN PIDGEON

Now the big question, with Beck’s daily ranting about the Constitution & how we need to get back to it and to our founding, will he come out of the closet and really stand up for it or will he just continue to use it for ratings? Because as Stephen pointed out:

If you think you can overlook this constitutional crisis as not part of the Rubicon, you are mistaken. One constitutional overlook breeds another and the next thing you know, the financial industry is nationalized, the auto industry is nationalized, the health care industry is about to be nationalized, and the energy industry will soon be nationalized.

I’m certainly NOT going to hold my breath for that to happen, but instead I will use every breath I have to educate a dumbed down American public as to the truth of this Constitutional Crisis.

What Is It With Obama’s Foreign Intrigues & Influences?

I know, its because he is not constitutionally qualified to be POTUS, but what the heck, national security & national sovereignty are so passe’ in today’s world of political correctness.

From the Columbia Conservative Examiner:

In the dead of night on December 17, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama placed the United States of America under the authority of the international police organization known as INTERPOL, granting the organization full immunity to operate within the United States.

According to Threatswatch:

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order “Amending Executive Order 12425.” It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

What, exactly does this mean?  It means that INTERPOL now has the full authority to conduct investigations and other law enforcement activities on U.S. soil, with full immunity from U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act and with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.

In short, a global law enforcement entity now has full law-enforcement authority in the U.S. without any check on its power afforded by U.S. law and U.S. law enforcement agencies.

A bit of background is in order here, and Hot Air provides it:

During his presidency, Ronald Reagan granted the global police agency Interpol the status of diplomatic personnel in order to engage more constructively on international law enforcement.  In Executive Order 12425, Reagan made two exceptions to that status.  The first had to do with taxation, but the second was to make sure that Interpol had the same accountability for its actions as American law enforcement — namely, they had to produce records when demanded by courts and could not have immunity for their actions.

Barack Obama unexpectedly revoked those exceptions in a change to EO 12425 last (week)…

Thus, Interpol now can conduct its operations on U.S. soil with ZERO accountability to anyone in this country.

And you beginning to understand now just what the ‘end game’ is on the part of those who are currently running the U.S. Government?

Let’s go a step further in fleshing out exactly what this means in practical terms.  It gets ugly…and scary.  Again, from ThreatsWatch:

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.

Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)

Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (“unless such immunity be expressly waived.”)

Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

Why would INTERPOL be arresting American citizens on our own soil, without oversight from our own law enforcement agencies?  And remember, citizens who are thusly arrested would have no legal authority to demand full documentation from the International Police concerning the charges brought against them.

Andy McCarthy at National Review asks these crucial, sobering questions of the secretive Obama order:

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?

At least one answer to these questions is very clear.  A coup is underway in the United States of America, the goal of which is to establish complete, unquestioned authority over the citizens–a ‘fundamental change’ to the United States where citizens have no legal recourse against an authoritarian central government.

I’ve covered this indepth here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here & here

And I also leave you with this from another ealier post:

Congress has for decades been trying to usurp the original intent of the founding fathers of this great nation, further risking our sovereignty & national security. An agenda that Washington warned about in his farewell address:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

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...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…

The Illegality/Un-Constitutionality of Dual Citzenship

First, thanks to the readers for their patience in my non-posting days leading up to Christmas. Yes Christmas has now past, but for those of us who were snowbound and whose 18 wheels must keep rolling to pay the bills,  our holiday gatherings will have to be revisited after the new year has rung in.

Now, back to the business of our Constitution & US citizenship, in which I have had some spirited debates on recently, I bring to you a snippet from Edwin Meese III’s 2005 release of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. I came across this while researching back through Article I in my effort to better understand the commerce clause & the general welfare clause.

It was like fate that the word ‘dual’ jumped out at me while fanning to get to the page I was headed to.

page 111:

Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.

Yet today there are millions of American citizens who are also citizens of other countries. Many are naturalized American citizens whose native countries do not recognize the renunciation of loyalty that their native citizens make in the American citizenship oath. Others are the off-spring of one American parent and one foreign parent, deriving citizenship from both sides, or foreign-born children adopted by American parents. Because the courts now prohibit the government from expatriating those who maintain an active citizenship in a foreign nation (some American citizens have even held public office in other countries), dual citizenship has become a fact of American life, despite statutory law~  Joseph Bassette

 

Meese’s full review of the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution covers the War of 1812 and numerous Supreme Court cases, but let these facts ring loud and clear:

1)  America has never legally recognized dual citizenship, and the framers never intended for a dual national to hold the highest office in the land

2) The American judicial system has over-stepped its bounds and created fictitious laws that they had no authority to do so

3) It is a fact, that as of this day, there is no statutory law allowing for dual citizenship that has ever passed out of the US Congress

Which brings me back to THIS, a list of Congressional aactivities since 1973 to remove the term ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II and replace it with ‘citizen’ as well as Congressional aactivities to change the laws and confer natural born status on all anchor babies that would have been retroactive if passed. They were also ALL Congressional activities that all died in committee because they knew full well the public would not stand for a foreigner to become President.

Oh, wait, they didn’t need the legislation, they only needed a dumbed down public & corrupt election process.

Does it make it law? absolutely not!

Does it make it irreversible? absolutely not!

Will it ever be reversed? I pray for our Nation’s national security & sovereignty that it does.

 

 

Will South Dakota State Reps Join The Movement Now Sweeping Across The Nation

Via CFP:

by Michael Boldin

In response to what some opponents see as a Congress that doesn’t represent their interests, State Legislators are looking to the nearly forgotten American political tradition of nullification  as a way to reject any potential national health  care program that may be coming from Washington.

In 2010, residents of Arizona will be voting on a State Constitutional Amendment  that would let them effectively opt out of any proposed national health care plan.  Legislatures in Florida, Michigan, Ohio  and Pennsylvania  are also considering similar State Constitutional Amendments.

And now, Missouri is joining them. According to a report in The Missourian, “Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O’Fallon, pre-filed a bill Dec. 1 that, if approved by voters, would effectively put a halt on any national health care legislation. Davis said her intent was to give voters a way to protect themselves.”

(snip)

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Early nullification movements began with the Virginia  and Kentucky  Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that the people of the states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds – to the point of ignoring federal laws.

Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

Nullification was regularly called upon by states all over the country in response to everything from higher taxes  to the fugitive slave law of 1850.

Continue here  to read the entire article

The Obama Administration & The ‘Fuller’ Court

If you have not heard it in mainstream media as of yet, you soon should.

On behalf of the Chrysler dealers, who were illegally forced to close their businesses by the Obama administration’s legal hacks, Leo Donofrio & Stephen Pidgeon have been retained  to represent the dealers in 2 upcoming legal actions and the blogosphere is abuzz over the pending litigation. Especially by those who are still loyal to their messiah.

A lot of discussions are being had as to whether or not these new cases will gain traction. I believe they will and this is why.

In all my research, I seem to have missed one very important legal thesis at the Federalsit Society by PA Madison. Not only does Madison dispute every legal theory the left uses to sanitize Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, Madison brings to light just how corrupt the ‘Fuller’ Court was by blatently disreagarding and bypassing US Laws & the US Constitution in many of their decisions:

By P.A. Madison on December 10, 2006

Updated 3/21/09

United States v. Wong Kim Ark is a notable court ruling for its dramatic departure over an earlier holding in the meaning “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” found in Elk v. Wilkins. It is also notable for the majorities insistence that the debates in Congress would not be admissible for controlling the meaning of the words.

Reading the majorities opinion in Wong Kim Ark, one can’t help but wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such obscure and irrelevant historical overviews as colonial and foreign law. With two previous established court decisions that substantially covered the same ground regarding the meaning and application of the words found under the fourteenth amendments citizenship clause, leaves one to wonder what is going on here?

Deeper into the decision, justice Horace Gray (writing for the majority) reveals exactly what the majority is up to: They are attempting to avoid discussion over the construction of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for its language found in the Constitution, Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull. They are also attempting to keep their holding to what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in Elk v. Wilkins out of the discussion, or else Wong Kim Ark can’t be said to be a citizen of the United States.

It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote: “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”

Whatever credibility the court may had at the beginning was soon lost when Gray wrote:

The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment … as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…”

Here the court is assuming what Congress may have intended while also arguing the written debates that could easily disclose this intent is inadmissible as evidence. This has to be one of the most incompetent and feeble rulings ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens would take issue with this inept attempt by the majority to rewrite the Constitution: “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”

Reviewing the intended purpose behind the words of the clause by both Sen. Howard and Sen. Trumbull, who were responsible for the drafting of the citizenship clause, clearly revealed the intended effect of the clause; leavening little doubt to why justice Gray desired to avoid the legislative history of this language. Howard presents a major hurdle for the majority when he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law,” never once making any reference to England’s common law doctrine. Perhaps this is why Gray wasted much of his commentary along common law themes.

An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.

Sen. Trumbull, who was the author of this national law, said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

However, Gray insists Trumbull really meant to grant citizenship to everyone born due only to the fact they were born on American soil. Moreover, if everyone owed allegiance by simply being on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps the true answer is because locality itself was never enough to confer complete allegiance.

Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Trumbull goes on to declare: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Sen. Howard follows up by stating, “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

The Supreme Court had earlier discussed the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause In the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

Even the dissenting minority affirmed that the result of the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the court was specifically asked to address “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held it meant:

The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

In Wong Kim Ark the court reverses itself because the “decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.” But this isn’t the real reason.

The definition for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” handed down in Elk posed a real problem for Wong Kim Ark because Wong’s parents did not owe the United States direct and complete allegiance nor did they possess any political rights. To try and sidestep the judicial meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” found in Elk, Gray attempts to obfuscate the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” found in Elk:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State…

No longer is anyone required to be completely subject to the United States political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. Gray knew he could not come out and repeat what he had said in Elk because then Wong Kim Ark could not had been found to had been born a citizen of the United States because his parents were not “completely subject to their [United States] political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Instead, they were merely subjects of China residing in California unable to become U.S. citizens by treaty.

When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

Well now, the issue was not citizenship being withheld on account of the 14th Amendment to American citizens, and had the court bothered to consider the history of the amendment, they would have easily discovered it was all about granting citizenship as established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child. The idea of withholding citizenship upon birth to subjects of other countries who owed this country no direct allegiance was, well, the desired result of declaring who is, and who isn’t, a citizen of the United States.

The court in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) acknowledged that some, not all, but some authorities go as far to “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [born to American citizens].”

It was these kind of doubts Howard desired to settle through constitutional amendment. Sen. Howard said of the amendment: “It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.” This was needed to prevent rebel States from refusing to recognize former slaves (now citizens) as citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth’s first section (privileges and immunities).

Furthermore, these former slaves could be said to had no political attachment to any other country – meaning they did not owe “allegiance to anybody else.” To add additional insult, the court says: “Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” Yet, the court refused to recognize the fact the United States had done just that through its revised statutes and Constitution.

The most significant truth to come out of the entire Wong Kim Ark ruling comes from Chief Justice Fuller himself when he said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” He was absolutely correct.

Only reason the language of the Fourteenth differs from the civil rights bill of 1866, which used the language “and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” to restrict citizenship, is because Sen. Howard feared a State could begin taxing Indians, thereby making them eligible for citizenship. Because Indians, and other classes of foreigners whom Congress and the States desired to withhold citizenship from, owed allegiance to a foreign power (Indian tribes were considered independent nations), the Fourteenth would become just as restrictive against Indians by demanding full jurisdiction on part of the United States as with any other class of foreigners.

It is worth mentioning that it was the U.S. government who argued Wong Kim Ark was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Obviously, the Federal Government had no difficulty in understanding the words of its own revised statutes or constitutional amendment.

For the majority to have been correct with their conclusion they would have to demonstrate how it was possible the States and Federal Government retained England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine. This “natural allegiance” was something most everyone despised and hated. Fuller argued this “rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.”

There is also a disturbing ethical aspect of Wong Kim Ark in terms of the majorities’ apparent willingness to place themselves unethically above both facts and the supreme law of the land. The United States by treaty with China was prevented from admitting Chinese subjects to citizenship. This treaty was ratified by the same senators who had adopted both Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Furthermore, the court was also prohibited under 22 Stat. §14 to admit subjects of China to U.S. citizenship, “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.” The court thought it could get around that by saying Wong Kim Ark was born a citizen of the United States per the Constitution by sweeping the holding in Elk under the carpet.

The Fuller court was no stranger to criticism or controversy when it came to interpreting law or the Constitution. For example, in the cases of Brooks vs. Codman, and Foote v. Women’s Board of Missions the question was who should get the money appropriated as indemnity for spoliations of William Gray’s (Justice Gray’s grandfather) ships? Codman was the administrator of William Gray’s estate and under a 1891 law payments could only go to “creditors, legatees, assignees or strangers to the blood.”

What did the court do? They did just as they had done in Wong Kim Ark; they simply said forget what the law says because we say payments should go to the “next of kin,” i.e., Justice Horace Gray.

Conclusion

Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause – and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings – leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny the acts of Congress in order to maintain England’s old feudal common law doctrine while rendering unethical and legally unsound rulings.

In the decision, the court again refers to foreign precedent instead of US Laws:

In the construction of wills and settlements, after considerable conflict of opinion, the established rule of interpretation in England is that the phrase ‘next of kin,’ when found in ulterior limitations, must be understood to mean ‘nearest of kin,’ without regard to the statutes of distribution…What little recent authority there is beyond that of the English courts supports the English view; and, on the whole, we are inclined to adopt it.

So, instead of going to law that was adopted by the US Congress, who is the body who has the authority to write and pass the law, the Fuller Court took it upon itself to overturn Congress and rewrite the law for the benefit of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

You can read the entire Fuller Court decision here. It is lengthy & delves well beyond the scope of US laws adopted by Congress as well as the US Constitution just as the WKA decision does regarding the 14th Amendment & US Naturalization laws passed by Congress.

Breaking: Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Child Porn in the Classroom– Kevin Jennings and the GLSEN Reading List

I am so glad that the grandchildren are now home schooled, but it still does not totally eliminate the possibility of government intrusion into what content the parents may exclude from the curriculum.
 
This is a MUST read with follow-up calls to all our reps in DC. This rogue administration must be stopped and all the commie czars must be thrown back to the cesspool of corruption from whence they came.
 
Via FirstThings  aka former GatewayPundit:

excerpt:

Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily becausehe had founded and led GLSEN (scroll for bio).

(snip)

Through GLSEN’s online ordering system, called “GLSEN BookLink,” featured prominently on their Web site, teachers can buy the books to use as required classroom assignments, or students can buy them to read on their own.According to GLSEN’s own press releases from the period during which its recommended reading list was developed, the organization’s three areas of focus were creating “educational resources, public policy agenda, [and] student organizing programs”; in other words, the reading list (chief among its “educational resources”) was of prime importance in GLSEN’s efforts to influence the American educational system.

The list is divided into three main categories: books recommended for grades K-6; books recommended for grades 7-12; and books for teachers. (The books on the list span all genres: fiction, nonfiction, memoirs, even poetry.)

Out of curiosity to see exactly what kind of books Kevin Jennings and his organization think American students should be reading in school, our team chose a handful at random from the over 100 titles on GLSEN’s grades 7-12 list, and began reading through.

What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless.

We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.

Continue here  for the complete disgusting breakdown of the Obama appointed & approved Safe Schools Czar’s agenda of what US Children are now to be taught in the classroom.

“God Doesn’t Drive Parked Cars”

I finally received my copy of ‘Going Rogue” and have managed to begin reading it during breaks from my Christmas gift sewing. Then today my Limbaugh letter arrived and I have to say, it was one I couldn’t put down til the end because it was almost totally dedicated to Limbaugh’s interview of Sarah.

At the closing of the interview, Rush asks Sarah about her quote, “God doesn’t drive parked cars”. What a curious quote this was, so to the answer I immediately went. Here is my paraphrase of Sarah’s explanation of the meaning.

You’ve got to get out there if you want try try to effect change. Make the effort, work hard and throughout the day, do what you believe is the right thing to do. Then put it in His hands because in the end, it is He that is in charge. He has got the whole world in His hands and He doesn’t drive parked cars.

Sarah will be at the Sioux Falls Barnes & Nobles this Saturday Sunday. Best wishes to all those planning to attend and drop me a note of your experience if you wish.

Blogging will also continue to be light until after Christmas unless Congress goes overtly rogue during the next 2 weeks.

Merry Christmas & may God’s Grace & Peace be with you during this joyous season.

Jefferson’s ‘Quran & The Killing & Enslaving of Americans By Islamic Radicals in 1785

Before we get into today’s lesson on the TRUE account of history as to why Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the ‘Quran in his library, I want to take a brief moment & urge all of my readers to contact their members of the US Senate and urge them to stand with Lieberman in calling for hearings on the terrorist act that has now left 14 dead at Ft Hood.

Sen. Thune is on the Armed Forces Personnel committee, so please do as I did this morning and call: 1-866-850-3855 and urge him to call for the immediate review of the Armed Forces recruiting methods and personnel reviews before any/all promotions, especially of those who are currently practicing Islam and the teachings of the ‘Quran, are approved. The time of ‘Political Correctness’ must come to a ‘HALT NOW’!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How Thomas Jefferson & the early American military were able to defeat the “mujahiddin”: Muslims who proclaim themselves warriors for the faith. Its Arabic singular, mujahid, was not an uncommon personal name from the early Islamic period onward. However, the term did not gain popular currency as a collective or plural noun referring to “holy warriors” until the 18th century in India, where it became associated with Muslim revivalism.

From Joseph Farah, 2004: No More Appeasement

Most Americans probably think the Islamic terrorists declared war on the United States Sept. 11, 2001.

Actually, it started a long time before – right from the birth of the nation.

In 1784, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were commissioned by the first Congress to assemble in Paris to see about marketing U.S. products in Europe.

Jefferson quickly surmised that the biggest challenge facing U.S. merchant ships were those referred to euphemistically as “Barbary pirates.”

They weren’t “pirates” at all, in the traditional sense, Jefferson noticed. They didn’t drink and chase women and they really weren’t out to strike it rich. Instead, their motivation was strictly religious. They bought and sold slaves, to be sure. They looted ships. But they used their booty to buy guns, ships, cannon and ammunition.

Like those we call “terrorists” today, they saw themselves engaged in jihad and called themselves “mujahiddin.”

Why did these 18th-century terrorists represent such a grave threat to U.S. merchant ships? With independence from Great Britain, the former colonists lost the protection of the greatest navy in the world. The U.S. had no navy – not a single warship.

Jefferson inquired of his European hosts how they dealt with the problem. He was stunned to find out that France and England both paid tribute to the fiends – who would, in turn, use the money to expand their own armada, buy more weaponry, hijack more commercial ships, enslave more innocent civilians and demand greater ransom.

This didn’t make sense to Jefferson. He recognized the purchase of peace from the Muslims only worked temporarily. They would always find an excuse to break an agreement, blame the Europeans and demand higher tribute.

After three months researching the history of militant Islam, he came up with a very different policy to deal with the terrorists. But he didn’t get to implement until years later.

As the first secretary of state, Jefferson urged the building of a navy to rescue American hostages held in North Africa and to deter future attacks on U.S. ships. In 1792, he commissioned John Paul Jones to go to Algiers under the guise of diplomatic negotiations, but with the real intent of sizing up a future target of a naval attack.

Jefferson was ready to retire a year later when what could only be described as “America’s first Sept. 11″ happened.

America was struck with its first mega-terror attack by jihadists. In the fall of 1793, the Algerians seized 11 U.S. merchant ships and enslaved more than 100 Americans.

When word of the attack reached New York, the stock market crashed. Voyages were canceled in every major port. Seamen were thrown out of work. Ship suppliers went out of business. What Sept. 11 did to the U.S. economy in 2001, the mass shipjacking of 1793 did to the fledgling U.S. economy in that year.

Accordingly, it took the U.S. Congress only four months to decide to build a fleet of warships.

But even then, Congress didn’t choose war, as Jefferson prescribed. Instead, while building what would become the U.S. Navy, Congress sent diplomats to reason with the Algerians. The U.S. ended up paying close to $1 million and giving the pasha of Algiers a new warship, “The Crescent,” to win release of 85 surviving American hostages.

It wasn’t until 1801, under the presidency of Jefferson, that the U.S. engaged in what became a four-year war against Tripoli. And it wasn’t until 1830, when France occupied Algiers, and later Tunisia and Morocco, that the terrorism on the high seas finally ended.

France didn’t leave North Africa until 1962 – and it quickly became a major base of terrorism once again.

What’s the moral of the story? Appeasement never works. Jefferson saw it. Sept. 11 was hardly the beginning. The war in which we fight today is the longest conflict in human history. It’s time to learn from history, not repeat its mistakes.

From Christopher Hitchens, published in the Spring 2007 issue of ‘CITY’ magazine: Jefferson versus the Muslim Pirates 

America’s first confrontation with the Islamic world helped forge a new nation’s character.

When I first began to plan my short biography of Thomas Jefferson, I found it difficult to research the chapter concerning the so-called Barbary Wars: an event or series of events that had seemingly receded over the lost horizon of American history. Henry Adams, in his discussion of our third president, had some boyhood reminiscences of the widespread hero-worship of naval officer Stephen Decatur, and other fragments and shards showed up in other quarries, but a sound general history of the subject was hard to come by. When I asked a professional military historian—a man with direct access to Defense Department archives—if there was any book that he could recommend, he came back with a slight shrug.

But now the curious reader may choose from a freshet of writing on the subject. Added to my own shelf in the recent past have been The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World, by Frank Lambert (2005); Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror 1801–1805, by Joseph Wheelan (2003); To the Shores of Tripoli: The Birth of the U.S. Navy and Marines, by A. B. C. Whipple (1991, republished 2001); and Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation, by Joshua E. London (2005). Most recently, in his new general history, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, the Israeli scholar Michael Oren opens with a long chapter on the Barbary conflict. As some of the subtitles—and some of the dates of publication—make plain, this new interest is largely occasioned by America’s latest round of confrontation in the Middle East, or the Arab sphere or Muslim world, if you prefer those expressions.

In a way, I am glad that I did not have the initial benefit of all this research. My quest sent me to some less obvious secondary sources, in particular to Linda Colley’s excellent book Captives, which shows the reaction of the English and American publics to a slave trade of which they were victims rather than perpetrators. How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780? We dimly recall that Miguel de Cervantes was briefly in the galleys. But what of the people of the town of Baltimore in Ireland, all carried off by “corsair” raiders in a single night?

Some of this activity was hostage trading and ransom farming rather than the more labor-intensive horror of the Atlantic trade and the Middle Passage, but it exerted a huge effect on the imagination of the time—and probably on no one more than on Thomas Jefferson. Peering at the paragraph denouncing the American slave trade in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, later excised, I noticed for the first time that it sarcastically condemned “the Christian King of Great Britain” for engaging in “this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers.” The allusion to Barbary practice seemed inescapable.

One immediate effect of the American Revolution, however, was to strengthen the hand of those very same North African potentates: roughly speaking, the Maghrebian provinces of the Ottoman Empire that conform to today’s Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. Deprived of Royal Navy protection, American shipping became even more subject than before to the depredations of those who controlled the Strait of Gibraltar. The infant United States had therefore to decide not just upon a question of national honor but upon whether it would stand or fall by free navigation of the seas.

One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or “tyranny,” let alone “terrorism.” He resists any comparison with today’s tormenting confrontations. “The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology,” he writes. “Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of America’s War of Independence.”

Let us not call this view reductionist. Jefferson would perhaps have been just as eager to send a squadron to put down any Christian piracy that was restraining commerce. But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)

Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman did not fail to mention the size of his own commission, if America chose to pay the protection money demanded as an alternative to piracy. So here was an early instance of the “heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma, in which the United States is faced with corrupt regimes, on the one hand, and Islamic militants, on the other—or indeed a collusion between them.

It seems likely that Jefferson decided from that moment on that he would make war upon the Barbary kingdoms as soon as he commanded American forces. His two least favorite institutions—enthroned monarchy and state-sponsored religion—were embodied in one target, and it may even be that his famous ambivalences about slavery were resolved somewhat when he saw it practiced by the Muslims.

However that may be, it is certain that the Barbary question had considerable influence on the debate that ratified the United States Constitution in the succeeding years. Many a delegate, urging his home state to endorse the new document, argued that only a strong federal union could repel the Algerian threat. In The Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton argued that without a “federal navy . . . of respectable weight . . . the genius of American Merchants and Navigators would be stifled and lost.” In No. 41, James Madison insisted that only union could guard America’s maritime capacity from “the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians.” John Jay, in his letters, took a “bring-it-on” approach; he believed that “Algerian Corsairs and the Pirates of Tunis and Tripoli” would compel the feeble American states to unite, since “the more we are ill-treated abroad the more we shall unite and consolidate at home.” The eventual Constitution, which provides for an army only at two-year renewable intervals, imposes no such limitation on the navy.

Thus, Lambert may be limiting himself in viewing the Barbary conflict primarily through the lens of free trade. Questions of nation-building, of regime change, of “mission creep,” of congressional versus presidential authority to make war, of negotiation versus confrontation, of “entangling alliances,” and of the “clash of civilizations”—all arose in the first overseas war that the United States ever fought. The “nation-building” that occurred, however, took place not overseas but in the 13 colonies, welded by warfare into something more like a republic.

There were many Americans—John Adams among them—who made the case that it was better policy to pay the tribute. It was cheaper than the loss of trade, for one thing, and a battle against the pirates would be “too rugged for our people to bear.” Putting the matter starkly, Adams said: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”

The cruelty, exorbitance, and intransigence of the Barbary states, however, would decide things. The level of tribute demanded began to reach 10 percent of the American national budget, with no guarantee that greed would not increase that percentage, while from the dungeons of Algiers and Tripoli came appalling reports of the mistreatment of captured men and women. Gradually, and to the accompaniment of some of the worst patriotic verse ever written, public opinion began to harden in favor of war. From Jefferson’s perspective, it was a good thing that this mood shift took place during the Adams administration, when he was out of office and temporarily “retired” to Monticello. He could thus criticize federal centralization of power, from a distance, even as he watched the construction of a fleet—and the forging of a permanent Marine Corps—that he could one day use for his own ends.

At one point, Jefferson hoped that John Paul Jones, naval hero of the Revolution, might assume command of a squadron that would strike fear into the Barbary pirates. While ambassador in Paris, Jefferson had secured Jones a commission with Empress Catherine of Russia, who used him in the Black Sea to harry the Ottomans, the ultimate authority over Barbary. But Jones died before realizing his dream of going to the source and attacking Constantinople. The task of ordering war fell to Jefferson.

Michael Oren thinks that he made the decision reluctantly, finally forced into it by the arrogant behavior of Tripoli, which seized two American brigs and set off a chain reaction of fresh demands from other Barbary states. I believe—because of the encounter with the insufferable Abd Al-Rahman and because of his long engagement with Jones—that Jefferson had long sought a pretext for war. His problem was his own party and the clause in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war. With not atypical subtlety, Jefferson took a shortcut through this thicket in 1801 and sent the navy to North Africa on patrol, as it were, with instructions to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them. Our third president did not inform Congress of his authorization of this mission until the fleet was too far away to recall.

Once again, Barbary obstinacy tipped the scale. Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli, declared war on the United States in May 1801, in pursuit of his demand for more revenue. This earned him a heavy bombardment of Tripoli and the crippling of one of his most important ships. But the force of example was plainly not sufficient. In the altered mood that prevailed after the encouraging start in Tripoli, Congress passed an enabling act in February 1802 that, in its provision for a permanent Mediterranean presence and its language about the “Tripolitan Corsairs,” amounted to a declaration of war. The Barbary regimes continued to underestimate their new enemy, with Morocco declaring war in its turn and the others increasing their blackmail.

A complete disaster—Tripoli’s capture of the new U.S. frigate Philadelphia—became a sort of triumph, thanks to Edward Preble and Stephen Decatur, who mounted a daring raid on Tripoli’s harbor and blew up the captured ship, while inflicting heavy damage on the city’s defenses. Now there were names—Preble and Decatur—for newspapers back home to trumpet as heroes. Nor did their courage draw notice only in America. Admiral Lord Nelson himself called the raid “the most bold and daring act of the age,” and Pope Pius VII declared that the United States “had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages.” (In his nostalgia for Lepanto, perhaps, His Holiness was evidently unaware that the Treaty of Tripoli, which in 1797 had attempted to formalize the dues that America would pay for access to the Mediterranean, stated in its preamble that the United States had no quarrel with the Muslim religion and was in no sense a Christian country. Of course, those secularists like myself who like to cite this treaty must concede that its conciliatory language was part of America’s attempt to come to terms with Barbary demands.)

Watching all this with a jaundiced eye was the American consul in Tunis, William Eaton. For him, behavior modification was not a sufficient policy; regime change was needed. And he had a candidate. On acceding to the throne in Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli had secured his position by murdering one brother and exiling another. Eaton befriended this exiled brother, Hamid, and argued that he should become the American nominee for Tripoli’s crown. This proposal wasn’t received with enthusiasm in Washington, but Eaton pursued it with commendable zeal. He exhibited the downside that often goes with such quixotic bravery: railing against treasury secretary Albert Gallatin as a “cowardly Jew,” for example, and alluding to President Jefferson with contempt. He ended up a supporter of Aaron Burr’s freebooting secessionist conspiracy.

His actions in 1805, however, belong in the annals of derring-do, almost warranting the frequent comparison made with T. E. Lawrence’s exploits in Arabia. With a small detachment of marines, headed by Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon, and a force of irregulars inevitably described by historians as “motley,” Eaton crossed the desert from Egypt and came at Tripoli—as Lawrence had come at Aqaba—from the land and not from the sea. The attack proved a total surprise. The city of Darna surrendered its far larger garrison, and Karamanli’s forces were heavily engaged, when news came that Jefferson and Karamanli had reached an understanding that could end the war. The terms weren’t too shabby, involving the release of the Philadelphia’s crew and a final settlement of the tribute question. And Jefferson took care to stress that Eaton had played a part in bringing it about.

This graciousness did not prevent Eaton from denouncing the deal as a sellout. The caravan moved on, though, as the other Barbary states gradually followed Tripoli’s lead and came to terms. Remember, too, that this was the year of the Battle of Trafalgar. Lord Nelson was not the only European to notice that a new power had arrived in Mediterranean waters. Francis Scott Key composed a patriotic song to mark the occasion. As I learned from Joshua London’s excellent book, the original verses ran (in part):

In conflict resistless each toil they endur’d,
Till their foes shrunk dismay’d from the war’s desolation:
And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscur’d
By the light of the star-bangled flag of our nation.
Where each flaming star gleamed a meteor of war,
And the turban’d head bowed to the terrible glare.
Then mixt with the olive the laurel shall wave
And form a bright wreath for the brow of the brave.

The song was part of the bad-verse epidemic. But brushed up and revised a little for the War of 1812, and set to the same music, it has enjoyed considerable success since. So has the Marine Corps anthem, which begins: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.” It’s no exaggeration to describe the psychological fallout of this first war as formative of the still-inchoate American character.

There is of course another connection between 1805 and 1812. Renewed hostilities with Britain on the high seas and on the American mainland, which did not terminate until the Battle of New Orleans, might have ended less conclusively had the United States not developed a battle-hardened naval force in the long attrition on the North African coast.

The Barbary states sought to exploit Anglo-American hostilities by resuming their depredations and renewing their demands for blood money. So in 1815, after a brief interval of recovery from the war with Britain, President Madison asked Congress for permission to dispatch Decatur once again to North Africa, seeking a permanent settling of accounts. This time, the main offender was the dey of Algiers, Omar Pasha, who saw his fleet splintered and his grand harbor filled with heavily armed American ships. Algiers had to pay compensation, release all hostages, and promise not to offend again. President Madison’s words on this occasion could scarcely be bettered: “It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none.” (The expression “the United States is” did not come into usage until after Gettysburg.)

Oren notes that the stupendous expense of this long series of wars was a partial vindication of John Adams’s warning. However, there are less quantifiable factors to consider. The most obvious is commerce. American trade in the Mediterranean increased enormously in the years after the settlement with Algiers, and America’s ability to extend its trade and project its forces into other areas, such as the Caribbean and South America, was greatly enhanced. Then we should attend to what Linda Colley says on the subject of slavery. Campaigns against the seizure of hostages by Muslim powers, and their exploitation as forced labor, fired up many a church congregation in Britain and America and fueled many a press campaign. But even the dullest soul could regard the continued triangular Atlantic slave trade between Africa, England, and the Americas and perceive the double standard at work. Thus, the struggle against Barbary may have helped to force some of the early shoots of abolitionism.

Perhaps above all, though, the Barbary Wars gave Americans an inkling of the fact that they were, and always would be, bound up with global affairs. Providence might have seemed to grant them a haven guarded by two oceans, but if they wanted to be anything more than the Chile of North America—a long littoral ribbon caught between the mountains and the sea—they would have to prepare for a maritime struggle as well as a campaign to redeem the unexplored landmass to their west. The U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean squadron has, in one form or another, been on patrol ever since.

And then, finally, there is principle. It would be simplistic to say that something innate in America made it incompatible with slavery and tyranny. But would it be too much to claim that many Americans saw a radical incompatibility between the Barbary system and their own? And is it not pleasant when the interests of free trade and human emancipation can coincide? I would close with a few staves of Kipling, whose poem “Dane-Geld” is a finer effort than anything managed by Francis Scott Key:

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbor and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

Kipling runs briskly through the stages of humiliation undergone by any power that falls for this appeasement, and concludes:

It is wrong to put temptation in the pathof any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

It may be fortunate that the United States had to pass this test, and imbibe this lesson, so early in its life as a nation.

Embracing Radical Islamic Ideology…The Story Of Obama’s Connection to Hasan & His Muslim Roots

obama_muslim_garb

Originally reported on 7-2-2008 at “gunboards“:

Can the United States of America sober up from its Obama intoxication to question Obama’s categorical claim that he NEVER practiced Islam?

What has happened to the healthy skepticism once the hallmark of American journalism? Like the Pastor Wright issue, this matter of Obama’s claim to never practicing Islam has not been properly aired by the press, save Paul Watson and The Los Angeles Times.

Thus, the questions beg to be finally answered by Obama ‘HIMSELF’:

Why would you, as a college student from Occidental college in Los Angeles, California, visit two hot bed cities of fundamentalist Islamic doctrine in 1981 unless the you embraced radical Islamic ideology?

Why did you not spend that time with your mother in Djakarta, rather than in Karachi and Hyderabad cavorting with the radical Hasan (Chandoo) brothers who enjoy western vices, but support radical political causes?

The following facts that were discovered from Barack Obama’s previously unrevealed trip to Karachi, Pakistan and Hyderabad, India in the Summer of 1981 in the “private” San Francisco fundraiser of early April 2008 that gave rise to the “Bittergate” controversy exposed on the Huffington Post and Hannity & Colmes, among others.

According to the report of Larry Rohter of April 10, 2008, in The New York Times, the Obama campaign staff, when questioned about the revelation of Obama’s 1981 trip to Karachi, stated:

Mr. Obama visited Pakistan in 1981, on the way back from Indonesia, where his mother and half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, were living. Obama spent ‘about three weeks’ there“, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton, said, “staying in Karachi with the family of a college friend, Mohammed Hasan (Chandoo), but also traveling to Hyderabad, in India.”

That information is significant for two reasons. First and foremost is the fact that Mohammed Hasan (Chandoo) is a radical Muslim who with his relatives operate a website that is anti-Semitic and anti-American and supports radical Islamic politics.

The full expose’ can be read HERE

INTERESTINGLY, THE “CHANDOO.COM” WEBSITE, THAT WAS AVAILABLE JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO, HAS NOW BEEN DISABLED AND THREATENS THAT ANY E-MAILS OF DEFAMATION OF ISLAM WILL BE REPORTED TO THE FBI AS WELL AS THE DOJ & WILL BE PROSECUTED. THEY ARE ALSO COLLECTING IP ADDRESSES OF ALL VISITORS TO THE SITE, SO SUFER BEWARE!

HMMMM..MORE INTENTIONAL SCRUBBING WITH THREATS. WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?

And then we have this re-visit to Atlas Shrugs that helps to connect even more of the dots:

Key Witness in Presidential Passport Tampering Case Murdered in 2008, No Arrests

The connections run very deep…it is a MUST read.

The U.S. Constitution Does “NOT” Authorize Congress To Force Americans To Buy Health Insurance

Being under the weather and feeling the pressure of supplying new material here at ConstitutionallySpeaking along with the pressure I am now feeling of getting everything on my Christmas list completed as I am also a quilter & seamstress, it helps when an article such as this comes along. Thanks to Publius Huldah of Canada Free Press  for all your hard work and due diligence in compiling this for us.

I now CHALLENGE ALL my readers to copy and send this to ALL your US Senators & Reps in DC as well as your state Senators & Reps.

Constitution‘General Welfare’ Clause: Defending The Constitution From It’s Domestic Enemies.

By Publius Huldah  Friday, October 23, 2009

CNSNews.com recently posted an article, “Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance”.  In the article, Steny Hoyer(Democrat House Majority Leader) said Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase health insurance, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare”.

Oh my!  Does Steny Hoyer not know that his view was thoroughly examined and soundly rejected by our Founders?

The Truth is that Congress is NOT authorized to pass laws just because a majority in Congress say the laws promote the “general welfare”!  As shown below, James Madison, Father of The Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton, author of most of The Federalist Papers, expressly said The Constitution does not give a general grant of legislative authority to Congress! Rather, ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers  only. If a power isn’t specifically granted to Congress in The Constitution, Congress doesn’t have the power. It really is that easy – and our beloved Madison and Hamilton prove it.

1. Let us look at the so-called “general welfare” clause:  Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…

Immediately thereafter, follows an enumeration of some 15 specific powers which are delegated to Congress. If you will spend 20 minutes carefully reading through the entire Constitution and highlighting the powers delegated to Congress, you will find (depending upon how you count) that only some 21 specific powers were delegated to Congress. This is what is meant when it is said that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers!

2. But Steny Hoyer and his gang of statists claim that the “general welfare” clause is a blank check which gives them power to pass any law they want which they say promotes the “general welfare”. Further, they claim the power to FORCE their view of such on us.

3. Let us analyze this. Since words change meaning throughout time [200 years ago, “nice” meant “precise”], we must learn what the word, “welfare”, meant when the Constitution was ratified. “Welfare”, as used in Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1, meant:

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil govern-ment (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).

But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief—on welfare.  Dependent on public relief”. Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for original meanings?  Or when the words of The Constitution are treated as if they have no meaning at all except that which the statists assign to them?

4. Both Madison and Hamilton squarely addressed and expressly rejected the notion that the “general welfare” clause constitutes a general grant of power to Congress. In Federalist No. 41  (last 4 paras), Madison denounced as an “absurd” “misconstruction” the notion that

…the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare….

In refuting this “misconstruction”, Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. Madison also said:

…Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…

Madison was emphatic: He said it was “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; and to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” to provide for “the common defense and general welfare”, is “an absurdity”.

In Federalist No. 83  (7th para), Hamilton said:

…The plan of the [constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended… [italics added]

5. And what else did Madison and Hamilton say about the “enumerated” powers of the federal government?  In Federalist No. 45  (9th para), Madison said:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…[emphasis added]

Madison said it again in Federalist No. 39  (3rd para from end):

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects….” [emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 14  (8th para), Madison said:

… the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...[emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 27  (last para), Hamilton said:

…It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…[caps in original]

6. Now, let’s look at the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, we can understand the true meaning of the “general welfare” clause: OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society and civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited and restricted in what it was given power to do!

7. So!  How did we get to the point where the federal government claims the power to regulate every aspect of our lives, including forcing us to buy health insurance? Consider Prohibition:  During 1919, everyone understood that the Constitution did not give Congress authority to simply “pass a law” banning alcoholic beverages!  So the Constitution was amended to prohibit alcoholic beverages, and to authorize Congress to make laws to enforce the prohibition (18th Amdt.).

But with Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the federal government abandoned our Constitution:  FDR proposed “New Deal” schemes; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court opined (generally 5 to 4) that “New Deal” programs were unconstitutional as outside the powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving New Deal programs (generally 5 to 4).

Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach Supreme Court opinions which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that the “general welfare” clause, along with the “interstate commerce” and the “necessary and proper” clauses, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

Roger Pilon  of the Cato Institute nailed it in his recent post on Politico.com:

Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don’t? Absolutely—if we lived under the Constitution. But we don’t. Today we live under something called “constitutional law”—an accumulation of 220 years of Supreme Court opinions—and that “law” reflects the Constitution only occasionally.

Now you see how the statists justify the totalitarian dictatorship they are attempting to foist upon the American People.  The statists and the brainwashed products of our law schools go by U.S. Supreme Court opinions which reject Our Constitution!(But Publius Huldah goes by The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers).

8. But is the Supreme Court the ultimate authority on the meaning of our Constitution? NO!  Hamilton said the people are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, and he called upon us to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (Federalist No.16,  next to last para). Madison (or Hamilton) said that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “..the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance” (Federalist No. 49,  3rd Para).

Folks! Your duty is clear:  Study The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Federalist Papers. Live up to the expectations of Hamilton and Madison; and throw off the chains which the usurpers are forging for you and Our Posterity.

My reply to Senator Johnson. I am still waiting for one from a similar letter sent a few weeks ago now that also pointed out the Federalist Papers, the Framers & early SCOTUS decisions.

Dear Senator Johnson,

I am still waiting for that reply to my previous constitutional questions sent to you regarding all the unconstitutional legislation that you and those on the left in Congress are trying to shove down our throats.

And while I do respect the office you serve, I can not and will not support your actions since getting re-elected and the following is why.

Please dear Sir, take some time to reflect on your position as a “PUBLIC SERVANT” to those whom you represent and the limitations of your office. You are treading on treacherous ground and ‘We the People’ are tired of you turning your back on us.

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part II: Shocked, Outraged or Ambivalent?

What would your reaction be if you heard that Congress was set in 2007 to bestow ‘natural born’ citizenship on ALL anchor babies through their Immigration Reform legislation. (110th Congress) S. 1348

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if you heard that Congress was moving to change Immigration & Naturalization laws so the every child born overseas to 1 citizen parent & 1 foreign parent would forever be deemed a ‘natural born’ citizen. (101st Congress) H.R. 1380, (99th Congress) H.R. 2535,

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if Congress had a bill waiting to come out of committee in February of 2008 that would change the citizenship laws of all children born to US parents serving in the military abroad(off US & US Territory soil) so that those children would now become natural born citizen at birth, but instead of following through with it, Congress sets the bill aside and passes a public resolution that holds one former military personnel’s citizenship in higher regard than all the others that are currently serving as if this person had some supremacy over the others. S. 2678

Shocked, Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if there was evidence of a bill introduced to Congress in 2004 to specifically change the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ from what the Framers meant it to be at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. S. 2128

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What would your reaction be if you heard that there have been numerous attempts to remove the words ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II of the constitution in regards to Presidential qualifications so that ALL anchor babies could someday become President, regardless if their parents are still here illegally? (93rd Congress)HJ Res 325, HJ Res 880, HJ Res 890, HJ Res 896, HJ Res 993, HJ Res 1051, (94th Congress) HJ Res 33, HJ Res 86 (95th Congress) HJ Res 38 (106th Congress) HJ Res 88 (108th Congress) HJ Res 59, HJ Res 67, HJ Res 104 (109th Congress) HJ Res 2,HJ Res 15, HJ Res 42 

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

And what if ALL these prior efforts were retroactive to ALL children born, that are alive today in the US and abroad.

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

Of all these permanently recorded Congressional proposals, the ones that give us more in-depth testimony/summary are H.R. 1380, H.J. Res. 88, S. 2128, S. 1348 & S. 2678.

H.R. 1380 was a bill to amend the Immigration & Nationality Act to grant US national & ‘natural born’ citizen status to certain persons born outside the United States. Alexander’s bill would have granted a child born with dual nationality ‘natural born’ citizenship status and it also addressed the issue of children born to US military personnel overseas. Summing up the bill, Alexander said: 

“My bill would also insert the term ‘natural born’ into section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, thus clearing up any question as to whether a child born abroad as an American citizen qualifies under the Constitution to run for President when he or she grows up.” 

Kennedy’s aka ‘Fast Eddie’s’ bill, S. 1348, went a bit further and it was quite clever of him to slip those 2 little yet powerful words ‘natural born’ into the bill. Reading the summary was quite laughable. This is where Kennedy tries to claim that children(anchor babies) born to nonimmigrant illegal aliens are ‘natural born’, however he does not stop there, he goes on to call adopted children of nonimmigrant illegal aliens as natural born once the aliens acquired the new Z-visa that would have been created by the immigration reform act. 

In 2000, Rep. Barney, I can’t “Frank”ly understand why Ma. keeps reelecting him, introduced H.J. Res. 88, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for Office of the President a person who has been a citizen for twenty years. This is the 1st bill introduced where we have extensive testimony on the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ before the Subcommittee of the Constitution because Barney does [n]ot favor putting obstacles on the ability of the people to choose who they wish] to elect. 

Mr. Candy who is chairing the subcommittee opens by stating: 

“The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.” 

And Mr. Candy is quite right. The qualification was put in place specifically for national security & sovereignty reasons. It was put in place to protect the citizens of the newly formed Republic from ever becoming ‘subjects’ to foreign sovereigns or an all powerful central Monarchy. Mr. Candy has done his homework and thus is the reason I believe that this never made it out of committee. However, let’s review a bit more testimony. 

We shall start with the testimony from an immigrant, Balint Vazsonyi, of the Center for American Founding who immigrated in 1959. 

“The Constitution, which created a country unlike any other, also brought forth a Nation populated by people who are unlike any other. It is as if an umbrella had been erected over this country inviting all the people of the world to come here and become something else than they were in the moment of arrival…Indeed, Americans are different. I noticed this soon after I had arrived in this country 41 years ago. I daresay, I have spent a great deal of my life trying to understand, first of all, in what way Americans are different and why, but the fact remains that they are…So when the framers of the Constitution made this provision, perhaps they were already aware of the fact, as indeed perhaps instinctively or through inspiration they were aware of so many other things, that already then Americans were different because they did something nobody else had done before them…One of the best examples of that is precisely Congressman Frank’s resolution. It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency…I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust—to be able to run for President is not a right. It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution. 

Continuing on about foreign influences & national security, Vazsonyi states: 

“I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for…Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with…The question of foreign influence has already been discussed. I would just like to add that having grown up in Hungary, I would find it very difficult to make decisions—not so much affecting Hungarians, but those toward whom Hungarians hold an animus. What if somebody of a certain birth would have to just express an opinion about immigration quotas from a country with which the native land had been at odds? This is just a tiny example. Of course, the matter of being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is much more important…To say that the world is a more peaceful place today is a very temporary condition. It can turn into something else tomorrow or the day after. The constitutional provisions are not there to serve this week or next week. They have served this country for over 200 years, and I hope and we all hope that they will continue to do so…So I would like to conclude with a general comment on constitutional amendments. I believe they are rarely necessary, hardly ever justified, and perhaps entirely untimely right now, when Americans seem to be considering even the very nature of this country, whether it is a Republic or a democracy. Therefore, with due respect to the proposal, I would like to cast a vote for rejecting it. 

In the Vazsonyi’s written testimony turned over to the committee, Vazsonyi further address the importance of the ‘natural born’ qualification in regards to foreign influences and national security: 

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were mindful in the extreme of foreign influences, and the dangers therefrom to the Republic. While experience has shown that a native-born Chief Executive is not necessarily immune to foreign influence, the odds are certainly more favorable if the president is an American plain and simple, who has never been, and is not at the time of taking office, anything else…Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to ”take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Mr. Chairman, it is an incontrovertible fact that the inhabitants of most countries are not only unfamiliar with what we call the Rule of Law, but find the concept virtually incomprehensible. Again, it is a miracle that so many immigrants are able to operate within the American system of laws, contracts, and agreements on a handshake…Equally of concern is the new appetite for, and silent acceptance of, dual citizenship. It would be naive at best to believe that neither has any bearing on what used to be unconditional loyalty and commitment to America…Those who favor the proposed amendment will no doubt point to exceptional persons of their acquaintance who, in their view, would fulfill any and all expectations with regard to the office of president, though being of foreign birth. Yet the laws of this country never have been written with the exceptions in mind. Among other things, the Framers of the Constitution distinguished themselves by writing few laws, and employing language at once broad and concise, so as to be applicable to all circumstances at all times. 

Another to testify and submit written testimony was Forrest McDonald, historian and professor of history at the U of Alabama. McDonald starts out by agreeing with Chairman Candy then goes on to cite supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his testimony: 

“Debates about electing the President raged until early September, less than 2 weeks before the Convention adjourned. Then Pierce Butler, an Irish-born delegate, came up with a cumbersome plan that overcame the objections to all earlier proposals. This was the electoral college system. The system was so diffuse that it would be virtually impossible, given the primitive communications then available, for foreign agents to corrupt it. But for good measure Butler’s proposal included the restrictive language, ”no person except a natural-born citizen…To appreciate the significance of the Constitution’s restriction of presidential eligibility to natural born citizens, it is useful to place the requirement in historical perspective. Americans of the founding generation were extremely distrustful of executive authority because experience with colonial governors had convinced them that executive power was inherently inimical to liberty, because they felt betrayed by George III, and because they considered a strong executive to be incompatible with the republicanism they embraced when they declared their independence in 1776. As a consequence, their revolutionary state constitutions provided minimal executive branches, and the first national constitution, the Articles of Confederation, established no executive arm…By the time the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, difficulties undergone during and after the war for independence had convinced most public spirited men that an energetic national executive was necessary, but they approached the problem cautiously, and at least a third of the delegates to the Convention favored a plural executive in the interest of safety. The others endorsed a single executive, not least because all understood that George Washington, whom everybody trusted, would be the first occupant of the office…But Washington could not serve forever, and the delegates groped almost desperately to devise a suitable way of choosing his successors. The search took up more of the debates than any other subject the Convention faced. Most delegates favored having Congress elect the president, but that would make the executive department dependent upon the legislative unless the president were ineligible for reelection, but ineligibility would necessitate a dangerously long term—six or seven years being the common suggestion. The greatest fear was of corrupt influences upon the election, particularly from abroad…That language was adopted without a single dissenting voice, nor did anyone speak in its support. Its meaning and rationale went without saying. As Joseph Storey later explained in his famous commentaries, the phraseology ”cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office and interposes a barrier against . . . corrupt interferences of foreign governments…Now, the question before the subcommittee is not the original purpose of the clause, but whether it has outlived its usefulness. The circumstances that prevailed at the time of the founding have changed. Yet it seems to me on balance that conditions in the foreseeable future warrant a continuation of the caution shown by the framers…Take the matter of the possible corruption in the electoral process. The system is still structurally diffuse, but in practice it might as well be centralized, given modern techniques of communication and the instant portability of money, the most potent corrupting influence. Presidential candidates spend scores of millions of dollars. Just consider the prospective influence of a few billion dollars, a sum well within the means of a number of countries, any one of which, while unwilling to risk such a sum on a natural-born American, might be eager to support a candidate who had been born and raised in their country…The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak Presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of Presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable is the President’s power as Commander in Chief…Let us consider a few scenarios, starting with an extreme example. The espionage agencies of some countries have occasionally employed agents under deep cover who might not be activated for decades. It is not difficult to imagine such an agent being elected to an office of trust, but a Senator is 1 of 100, and a Representative is 1 of 435. What check is there on a President who is 1 of 1, except for the constitutional restriction?… In the role of Commander in Chief, it is not enough to be above reproach. One must be above the suspicion of reproach…In conclusion let me say that on this as on other constitutional questions, we are best guided by the wisdom and prudence of the Founding Fathers. The amendment process is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be used for political or electioneering purposes. The structure created by the Constitution has stood the test of time and continues to stand as the truest foundation for our freedom.” 

Of course the committee heard from 2 other witnesses for the progressive view; one for adoptive parents of foreign children and the other a civil rights activist for immigrants. You are welcome to read their bloviating testimony online as it is not relevant to defining ‘natural born’. 

After H.J. Res. 88 failed to make it out of committee, Sen. Nickles (OK) along with Landrieu (LA) and Inhofe (OK) brought forward S. 2128 in 2004, a bill to define the term ‘natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President. 

Sen. Nickles, in his speech when introducing the S. 2128, announced that: 

“There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of a judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what ‘natural born’ means. 

And then concludes by stating: 

“This bill ensures that children born abroad to or adopted by American parents have claim to the full meaning of the American dream…they can also have the freedom to choose to run for president.” 

I was taken aback by Nickles proclamation that Congress had never defined ‘natural born citizen’. Had he just gone to the congressional records from 1866, when the 14th Amendment was drafted and subsequently ratified, he would have found this from Rep. John A. Bingham:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen

And yet again repeating myself, we know that the term ‘natural born citizen’ exists exclusively in one place in the Constitution itself. Article II, Section I, Clause V:

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Sen. Inhofe made note of the repealed Immigration & Naturalization Act of 1790 as some sort of fact that Congress had defined what ‘natural born’ meant, as if it has always pertained to naturalized citizens or citizens by statute, and uses the argument that in the absence of any judicial interpretation, Congress, per the 1790 Act, has the authority to make such interpretation. And let it be noted, Inhofe per his speech, is the grandfather of an internationally adopted child, thus did not have pure intentions when signing onto this bill. 

There was no objection, the bill was recorded and met the same demise of all previous other attempts to alter presidential qualifications. 

All these attempts, all these secret bills quietly kept out of earshot of the public at large, are verified proof that Congress has for decades been trying to usurp the original intent of the founding fathers of this great nation further risking our sovereignty & national security. An agenda that Washington warned about in his farewell address:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

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...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…

Part I: The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part I : A ‘Tribe’-ute to DC Liberal Activism

Part III: the conclusion. I purposely held back the review & summary of S. 2678 as it pertains directly to S. Res. 511 and including it here would spill the beans so to speak. But rest assured, it will be published no later than Thursday evening.

Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher

http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part III: McCain & S. Res. 511 Were Meant To Sanitize Obama’s Ineligibility to Be President [correction/important addition in blue]

Leo, this ones for you. “Thank You” for your dedication that lit a fire underneath me while educating me at the same time.

With persistence & perseverance, a researcher will inevitably come across the “ONE” document that brings full circle his/her research to a specific conclusion. Sometimes the conclusion backs the researcher’s theory and sometimes it does not.

I give you my final research to judge for yourself. Parts I & II with all the Congressional actions to eliminate ‘natural born’ from Article II, Sec I Clause V of the Cosntitution from 1973 forward can be found here.

Gasoline & Fire Do Not Mix

This is not a new concept in DC, yet it would seem these days that it has become the norm. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t as in the case of S. 2678, a bill [To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become president].

The bill was sponsored by Sen. McCaskill (MO) and introduced in the Senate on February 28, 2008. After having been read twice, the bill was then referred the Judiciary committee. On February 29thSen. Obama (IL) signed on as a co-sponsor and then on March 3rdSen. Menendez (NJ) & Sen. Clinton (NY) were added as co-sponsors to the bill. By March 4thSen. McCaskill & team had recruited a Republican, Sen. Coburn (OK) to join the ticket to usurp the constitution.  

Now, this particular bill was also 2 fold, its 1st point was to declare all children born to military ‘natural born’ citizens. The 2nd mission of the bill was to expand on the defininition of ‘natural born’ by including the following which is what jumped right out at me:

“Congress finds and declares that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: ‘Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces’.”(emphasis added)

So if we take McCaskill’s words shall include’ and the singular use of ‘citizen  we can conclude that Congress was aware of the Congressional history of the term ‘natural born’ and was looking for an out for McCain. But Obama, seizing his opportunity to ride the wave, rushed right over to McCaskill’s office and requested to be assigned as a co-sponsor of the legislation the very next day. Or was McCaskill the ‘fall gal’ all along? Did Obama & the Democratic elite know ahead of time of Obama’s ineligibility problem and used McCaskill or did she sign on to the corruption of her own volition? This we may never know.

Beginning sometime in 2007, the blogosphere was a buzz with a former Washington Post article from 1998  titled “McCain’s Panama Problem’ that had resurfaced and the search into the Panama Canal history took off at rocket speed. Questions regarding McCain’s eligibility continued to plague McCain & the RNC. The public announcement of S. 2678 on February 28, 2008 was like pouring gasoline onto an already burning fire.

A quick search of Internet archives shows that the issue was quite a ‘hot’ topic  however I was not paying too much attention to it at the time which I will forever regret. But someone else was paying very close attention. A certain someone, who has remained very close to Obama since his years at Harvard, was quietly working the backrooms of college campuses for the Obama campaign.

Obama’s “Tribe”

On January 16, 2007, Lynn Sweet of the Sun Times breaks with the scoop  that [L]aurence Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, calls Obama “one the two most talented students I’ve had in 37 years in teaching…When I look at my kids and grandkids and ask what makes me hopeful about the future-one thing is Barack Obama.]

Now, while this is not a full out in the open endorsement, it does give the initial opening for a future endorsement which seems to come in June of 2007  when Tribe appears in a campaign TV ad  for Obama, that kicked off in Iowa. Also in June, Tribe gives an interview to The Harvard Crimson  in which he states that although [h]e would back Hillary if she won the Democratic Party’s nomination, he has always championed Obama’s cause.]

On September 17, 2007 the Chicago Tribune publishes  an extensive list of Obama’s Policy team and listed under domestic policy is ‘Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law Professor). Then on November 19, 2007 MSNBC reports  that the first Obama campaign mailing had been sent out to NH voters and inside the mailer is a quote from Tribe. In addition to the endorsement in the campaign mailers, Tribe spent quite a bit of time that November touring New Hampshire campaigning for Obama.

Moving on into December of 2007, Tribe’s former endorsement is officially listed at Obama’s my.barackobama.com  by Eddie Lee, Obama Staff.

For some readers, this is where you may want to switch from coffee to a stiffer drink.

The “Fix” Is In

On January 31, 2008 Professor Tribe gives a persuasive talk  with the main argument on electability. In his talk, Tribe openly states that

he [c]onsidered it highly probable the John McCain will be the Republican candidate] and also that [h]e is convinced that Hillary is unelectable]. Tribe finishes his persuasive by talking about the importance of voting in the primaries, the importance that a candidate not win by a small margin and how there was no room for complacency.]

This pretty much wraps it up for me as to why Obama signed onto S. 2678 so quickly and why the wheels shifted so swiftly from S. 2678 to S. Res. 511. With Tribe already on Obama’s policy team, you can bank on the fact that discussions were already had that S. 2678 would have to be resubmitted as an amendment to the constitution, however there was a much swifter and less ovbious way to proceed that would sanitize Obama’s eligibility problem through McCain. With the help of the 2 most prominent/influential constitutional lawyers known to the DC circuit, they would use a non-binding, but publically accepted backdoor method called a Resolution.

Already laying out the background on Laurence Tribe, we must now look at Theodore Olson. Olson was born in Chicago; however he grew up in the same liberal stomping grounds of the San Francisco valley as Tribe. He received his law degree at Berkley in 1958 & is a member of The Federalist Society. While serving under Reagan & Bush Jr., Olson championed conservative & constitutional causes, though his actions out of public office lean more to the liberal progressive causes. After retiring from Solicitor General in 2004, Olson returned to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher at their DC office. Olson had previously worked for Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles (beginning in 1965) as an associate where he eventually made partner. Soon after the 2008 elections, Olson jumps the conservative ship & joins David Boies, (lead council for Gore in Bush v. Gore & an invited guest to Olson’s nuptials to Booth in Napa Valley, Ca in 2006) in Boies’s lawsuit to overturn Prop 8 in California.

Thus the question begs to be answered, why would a member of the Federalist Society, co-write an analysis that is in complete conflict to what the Federalist Society’s review of natural born citizen is? Is his membership for decoration purposes only? Maybe, however I believe Olson finally released his inner ‘liberal civil rights activist’ that has been pent up for decades.

Note must also be taken that Olson’s wife, Lady Booth is very active in the liberal activist realm & was a staunch supporter of Obama during the 2008 campaign. Thanks to commenter ‘royll’ for bringing this to my attention.

The Two Views Become One

As I stated earlier, the change from S. 2678 to S. Res. 511, a resolution [R]ecognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen] moved curiously swiftly.

I will also not go into all the ‘whereas’, as I have already covered this. You can read them here, along with my commentary. What I will do is pick a couple of them apart that pertain to Olson & Tribe’s analysis, as well as the testimony/analysis of Olson & Tribe. I will also place special emphasis on Tribe who is on record as officially endorsing Obama as well as a current member of Obama’s domestic policy team well before S. Res. 511 was introduced. I do believe Olson’s part, for the most part, was pure decoration for the benefit of the GOP to get them to go along with the scheme. I’ll let you judge for yourself by reading this article from the ‘World Socialist Website’. There could be no better cover-up, than to put a so called conservative constitutional lawyer who is loathed by the liberal left, but also happens to be a closet liberal civil rights activist in bed with a progressive one.

First let’s begin with the written analysis/testimony that was permanently recorded in the congressional record on April 30, 2008 but was officially sent to the Senate on April 8ththrough the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The analysis which begins by citing that the Constitution does not define ‘natural born’ citizen & that Congress has never given a definituion either can be argued against. Some argue otherwise, however the best place to find the definition would be in the 39th Congress records of 1866 when the 14th Amendment was being drafted. They then go on to cite Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 which is a 1983 Supreme Court case on freedom of religious speech. While this had me baffled for a day or so, it suddenly hit me. Maybe they were not using the deciding opinion of the case. Maybe they went to the dissenting opinion. BINGO! Justice Brennan dissenting wrote:

“Finally, and most importantly, the argument tendered by the court is misguided because the Constitution is not a static document whose every meaning on every detail is fixed for all time by the life experience of the Framers. We have recognized in a variety of constitutional contexts that the practices that were in place at the time any particular guarantee was enacted in to the Constitution do not necessarily fix forever the meaning of that guarantee…”

So basically what they did was take Brennan’s dissenting opinion and use it as precedent to usurp our guarantee, our national security protection under the Rule of Law that the person attaining to the highest office of land, the Commander of our military forces would have no foreign influences or intrigues. But let us not stop there with this opinion, Brennan goes on to write:

“Our primary task must be to translate “the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century…”

And there we have it, that big ‘it’s my constitutional right to be president some day’ analogy thrown right in our faces. Framers be damned!

So now that we have an initial grasp of the view of the Constitution these two men hold, let’s look further into their true interpretation of who they believed the Framers to be. You know, those men who were our founding fathers and who also fought a bloody war. A war to end America’s ties to an all powerful Monarchy and put in the hands of the people, the power to govern themselves by drafting a Constitution & establishing a Republic.

Next, Tribe & Olson brings up the subject of common law at the time of the founding and also reference Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). If this surprises you, then you have not been paying attention because it is the premise to all their legal analysis. Tribe has written, lectured extensively, as well as teaches in depth Blackstone’s English Common Law as the guide to interpreting our Constitution. In the analysis sent to the Senate Judiciary, they write:

“These sources ALL confirm that the phrase ‘natural born’ includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within the nation’s territory and allegiance.” (emphasis added)

Oh, really?

Tribe & Olson go on to mis-cite the specific part of Wong Kim Ark they are relying on for their conclusion, and they also do not cite the case Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 which we know for a fact, from extensive research done by Leo Donofrio & team, was the guiding case for the Wong Kim Ark decision.

“In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”.  And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett.  The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

 ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.” (Emphasis added)

Look at that, you have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of  natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc .

In Minor,they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama.  As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Now, why, would the Supreme Court be relying on the Law of Nations if in fact, as Tribe & Olson claim, the Framers relied on English common law. The same law that kept them oppressed while under the rule of the English Monarchy. The fact is they didn’t. In the 1st commentaries on the Constitution written by Supreme Court Justice Wilson (who was appointed by George Washington, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and was as member of the Continental Congress), Wilson specifically refers to the law of nations as the guiding force behind our Constitution and it interpretation.

“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”

Clear, concise & truthfully spoken. This is also one of the most inspirational commentaries on our Constitutional law & patriotism I have read. If you have not read James Wilson, Of the Law of Nations, Lectures on Law (1791) as of yet, I encourage you to do so.

So, putting Wilson’s ‘Lectures on Law’ to task, we can say with confidence that Tribe is completely misguided and flat out wrong when he claimed:

“British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for example, that children born abroad to parents who were ‘natural born Subjects’ were also ‘natural-born Subjectsto all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever…The Framers substituted the word ‘citizen for ‘subject’ to reflect the shift from a monarchy to democracy…”(emphasis added)

For supposed constitutional scholars, Tribe & Olson really miss the mark on this one. They also make reference that we are a democracy which is just an out right lie. The Framers wrote a Constitution for a Republic with citizens as sovereigns who are superior to the government institution itself, not Subjects to some Democracy who are ruled by a central government put in place by mob rule and where individual rights are only those given to you by the government. Democracies rarely last, they either give cause for revolution or they ascend to a Monarchy or Dictatorship.

Hitting More Pay Dirt 

In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory  written by Professor Lawrence B Solum  of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.

[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.

To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]

[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King's protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]

[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.

The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject.”For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.

In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.

The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of  ‘natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

Thus, wrapping up on British Justice Blackstone, I refer you to another writing of his that pertains to what was on the minds of our founding fathers when they declared independence from the king:

“The king is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness.”

To believe that the Framers held onto this logic and thus held onto the common law definition of subjects for the newly emancipated citizens, would be to believe there was never a bloody revolution to escape it. The truth is Blackstone was a Kings Knight. He loved his dear England and was faithful to the end and to the Monarchy who he adored just as much. Blackstone was also noted for contradicting himself, which I believe is the reason for such confusion in interpreting his commentaries.

Moving on to the real truth of which law guided the Framers, we turn to another early Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, who was also the main founder of Harvard law School. Story gives a very distinct conclusion to the Law of Nation & the law of nature as the guiding force behind the Framers definition of ‘natural born’ citizen when he wrote this of the qualifications for President in one of his early commentaries.

Volume 3, Section 73: § 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. 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 honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. (emphasis mine)

Story specifically calls the founding fathers ‘naturalized’ citizens, and rightly so.

Tribe & Olson’s analysis is all over the place. They bring in the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 and in light of Wilson’s 1st ‘Commentary on the Constitution’; we can put to rest the reason as to why that Act was repealed. Congress was not invested with the powers of declaring anyone a ‘natural born’ citizen. The only powers regarding citizenship they had were those of naturalizing alien immigrants. A ‘natural born’ citizen is clearly defined in the laws of nations as well as the Congressional records of 1866.

“Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following: § 212. Citizens and natives: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” 

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”(emphasis added) 

Tribe & Olson also refer to several statutes pertaining to citizenship, however, the Constitution trumps statutes, thus using them to define ‘natural born’ citizen is grossly incompetent in light of all the historical and legal references that date back to the revolution. Leo Donofrio gives an excellent run down  of how McCain is a citizen by statute and according the most current version of the US Foreign Affairs Manual, it has yet to be determined whether children born abroad are eligible for President.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

In one of Leo’s latest articles  on McCain he wrote:

“According to the birth certificate  and COLB  of John McCain, McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama.  While the BC states at the top that it is from the “Canal Zone”, the document also states that McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon.  The city of Colon and the hospital were not in the Canal Zone.

The common story you hear is that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but these documents posted online do not testify to that.  Furthermore, there is no official document that has ever surfaced which states that McCain was born in the Canal Zone.

There is a birth announcement in the Panama American newspaper  which states that McCain was born in the “submarine base hospital”.  I don’t know what the submarine base hospital is.”  

Permit me to dispel  that Panama newspaper birth bit, Leo. It would seem that there is NO record of John McCain in the August 1936 birth registry of the Canal Zone.

panama records of birth for Coco Solo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, no index record there, but I’ll bet you can find it in the August birth registry of the Republic of Panama since McCain was actually born off base in Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama. The media propaganda machine also covered for McCain by claiming that it was a clerical mistake that McCain is not listed in the August 1936 Canal Zone index registry. And as if that wasn’t enough, they tried to claim a different doctor than the one that signed the birth certificate, actually delivered McCain. Thanks to the lame stream propaganda media who stepped right up and said the visible, certified official records are wrong, the general public was kept in the dark as to the truth.

This also goes to show that it doesn’t matter how decorated you are and how many years your family has served honorably, eventually those who spend too much time in politics will fall to the intrigue and corruption of power.

So what does this all have to do with Obama?

Olson & Tribe conclude their analysis by reiterating their delusional rhetoric and false reporting of Kansas & Arizona as just territories. Kansas & Arizona were Sovereign Territories that had been operating under the complete law of the U. S. Constitution and jurisdiction of the United States and thus their citizens were under complete jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States and were considered for all legal and political purposes to be the same as that of statehood citizens.

“Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860–one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.”

Olson & Tribe consistently refer back to the 14th Amendment & its interpretation that a citizen born to an immigrant is none the less a citizen and therefore under English common law, the founders considered them to be same as a ‘natural born’ citizen in all sense of the words. They did this purposely to confuse the issue knowing that Congress never really reads anything, anyways. However, I think I can confidently claim that I, along with the help of some great patriots out there, have blown that smoke filled theory right back where it came from…right up the ‘you know what’ of the liberal progressive ideologues who believe we are Subjects to some all powerful central government.

We are NOT Subjects, Nothing could be further from the TRUTH and the TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS!

Thus it was not surprising to find this recent review  of Laurence Tribe’s most current thesis ’The Invisible Constitution’

“Tribe’s legal philosophy is antithecal to the original intent of the Constitution’s Framers and is insufficient as a legitimate theory of Constitutional Law. At its foundation, Tribe’s ideology is secular, Marxist, socialist legal philosophy.”

Then put Theodore Olson next to Tribe in a Senate Judiciary hearing and what you have is the ultimate ‘white-wash’ of political corruption.

Therefore, with all the above evidence, I conclusively report that:

‘Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or ANY Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving their country’s President; (emphasis added)

Sorry, busted.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President;

Again, busted.

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:

Also BUSTED by McCain’s own original vital records and the index birth records kept by the Canal Zone.

Was it a coincidence that Obama quickly signed onto S. 2678? I think NOT!

Was it also a coincidence that Tribe gave that political persuasive talk on Jan. 31, 2008? I think NOT!

And it certainly was no coincidence that Tribe was selected to co-write the analysis that would sanitize McCain & Obama’s ineligibility. After all, persuasive speeches seem to be his forte’. You had just better make sure you are wearing pretty high boots if you ever attend one.

And as if all this is not enough to prove that our government and our election process is totally corrupt to the core, Roger Calero, a green card holding alien from Nicaragua  and member of the Socialist Workers Party (communist party) was on the Presidential ballots in 5 states where he received 7,209 votes. He originally was on the ballot in 12, however was removed from 7 and replaced by another SWP member James Harris who received 2,424 votes. The states that allowed Calero, a Nicaraguan National, to remain on the ballot despite complaints to the Secretary of State in those states prior to the election were: CT, DE, MN, NJ, NY & VT.

There are 535 members of Congress who know the truth. Will they step up to the Constitution and hold themselves accountable by returning the election to the people so that we may have a legitimate presidential election in which we have eligible candidates to vote for?

I’m not holding my breath for that to happen because I do not think there is a true Patriotic spine in the lot.

 What I will do is make a guarantee to keep researching and expose every speck of corruption I dig up.

God Bless America and God Bless Our Brave Service men & women who serve honorably and are NOT afraid to uphold their oath of office and defend this great nation from enemies foreign & DOMESTIC.

Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher

http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

McCain’s Law : Updated

“When applying the law the role of judges is not to impose their own view as to best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law.” 

John Sidney McCain III

 

Mario Apuzzo puts out a rather compelling argument that according to Vattel, McCain could be classified as a ‘natural born’ citizen. Let’s take a look…

Under Sec. 217 of The Law of Nations transcribed by Vattel is reference to children born out of country but in the armies of the state. Apuzzo gives much weight to the phrase “reputed born”. What does this mean in legal terminology? I do not know, I am not a lawyer, and Apuzzo gives no definition of it (of which there are several for it at the time of the adoption of the constitution) in his article that he uses as the basis for his claim.

What I do know is that in the current FAM (foreign affairs manual), it clearly states that all children born in the Canal Zone, as well as the Republic of Panama are citizens by statute, Act of August 4, 1937, Sec. 1, 50 Stat. 558, codified at INA: 

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1403

§ 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

303(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

303(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

We also know for fact that McCain’s birth certificate was filed with the Panama Railroad Company. If the natural born citizen were to apply, McCain’s birth would have been directly recorded with the permanent resident state of his parents at the time he was born.

As McCain said, judges have to faithfully apply the law that is already in place. Policies and personal choices are not to be legislated from the bench, therefore my conclusion of McCain’s ineligibility to be President stands as reported.

Well documented in Part II of my series ‘The Congressional Natural Born Citizen”, McCain had known of this problem decades before the 2008 election. There were numerous attempts to amend Article II as well as change the INA codified laws. They ALL failed and for good reason. Those in Congress, who held the gavel at the time, knew of the potential threat to our national security if the qualifications for President & Commander in Chief were open to those with dual citizenship.

As much as I sympathize with those who admire McCain for his service to our country (I am one of them), that admiration CAN NOT usurp the law. By trying to do so puts those people in the same corrupt circle of thinkers who pick & choose law at will for their personal benefit.

McCain has brought dishonor to himself by his own volition. It was his choice not ours and he will have to live with it every day for the rest of his life. He will also have to live with the irreparable harm that resulted from his willingness to skirt the law for personal political power which is in complete conflict of the opening quote of this article.

Leo weighs in regarding a request I had made to him regarding this issue. This response pertains to the UIPA requests that have been sent to Hawaii and Hawaii’s  responses thus far:

[ed. ... I will post a report next week which makes the truth clear and which establishes that an AG Opinion was rendered and is now being kept secret by the AG - and his office has personally informed me that they are invoking attorney client privilege thereto. The general public is now being guided away from paying attention to that AG opinion because the opinion must be disclosed by law. And if they can make the public lose focus then they might be able to keep the report hidden. If the public makes enough noise and does not lose focus on the AG report, then it is VERY hard for the AG to not cough it up. So, if you all want to see the AG opinion then don't fall for the Seussian hooplah telling you that it does not exist. It does exist.]

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part I : A ‘Tribe’-ute to DC Liberal Activism

This will be a multi-part series that focuses on Congresses knowledge of the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ and how they have purposely side stepped the constitution & the intent of the founding fathers regarding US citizenship by using ‘baby steps’ to achieve their ultimate goal:

“An Amendment to the Constitution to make eligible for the office of President any person who has been a US citizen for (X) amount of years”

I use (X) because there are several versions, all with differing views as to the number of years the citizen must be a continual resident prior to running for office.

‘Hope-n-Change’ Floats 

“The written Constitution ‘floats’ in a vast and deep – and, crucially, invisible – ocean of ideas, propositions, recovered memories, and imagined experiences…The Invisible Constitution is not simply a mask for imposing a particular ideology on the Constitution, which is what people sometimes think.”…”What I am hoping is that people will come to see that we’re all engaged in the same game and that the political reality of the Constitution, which is not confined to the written text, is an equal-opportunity reality.”

Laurence H. Tribe (The Invisible Constitution) 2008

This folks is the view of every liberal progressive ideologue on capital hill today.

Laurence Tribe’s roots to the progressive movement span decades. Tribe graduated from Harvard Law in 1966, immediately clerked for Trobiner in the Ca Supreme Court for a year, then moved to DC where he clerked for Stewart for a year. Not having any real world experience, Tribe then joins Harvard as an assistant professor in 1968 and after 4 years, he received his tenure from Harvard in 1972.

Sounding familiar? Let’s continue on…

Laurence Tribe is the co-founder of the liberal activist “American Constitution Society”, a law and policy organization formed to breed and pit young activist lawyers, like himself, against originalism and constitutional jurisprudence. Tribe is considered as a demigod at Harvard and the cast of characters surrounding him over the years sounds like a who’s who of liberal activism progressive style. We have Aharon Barach, chief justice of Israel who believes in letting unrepentant genocidal terrorists roam free; Doris Kearn Goodwin, liberal revisionist historian; Akhil Amar, liberal law professor at Yale; Nina Totenberg, liberal legal correspondent for NPR. Most notably in Tribe’s cast of contributing characters, we find none other than Cass Sunstein, Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) & Barack Obama. The one I shall take note of today is Barack Obama.

While studying at Harvard, Obama became a research assistant to Tribe on his book – “Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes” (1990) and in turn, during Obama’s candidacy, Tribe did a political commercial congratulating Obama and publically supporting the Obama campaign.

During the campaign last year, Ellis Washington wrote this of Tribe:

‘Tribes judicial philosophy would be right up there with the most radical leftists of the Supreme Court, like Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and many other enemies of the original intent of the framers.”

Tribe’s Congress

Tribe wrote his initial commentary on the Constitution in 1978 call “American Constitutional Law”. With this initial commentary, Tribe ascended to the throne and since has been the liberal’s commandant in their efforts to over throw capitalism and our Republic’s Judeo Christian heritage through backdoor congressional activist legislation.

In 1987, Michael Greve of the ‘Reason Magazine’ wrote a review of Scalia’s book, A Matter of Interpretation. Scalia’s book expounds on the ‘textualist’ theory and his qualities as a judicial ‘statesman’. Neither of which is Tribe.

Greve writes that Tribe is [n]otorious for urging judges to go boldly where none have gone before and that [T]ribe’s pretenses are a thin cover for their effort to mobilize the Constitution for left-liberal causes.

Enter Liberal Left Election Activism Through Legislation

Of Tribe’s most notable influences on congressional committee hearings are those during the Nixon & Clinton impeachment hearings, The Gore/Bush election & most currently the judiciary committee hearings on S. Res. 511:

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

There are many more areas where tribe’s activist views have been sought to pass radical legislation, however, for the purposes of this series, we shall stick to the topic at hand.

I can not say with certainty when it all began; but the legislative moves to forever redefine/remove the term ‘natural born citizen’ as it exists in the founding documents of the United States of America, have been going on far longer than I had thought.

Not only have they moved to redefine/remove it from the Constitution, they have actively been bestowing ‘natural born’ citizenship status on individual citizens for decades through ‘private’ laws. 

A search of Thomas.gov revealed that since 1973. Congress has bestowed ‘natural born’ citizenship 13 times through this ‘private law’ practice. I was only able to retrieve the basics, as I assume, the fact that they are ‘private law’ bills, the contents are sealed, and therefore not available to the public. This is as specific as they get, no congressional committee minutes are available through Thomas.gov:

Title: A bill for the relief of Phillip Harper. Became Private Law No. 98-39 (1983) 

In 1987, a bill was introduced which was entitled, ‘The overseas American Children’s Human Right’s Act of 1987’. The summary concludes that children born outside of the US to mixed parents (one being an alien) shall be a U.S. citizen at birth and then goes on to grant US national and natural born citizen status to any person born, whether in or out of wedlock, to a US citizen parent outside the United States.

This bill as far as I can tell never made it out of committee. A similar bill appeared in 1989 that met the same demise.

Were these bills a precursor for the currently behind closed committee door activism in Congress? Were they Congresses initial ‘baby steps’ towards the ultimate destruction of the ‘natural born’ citizen?

From 1973 – current, attempts have been made to remove ‘natural born’ from Article II of the Constitution. Additional attempts have also been made to formally define/change the meaning of ‘natural born’, therefore opening the door for any and all citizens to be able to run for President, regardless of their type of citizenship.

Committee minutes from the earlier days are nil, thus lending me to believe no merit was given to the early attempts. However, the sponsor of the earliest 6 amendments from 1973-77 was Rep. Jonathan B. Bingham (NY). Jonathan Bingham was a Connecticut Bingham and I do not know at this time if there is a direct relation to Rep. John A Bingham who was one of the founders of the 14th Amendment that left this famous quote which is recorded in congressional records for all time:

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Coincidence? I think not. To believe that a representative with the same family surname, a surname of a long historical list of politicians dating back to the revolution, was not aware or had studied the congressional records during the drafting of the 14th Amendment would be naïve.

These early attempts, that are still available to be retrieved online at Thomas.gov, also coincide with the appearance of Laurence Tribe onto the scene that had this to say about natural born citizen:

“The Framers substituted the word ‘citizen’ for ‘subject’ to reflect the shift from a monarchy to democracy”

Well, had the Framers actually adopted a Constitution for a Democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic, Tribe may have been right. This is also just one tiny example of his influence on Congress over the past several decades of Constitutional abuse.

From 1973 – current, there have been 15 silent secret attempts to remove the words ‘natural born’ from the Constitution and replace them with just citizen. It is the ideology of the leftist-liberals that the words ‘natural born’ are discriminatory and therefore keep naturalized citizens and those born with dual citizenship from their imaginary right to be president.

Part II to come: Breaking down of the most current secret legislation proposed from 2000-08.

Part III will focus specifically on S. Res. 511 and Tribe’s extensive influence in Congresses cover-up of ineligible presidential candidates that continues to this day.

Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher

http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

Smart Girl Politics Finally Gets It

Now, when will the rest of the so-called conseravtive pundits show some political bravery and stand with us in the fight to uphold the ‘Rule of Law” which is the Constitution of the United States?

smartgirlpoliticsOsamaBinLadenheiraspresident

Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof

Earlier in the week, I brought back an article by Leo to refresh the readers memories and to also educate new readers as to the importance that there shall be “NO” foreign influence on the office of the Executive. Today I do the same.

Let’s talk ‘subject to the jusrisdiction thereof’ and its relevance to US citizenship & naturalization/immigration laws and… 

“Where did it all go wrong?”

 In 1895, after answering Hinman’s letterregarding the ineligibility of Chester Arthur, Thomas F. Bayard who was then Sec. of State under Grover Cleveland, finally made a formal ruling on the subject of children born in the US to foreigners:

In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ “.

Leo’s article goes on to state the irrefutable facts of this significant ruling as it pertains to Obama:

It’s important we note Bayard’s concern that the German subject was, “on his birth subject to a foreign power“.  That’s the key.  “On his birth”, Chester Arthur was born subject to a foreign power.  “On his birth”, Barack Obama was born subject to a foreign power.  Also, this official ruling concerned only the issue of whether the person was a “citizen” of the US, never mind “natural born”.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution  requires that the President be a natural borncitizen.  The word “born” refers to the status of the President at the time of his birth, not any other time.  Barack Obama and Chester Arthur were born to fathers who were not US citizens at the time each was born.  Therefore, neither Obama nor Arthur should legally be President under the Constitution.

Here is the full “The ‘Nation” article regarding Hinman’s original request of clarification as it was originally printed in 1894, “A question of Citizenship” begins on page 134 of “The Nation” (pg 3 of the scribd doc)

 

 

To Be An American Has Nothing To Do With Race ~ It Has To Do With Being A Person Cloaked In Liberty ~ Free From Monarchy, Free Of Repression, Free Forever

While we wait on word from Hawaii so we can put an end to the fake rabbit aka birth certificate, let’s revisit a previous article by Leo Donofrio and what is probably the MOST important historical legal finding on US Citizenship & Natural Born Citizen uncovered by Leo’s research team, “The Undead Revolutionists”.

Why is this so important you ask?

Because our National Security hinges on having a Commander in Chief that has held no other allegiance to any other nation than that of the United States of America. The influences of foreign powers are too great a risk to take.

Have you listened to then news lately? How Obama puts off sending reinforcements for our soldiers, all the while turning his back on our allies and yucking it up with dictators and leaders of nations who harbor terrorists. While these rogue regimes talk of building their nuke arsenals, all Obama wants to do dismantle ours, leaving our country vulnerable to an inevitable attack.

Just what country is he representing? What country is he protecting? Isn’t it his MAIN job to secure our borders and maintain OUR national security?

Oh, and lets not forget the $400k he has just promised to Gaddafi’s cronies? What right does Obama have to give our hard earned money to rogue dictators and their cronies who harbor terrorists who kill Americans and who rejoice over it?

Keep this all in mind while you read this. I also urge you to read it more than once and be sure to read all pertaining links for further knowledge as to the grave danger this Usurper is imposing on this nation and its citizens.

grailRarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point.  But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times.  But that’s exactly what has happened this week.  A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN.  They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION.

They have been sending me good stuff for quite a while now.  A wonderful contributor to comments at this blog – Kamira – is part of that team.  This group is preparing the mother of all natural born citizen research reports based upon their unique historical document discoveries.  It will be guest blogged by them right here when it’s ready for public consumption.

But for now, and as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds.  It’s an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884.  The American Law Review was a premier legal journal -  the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.

This was not a law school publication.  It was considered to be the state of legal art which utilized the most esteemed attorneys of the period.

The article I am about to show you was published in The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq.  Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association.  His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.

The article I am excited to bring you is titled:

ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?

The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.

The article is written in a clear and concise manner, easily understood by lawyers and lay persons alike.  I will now introduce each relevant issue confronted in this article and then present the article in full for your review.

OBAMA POTUS ELIGIBILITY MYTHS DESTROYED BY MR. GEORGE COLLINS

MYTH #1Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.

This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President.  Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins.  This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.

Chester’s father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born.  This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December 2008.

It has been argued that Chester Arthur’s occupation of the White House set a legal precedent for Obama since both Chester and Barack were born of British fathers.  But the public – at the time Chester was running for VP and later when he became POTUS – never knew that Chester Arthur was a British subject since he successfully lied to the public about his parental heritage.

The law review article goes into great detail concerning the issue of who exactly rises to the level of natural born citizen.  It discusses law cases and legal precedent in its analysis, but it does not even mention the current President – Chester Arthur – even though Attorney Collins steadfastly denies that a person born on US soil to an alien father could be a natural born citizen.

If Attorney Collins – esteemed lawyer, Secretary of the Bar Association and nationally known legal journalist – had thought his current President at the time this article was published – Chester Arthur – was a British subject at birth, then the article would have required a discussion of that point.

But the article does not mention President Chester Arthur because Chester Arthur managed – through blatant deceit - to cover that issue up.  He successfully concealed his British birth from the American people.  This law review article is proof of that conclusion.

MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.

Despite the fact that state court cases have absolutely no legal weight of authority in federal court, Obama eligibility supporters cite this case often.  Attorney Collins tears the decision to shreds and exposes its faulty conclusions.

MYTH #3: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.

Attorney Collins takes this on directly and establishes clearly that there is no common law in the United States.  He also explains that natural born citizens are in no way, shape or form, the same as natural born subjects.

MYTH #4:  Vattell’s definition of a natural born citizen was not considered by the framers.

Attorney Collins discusses Vattel in great detail.  And Collins agrees that to be a natural born citizen one must be born on the soil of parents who were themselves citizens.  Collins quotes Vattell.

But more important is the fact that Collins makes it clear Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” was not actually Vattel’s definition.

This is very important.

The definition of “natural born citizen” was notcreated by Vattel in his treatise, “Law of Nations.”  That treatise simply discussed the established body of law known as “the law of nations”.  The definition of natural born citizen discussed in Vattel’s treatise was actually the definition established by the body of law known as “law of nations”.

Attorney Collins makes all of this quite clear in the article below.  Now please review Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;

The capital letters are not in reference to Vattel’s treatise, but they are in reference to the body of law Vattel wrote about – the actual “law of nations”.  And that body of law -  according to Attorney Collins as well as Vattell – held that a “natural born citizen” was somebody with connections to the nation for having been born on the soil as well as having been born of citizen parents.  In Article 1, Section 8, we therefore have a direct recognition that the framers respected the law of nations.

“DOUBLE ALLEGIANCE TO THE NATION”

This is what the framers required for the Commander In Chief.  Any child of immigrants from any nation could become President – as long as his parents became naturalized US citizens before that child was born on US soil.  In their wisdom, the framers sought two generations of US citizenship.  This discriminates against no race at all.

To be an American has nothing to do with race.  It has to do with being a person cloaked in liberty – free from monarchy, free of repression, free forever.

The natural born citizen clause does not establish a superior form of citizenship.  It does establish a national security safeguard against foreign invasion of the White House and takeover of the US Armed Forces.

It makes all the sense in the world that the person who holds the keys to the massive nuclear arsenal in our possession should be born on US soil to parents who were citizens.

If we allow persons born in the US of alien fathers to be President of the US then Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all eligible to have their direct offspring become President of the United States and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces.

That is what you are saying if you think Obama is eligible to be President.

You can’t discriminate based on race or nationality in this country.  If a person whose father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth can become President, then it doesn’t matter what nation that person is a dual citizen of.

It’s not like North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Iran are going to let the sons of US citizens lead their countries anytime soon.  Are we really going to allow their sons to lead our nation?  The framers would never have allowed such a horrific situation to exist.  With the natural born citizen clause they protected us against this very scenario.  We must protect the protection.

A legal fraud is being perpetrated upon this nation through ridicule and straight up major media propaganda.

The great weight of authority indicates Obama is not eligible to be President.

I recognize arguments which take issue with some of the conclusions below.  But the point is urgently made that this issue is not settled and has never been directly adjudicated by a federal court.  Such adjudication is the necessary outcome of this debate.

I hope the following piece of history serves as a wake up call to the snarky sarcasm being leveled at this very serious legal question.  There is nothing funny about this issue. The repercussions for generations to come are potentially disastrous.

And with that I leave you with the Holy Grail of all natural born citizen law review articles:

Breaking Down Sen. Johnson’s Letter Point By Point

Permit me to address Senator Johnson’s letter one more time in detail. Let’s take it line by line.

First of all, Sen. Johnson thanks me for contacting him regarding Internet rumors.

“Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet rumors. I appreciate hearing from you.”

Could he have been any more condescending? Here is the openning of all my previously written correspondence on this subject after my initial letter right after the election in Nov:

RE: Confirmation of 2008 Presidential Electoral College Votes

Dear XXX

            I can not begin to say how Senator Johnson’s response to my previous letter pertaining to this year’s election has me even more concerned and I now know personally why the general public for the 1st time in American History has given our elected officials in Congress the lowest approval rating ever. It is because of the lack of respect for the following oath that all of you have taken that leads us to begin work to explore our options under the Constitution to turn this country around and get it back to a truly Free Constitutional Republic and away from the Socialist Democracy path you all have been taking us. 

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies
, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion
; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
 

Obviously, this oath is just words, as according to Senator Johnson’s letter & others I have received in the past from all of you, you really have not read the Constitution for a very long time and thus have forgotten what responsibilities & restrictions it places on you to protect and defend the Constitution and We the People whom you are obligated to serve honorably, responsibly and lawfully without reservation. Please allow me a bit of your time to reply to Senator Johnson’s letter and correct some most important Constitutional Laws that seem to have mistakenly been brushed off as internet rumors as most Elected Officials have done nationwide to their constituents this election year.

The 1stthing I will take issue with is your perception of the role of the internet. I do agree that it can be a vast source of misinformation, but if used properly & responsiblyas I did and verified sources beyond the internet for credibility, the internet can be a vast source of good. Obviously Sen. Johnson or his staff just read my letter and saw the references and neither he nor his staff took the time to verify as I did. If they had, they would not have had the audacity to spurn my use of the internet, yet they themselves have relied on 2 internet sources for their facts instead of the Constitution, US laws and legal government documents as I have. Also, their reference to reputable sources is in itself an oxymoron when you consider that fact that those sources have deep ties to the candidates, especially Barack Obama.

1995 Ayers makes Obama Chairman of Annenberg Challenge

Johnson’s letter goes on to say:

“While accurate information is often made available to those willing to look for the truth, it is often true that factual information does not spread through cyberspace nearly as quickly as the scurrilous damaging misinformation that fuels public anger or outrage.”

Here I adamently disagree. Yes, damaging factual information does spread like wild fire on the Internet thus fueling public anger and outrage and for GOOD reason. “We the People” are tired of government cover-up of government corruption! Especially when elected officials uses sources connected to the most dishonest, lying radical president of all time instead of historical documentation from past congresses and supreme court rulings to make his interpretations of the Rule of Law. Is it too late for him to get his money back for his law education?(out of line and overly sarcastic)

Next we come to my call to his office that spurred this particualr correspondence from Sen Johnson’s office. In his reply he states:

“Based on the comments you made to my office, you have apparently come across some Internet rumors suggesting President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.”

So, my comments regarding the fact the Obama was British at birth due to the fact that his father was a foreigner, and, how can a United States natural born citizen’s citizenship status be governed by the British Crown at birth; automatically meant that I was referring to a birth off of US soil? They must have not had their listening ears on that day. I guess I also should have refaxed my original reply from Dec ’08 when asking for an investigation before confirming the votes of the electoral college:

2.I never claimed in my letter that Barack Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii and I am insulted that a Senator would put words in my mouth and make assumptions based on what is obviously their opinion, not mine. The Constitution is very clear as to the qualifications for POTUS, and there is no birth certificate of Barack Obama that would make any difference. The fact that he had dual citizenship at birth proves he was not a “Natural Born” citizen. He is a citizen under the 14th amendment which defines citizens born to parents when one parent is not a US citizen.

So let’s continue with this bit of misinformation in Sen. Johnson’s letter:

“Such rumors overlook the fact that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States regardless of the location of his birth. President Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States, and children of American citizens are conferred citizenship at birth, meaning Barack Obama was born a citizen of this country. The same is true for Senator McCain, whose birth in the Panma Canal Zone has led to similar, equally false allegations of ineligibility.”

This is it, just a statement, no legal or historical references but I do have a few for him. Under current 7FAM of the foreign affairs manual it clearly states:  http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/c22712.htm

Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual at 7FAM1116.1-4(c) 

“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

and the current foreign affairs manual also states this:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency. 

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible for the Office of President,”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”.

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.

 So, this debunks Sen Johnson & his staff’s interpretation of McCain (Alinsky tactic, change the subject, throw the reader off topic to lead them away from the real truth, the real crime), but let’s get back to Obama.

Disreagarding my actual question and imposing the typical political rhetorical answer that all have been getting out of DC, Senator Johnson says that since Obama’s mother was a US citizen, it matters not where on the globe Obama was born. WRONG AGAIN! At the time of his birth, Obama’s mother was not old enough to confer her American citizenship to her newborn son had he been born abroad. We again refer to the foreign affairs manual in:

7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.(this correction, however, was not retroactive to the time Obama was born)

Thus, Sen. Johnson continues by saying:

“It should be noted that President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii and has released the birth certificate issued by that state.”

Oh, really? And where is the proof of that? This is what we have been told:

In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org.

Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.

In June 2008, Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, released the initial short-form Obama COLB to various newspapers including the Los Angeles Times declaring, “This is Sen. Obama’s birth certificate.”


This short-form Obama COLB was released as a .jpg Internet image, displaying no signs of having been folded or of carrying an official State of Hawaii embossed seal.

If Senator Johnson has a published statement from Hawaii to the contrary, it should be released immediately! This would end the birth certificate cover-up that Obama is using to cover-up the real fraud, his British citizenship at birth, just as Chester Arthur used in 1880 when he sent Hinman on a wild goose chase. Also, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with race, it is about National Security.

Finally, Senator Johnson goes on to refer to a Supreme Court case. He does not specify which one, he only states one was turned down. Well, we all know there were several and they are not completely dead. They were left in a state that would allow for further action should the plaintiff’s wish to pursue them. This is hardly case dismissed as Senator Johnson would have you believe, but is his lawyer legalese trying to cover-up his political indiscretions.

Thus, you now have concrete, substantiated evidence that Sen. Johnson, nor his office staff have any regard as to the law; let alone taking the time to actually refer to it before responding to a constituent’s constitutional questions addressed to them for clarification and asking them to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Here is the conclusion to the 30 page rebutle of the very 1st reply I got from Senator Johnson in regards to the fraudualnt election of 2008.

I have laid out your duties as written in the Constitution so there is no mistake what they actually are. It is your duty under that oath of office that you took to make sure WE THE PEOPLE have a fully qualified President & Vice President and our military have a qualified Commander in Chief.

 I have presented you with irrefutable evidence based on reputable sources and US & State Government documents & laws. I have given you more than enough credible evidence that should leave you with great pause to stand firm and order that a Congressional Committee be formed to investigate Barack Obama, John McCain and the Democratic & Republican Committee Chairman for their crimes they have committed in causing this election to fall into such an unconstitutional state that it could forever do irreparable harm to our country and it’s people faith in their elected officials. The election needs to be returned to a Constitutional State and returned to the People for justice to be done and we will not rest until it is done and those responsible are held accountable for their crimes against the Constitution.

It is a sad day when “We the People” whom you have sworn to serve honorably have such little trust that we have to go to such lengths to help you do your duties which you should know. It should be the duty of each elected official to know the Constitution and their responsibilities and restrictions are under it. I will save the restrictions for another time, but rest assured, it will not be long before you here from me in great length again, as I now know I have to spell everything out in detail as not to leave it for you to assume my requests. Nor will I ever assume you are doing your job and verifying my reputable resources that confirm the facts I present to you in my letters.

Respectfully,

This 30th day of December, 2008

 So, in January, both the US Senate and the House of Representatives certified illegal election results and allowed a Usurper to enter the White House. All for their personal political gains which will, in the end, become the final nails in the coffins of their political careers and any remaining respect their constituents may hold for them.

 “Thanks again for contacting me, and please keep in touch! Sincerely, Tim Johnson (TPJ/kcr)”

You can bet your political hyde I will keep in contact! We will NOT be silenced!

scan0099

‘We The People’, ‘The Sleeping Giant’, is Sleeping No More

Senator Johnson says: “Newsweek & Bill Ayer’s Annenberg Foundation” Not “The Supreme Court” Are Now The Official Sources For Constitutional Interpretation Of Our Laws

Leo, this one is for you, we can now add “Newsweek” to the list of sources our elected officials use for interpreting the law of our land and presidential qualifications.

According to South Dakota’s senior Senator, Tim Johnson, court rulings and historical documentation no longer have ‘Standing” to interpret our laws, the lame steam media & liberal leftist internet sites are charge of these duties now.

Yep, you read that right and I am just beside myself at this point after reading the latest correspondence/political rhetoric from Johnson’s office. No where did they even attempt to address/refute the historical references I provided them with proper corresponding historical/factual findings.

Nope, Na Da, go away sucker because we are ABOVE the rule of law and you can’t touch us.

Well, sorry to burst their bubble, as I did in an immediate phone call to his office, but they can not continue to make claims without factual, historical references to back their claims and they have been called on their ineptness in upholding the Constitution & the Rule of Law.

In ALL of my correspondence, I supplied Sen. Johnson & his staff with congressional records & numerous hitoricaldocuments along with Supreme Court Justice opinions and commentaryand this is what they come back at me with:

“Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet rumors, I appreciate hearing from you.”

after I sent him this:

But, even if he had renounced those citizenships when he came of age in 1979, under the definition, he could have never held any other US citizenship, other than that of, “citizen by way of birth on the soil only” under the 14th Amendment which we will get to shortly.

Citizenship at birth can never be changed. History and research are very clear on this point. However, the actions of the person once they become of age, come into play as to qualifications for any elected office, thus the reason for the 14 year requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause V.

Thus we are back to: “Why BHO aka BHS cannot be a “natural born” citizen under the 14th Amendment”.

Historical Fact #6: According to the US Legislature, the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else”. Therefore, that rule prevents us from interpreting “natural born” under the 14thAmendment because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance. Remember, BHO aka BHS held dual allegiances at birth. He, himself has publically acknowledged the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of BHO’s birth, therefore he, himself was also a British subject at birth.

The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, it was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons naturalized or born to citizens of the United States as citizens.

The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (elected as a Whig to the Twenty-seventh Congress (March 4, 1841-March 3, 1843); elected as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Kinsley S. Bingham; reelected in 1865 and served from January 17, 1862, to March 3, 1871), said during the drafting:

“The word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the Executive, or by the Judicial Department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States.”

In 1866, under Sec. 1992 of the revised statutes, the same Congress confirmed and adopted as law the principle in regards to determining citizenship at the time of birth:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be “citizens” of the United States.”[note the word citizen, not “natural born citizen”]

Essentially, what this means is that in order to be a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, one must renounce any other allegiances so that their US citizenship is solely under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. In fact, controversy at the time due to dual allegiances was so great that Congress, in a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 said:

                “The United States have not recognized double allegiance”

Rep. Bingham commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between ‘natural born” and ‘born” citizenships under the 14th Amendment:

“It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of “parents” [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a “natural born” citizen.”

 

Then, Sen. Johnson & his staff conveniently leave out the fact that just last year, the Senate voted unanimously that it took 2 American parents for a citizen to be natural born. Atleast, that is what they said when that determined McCain eligible when they passed Senate Resolution 511. And they also did not go to the DOJ as many Senators & Congressmen have claimed. Read the Senate committee minutes for yourself. They went to director of Homeland Security, Chertoff for their interpretation as to NBC:

Mr Leahy speaking: Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge

I ask, what was their problem in going to the current DOJ? Why would they use a Homeland Security director to interpret the law?

But more importantly, why now, all of a sudden when it comes to interpreting Obama’s eligibility one only needs 1 parent to be American? Geez, will they make up their minds already!

They also cast aside that pesky ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ clause of American citizenship under the 14th Amendment which would require birth to be on US soil.

Senator Johnson & his staff have a lot of explaining to do to try and dig their way out of this one and I will be waiting patiently for their reply to my many questions that are now in their hands.

Also, I am confident that I can now conclude that to Senator Johnson, our blessed Constitution is nothing more than an Internet rumor to be cast aside and having no relevance to our laws today. He obviously sides with Bush’s interpretation of it a few years back when he called it:

“Just a GD piece of paper”

 Here is Johnson letter in it’s original form as I recieved it. I will report all further correspondence from him as it comes in. It should be getting very interesting, especially in the light of Leo’s lastest litigation.

scan0099 

“Liberty is to Faction What Air is to Fire” James Madison, 1787

Today is Constitution Day. It was on this day, September 17, 1787, that the Constitution emerged for the first time from the convention in Philadelphia, Pa. Our blessed Constitution that was written not by men of all the same political faction, however, a coalition of men of many political factions, working together to “Form A More Perfect Union” and it was up to ‘We the People” to ensure its long lasting existence.

Fast forward 222 years…

When political factions collide, there is bound to be discontent of some sort on one side or the other. Political factions also can be very dangerous to liberty if abused such as they are today. However, given time, the oppressing faction will soon be diminished in numbers if true liberty is let to run its natural course.

The Federalist Papers, a series of essays that the framers published in newspapers across the colonies, are the blue print to the Constitution. Hamilton & Madison wrote extensively on divide between political factions and the need for them to ensure liberty under the Constitutional Republic. In Federalist #10, Madison gives us a ‘right in your face’ clue as to the importance of keeping one political faction from taking over another:

“By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united in and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community…

…Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires…

…As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.”

Today, the debate between the divides is at a critical crossroads. On one side, we have the progressive/socialist faction; who are seeking to extinguish the flame of liberty of the conservatives. Helping the socialistic faction are those in the middle who are content to remain oblivious until the day, they too, will wake up to liberties lost.

To wake up the sleeping centrists, we must turn to education. The education of our history and how the wheels of liberty are suppose to be turning in Washington.

For this we shall start back in 1772. 

On November 20, 1772 in Boston, Ma., the colonists ratified the very first ‘Rights of the Colonists’. In correspondence to the Monarchy in Great Britain, the colonists also included a laundry list of violations of their individual rights. Reading the list of violations is like reading the laundry list of violations of the Declaration of Independence. This is no coincidence. I believe the original “Rights of the Colonists’ paved the way to the Revolution.

Here are a few snippets from that fateful correspondence:

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule… 

…It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it on the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights when the great end of all civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection and defence of those rights: the principal of which as is before observed, are life, liberty and property. If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave…

…The absolute rights of all free men, in or out of Civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty and private property…

…The Legislative has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people.”

I could go on further, however, I leave you with the link for further reading. This was absolutely mind blowing to me to see in written word, several years before the revolution that the seeds of independence were sprouting amongst the colonists. The similarities of what happened those 237 years ago, when the colonists first wrote to Great Britain, to what is happening today is nothing short of a shout out to Americans today of what will come if we do not get the governments in our states and in DC under control and off the path of tyranny.

Returning back to the Federalist Papers, we again see the correlation of then and now when Madison speaks out in essay #84 of the dangers of an all intrusive central government into the most personal aspects of our lives.

“It is evident therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions, professedly founded upon the power of the people and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations, ‘We the People of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, so ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America… 

… a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns…

…There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS… 

…This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of the bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to in a variety of cases in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not found in the work of the convention.”

Indeed, a limited government that has no power to circumvent the natural rights of man by passing legislation that would assume control over the most private aspects of our lives. I ask, is not the control over our physical well being not the most personal and private aspect of our God given inalienable rights? Where is it in the enumerated rights of Congress listed in Article I of the Constitution, that “We the People” gave up our right to make the most personal decisions of our lives? Was there an amendment passed that we do not know about?

What is happening today is nothing short of tyranny, however, the progressive / socialists try to pass it off as liberty. To them, liberty through tyranny is acceptable; because in their minds, they truly believe, they are liberating us from what they have now deemed an undue financial burden which ironically was created by none other than themselves, our elected representatives.

These representatives use trickery with words in which the founding fathers frequently refer to as ‘mischief’. They use lobbyists and lawyers to write legislation that is so obscenely obtrusive and of gigantic length to hide from the public, and themselves, the true dastardly ramifications of its contents. This problem is not limited to the progressive/socialistic faction; the so-called conservatives are just as guilty when it comes to kowtowing to political lobbyists.

In Federalist # 62, Hamilton calls out this problem of allowing such obscure and lengthy legislation to be passed.

“It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust…

…The eternal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws are so voluminous that they can not be read, or so incoherent that they can not be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or under go such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” 

What else did the founding fathers have to say of the contents of such tyrannical legislation you ask? What of the effects of legislation that excludes certain body politic from having to comply? 

Again, Madison expounds on the tendency of the elected few to elevate themselves at the expense of the masses. 

“I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will have not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.” 

Never has it been more true than today, that we can unequivocally say that political elitists have usurped their duty to represent ‘WE the PEOPLE’. They were elected on false pretense and have now been exposed.

They are working to reduce our God given physical beings into nothing more than chattel. To them we are just another commodity to regulate for their own personal political and financial gain. 

If such Orwellian legislation with mandates into the most intimate aspect of our personal lives passes, they shall have achieved the ultimate tyranny against God’s free people.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2 Peter 2:18-20 (King James Version)  ~  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

Wake Up America: The Rosenwald Papers Parts 1, 2, 3 & 7

 fast forward to 3:20 for guest speaker Rod Class and 1:13:05 for Joyce Rosenwald


fast forward to 4:25 for guest speaker Joyce Rosenwald


 

AMERICAN MANIFESTO

My people came to this land to escape oppression in Europe. I was born here and raised in Freedom. Many people arrived here in many ways. Some packed up their meager possessions and sailed across the ocean to seek freedom from oppression, freedom to worship their God in their way. They came as indentured servants.  They came on prison ships. Some came as slaves. Some had always been here.

They came to escape the feudal system where they and their children were bound to the land of others and they could own nothing.

Together we built a Republic that was strong and offered opportunity to be all that you could be regardless of the color of your skin, or your ethnic background. 

Together we built a nation where freedom flourished. The United States of America grew into the Crown Jewel of nations.

And then, you came for our country. You wanted our wealth, our resources, and our people. Slowly over years you corrupted our people, our money, our law, and our liberty.

We put you in places of honor and trust as our leaders and you betrayed us.  We would not, could not, believe that you would work to destroy our Nation.

 But now the people know what you have done. Your charade of government has been exposed. The Truth is now known and I as an American am telling you, YOU CAN’T Have MY COUNTRY. You will not take my freedom.

I will not worship government, as God.

I will not ask you for permission to live.

I will no longer be a financial slave to you.

I will not obey your private law.

You will not have my children or my posterity.

You will not give my country away to pay your debt.

I withdraw my allegiance to you.

I owe you nothing.

Let’s see what you are made of when you can no longer hide behind your pretend office.

It’s over for you. Your days of Fascist rule are gone.

I am a citizen of the United States of America, not a corporation and your corporate laws do not apply to me.

I am not a ship at sea. I’m standing on the land of my fore fathers that you have attempted to steal from me.

I can no longer stand quietly by and allow you to dismantle what has taken so many people so long to build.

So, come on. Let’s see what you are made of.

Try and take my country from me.

Copyright 1996 Joyce Rosenwald

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Government as Parent

Parens Patrei

” When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…………….” These are the words that started a Revolution propelling several English colonies into the nation known as “The United States of America.” This new nation was designed to function under the law of Nature and Nature’s God. The people believed they would never again hear the words of enslavement, i.e.; “under the sovereignty of the King.” Living under the sovereignty of the King made you the King’s chattel. He owned you. You were his property. You could own nothing, not even your children. The King ruled by divine right. The framers of this new nation claimed it was designed to be a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Representatives of this government were to be elected by the people, not born to power. And so, in 1776 the great experiment in freedom, known as “The United states of America” began.

People from each colony fought in the Great War to enable the colony to become a Sovereign Nation State. These States then created a new state, designed to exclusively serve the several Sovereign Nation States. Under this concept the nation of States united was born. Every sovereign Nation State joining the Union had a Constitution. The newly created state received one as well. It was written by the people of the several states and was titled “The Constitution for The united States of America.” This new state was “delegated” 17 authorities by the several states. The people never intended that it should over step it’s delegated authorities.

Some scholars believe the freedom ended before the ink was dry on the contract written between the people and their new government, “The Constitution.” There is some question as to exactly where and when the new nation faltered. Some say it was in 1789, with the Judiciary Act. Others say it was after the Civil War. Still others claim it was in 1913 or 1921 or perhaps in 1933…….History tells us the Supreme Court of the United States government claims it was when the Union itself was formed.

In the case New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New York v. Louisiana and others, (1) it states that:

“all the rights of the States as independent nations were surrendered to the United States. The States are not nations, either as between themselves or towards foreign nations. They are sovereign within their spheres, but their sovereignty stops short of nationality. Their political status at home and abroad is that of States in the united States. They can neither make war nor peace without the consent of the national government. Neither can they, except with like consent, “enter into any agreement or compact with another State.” Art. 1, sec. 10, cl. 3. ” The relation of one of the united States to its citizens is not that of an independent sovereign State to its citizens. A sovereign State seeking redress of another sovereign State on behalf of its citizens can resort to war on refusal, which a State cannot do. The state, having been a sovereign, with powers to make war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and otherwise to act in a belligerent way, resigned these powers into the control of the United States, to be held in trust. “

In United States v. Chamberlin, (2) the Supreme Court of the United States Decided, to wit:

It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests.

He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named. THE RULE THUS SETTLED RESPECTING THE BRITISH CROWN IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THIS GOVERNMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN APPLIED FREQUENTLY IN THE DIFFERENT STATES, AND PRACTICALLY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SETTLED THAT SO MUCH OF THE ROYAL PREROGATIVES AS BELONGED TO THE KING IN HIS CAPACITY OF PARENS PATRIAE, OR UNIVERSAL TRUSTEE, ENTERS AS MUCH INTO OUR POLITICAL STATE AS IT DOES INTO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.

Under most religious law, the children belong to the parents. It is a moral obligation on the part of the parents to care for and educate their children in their existing social values and morals.

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act (3) was passed creating birth “registration” or what we now know as the “birth certificate.” It was known as the “Maternity Act” and was sold to the american people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for other purposes. One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. This can now be seen as the first attempt of “government by appointment,” or cooperation of state governments to aid the federal government in usurping the legislative process of the several states as exists today through the federal grant in aid to the states programs.

Prior to 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as “official” records. Since 1921 the american people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state claims an interest in every child within it’s jurisdiction, telling the parents that registering their child’s birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States, thereby making him/her a united states citizen.

In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the act. (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..). (4) The plaintiff, Mrs Frothingham, averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it’s purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them and not granted the federal government, under the Constitution, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States. The complaint stated the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. To wit:

The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY.

THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.

The act gives all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.

It was further stated in the complaint that “The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. (5) In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. (6) It went on to state:

“The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. (7)

The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. “

” A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. ” (8)

“The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution.”

“Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States.” (9)

In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the”full faith and credit” of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. “Full faith and credit” clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it’s origin.

That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.

Today the federal government “mandates, orders and compels” the states to enforce federal jurisdiction upon it’s citizens/subjects. This author believes the federal government draws it’s de facto jurisdiction for these actions from the “Doctrine of Parens Patriae.” Patens patriae means literally, “parent of the country.” It refers traditionally to the role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.

Parens patriae originates from the English common law where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as infants.

With the birth registration established, the federal government, under the doctrine of parens patriae, had the mechanism to take over all the assets of the American people and put them into debt into perpetuity. Under this doctrine, if one is born with a disability, the state, (the sovereign) has the responsibility to take care of you. This author believes that the disability you are born with is, in fact, the birth itself. I believe that when you are born, you are born free, a “citizen of the soil,” an American National. Parents, without full disclosure under law, make application for a “birth certificate,” thereby making the child a citizen of the corporate government known as the United States. The government then turns the new citizen into a corporation under the laws of the state. The birth information is collected by the state and is then turned over to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The corporation is then placed into a “trust”, known as a “Cestui Que Trust”. A cestui que trust is defined as: He who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested in another; The beneficiary of another. Cestui que use is : He for whose use and benefit lands or tenements are held by another. The cestui que use has the right to receive the profits and benefits of the estate, but the legal title and possession, as well the duty of defending the same, reside in the other.

The government becomes the Trustee, while the child becomes the beneficiary of his own trust. Legal title to everything the child will ever own is now vested in the federal government. The government then places the Trust into the hands of the parents, who are made the “guardians.” The child may reside in the hands of the guardians (parents) until such time as the state claims that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The state then goes into the home and removes the “trust” from the guardians. At majority, the parents lose their guardianship.

The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. The child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate. “Title” to your child is now owned by the state. The state now directs the trust corpus and provides “benefits” for the beneficiary — the corpus and beneficiary being one and the same — the citizen — first as child, then as adult.

The debt transfers from the death of one corpus to the birth of another through the process know as “Novation.” Novation is defined as “the substitution of a new contract between same or different parties; The substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing one; The substitution of one debtor for another or of one creditor for another, whereby the old debt is extinguished. This author believes the debt of an individual is extinguished at his death, and the same debt is then transfered to a new individual when he/she is born through the registering of the birth, thereby creating a new corpus that will again reside in the hands of the trust.

Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt United States which acts as the “Debtor in Possession.”. We are now designated by this government as “HUMAN RESOURCES,” with new such resources being added (born) continually. The bankruptcy is a receivership, rather than a discharged bankruptcy. The bankruptcy debts are serviced, not paid or discharged. The Human Resources service the debt, which continues to grow with time.

The federal government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-delegates federal parens patriae authority to the state attorney generals. The attorney generals’ can now enforce all legislation involving your personal life , the lives of your children, and your material assets.

In today’s society the government, through the doctrine of parens patriae, has already instituted it’s control of our children through the legislative process. Medical treatments are enforced through the court with threats of loss of your child if the treatment is challenged.

Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusal may result in the loss of your child under the guise of “child neglect” (failure to preserve the trust corpus). If you spank your child or cause him/her any embarrassment or indignities, you are also at risk of having your child taken from you under the guise of child abuse (damaging the trust corpus).

Some states have legislation either pending or passed to give social workers arrest authority. School nurses may now report any suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. Warrantless searches of your home are tolerated by the courts, all in the name of safety for the child.

The Sun Sentinel, a Florida news paper, reported on March 15, 1996 that limits on the ability of divorced parents to relocate when minor children are involved were clarified by the Florida Supreme Court. The high court three years ago approved a policy favoring relocation requests of custodial parents as long as such moves are made in good faith for the well being of parents and children. Also, the justices ruled at that time, moves cannot be made “from a vindictive desire to interfere with the visitation rights of the other parent.” The right of locomotion is held as an element of personal liberty. Restraint upon the right of locomotion was a well-known feature of slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. A first requisite of the right to appropriate the use of another man was to become the master of his natural power of motion. The control by government courts (supra) of an individuals’ freedom of locomotion could be construed as a sign of ownership of the individual, or slavery .

It’s been reported that in California, early in the year, an assembly woman, in regard to education policy, made the statement ” the children belong to the STATE. “

Parens Patriae legislation covers every area of your personal life. Federal parens patriae legislation can be found in Title 15 of the

United States Code:

TITLE 15

Sec. 15h. Applicability of parens patriae actions

STATUTE-

Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall apply in any State, unless such State provides by law for its nonapplicability in such State.

The primary responsibility of a State is to protect it’s citizens from the tyranny of the federal government. The Federal Constitution claims a citizen can seek redress and protection under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution for any state legislation that brings them an injury by depriving them of a civil right. A state may sue the Federal government for protection for it’s citizens if federal legislation violates the Constitutions of the several states and brings harm to it’s citizens. The 14th Amendment did not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment, but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges. The amendment was intended to provide against state laws, or state action of some kind, adverse to the rights of the citizen secured by the amendment. Such legislation cannot properly cover the whole domain of rights appertaining to life, liberty and property, defining them and providing for their vindication. That would be to establish a code of municipal law regulative of all private rights between man and man in society. It would be to make congress take the place of the state legislatures and to supersede them.

However, the Supreme Court in the above case ruled that: A State may not, as parens patriae, institute judicial proceedings to protect her citizens (who are no less citizens of the United States), from the operation of a federal statute upon the ground that, as applied to them, it is unconstitutional.

The parens patriae power has been recognized and exercised from time immemorial as being under the rule of a tyrant.

Note: The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority outside of Constitutional authority, with the ability to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional and represents taxation without representation. This type of government is in place today and is known as “Regionalism.” The federal government couldn’t fool the people in 1921 into surrendering their sovereignty, but in1933…………………………….

Footnotes:

1. New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New York v. Louisiana and others, 108 U.S. 76, 27 L. Ed. 656, 2 S. Ct. 176, March 5, 1883.

2. United States v. Chamberlin 219 U.S. 250, 55 L. Ed. 204, 31 S. Ct. 155, January 3, 1911

3. Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act, Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, chapter 135.

4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al.. 262 U.S. 447, 67 L.Ed. 1078, 43 S. Ct. 597.

5. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.

6. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.

7. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822; 4 Elliot’s Debates, p. 525; Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.

8. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.

9. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

Copyright 1996 Joyce Rosenwald

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY

 Resolution of the Kentucky Legislature on 19 November, 1799 declared:

 

Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force; that to the contract (the Constitution) each State acceded as a State and is an integral party; that government created by this Contract was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measures of its powers. But, that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well as of in fraction as of the mode and measure of redress.

 

     There are few documents of the early period of this Republic which possess a greater interest than the series of resolutions adopted in Virginia and Kentucky in 1798-99. They were the first official documents expressing the sentiment of the people regarding federal versus State jurisdiction. The resolutions of 1798, and the subsequent confirmation  of their doctrines, survived  many years and left no shadow of doubt upon them. The events leading to their penning hold as much interest.  

    Within the national government itself, the principal struggle for power has always been between the executive and legislative departments. The judiciary was hardly more than a spectator of this conflict. For the first fourteen years of its existence, the Supreme Court failed to play the commanding role Hamilton had assigned it in The Federalist. There were no epoch making decisions handed down from that tribunal; not a few Justices resigned in order to accept appointments in the state judiciaries; and on several occasions the office of Chief Justice went begging. In 1800, when John Jay declined reappointment as Chief Justice, he gave as his reason his conviction that “under a system so defective it would not obtain the energy, weight and dignity which was essential to its affording due support to the national government; nor acquire the public confidence and respect which, as the last resort, of the justice of the nation, it should possess.”

     In 1798, there was the feeling among the American people that their new government may  somehow involve them in the war between Great Britain and France. Having just fought a long, bloody war for their own independence which left the country in debt, the people were not anxious to get involved in someone else’s fight. Newspaper  articles attesting to those views with criticism of the Federal government were rampant. In retaliation, the new government passed Alien and Sedition laws restricting comments on the action of government. These laws greatly restricted the First Amendment rights secured to the people by the federal Constitution. There was concern that this action was usurpation by the federal government of delegated constitutional jurisdiction. In every State in the Union the government and its officials were protected by statute or common law against the practices which the Sedition Acts laid  under duress. No Federalist was willing to admit that in this regard the states possessed larger powers than did the federal government.
 

By the end of 1798 some Virginians were speaking of the federal government “as an enemy infinitely more formidable and infinitely more to be guarded against than the French. Among these Virginians were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. As early as 1797, Jefferson referred to the federal government as a “foreign jurisdiction.” As Vice President of the United States, he urged the Virginia legislature to enact a law making liable to punishment citizens of Virginia who attempted to carry cases to the federal courts when those courts did not have clear and uncontested jurisdiction. In Jefferson’s opinion, the Alien and Sedition Acts made it imperative that the powers assumed by the federal government must be curbed if American liberty were to survive. Jefferson feared the theory of federal power upon which these acts were based quite as much as he did the operation of the acts themselves. For, if it were conceded that the federal courts were authorized by the Constitution to take cognizance of all cases arising under the common law, there could be no doubt that the “beautiful equilibrium” established by the Constitution between the States and the federal government would be destroyed and that the federal government would usurp “all the powers of the State governments and reduce the country to a single consolidated government.” The common law, said Jefferson, could become law in the United States only by positive adoption only insofar as American legislatures were authorized to adopt it.

Jefferson called in James Madison for consultation. Madison characterized federal inherent or implied powers as “the creatures of ambition……….Powers  extracted from such sources will be indefinitely multiplied by the aid of armies and patronage which, with the impossibility of controlling them by any demarcation, would presently terminate reasoning, and ultimately swallow up the State sovereignties.”

The fruit of Madison’s and Jefferson’s collaboration was the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Jefferson was the author of the Kentucky Resolutions and Madison drew up the statement adopted by the Virginia legislature, but neither man signed them.

These acts marked an important stage in the progress of the theory that ultimately led to the nullification by a State of a federal law.  According to Jefferson’s and Madison’s interpretation of the Constitution, it created nothing more than a compact between sovereign States which confided certain narrowly defined powers to the general government while reserving all residual powers to the States. Being the creators of the Constitution, the States were alone capable of judging when infractions of this instrument of government occurred, and they alone were able to devise measures of redress. In effect, the States were called upon to mediate between the people and the federal government, but it was assumed that usurpation would always come from the federal government rather than from the States. Carried to its logical conclusion, the doctrine propounded by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions meant that the compact between the States was a moral rather than a legal obligation and that the preservation of the Union was left to the discretion of the parties concerned. The Kentucky Resolutions were passed in the legislature with a single dissenting voice.

 

Kentucky Resolutions……..1789-1790

 

“First. Resolved, That every officer of the federal government, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, is the servant of the people and is amenable and accountable to them. That being so, it becomes the people to watch over their conduct with vigilance, and to censure and remove them as they may judge expedient. That the more elevated the office and the more important the duties connected with it may be, the more important is a scrutiny  and examination into the conduct of the officer. And that to repose a blind and implicit reliance in the conduct of any such officer or servant is doing injustice to ourselves.

“Second.  Resolved,  That war with France is impolitic and must be ruinous to America in her present situation.

“Third. Resolved, That we will at the hazard of our lives and fortunes, support the Union, the independence, the Constitution, and the liberty of the united States.
 

“Fourth. Resolved, That an alliance with Great Britain would be dangerous and impolitic; that should defensive exertions be found necessary, we would rather support the burden of them alone than embark our interests and happiness with that corrupt and tottering monarchy.

“Fifth. Resolved, That the powers given to the president to raise armies, when he may judge necessary—–without restriction as to number,——and to borrow money to support them, without limitation as to the sum to be borrowed or the quantum of interest to be given on the loan, are dangerous and unconstitutional.

“Sixth. Resolved, That the Alien bill is unconstitutional, impolitic, unjust, and disgraceful to the American character.

“Seventh. Resolved, That the privilege of printing and publishing our sentiments on all public questions is inestimable, and that it is unequivocally acknowledged and secured to us by the constitution of the united States; that all the laws made to impair or destroy it are void, and that we will exercise and assert our just right in opposition to any law that may be passed to deprive us of it.

“Eighth. Resolved, That the bill which is said to be now before congress, defining the crime of treason and sedition and prescribing the punishments thereof, as it has been presented to the public, is the most abominable that was ever attempted to be imposed upon a nation of free men.

“Ninth, Resolved, That there is a sufficient reason to believe, and we do believe, that our liberties are in danger; and we pledge ourselves to each other and our country that we will defend them against all unconstitutional attacks that may be made upon them.

“Tenth. Resolved, That the forgoing resolutions be transmitted to our representative in congress, by the chairman, certified by the secretary, and that he be requested to present them to each branch of the legislature and to the president, and that they also be published in the Kentucky Gazette.

Copyright 1996 Joyce Rosenwald

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The headline you=ll never see……

 

 FRANKLIN  DELANO ROOSEVELT……… Architect of American enslavement

 

Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had been nominated to be named the Man of the Century.  The criteria the establishment  press uses to judge excellence never ceases to amaze me. If  your agenda is to support the socialization of  America, what better man to honor than  Franklin D. Roosevelt, the idol of President Clinton. I am convinced, as a student of history, that in generations to come  Franklin Delano Roosevelt  will become known as the father of  American Socialism.

 In 1930, as Governor of  New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed the American tradition when he said:……..The Constitution does not empower the Congress to deal with a great number of  vital problems of government such as the conduct of public utilities, of  education, of social welfare and a dozen other important features…. and Washington must not be encouraged to interfere in these areas.Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic party Presidential candidate  in 1932, ran with the slogan “The New Deal.” Roosevelt’s intention, as told to the American people, was to give them less government. He called for an end to deficit spending  and for sound money. The first three planks of the Democratic party platform read as follows:

We advocate:

 ” 1. An immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus and eliminating extravagance, to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 percent in the cost of the Federal government.

   2. Maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced…..

   3. A sound currency to be maintained at all hazards.”

Two years later, the newly elected FDR, with the catchy slogan and the blueprint of the program for the socialization of  America began his presidency as the “Great Man” at the feet of whom the American people would lay down their liberties.

In his inaugural address, March 4, 1933, President Roosevelt told the American people ..the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no market for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return… Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance….Nature still offers her bounty. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very light of the supply. Primarily this is good, because the rulers of  the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed….have admitted their failure and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money-changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of a generation of self-seekers……Yes, the money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit. We cannot go back to the old order.”

The old order, capitalism, became the enemy of the people, thereby making ownership of private property the symbol of those who would put property rights above social rights. Against all the old symbols of  individualism and self-reliance was raised the attractive counter symbol of security. What this new president did not tell the American people was that he was about to embark on a program where the American people would be educated to relinquish their liberty for a little  security.
 

The new President further declared that the people had “asked for discipline and direction under leadership”; that he would seek to bring speedy action “within my Constitutional authority”; and that he hoped the “normal balance of executive and legislative authority” could be maintained, and then he said: “But in the event that Congress shall fail…….and in the event that the national emergency is still critical…….I shall ask Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis……..broad executive power to make war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

A New Speak had not as yet been introduced to the American public. The word “emergency” was understood to mean what the dictionaries said it meant………a sudden crisis; a pressing necessity. Obviously, in retrospect, the word emergency meant much more to the new President. He interpreted it to mean he had the right to declare an  emergency, and then cure that same emergency with a total reorganization of the constitutional structure of our government.

 The first official act of  President Roosevelt was to declare to the American people  a contrived bankruptcy of the United States. Before the new Congress convened, on March 9, 1933 he declared bankruptcy, in the form of “A National Banking Holiday,” through Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260. Simply, every bank in America closed. The banks were also forbidden to deal in foreign exchange or in any transfer of credit from the United States to any place abroad.

He then had ex post facto law passed by the Congress, which is forbidden by the national Constitution, stating, “Acts of the President and the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933 are hereby confirmed and approved.” This same act provided that no bank in the federal reserve system could resume business except subject to rules and regulation to be promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury. This act gave the President absolute power over foreign exchange and authorized the Federal government to invest public funds in private bank stock, providing banks new capitol owned by the government. And, that same act authorized the President to require the American people to surrender their gold.

 Congress did not write any of  these acts. Congress received them from the White House and passed them. It was the first use of Congress as a “RUBBER STAMP” for Executive branch legislation. There is no constitutional  authority for  the Executive to make law.  Under President Roosevelt, America  took its first step toward totalitarian rule.

Converting rights to privilege by government was fine tuned in the Roosevelt administration. While in the guise of  “Recovery,”  Roosevelt’s “NEW DEAL” Presidency  succeeded in:

1. repudiation of the gold standard, confiscation of the peoples gold, debasement of the currency, deliberate inflation, monetization of debt

2. creating the authority and power of executive government to rule by decrees and rules and regulations of its own making;

3. strengthened its hold upon the economic life of the nation;

4. extended its power over the individual;

5. degraded the parliamentary principle;

6. impaired the great American tradition of an independent, Constitutional judicial power;

7. weakened the power of private enterprise, the power of private finance, the power of state and local government;
 

At the end of   President Roosevelt’s first year, in his annual message to the Congress, January 4, 1934, he said, “It is to the eternal credit of the American people that this tremendous readjustment of our national life is being accomplished peacefully.” This tremendous readjustment of our national life has, in retrospect, been recognized as the beginning of  intrusion and the  attempt at controlling  every aspect of an individuals life by federal  government.

Roosevelt created the doctrine of a planned economy. It included a scheme of taxation, class subsidies and Federal grants-in-aid designed to redistribute the national wealth for social justice, and it calculated to reduce millions of citizens to subservience.

He created in the Executive a principle of supreme government with extensive new powers, including the power to make its own laws by simply publishing in the Federal Register from its newly created administrative agencies  rules and regulations having the force of law, with disobedience punishable by fine or imprisonment.  Without a whimper from the American people, Roosevelt replaced the once great American Republic with the welfare state. Under Roosevelt we lost our wealth, we lost our law, and we took a giant step toward the loss of our liberty and  freedom.

In 1938, distinguished newspaperman, author and editorial writer for the Saturday Evening Post, Garet Garrett,  published an essay, “The Revolution Was.” In the opening paragraph, he  said: “There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of  Depression, singing songs to freedom.”

Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11

This is the congressional testimony of how a Saudi terrorist (that was captured on the battlefield) was granted US citizenship. It is time to start swamping our elected officials in DC with letters asking them to take back their responsibility and close up this imaginary loop-hole for good.

This is a matter of national security and economic survival. We have no time to waste here folks, grab those pens, keyboards & phones and let’s get crackin’.

Eastman Law Review om Birthright citizenship

The PDF of the congressional hearing seems to have been scrubbed from the House of Reps, but thanks to American Patriots, it is never gone forever!

 born_in_the_usa_congressional_testimony_by_eastman

Also see Sen Johnson’s appeals during the U.S. Congressional Documents from the Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session

 

Charge of God’s “Light” Brigade

As some may recall, from recent news, a “National Call to Prayer” for the economic crisis in our nation was held in Texas. I found it rather interesting that they chose Saturday as the day rather than having it held as a national event during Sunday worship services. Why Saturday & not on Sunday when the majority of all Christians worship? Well, this morning during my daily walk with God, the light bulb went off! Let me tell you about it.

One of my now all-time favorite movies is “The Blindside”. The message it sends is so powerful and speaks to so many subject matters that one cannot fully grasp its power in one sitting. The overtones of all the spiritual healing that Jesus taught through his works that are written in the New Testament are astounding. The overtones of His protection for His chosen children of Israel cannot be escaped for ones who truly seek Him.

So where did the light come in for me?

The one scene that has stood out for me for some reason was towards the end. The dreadful term paper all students fear as it holds such great weight to their final reward. Do they pass or do they fail? And the choice of literature one chooses for that paper is as important as the paper itself. How do you write about something you do not know or understand? Is not understanding, the root of all knowledge? Let’s reflect on the understanding…

“Their’s is not to question why, their’s but to do & die”

What was Alfred Lord Tennyson really saying when he wrote the now famous “Charge of the Light Brigade”? What knowledge through understanding can we gleam about God from this famous poem?

“Their’s not to question why”

All our life we are told to question everything, especially authority. I agree to a certain extent as all things in life need to have boundaries that protect them. Those boundaries are put there for our protection and what happens when you cross over the boundaries of protection? You are exposed to all sorts of danger & evil. So what we really should have been taught is to question authority with discernment. Proper discernment regarding authority tells us that man is fallible but God is not. God never changes & neither does His Word. He set boundaries for His children for a good reason and one day He will tell us all about it.

Until then, with proper discernment, let’s go to the Gospels to discern the proper understanding of Matthew 5:17-20.

 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

I want to point out two key phrases in this passage: “Law & Prophets” and “to fulfill”.

“To fulfill”. . . Church authority, theology of man, has taught us that this means that through the crucifixion & resurrection, we are no longer bound to the 10 Commandments or Gods’ statutes & ordinances He spoke to His people in the Old Testament. We are now saved by grace through faith alone. If we sin, all we have to do pray for forgiveness and then keep living our lives the way WE want to as the flesh is separate from the spirit. But is that so? When did circumcision of the heart first appear? Modern clergy & theologians tell us it began in the New Testament with Jesus but I beg to differ with them as God clearly spoke it through Moses in the desert before His children even entered the Promised Land.

Deuteronomy 30:6 ~ And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Ezekiel 11:19 ~ Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh

This is the new covenant spoken by Paul in his letter to the gentile church at Corinth.

2 Corinthians 3: 4-6, 12-18 ~ And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. . . Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Paul is teaching that even though the veil remains for many of His Jewish children, God has lifted that veil for the Gentiles who have entered into His faith; Gentiles who had never heard the Word of God let alone read about it.

In God’s language, fulfill is written שׁלם. Reading right to left we have the Hebrew letters sheen: fire, destroy (sh), lamed: strength, authority (l) and mem: chaos (m).  Can you see the simplicity of God’s language? Does this word remind you of an oft spoken & sung word in the church? It should. To fulfill is to bring peace. SHALOM! Shalom is “The authority that destroys chaos!” Hebrew doesn’t have vowels thus those jots & tittles Jesus spoke of are what fills in the vowels so we know which Hebrew word He is speaking. Without those jots & tittles His spoken & written word gets all twisted & messed up. And who does that best? Man does!

For the discerned heart then, how do we get peace? Through RESTORATION. In Hebrew, God’s language given to Moses & the Prophets, to fulfill is to RESTORE! Not to abolish. Jesus said He came to RESTORE not abolish!

Now that we have that down, we need to understand what Jesus really spoke about the “Law & the Prophets”. Were those really His words?  And why are they Capitalized?

In the Hebrew scroll of Matthew that the Greek NT was written from, Law & Prophets is written as one word, תּורה. Again, reading right to left we have the tav: mark of as in mark of the covenant, seal as in covenant seal (t), the vav: nail that binds (in this case it is a silent connector), the reysh: head (r) and the Hey: behold, reveal (h). Sounded out we get the spoken word “TORAH”. In other words, what Jesus was saying is that “Behold, the New Covenant of I AM”. The reason “Law & Prophets” is capitalized is that it is “The Word”, the spoken & written eternal & forever covenant of God that Jesus came to instruct upon as man had messed it all up!  God had it written down so it could be taught to all generations, from beginning to end and that is why the Five Books of Moses are called the “Torah”. They contain everything we need to know about our Messiah & our spiritual marriage covenant with God. These five books contain all of the “I shalls and I shall nots. Ask yourself, what happens when you break a marriage vow? Then ask yourself how could it be that He came to abolish that which He came to restore which is His everlasting covenant that binds He to us & us to He? Does a marriage counselor tell a couple that in order to sustain the marriage they must keep breaking their vows? Absolutely not! So where did the idea that Jesus came in order to break His Father’s everlasting covenant come from? Well, that is for another lesson and it is a very enlightening one at that. For now, let’s continue on by returning to Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem.

“Their’s but to do & die”

Sounds fatal doesn’t it? Taken in a legalistic sense yes; but let’s look at it from a spiritual sense.

“Do”, to serve, to labor, to guard. What was the first commandment God gave to Adam? To do, he was to lovingly tend & guard the garden. He was to be the protector of the gates as not to let any weeds or chaos enter into it. But what happened? Adam fell asleep on the job so to speak and guess who snuck in, the snake who thrives on chaos. He, whose entire being depends on it. Chaos is what happens when we do not protect our hearts from its host. When we do not faithfully tend & guard in God’s Torah, chaos breaks out in our lives, both physically & mentally because we do not understand the awesomeness of His power as the head of the spiritual family. God is our commander, our leader, our protector & our salvation. Every house has rules in order that chaos does not break out and in God’s house there is no exemption. But like a responsible parent’s love, His guides us with tough love and with a gentile hand during the times we truly mess up.

In Hebrew, love is spelled רחם. Again, reading right to left we have the reysh, the head (r), the chet, the fence that protects (ch as in Bach) and the mem, the chaos (m). God tells us that love is “The head that protests the children from chaos”. Does a loving parent let their child run amuck causing chaos in the entire neighborhood as well as their own home or do they gently sit them down to instruct them, to guide them, which in turn protects them from their ignorance? When one loves their parents with their whole heart they strive to always please the parent.

“Die”, to go, walk, come. Where did we come from? Where are we walking? Where shall we go? These are all very important questions each one of us must answer.  Jesus said in Mark 10, “take up your cross and follow me” and Psalms 85 tells us that His footsteps are our pathway. Wow, sounds like both action & direction as we see from the Hebrew definition of “die”. Mark 7 & Luke 13: Make straight my path, enter through the narrow gate, narrow is the gate and difficult is the path, wide is the gate & the path to destruction.

It is human instinct to take the path of least resistance, is it not? Well, since we are not talking of human flesh, we need to concentrate on whose spirit is leading us through the path of our life in the flesh. It is this path that leads us to where we will be going. Do we die to the chaos of the flesh that leads us down the broad path to the wide gate of destruction or do we die to the spirit of eternal life by lovingly tending & guarding His Word to make straight the path to the narrow gate in order that we do not miss it. If the world does not see Him in us, how are they to know He even exists? Some of the scribes and Pharisees had changed so much of God’s Word that a lot of people, including scribes and Pharisees didn’t even recognized Jesus as the Messiah while He walked with them in the flesh. Out of ignorance, they instead sought out destruction, the destruction of the Messiah that had come for them.

Matthew 5:20 ~ For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven

Jesus was talking about trustful & faithful obedience, not abundance of knowledge. The adding to & subtracting from God’s word by scribes & Pharisees had caused great chaos. Jesus considered them the lowest of the low. Jesus came as our light in order that we may understand; so that we would be a testimonial light to the future generations of the world after He ascended to be with His Father. He, Jesus, taught that that understanding comes from Moses, “have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?” (Mark 12)

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a set-apart nation, a people for a possession, that you should proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light, Footnote: Ex 19:5-9. 10 who once were not a people, but now the people of God; who had not obtained compassion, but now obtained compassion. … 21 For to this you were called, because Messiah also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps,1 Footnote: 11 Cor. 11:1, 1 John 2:6. 22 who committed no sin,1 nor was deceit found in His mouth,”2 Footnotes: 1John 8:55, John 15:10, 2 Cor. 5:21, John 3:5. 2Isa.53:9.

Which leads me back to the question, why have a national call to prayer to plead to God to destroy chaos on Saturday and not on Sunday? Maybe because they thought they could more easily get God’s ear on His day of rest & worship rather the man-made one that was adopted from the chaos that first appeared in the Garden of Eden? The chaos that was at the foot of Mt Sinai when Moses first descended with God’s 10 Words that God, himself, spoke to the crowd for all to hear; the chaos that rejected God’s Sabbath for a day appointed by man and for man against the will and desire of Our Father in Heaven.

Well, I do not know what the outcome of the national prayer will be; however I do know how the poem ended.  Alfred Lord Tennyson went on. . .

Into the valley of death rode the six hundred! . . . When can their glory fade? O the wild charge they made! . . . Honor the charge they made, Honor the Light Brigade, Noble six hundred.

The brigade feared not. They whole heartily honored and trusted their leader, never questioning his authority or commands. Now that’s FAITH! That’s Glory! That’s HONOR!

God is seeking hearts like that of the Six Hundred for His Brigade! Keep watch for the news of the new Saturday Sabbath study/worship coming soon.

Rathergate Part Deux: “Certifigate”

I know, I know…we’re all suppose to be putting all our energy into the budget/debt debate but when the man in charge does not have constitutional authority to even be in the game, then we continue to walk & chew gum at the same time. Thus after letting my congress critters know exactly how I feel about their capitulating when they should be standing firm, I decided to listen to what some experts had to say…

Remember Dan Rather & his little problem of putting forward a forged govt docs in his attempt to get GW Bush ousted as a presidential candidate? Forged documents that got him fired from SEE-BS.

Well, welcome to Rathergate Part Deux: “Certifigate”. Yes, the document expert, Joseph M. Newcomer, who exposed the Killian documents Dan Rather put forward as frauds and a not very good ones at that, tells us all about it and exposes the Obama BC posted on the White House website for what it is. A fraud that is worse than the ones proffered by Dan Rather regarding Bush’s TX Air National Guard records. Liberals, they never learn…


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.