Daily Comments 6-19-12
June 19, 2012 Leave a comment
reply to Leonard Daneman:
It’s helpful to finally learn about the situation Rubio’s parents found themselves in, -being stateless persons, but there’s a flaw in your assumption that that condition could produce a natural citizen. They were still natural citizens of Cuba and could only produce a child with the same status. Between the two extremes of being Cuban parents in Cuba to being American parents in America, their US children were not born with the criteria that describes American children born of American parents. That criteria is not the acquistion of a foreign connection by parentage (that is merely a collateral effect) but the blood connection to citizens of the nation.
One must remember the fact that Marco Rubio would not even be a U.S. citizen if his father had never become naturalized and he did nothing himself to become naturalized. Absence of alienage does not meet the requirements for U.S. citizenship, must less natural citizenship.
Marco has instead derivative citizenship, not natural citizenship. His derivative citizenship is via the naturalizing power of the 14th Amendment which extends to children of father’s and single mothers who are legal immigrants. But the 14th Amendment cannot provide citizenship that is natural. It only provides legal citizenship because natural citizens require no law to make then natural citizens, but children of immigrants absolutely do need positive law to obtain citizenship. Without it they possess only the citizenship of their parents’ homeland.
So to accurately describe the citizenship of Marco Rubio, you need to apply the principle of natural law, (reproduction after one’s own kind) -and bear in mind what Lincoln said:
If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four, because calling it a leg doesn’t make it one.”
But I’d sure like to know if Marco’s mother obtained her citizenship automatically just like her children. I suppose she had to undergo the naturalization process also as derivative citizenship for wives of naturalizing foreign men was probably no longer allowed after women obtained the right to vote . AN
Both Rubio’s parents were naturalized citizens after coming from Cuba during the rise of power of Castro. Obama only had one US citizen parent and the other was a British subject, for which the “natural born citizen” edict was written in the Constitution. Obama has made it so anybody can be president even an illegal born in the US. Shortly after the earthquake in Haiti, over 100,000 Haitians who were in the US illegally became legal citizens, their kids became potential future presidents. I just hope they learn English so they don’t have to rewrite the Constitution in Spanish.
Listen, there is a gigantic different between being a citizen “by” birth, and a citizens “at” birth. “By” refers to birth itself, via the process of being born. What’s part and parcel of being born? Being born to a mother and father who are American citizens and not immigrants.
“At” birth refers to Time, the time at which one is viewed as becoming a citizen. Those who are granted citizenship by government and laws are not natural citizens even if it begins from the date of their birth. It doesn’t matter when it begins, -what matters if how and why it begins. If it is not natural citizenship, which requires no law whatsoever, (and none exists, nor can exist because it is an unalienable right) then even citienship “at” birth is not a qualification to be President.
As a bonafide birther myself, I hate to burst your bubble, but if you ACTUALLY READ Minor v. Happersett, you’ll see that the case does not define a “natural born citizen”. It is a case about whether the 14th Amendment granted women the right to vote (and held that it did not). The court acknowledged that there are competing definitions of “natural born citizen” (including that a person born abroad, but with citizen parents, was a citizen), and that by even the strictest possible definition, the plaintiff was a citizen, but that even such citizenship, by itself, did not confer the right to vote, holding that that issue was controlled by state laws. So first of all, the court acknowledged that the case was not primarily about the definition of “natural born citizen”, and second, the case stands NOT for the proposition that the definition is clear, but instead that it is NOT clear; the court plainly said so. The court reasoned that the only definitive statement that could be made is that there are 2 sources of citizenship: birth or naturalization. That rule is not specific enough to corner Obama, if born in Hawaii, on the basis of his father not being a citizen. So the only way to definitively corner Obama is to prove he wasn’t born in the US.
This is part of what Obama has spent almost $2M to hide… you decide…
“there are 2 sources of citizenship: birth or naturalization” That conclusion reveals judge Waite’s cluelessness about the nature and origin of citizenship. There are, and were when he wrote his opinion, 4 types of citizenship; Natural, Native-born, Naturalized, and Derivative. Natural citizens are born citizens via natural political inheritance of the status of the father. Native-born citizens are not born being citizens by nature, but are born *with* citizenship via the American people’s ratification of the 14th Amendment. They are legal, or constitutional citizens only. Derivative citizens are those who derived their citizenship from a naturalized father or an American husband.
“the only way to definitively corner Obama is to prove he wasn’t born in the US.” Better to frame it as proving that his birth certificate is a counterfeit image and that must be because a real Hawaiian hospital birth record does not exist. That destroys the assumption that he was born in Hawaii, or the U.S. Without such proof the ignorant public assumes he isn’t eligible to be President, even though birth location is irrelevant to natural citizenship. He would be cornered by lack of any certainty about where he was born, leaving a foreign birth a very real possibility and an explanation for not producing a real paper hard-copy birth certificate. But his forger may have already produced one which will be revealed only at the last minute if push comes to shove.
No hospital vital record exists in Hawaii’s archive so one can’t be photographed. All that ever existed was the typed form repeating the “facts” stated in a hand written affidavit by the mother or grandmother and even they may no longer exist. The only record ever discussed by Hawaiian officials is that in their digital data base “on file” which they “verified” existed after calling it up on a monitor. That record is probably nothing more an a microfilm image of the original affidavit and typed form. Nothing else can be assumed to be true, including statements by Fukino.
yet another trough to feed the growing herd of parasite barrister hogs assembled at the DOJ? Maybe they are quisling for Obama and the DNC?
The 14th amendment does not define what a natural born citizen is. Notice, the phrase “natural born citizen” appears nowhere in the 14th amendment.
The judge’s questions did not expose Mr. Klayman’s assertions as being unfounded or illogical. They only served to show that if the founders did understand “natural born citizen” to mean one born to parents who are citizens, one can cite circumstances that are not directly covered by said definition. Mr. Klayman is factually correct in stating that the intent of the natural born citizen requirement is to prevent electing a president with dual loyalties. If one parent dies before the child is born is not relevant to that fact.
Mr. Klayman stated that supreme court case Minor v. Happersett supports his contention that a natural born citizen is one born to citizen parents. His assertion is correct.
There may have been a few recent cases in lower federal courts that have addressed the issue and few supreme court cases that have mentioned definitions for natural born citizen – e.g. Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark – but the supreme court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or
vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen. That is a fact and I think Obama’s eligibility is the perfect case for finally defining what that term really means. I think this is Mr. Klayman’s ultimate objective which Mr. Obama is fighting tooth and nail to avoid. His lawyers relied on technicalities to avoid having to debate the larger issue, the elephant in the room. I hope the judge doesn’t buy their garbage.
Jeff: by virtue of British law and his British father, he was equally a natural born British citizen?
British law doesn’t apply in America. If things worked the way you think, some tiny country could declare that every human being who has ever been born is a natural born citizen of their country. Then we’d never be able to elect a President again, because everybody would be a dual citizen.
Your argument is stupid. If countries did not respect the naturalization laws of other countries, passports would be useless. Every country uses place of birth, the parent’s nationality, or some combination of both, to determine citizenship. A nation could not legally declare everyone was a NBC of their country without a valid basis for it.
At the time of his birth, Obama was a British and an American Citizen. Obama could have gotten a British passport. If he tried to travel to the US with a British passport, would the US have questioned his British citizenship? Obviously, it wouldn’t. The idea that the US would not have been obligated to recognize his British citizenship is ignorant and dishonest. Not every person born in the US with dual citizenship claims their foreign citizenship, but some do. The fact that they have the choice illustrates that they potentially have divided loyalties.
Your logic really is flawed.
Obama absolutely required naturalization because his father was a non-immigrant foreigner. No non-immigrant foreigner can beget an American citizen, and the 14th Amendment is inapplicable because such a father is not subject to federal jurisdiction, being exempt due to not being a member of American society, and remaining subject to foreign jurisdiction by foreign laws and the Law of Nations.
Without the automatic naturalization of the 14th Amendment, children of immigrants would not be granted U.S. citizenship since they are born to foreigners and have no natural right to American citizenship.
Natural citizenship requires no law and is the result of no law whatsoever. It’s an unalienable right of natural inheritance because the citizens give birth to citizens by natural transmission of the parents’ nature and political nature.
Any form of citizenship that is dependent on any law is a form of naturalization. Obama was naturalized by a statute of naturalization law that granted citizenship to children of American women after they divorced their foreign husband & father, but it was dependent on the child living a minimum number of years in the United States. Obama completely that number of years thanks to being returned to Hawaii at age 10 and not going back to Indonesia. If he had returned to Indonesia with his mother, he would not have retained his U.S. citizenship. AN
In the debates in Congress over the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it was stated that these laws would have the effect of “naturalizing” children at birth that were born on US soil from PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS with NO ALLEGIANCE to a foreign country. These children would be known as “native born” citizens — NOT “natural-born” citizens.
Through the years these terms became intermingled until people just ASSUMED that children born on US soil from foreign parents with ALLEGIANCE to foreign countries were still natural-born US citizens. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
When these LAWS were written, if the FATHER had ALLEGIANCE to a foreign country, the child did NOT receive citizenship AT ALL because the child was BORN with the same citizenship as the FATHER even IF the child was born on US soil. If the FATHER became naturalized before the child came of age, the child was automatically naturalized also.
The US felt it did NOT have the RIGHT to make citizens of children who were under the JURISDICTION of and ALLEGIANCE to a foreign country through the father. The child still had the right to be naturalized on their own once they came of age BECAUSE they had been born on US soil. To do so they had to swear TOTAL ALLEGIANCE to the US ONLY and give up ANY ALLEGIANCE to a foreign country they acquired through the FATHER. Today it’s still the same.
The Constitution requires that a candidate for President of the United States be a “natural-born citizen”. According to the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual : “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen (citizen at birth) pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”
1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull , participating in the debate, stated the following: “What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” He then proceeded to expound upon what he meant by “complete jurisdiction”: “Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court?…We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction….If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?….Would he [Sen. Doolittle] think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another?…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That’s what I call a post. Enlightening and informative. Too bad Black got the NBC definition wrong. Like most, he was unaware of the primal principle underlying natural citizenship, -citizenship beyond all laws, citizenship pre-dating all laws, unalienable citizenship that is as much a part of a person as their gender, -citizenship by the principle of natural membership.
The whole discussion involving foreign allegiance and alienage is a discussion about children of foreigners, NOT children of Americans because they have no such issue.
“…who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”
Government does not make natural citizens, -it only makes citizens of those who have no natural right to it, including their children. That’s why citizenship laws exist. But no one who a citizen by law is eligible to be the President because all such citizens are not natural citizens.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
#1 Obama’s Kenyan
Birth Certificate several photos, including close-ups
Testimony from a Mombasa science teacher and the Mombasa
Registrar of births, that Obama’s birth certificate from Mombasa is genuine. A
copy of President Obama’s birth certificate that Lucas Smith obtained through
the help of a Kenyan Colonel who got it recently directly from the Coast
General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya .
This also contains many things from BHO’s past that I have
never heard before.
“I asked a British history buff I know if he could find out who the
colonial registrar was for Mombasa in 1961.
He called me up a few minutes ago and said “Sir Edward F. Lavender”
Source(s): ” Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library.”
Posted by Alan Peters at 11:56 PM
BARACK OBAMA’S KENYAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
“I asked a British history buff I know if he could find out who the colonial registrar was for Mombasa in 1961. He called me up a few minutes ago and said “Sir Edward F. Lavender”
Source(s): ” Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library.”
Posted by Alan Peters
Testimony from a Mombasa science teacher and the Mombasa Registrar of births that Obama’s birth certificate from Mombasa is genuine. A copy of President Obama’s birth certificate that Lucas Smith obtained through the help of a Kenyan Colonel who got it recently directly from the Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya .
See this Alan Keyes video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmujttc0oJc
Tom Fife in the American Free Press was in Moscow in 1992 where a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences stated they had trained a Barack Obama as a communist and atheist and he will make easier the triumph of communism over the USA. The article is at the bottom of this home page regarding the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II in Mombasa, Kenya. Grandmother of President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. reveals below the story of his birth in Mombasa, Kenya, a seaport, after his mother suffered labor pains while swimming at ocean beach in Mombasa .
“On August 4, 1961 Obama’s mother, father and grandmother were attending a Muslim festival in Mombassa, Kenya. Mother had been refused entry to airplanes due to her 9 month pregnancy. It was a hot August day at the festival so the Obama’s went to the beach to cool off. While swimming in the ocean his mother experienced labor pains so was rushed to the Coast Provincial General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya where Obama was born a few hours later at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961. Four days later his mother flew to Hawaii and registered his birth in Honolulu as a certificate of live birth which omitted the place and hospital of birth.”
A video showing how an Obama staffer forged above green certificate of live birth.
The Washington state case also alleges, “Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombasa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at Coast General Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen.
Video of Grandmother stating she was present at Obama’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya.
Letter from Kitau in Mombasa, Kenya:
I happen to be Kenyan. I was born 1 month before Obama at Mombasa medical center. I am a teacher here at the MM Shaw Primary School in Kenya. I compared my birth certificate to the one that has been put on by Taitz and mine is exactly the same.
I even have the same registrar and format. The type is identical.
I am by nature a skeptical person. I teach science here and challenge most things that cannot be proven.
So I went to an official registrar today and pulled up the picture on the web. They magnified it and determined it to be authentic. There is even a plaque with Registrar Lavenders name on it as he was a Brit and was in charge of the Registrar office from 1959 until January of 1964.
The reason the date on the certificate says republic of Kenya is that we were a republic when the “copy” of the original was ordered. I stress the word “copy”. My copy also has republic of Kenya.
So what you say is true about Kenya not being a republic at the time of Obama’s birth, however it was a republic when the copy was ordered.
The birth certificate is genuine. I assure you it will be authenticated by a forensic auditor. We are very proud Obama was born here.
We have a shrine for him and there are many people who remember his birth here as he had a white mother. They are being interviewed now by one of your media outlets.
Fortunately they even have pictures of his parents with him immediately after his birth at the Mombasa hospital with the hospital in the back ground.
It will be a proud day for us when it is proven that he was born here and a Kenyan became the most powerful man in the world.
I encourage anyone to come here and visit. I will be happy to take you and show you the pictures at the hospital myself as well as my document and many others that are identical to what Taitz posted.