If he treats a so called close friend like this, how will he treat us once he has control of our healthcare?
Oh, for the days of ole’, when a gentleman was truly a gentleman.
Mirrored from www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Yesterday, American journalism reached a new low when James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal published legal propaganda that appears to blatantly lie to readers. In discussing the issues surrounding Obama’s birth to an alien father, Taranto added text to a US statute which does not contain such text. Here is the offensive passage:
“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”
No such law exists.
The words “natural born citizen” do not appear in the statute discussed by Mr. Taranto. In fact, the words “natural born citizen” do not exist in any US statute. Those words only appear in the Constitution – Article 2 Section 1 – and only as a requirement to be President.
(g) 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…
The statute does not use the words “natural born citizen”.
Mr. Taranto needs to get back to Hogwarts fast and try a new spell. His magic wand didn’t add new text to the US Code overnight.
Had Mr. Taranto made the focus of his article the issue of whether persons who obtain citizenship at birth by statute are also natural born citizens for purposes of meeting the Presidential requirements of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, such a discussion would have been proper. His legal analysis as stated in the article would be wrong, but stating such a question presented and taking a position thereto is a correct form of editorial.
But that’s not what Taranto has done.
Taranto and The Wall Street Journal have done something far more damaging and nefarious than simply mis-analyzing the law. He’s written – and they’ve published – a piece of propaganda here which makes it appear as if the text of the law contains words which are not there.
Let’s call that what it is – propaganda. They weren’t content to ask a legal question and honestly deal with both sides of the argument from a non-partisan and pure journalistic intent. No. This article is an attempt to trick readers into believing laws exist which do not exist.
The statute does not include the words “natural born citizen”. Regardless, those who read Taranto’s article are left with the impression that the statute includes those words.
And that is journalistic evildoing personified.
Statutes that grant citizenship – at birth or later in life via naturalization – provide rescue to those people whose citizenship is not self evident at birth. If you’re born in the US to parents who are citizens then you are a natural born citizen and you do not need a statute to create your citizenship which is natural and self evident.
Statutory citizenship does not give rise to natural born citizen status – which is not a right but a requirement to be President. All citizens have the same rights, but not all “citizens” can be President. Not even all “natural born citizens” can be President. The Constitution put the requirements for President in the Document to exclude persons from eligibility, not include them.
Taranto’s article is a gauntlet thrown down in your face. The fourth estate has signaled – through this blatant propaganda attack on the law – that it is willing to lie to your face – IN YOUR FACE – Amerika.
Perhaps all other measures to control this issue are failing. And perhaps my constant pessimism that this blog isn’t doing any good to wake people up is misguided. Blatant propaganda tells me somebody somewhere is getting desperate to make this all go away.
The Wall Street Journal via propaganda agent James Taranto has taken a drastic course of action from which the point of no return is clearly mapped.
We aint in Kansas anymore, people.
She was born under Russian communism, her parents sent her to Isreal as a teenager to get her away from communist control, she meet her husband, they married and later immigrated to the the US where she legally worked to gain her citizenship and build up respectable dental and law practices.
Orly has more patriotic blood in her than a lot of ‘natural born US citizens’ ever will and we are:
‘Darn Proud of Her’
Sometimes you find the most interesting leads in the comments section of articles that further enhance the writers article.
This is from Gray’s Wong decision, Leo.
Surely you can read its plain meaning:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
[Ed. Your comment assumes “natural born subjects” are the same as “natural born citizens”. They are not. When read in context with the other passages I quoted, espcially Gray’s reliance on Binney, it becomes clear that those who were deemed natural born subjects under British law would – at best – be deemed basic “citizens” under US law – not natural born citizens.
You must grasp the understanding that we’re not subjects. And as you will see, the attitude at the time of the adoption of the Constitution makes the repulsion with being a subject clear. I will print for you now exactly what that attitude was straight form the mouth of David Ramsay – David Ramsay (congressman) (1749–1815), an American physician, historian, and Continental Congressman for South Carolina:
A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF
ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND
PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE
By David Ramsay, 1789
The United States are a new nation, or political society, formed at first by the declaration of independence, out of those British subjects in America, who were thrown out of royal protection by act of parliament, passed in December, 1775..
A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people who also changed from subjects to citizens.
The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.
Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of nobleman. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.
(Thanks to Kamira for the research on David Ramsay. This is not the first excellent source she’s brought forward. Nice work.)
A natural born subject is an entirely different species of citizen than a natural born citizen. They sound the same – just as “native born” sounds like “natural born” but they too are not the same. ]
THE SOURCE OF OBAMA’S ANTI-ISRAEL POLICY
by Bishop E W Jackson Sr (United States)
Like Obama, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School. I too have Muslims in my family. I am black, and I was once a leftist Democrat. Since our backgrounds are somewhat similar, I perceive something in Obama’s policy toward Israel which people without that background may not see. All my life I have witnessed a strain of anti-Semitism in the black community. It has been fueled by the rise of the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, but it predates that organization.
Update: just was at the American Thinker and found an interesting tid-bit from comment poster, ST. ITA PARISH, that really sheds more light onto this topic:
NATION OF ISLAM : Elyisiah Mohammed, deceased, founded the African heritage Nation of Islam whereby many Americn born celebraties changed their original angle-saxon (slave era) surnames to something islamic; par example, Cassius Clay becomes Mohammed Ali and Lew Alcindor becomes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
This form of religiosity began on the Chicago Southside with noble intentions that emphasized young black boys always dress with shirt and tie, excel educationally, and be performing athletes. No mention has developed relating Barack “Barry” Hussain bin O’BlatheringOne (aka: Comrade Commisar President Obama) to the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam is a major property owner on the Southside.
Hat tip to the American Thinker
‘Forget Nairobi, focus on Jakarta’, McCarthy writes:
Shortly after divorcing Barack Obama Sr., Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, whom she met – just as she had met Barack Sr. – when both were students at the University of Hawaii. At some point, Soetoro almost certainly adopted the youngster, who became known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama’s lengthy, deeply introspective autobiographies do not address whether he was adopted by the stepfather whose surname he shared for many years, but in all likelihood that did happen in Hawaii, before the family moved to Jakarta.
Under Indonesian law, adoption before the age of six by an Indonesian male qualified a child for citizenship. According to Dreams from My Father, Obama was four when he met Lolo Soetoro; his mother married Soetoro shortly thereafter; and Obama was already registered for school when he and his mother relocated to Jakarta, where Soetoro was an oil-company executive and liaison to the Suharto government. That was in 1966, when Obama was five. Obama attended Indonesian elementary schools, which, in Suharto’s police state, were generally reserved for citizens (and students were required to carry identity cards that matched student registration information). The records of the Catholic school Obama/Soetoro attended for three years identify him as a citizen of Indonesia. Thus Obama probably obtained Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Soetoro in Hawaii. That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said “the parties” (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama as their child – he’d have been only Ann Dunham’s child.
The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a “natural born” American — an uncharted constitutional concept.
This backs up my previous conclusion that we needed to look at his Indonesian citizenship status:
Now some say that because of the Indonesian citizenship, he was automatically disqualified, but this is where I disagree with those claims.
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.
To be qualified, the person MUST have formally renounced any other citizenship before that 14 yr qualification, therefore leaving only their “natural-born” US citizenship having jurisdiction over them. For BHO aka BHS, since he was an Illinois State Senator 1st, and had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would have had to formally renounce his dual citizenship no later than 1991, thus leaving only his US citizenship that he owed allegiance to. Unfortunately for BHO, there are records showing he traveled on a foreign passport during his term in the Illinois state senate and possibly also during his term as a US Senator for the state of Illinois. But more importantly, there are no records that can be found of BHO aka BHS formally renouncing any of his prior citizenships to the US State Dept. anytime between 1979 and 1991 that would have made him eligible to hold any elected office. To this day, BHO aka BHS still holds multiple citizenships.
“If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”
There you have it my fellow citizens, you have been duped by those who took an oath to abide by, protect and defend the Constitution. Doesn’t it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that they are looking out for your best interest?
You also, now know the 1stof the many ugly truths as to why BHO aka BHS is having such a hard time with foreign policy that is leaving even the toughest of our brave military personnel quaking in their boots.
He hasn’t figured out which one, of the sovereign nations he holds allegiance to, is the most important/beneficial to his agenda as of yet. His “Global Campaign Tour of 2008”, where he made sure to stop in communist country as well as Muslim country announcing to all he is a “global citizen” (in which he “literally” is according to court and government records) was my 1st clue that prompted the old saying: “Houston, we have a problem”.
The information for this video was taken from the lawsuit filed with the federal district court of Columbus GA in the matter of the Army major seeking proof of Obama’s eligibility to serve as president. The private investigator hired by the attorney in the case discovered that Obama may have used up to 149 different addresses and 39 different social security numbers prior to becoming president.
I encourage you to read Andrew’s entire article for the in-depth conclusion that Obama releasing ALL his vital records is of utmost importance for our national security and…
I suggest Senator Johnson start paying attention and calling for and inquiry lest his son’s appointment for US Attorney should become invalidated by an illegitimate president.