More WND Posts

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/Home/obama-short-form-birth-certificate

If there were a Hollywood movie about a person who became a President of the US without any of the 300 million Americans demanding for his proof of natural born citizenship, or after being sued to show his birth certificate that person refused to do so, or the entire congress and senate refuse to question his citizenship, or the states and federal agents do not lift a finger to produce evidence, or after more than two dozen cases filed the Supreme Court refuses to settle the issue, would you have found that situation possible and the movie credible?

On July 22, 2009 at 8:41 pm Jim said: Here’s the multi-million dollar question for Lou Dobbs: “When did they amend the constitution to read that dual-nationals can run for president?”

That’s all I want to know. Last I looked, even naturalized citizens can’t. Last I looked, the Constitution never allowed for dual-citizens, period. When did they amend that part? Oh wait! They didn’t!
They just decided that was how it was going to be around here without any amendment. And now you want to shut up everyone who noticed? How quaint, but it’s not going to fly. We’re going to put up the rest of the truth so true Americans know what you’re not telling them.

Michele:
In the writings from that period, it demonstrates the understanding of law as it pertains to domicile, which by way, is connected to none other than Vattel. The Vattel link is credited to Paul Madison’s research of The Federalist Blog and no one else. (http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html)

Ide sums up the understanding, from the days of Washington, that intentional domicile is the deciding factor for citizenship, not mere birth.
Kelly already had gone into the research that shows there were only 3 types of citizens at the time of the Declaration of Independence when she wrote on Mr. Donofrio’s blog:
1. Those that pledged their oaths at the time of the Declaration of Independence;

2. The inheritors, i.e., the children, of those people who made the pledge;

3. Foreigners who applied for citizenship and took an oath of sole allegiance to the U.S.
(British subjects were not US citizens since they remained loyal to the crown, so the Revolutionary War was a civil war in some counties.)
Dual allegiance was not an option.
Then UR went into the history of it so people could see the Revolutionary War link. It was UR to first make that link, no one else. But make no mistake that Wong Kim Ark is a rectification of The Chinese Exclusion Act and the Fourteenth Amendment is as Ide confirms, so no one could take away the path of citizenship rightly due to blacks already residing in this country, who were discriminated against by the States in a similar way that the Chinese Exclusion Act discriminated against the Chinese.

Neither had absolutely anything to do with widening a path to the presidency under Article II via birthright citizenship based on the jus soli doctrine. There is no case law to prove that this was the intention of those rectifications either.
The discrimination was that blacks and Chinese couldn’t become citizens at all, either by the inheritance of their parents or via naturalization.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 22 Reply to PhoxarRed, who wrote:
“the more widespread such awareness of means alternative to jus soli existed in the minds of the new American people, the more necessary the Framers would have felt it, to have announced any intention to reverse the existing American tradition of jus soli birthright citizenship.”

A few baseless assumptions expressed there, like the idea that there was ANY thought about citizenship in the minds of the colonists.  Why would there be except in regard to which colony/state they belonged to.  They were all citizens automatically so why would the issue even arise?  They didn’t travel abroad nor marry aliens.  They were all British, later American, citizens.
How can a sane person argue with another sane person that their view is correct and the other is wrong when both sides are 99.999% correct simultaneously?  All citizens were born “in country” to citizen parents, with a few rare exceptions, so it is ridiculous to assert that they all believed one way or an other when they couldn’t have cared less.
In the end, it doesn’t matter what anyone believed, rightly or wrongly.  All that matters is what the English words mean, and hence, what they meant to the framers of the Constitution.  The jus soli principle may have been the operating citizenship principle, but that is irrelevant to the use of the word “natural” in describing certain citizens regarding eligibility to the office of the POTUS.
As for “the Framers would have … announced any intention to reverse the existing American tradition of jus soli birthright citizenship.”  It wasn’t a “tradition” (except perhaps in regard to individual colonies) and it wasn’t being “reversed” by the Article II “natural born citizen” requirement which applied ONLY to the office of the President, and none other.  So even if jus soli was operative in the new nation, it would be just one of two requirements for Art. II eligibility, the other being birth to citizen parents.  Without that additional requirement a candidate for the Presidency would be like a para-glider with only one leg.  The stability of his landing is compromised by missing one, just as the loyalty of a candidate might be compromised by missing one of the two legs of natural citizenship. Namely; native birth to citizen parents.   AN

“…making Obama a 14th Amendment citizen and by John Bingham’s definition, a Natural Born Citizen”

Who died and made John Bingham God?  His definition is only his own opinion and nothing more.  What Supreme Court justice would give deference to his opinion over their own?  They can’t trust that anybody that opined on the subject didn’t engage in a biased contortion of either logic or the facts regarding the implied meaning of the word “natural”
Don’t quote some revered figure as being the final word on the subject when the other side can cite just as many authorities or more.
Don’t imply that the subject has been settled as you see it in your philosophy, especially since your bias isn’t based on what was in the minds of the framers but what is in the mind of any given citizen child born of an alien father who might dream of being President someday.  Like it or not, the intent of Article II is to prevent such a person from ever being eligible to occupy the oval office.
The framers sought two thing; maturity, and loyalty.  The first two requirements involve loyalty, -“maximum citizenship” (to coin a phrase) and residency.  Maximum citizenship involved at least two things; American father, and native birth. An American mother was taken for granted as a given.
Using the term “natural” implied a type of citizen that would exclude other types of citizens. An adopted son of a lesbian couple would not be considered “natural”.  The union and children of a white mother and a negro father would not have been thought of as “natural”.  The son of an American mother and a father that was a loyal subject  of the King of England would not be seen as a “natural” American citizen, nor even a citizen at all.  AN

James Madison wrote:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance.”
No, it is not.  That is a horribly simplistic statement since “birth” is undefined.  If he meant “place of birth” (not the event of birth, or birth to citizens of the homeland) then that’s wrong because it is not where one is born that instills allegiance, it’s where one grows up.

“Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States,..”
“Birth derives its force”??? I think he meant allegiance derives its force.  The only force related to birth is that exerted against the body of the mother.  AN

“…sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general, place is the most certain criterion;”
Wrong.  To take such words literally means that the reported place of birth (of which no persons has ever had personal knowledge because they were a baby at the time) had greater influence in ones nationalism than all the years of their parents instilling their values and priorities. What is “certain” about that?
And it overlooks that fact that in 99.9% of American citizens BOTH were simultaneously true, so how could one categorically state that one was more determinant of allegiance than the other?

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection”
Whoa!!! Obedience??? -like to the divinely ordained KING? Or to the aristocratic Parliament? When did the concept of “obedience” become part of the American lexicon?

“The children of aliens…are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Wait a minute. Back-up!  “SUBJECTS”??? Subject to what?  What a horrible choice of words.  It shows just how much his thinking was infused with the old way of thinking under British rule.
As for the granting of citizenship to children of aliens, that did not MAKE them “natural born…subjects” but meant they are to be “considered as”. Having “the same rights with the rest of the citizens” -citizens who were born on the land to American parents, i.e., natural born Americans.   AN

su359115 wrote:
If Obama, Sr. had been a father to the family, Obama would have had the option to be a British citizen, or a U.S. citizen. Our naturalization laws have grown to handle those situations so going to a court of proper jurisdiction isn’t necessary.

Obama chose to use, as a “convenience” (see the Bellei, or Terrazas case commentary on dual nationality) his Indonesian citizenship for his passport, travel to Pakistan, and getting a Fulbright Scholarship.
I cited the law in the 1952 INA that would have removed Obama’s U.S. citizenship at birth, his Indonesian citizenship becoming his sole citizenship in place of his US citizenship, if Obama had not maintained five years of continuous U.S. residency between the ages of 14 and 23. Obama would have lost U.S. citizenship and remained Indonesian.

su359115 wrote:
Here is the law proving Phoxar completely in the ‘lost marbles’ realm of reasoning. 7) Obama, Jr. was born with dual nationalities, but he was only solely a U.S. citizen between the ages of two and six. In 1967 he was derivatively naturalized Indonesian. Again, Phil Berg hired an Indonesian lawfirm to look that up. Dunham’s marriage to Lolo Soetoro and her Indonesian residency made Obama an Indonesian, a nationality he maintained well into his late teens, early twenties. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958, Law No. 12 (1945) [See my first blog of Feb-2009 for the full citation of that law, or go to Phil Berg's site.] [8] Unbeknownst to Obama, and even though he passed himself off as Indonesian into his early twenties, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act automatically restored his U.S. citizenship, which he lost as a minor through his mother’s marriage. [as a minor, that is a critical point in the law] All it took was his continuous residency from age 14 through 19. See the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) 301(a)(7) and 301(b)’s five-year continuous residency requirement to become a U.S. citizen, http://www.theodora.com/ina_96_title_3.html http://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-timeline-of-barack-hussein-obamas-nationality-and-citizenships/ So, dont’ tell me that foreign naturalization law was ‘imaginary’ or had no force of law in the United States, when U.S. law had contingencies for alien nationalities and citizenships confered through parents.

SEC. 14. 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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My (straight-shooter) replies to PhoxarRed:

Your conclusions have no basis in logic.  You are saying that the framers of the Constitution would have had the same superficial “outsider” view as the common man, when instead they had a unique view because it was on their shoulders that the security of the country rested when they were deciding the criteria for the Presidentcy. NO ONE ELSE’S view is relevant.
Your view ignores that fact the “everyone” can be wrong, especially in the use of terms that are almost interchangeable being as 99.99% of citizens were both native and natural born.
What ever existed that would have prevented people from conflating the two when it comes so naturally to do so?

Your assertion that all those hundreds of quotes relate to the Art.II “natural born citizen” phrase is unbelievable for the simple reason that there was essentially zero reason to ever even think about it until the appearance of Barack Obama.  I know that I never did until a couple months ago.  So tell me why it would have ever come up since a real discourse about Presidential eligibility was never necessary.  I’ll bet that essentially none of those numerous quotes have anything to do with the Presidency nor the fears the framers rightly had that the son of a loyal British subject would be born on our soil, be raised in Britain, return to the land of his “native birth” as a citizen, run for and win the position of Commander in Chief off all the military forces of the United States, and then use them against the republic.  How can you be so blind as to not see that that is precisely what they intended to prevent. The son of an alien was not to be trusted with all the military force of the US government. Period. Britain was STILL the enemy and hostile to the United States and even tried to destroy it a second time a few years later.
Boyhood dreams are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to what the framers intended.  It wasn’t the fulfillment of dreams they had in mind, it was the protection of the state by requiring the maximum degree of loyalty that circumstances could assure, and that included both native birth AND citizen parents. Anything less is ***LESS!!!***.  Less is not what they had in mind.
Your distorted and inadequate view due to conflating native with natural essentially means that they wanted there to be no difference between the citizenship requirements for the President and those for everyone else, except he couldn’t be a naturalized citizen.
You chose to base your conclusions on the opinions of others when there is an actual foundation of truth you aren’t willing to consult, and that is the underlying FACT that words have actual set meanings, and the intellectually sloppy misconstruence of terms has no place in understand the meaning and intent of the words the framers chose.  AN

I’ll accept your assertion that many historical natural-born-citizen references were to Presidential eligibility but I’m inclined to think that it was tangentially.  As in drawing the conclusion that a native born citizen is essentially no different than a natural born citizen (99.99% overlap) so why make a distinction between them.  Then making the logically illegitimate conclusion that if native born is essentially the same as natural born then one can (erroneously)make the assumption and statement that the Presidential eligibility clause must be using its term as one interchangeable with its alternative. THAT is where they made their error.
Natural citizenship is deliberately intended to require MORE than mere native birth -which conveys no assurance of loyalty.  For that matter, neither does citizenship from citizen parents impart any absolute certainty of loyalty, that is why they deliberately intended that BOTH be required.  That is the conclusion drawn not from the logical but mistaken opinions of latter generations, but from the framers’ use of the word “natural” instead of “native”. One has no basis to conclude that they DID NOT have in mind the description that they all knew, -of what a natural born citizen is. It is not one with only native birth nor one with only citizen parents, but BOTH.
To seek to diminish the level of concern they had regarding the power of the President one has to be unaware of their fear of the US military someday being used in the service of a foreign king.  They were NOT trying to set the bar about as low as possible but as high as possible.
As for all the “wise” opinions of later history, one should bare in mind that none of them existed when the Constitution was written so what the framers meant and intended was not at all influenced by the future, but by the past and the actual meaning of the words used.
As for nearly everybody getting something wrong due to a logic error, consider this: “Gee Mr. Columbus, are you insane?  Don’t you know that if you sail too far West you will drop off the edge of the world?”  And: “Gee Mr. Columbus, you made it all the way to India!  And even brought back some natives of India!”  Truth was that he didn’t even make it to the coast of the western hemisphere. But we still call Native Americans “Indians” to this day.  Being smart does not guarantee that one is aware of his own logic errors because of the subconscious reasons behind them.   AN

RE: “The inane windbag words of James Madison” by straight-shooter
Posted by su359115 on May 24, 2011 12:38

The American colonies were subjected to a feudal system of forced allegiance to the King. All that issued forth from the land, the waters, seed, and womb belonged to the King.  The King chartered lands to Wm Penn, but there were limits and conditions.  James Madison, an attorney, relied on English laws still in force. His opponent filed a petition in disagreement, describing citizenship devolving from a citizen father. A few months later, the first naturalization law was passed in congress, agreeing with the petition, not Madison.
In fact, reliance on the jus solis priniciples forced upon a limited colony was void and superseded by the legislated act, as jurisprudence and the common law itself demands.  Over time, the judiciary made comments and decisions based on invalid law and principles, e.g., English law and jus solis.
Eventually, the judiciary corrupted legislated act to such a degree that now, even children of illegal aliens who by law are supposed to be deported, are given full protections and rights by the judiciary. This is the tragedy of liberalism, by definition an interpretation of existing law beyond the scope and limitations of the law, i.e., abrogation of the law. Jus solis is an unconstitutional principle, and not the validation of presidential eligibility. The President of the United States at bare minimum requires a U.S. citizen father.

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/subpoena-issued-for-loretta-fuddy.html

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/news-realease-legal-proof-that.html

“Originalism” in interpreting the Constitution means interpreting it to mean what the people who voted to ratify it thought the words meant when they voted for ratification.

“Similarly, we say most often of the fallen heroes that they “died for their country” – not their parents.”
I think you went off the tracks with that comment since there has been no connection made between the national devotion of natural born citizenship and the focus of such devotion being parents rather than ones country or nation.  And there is a distinct difference between the two.  The most elemental loyalty or devotion is to ones country and society.  A higher plane of devotion is to ones government.  The highest plane is to the principles on which ones government (or group) are based.  Such devotion is expressed in the saying: “I totally disagree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”  The motives one has when facing possible death in combat are different from the motives that lead one to enlist and serve, which may be personal, patriotic, or spiritual principles.
In your mention of the subjective reasons for national loyalty you didn’t acknowledge the motives of our founding fathers when they signed the Declaration of Independence.  That act had nothing whatsoever to do with devotion to ones country nor a call to defend her.  Rather it was a deliberate act of treason against the Crown based on years of frustration at the continual violations of the principles that governed citizens of England but were denied to citizens of the colonies. They rebelled with greatly polarized feelings but the foundation of that rebellion was not their feelings but the principles that they held and that were so egregiously violated. They were willing to risk losing all, property, freedom, and life itself in their struggle to stand up for those principles.
In order to insure that every President embraced those principles, they designed the eligibility to ensure the strongest sense of loyalty that a citizen could feel toward his country, his government, and his nation’s principles. An average citizen was not what they had in mind, but rather a citizen whose loyalty springs from all three of those areas of possible devotion.   AN

 

Reply to PhoxarRed May 25

It’s amazing how preposterous your imaginings are.  If you don’t know the meaning of “original” or “certified hard-copy” then you need to consult a dictionary.  “Copy” means a copy, certified by the authorized state official with his signature and State Seal, both of which are missing from the whatever-the-hell-it-is PDF.
As for who validates such a document, in our legal system, I assume it would be the judge that reviews it. Of course his objectivity may be compromised by political bias.
As your imagination meandered far afield you failed to grasp what you were implying.  What you’ve covertly suggested is that since unreasonable men might endless ask unreasonable questions, which would be inconvenient, therefore no questions, even reasonable one, should be asked by reasonable men.  Can you even grasp your own implications?  Most of your questions were of the unreasonable variety and bordered on the absurd.  But you were unable to point out which of my long list of questions were unreasonable, nor did you have answers to any of them.  That leads any reasonable person to wonder if you are a reasonable person, because reasonable minds have questions when there is a gaping absence of answers to questions that come naturally to the mind of anyone who has a normal sense of curiosity.  Without questions, answers are never going to be found in any area of human study or activity.
As for accepting the word of the Hawaiian state officials, you equate all the possible cases of state government certification with the very unique case of the eligibility of the President of the United State, which should never be treated as if it was NOT a higher priority than Joe citizen.
Two things you missed are that Hawaii has not made public an image of a certified hard-copy.  It is still unknown if an original exists even though the PDF appears to be a copy of one, but it is not “certified” (which I believe is probably a legal term).  Also, even if they “assert” that the information is an accurate representation of what is on file in their archives, their assertion is not any form of certification.  AND…there is no certification that what is in their archive was not put there by them for purposes of committing fraud.  They could just write down anything they want, stash it in their files and then claim that what was released matches what is in their files.  How can you not see just how simple that would be to do and that they may have had reason to do so in order to protect their knight in shining armor, their champion?  Why would any patriot want NO ANSWERS be obtained to resolved such questions?  AN

As I’ve shown by close-up examination of the PDF, only a few things are known and many are unknowable.  One thing I’ve discovered is that essentially all of the “anomalies” are not explainable as the product of the human mind.  There’s 2 kinds of anomalies, one is where the original photograph image of the text, which was converted into a scalable PDF image, has been altered randomly by encryption algorithms that converted typed text and printed form elements into non-scalable JPG images which are composed of individual pixels and on a separate layer from the rest of the text.  The more enlarged, the bigger the pixels appear, but the original text is not composed of pixels but instead is “scalable” i.e. -enlargeable without distortion or pixelizaton.  So while there is extensive evidence of alteration, there is NO evidence of DELIBERATE alteration, with the possible exception of the last digit in the document number.
The other type of anomaly is where elements of the printed form are seen to be absolutely identical, which I thought at first was clear evidence of tampering, but later, after thorough re-examination I found that the same duplication occurred in elements (letters) that had no conceivable human motive behind them.  That implied that they were due to the identical nature of the original printed characters.
Optical Character Recognition was not involved in creating the PDF because the image of the original typewritten text was preserved  via photography using a centered lens.
One can proclaim endlessly that the PDF is altered, fabricated, or created, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate.  Nor does it certify that it is, or is not, an official Hawaiian Health Dept. digital creation. Nothing about it has been certified by anyone, though claims have been made.
Experts and laymen alike can testify that it is not an unaltered digital document, but they cannot tell you what the hell it actually is.  But I’ll try. There is no explanation under Heaven that can provide rhyme and reason for its anomalies except security encryption algorithms that produce random splitting of some elements of the form & text images into JPG images, which had to be preserved as separate layers in order to retain the unique effect that was created, of which a record would be kept to be able to detect document counterfeiting. see obama–nation.com aka http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/certificate-of-live-birth/ AN

reply to PhoxarRed
“No public official can be held accountable to accommodate individual interpretations of the constitution and its various clauses.”

How did your mind come up with this statement?  It serves to counter an assertion that no one has ever made. So how did it even pop into your head.  Interpretations of the Constitution have been endlessly discussed here but only in reference to the SCOTUS being the authority to settle them, NOT any state official.

“You have attempted to redefine many of the terms associated with the eligibility issue according to your own philosophical beliefs and notions of history.”
I’ve never done any such thing since I have no philosophy nor preference regarding POTUS eligibility, nor do I know anything of its history.  I’ve adhered strictly to the one thing that I do know and that is the English language and what its word mean and imply.  YOU have been the one to “redefine” words to suit YOUR philosophy, which you’ve revealed more than once. I KNOW what “natural” means and do not need a hundred “experts” to “educate” me when they are the ones that chose to redefine its meaning according to the common misconception that if two things are 99.99% identical, then they can be called identical.  Try that with pure grain meal and pure grain meal with .01% arsenic.

“…a reasonable threshold of skepticism about the authenticity of facts certified as true by a state.”

What isn’t sinking into your brain is the fact that the state of Hawaii has NEVER certified anything about the digital so-called documents released by the White House.  I don’t want to sound arrogant but are you cognizant of what “certified” means?   Claims are not certification.  AN

 

PhoxarRed wrote:
“So SCOTUS is already aware of the so called “merits” of the case, and if they were concerned about Obama’s eligibility, they would have acted long ago – on their own.”

The fact that they haven’t does not speak to the validity of the very contested issue, but to their own personal aversion to “kicking a hornets nest”. One of them even admitted that they are avoiding the issue. So their lack of willingness to tackle the issue cannot be construed as tacit approval, it’s merely the human flaw of avoidance.  They exhibit a failure of courage to confront an issue that NEEDS to be settled due to the fact that Obama will otherwise be free to serve a second term, even though their decision might preclude that.  But aside from Obama, the issue will probably never be raised again in our lifetimes.  AN

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers

%d bloggers like this: