<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for h2ooflife</title>
	<atom:link href="http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>The greatest controversy in American political history</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:06:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Greatest Fraud in Human History by Chicago Law Professors: Obama Was Lazy And Unqualified - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 18 - City-Data Forum</title>
		<link>http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/the-greatest-fraud-in-human-history/comment-page-1/#comment-3302</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chicago Law Professors: Obama Was Lazy And Unqualified - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 18 - City-Data Forum]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:06:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/?p=2853#comment-3302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;]  [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;]  [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on America&#8217;s Progressive Gangrene by starbeau</title>
		<link>http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/americas-progressive-gangrene/comment-page-1/#comment-3110</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[starbeau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/?p=2771#comment-3110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Absolutely beautiful Mr. Nash and &quot;spot&quot; on. The United States is heading toward the Chicago and Detroits&#039; of today. We do not have one Senator or Representative or Federal Judge that has stood up to the assault on our Constitution.  Not one!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Absolutely beautiful Mr. Nash and &#8220;spot&#8221; on. The United States is heading toward the Chicago and Detroits&#8217; of today. We do not have one Senator or Representative or Federal Judge that has stood up to the assault on our Constitution.  Not one!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on U.S. Marines, U.S. Ambassadors and an Unconstitutional President by arnash</title>
		<link>http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/us-marines-ambassadors-and-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-3082</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[arnash]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2013 08:08:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/?p=2456#comment-3082</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Publius told us that it did not matter where a child was born.&quot;

 President Madison understood the principle of natural law by which children of Englishmen, though American born, were natural born Englishmen by patrilineal descent, proven further by this:
&quot;...eventually declared McClure alien born. He then ruled that he became a “Citizen of the United States,” not because he was born in South Carolina...but because a few months after he was born, his British father naturalized as a “citizen of the United States.”
  He went from being a natural English born subject to being an American via derivative citizenship.  Whatever the father is, so is also the son.  In nature paternity is everything.  Location is an element of law, not nature; -an element of legal citizenship, not natural citizenship.

The truth about the 1790 Nat. Act: &quot; ...and thereupon such person shall be *considered as* a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person so naturalized,...shall also be *considered as* citizens of the United States.&quot;
Notice the language: &quot;considered as citizens of the U.S.&quot;, which means that they *ARE* citizens of the United States.  Their citizenship is not a fiction of law.  It is real. 
 
Similarly: &quot;And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be *considered as* natural born Citizens:&quot;
  Considered as natural born citizens meant that they in fact actually were natural born citizens, and not a fiction of law, -pseudo natural born citizens.
 
  There was only one reason to declare them citizens and that was as an order to all port authorities and magistrates that they were never to treat their fellow Americans as aliens.  
Bear in mind also, that foreign women who married American men could become American citizens before ever stepping foot on American soil.  They would enter the country as new Americans even though they were also foreigners.  Why would they be allowed in?

  Because of the authority of Congress and the declarations made either by its Act or by federal officers who controlled federal policy.  Such authority was what was being exercised by those declarations.
  But in adding the words &quot;natural born&quot; they went a big step further, and there is no explanation on earth for having done so other than the one that I presented previously.  Silence should not be misconstrued as disagreement because disagreement is impossible without an alternate explanation, and there is none.
   Congress wanted the world to know that place of birth was irrelevant as long as an American son lived in his country for 14 years.  Then, if 35 years of age, he would qualify to be President.  Thus the Paris-born hypothetical or real son of T. Jefferson, and the London born hypothetical or real son of J. Adams were eligible to be President just like their fathers.  No real-world reason on earth could justify denying them their birthright.  AN


dick head wrote: &quot;if an alien father was a criminal then it would be hard for me to believe the child of such aliens would automatically be granted citizenship by virtue of us birth. I am struck at how highly educated, moral, wise..the Founders were.&quot;

  I&#039;ll bet that no one who was illiterate would have applied for citizenship, and that it wasn&#039;t granted to one who was.  Being informed and being able to read the Constitution and the Bible are primary elements in maintaining public morality and an honest free republic, though there were probably exceptions, as well as corrupt highly literate people (Federalists who passed the Alien &amp; Sedition Acts).  AN]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Publius told us that it did not matter where a child was born.&#8221;</p>
<p> President Madison understood the principle of natural law by which children of Englishmen, though American born, were natural born Englishmen by patrilineal descent, proven further by this:<br />
&#8220;&#8230;eventually declared McClure alien born. He then ruled that he became a “Citizen of the United States,” not because he was born in South Carolina&#8230;but because a few months after he was born, his British father naturalized as a “citizen of the United States.”<br />
  He went from being a natural English born subject to being an American via derivative citizenship.  Whatever the father is, so is also the son.  In nature paternity is everything.  Location is an element of law, not nature; -an element of legal citizenship, not natural citizenship.</p>
<p>The truth about the 1790 Nat. Act: &#8221; &#8230;and thereupon such person shall be *considered as* a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person so naturalized,&#8230;shall also be *considered as* citizens of the United States.&#8221;<br />
Notice the language: &#8220;considered as citizens of the U.S.&#8221;, which means that they *ARE* citizens of the United States.  Their citizenship is not a fiction of law.  It is real. </p>
<p>Similarly: &#8220;And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be *considered as* natural born Citizens:&#8221;<br />
  Considered as natural born citizens meant that they in fact actually were natural born citizens, and not a fiction of law, -pseudo natural born citizens.</p>
<p>  There was only one reason to declare them citizens and that was as an order to all port authorities and magistrates that they were never to treat their fellow Americans as aliens.<br />
Bear in mind also, that foreign women who married American men could become American citizens before ever stepping foot on American soil.  They would enter the country as new Americans even though they were also foreigners.  Why would they be allowed in?</p>
<p>  Because of the authority of Congress and the declarations made either by its Act or by federal officers who controlled federal policy.  Such authority was what was being exercised by those declarations.<br />
  But in adding the words &#8220;natural born&#8221; they went a big step further, and there is no explanation on earth for having done so other than the one that I presented previously.  Silence should not be misconstrued as disagreement because disagreement is impossible without an alternate explanation, and there is none.<br />
   Congress wanted the world to know that place of birth was irrelevant as long as an American son lived in his country for 14 years.  Then, if 35 years of age, he would qualify to be President.  Thus the Paris-born hypothetical or real son of T. Jefferson, and the London born hypothetical or real son of J. Adams were eligible to be President just like their fathers.  No real-world reason on earth could justify denying them their birthright.  AN</p>
<p>dick head wrote: &#8220;if an alien father was a criminal then it would be hard for me to believe the child of such aliens would automatically be granted citizenship by virtue of us birth. I am struck at how highly educated, moral, wise..the Founders were.&#8221;</p>
<p>  I&#8217;ll bet that no one who was illiterate would have applied for citizenship, and that it wasn&#8217;t granted to one who was.  Being informed and being able to read the Constitution and the Bible are primary elements in maintaining public morality and an honest free republic, though there were probably exceptions, as well as corrupt highly literate people (Federalists who passed the Alien &amp; Sedition Acts).  AN</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on U.S. Marines, U.S. Ambassadors and an Unconstitutional President by arnash</title>
		<link>http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/us-marines-ambassadors-and-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-3081</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[arnash]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2013 08:07:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/?p=2456#comment-3081</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nat Act 1790 ...and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person 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.  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 

Nat Act 1795: 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, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:   
Naturalization Act 1795: &quot;Sec 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized,...and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, *shall be considered as citizens* of the United States:&quot;

&quot;Justice Gray...concluded that the English common law jus soli rule survived the American Revolution and adoption of the Constitution.&quot;

  It&#039;s pretty likely that he was from a state, perhaps Virginia, which naturalized children of its immigrants at birth, making them sons of Virginia via jus soli.  His mind may have been so suffused with jus soli from his whole life background that he just presumed it was the same else where.
  My sister recently handed me a fingernail clipper when I asked for one but it was curved outward instead of inward.  I was astonished that such a thing existed, and she was surprised to hear that I&#039;d never seen such a thing in my life, while she didn&#039;t know there was any other kind! And she&#039;s live 60 years.  We presume things because of our experience or lack thereof, our assumptions coloring our conclusions.  AN

&quot;Considered as&quot; is directed at the persons assigned the posts of doing the considering.  Every entry port officer would ask himself; &quot;Is this person or child from abroad an American or an alien?  If they are an American do I care at all what kind of citizen they are?  Why should I, -ingress into the country has nothing to do with Presidential elections. I don&#039;t care if they are a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.  It&#039;s all the same when it comes to being allowed in.  I only care whether or not they are a citizen.  Congress has told me that they are.  That&#039;s all I need to know.&quot;   And so that is all that they were told when it was rewritten.   AN]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nat Act 1790 &#8230;and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person 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.  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: </p>
<p>Nat Act 1795: 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, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:<br />
Naturalization Act 1795: &#8220;Sec 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized,&#8230;and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, *shall be considered as citizens* of the United States:&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Justice Gray&#8230;concluded that the English common law jus soli rule survived the American Revolution and adoption of the Constitution.&#8221;</p>
<p>  It&#8217;s pretty likely that he was from a state, perhaps Virginia, which naturalized children of its immigrants at birth, making them sons of Virginia via jus soli.  His mind may have been so suffused with jus soli from his whole life background that he just presumed it was the same else where.<br />
  My sister recently handed me a fingernail clipper when I asked for one but it was curved outward instead of inward.  I was astonished that such a thing existed, and she was surprised to hear that I&#8217;d never seen such a thing in my life, while she didn&#8217;t know there was any other kind! And she&#8217;s live 60 years.  We presume things because of our experience or lack thereof, our assumptions coloring our conclusions.  AN</p>
<p>&#8220;Considered as&#8221; is directed at the persons assigned the posts of doing the considering.  Every entry port officer would ask himself; &#8220;Is this person or child from abroad an American or an alien?  If they are an American do I care at all what kind of citizen they are?  Why should I, -ingress into the country has nothing to do with Presidential elections. I don&#8217;t care if they are a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.  It&#8217;s all the same when it comes to being allowed in.  I only care whether or not they are a citizen.  Congress has told me that they are.  That&#8217;s all I need to know.&#8221;   And so that is all that they were told when it was rewritten.   AN</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
