However, US citizenship does not equal NBC.
Arizona + Minor v. Happersett + Hawaii State/US Citizenship issues + Justia and the scrubbing of Minor off the internet = a puzzle coming together, showing what Obama really is.
Enjoy!
Ping to the usual suspects!
My latest article. Enjoy!
One item I heard from Arpaio is that while there is a COLB (which is not a BC) there is no record of his mother being admitted to the hospital.
Until AZ kicks him off the ballet.. Nothing else matters.
mark
Bookmark
However, US citizenship does not equal NBC.
I would love to find that the Obama team has truly forged this stuff but so far we only have evidence that they are ‘forgeable’.
To me, a school chum, or 2-3, that would state under oath he was known as a foreign student from Africa or Malaysia would be infinitely better proof.
The MSM will continue to hide their SOCIALIST HEADS up THEIR IDEALOGICAL REAR ENDS on this issue. Same as they did on the AGW/IPCC CO2 scam. Sheriff Joe has Obama on the ropes and it will be up to us to deliver the POLITICAL KNOCKOUT in the NOVEMBER ELECTIONS. GREAT ARTICLE shining a focused beam of light on the fraud. The little SOCIALISTS SHITS in our MSM have ZERO CREDIBILITY and deserved to flushed down the toilet along with the democrats.
Article kicked to “Chat” (AKA “Cheeseville”) in 5..4..3....
Rebecca Cook’s reply to your article is very good....here is a excerpt:
“” I admit I gasped when his posse told of the National Archives not being able to explain how only the week of Obama’s birth Immigration and Naturalization Service cards that airline passengers had to fill out are missing out of the ten years they requested. The media showed their true colors when asking questions after the damning evidence of fraud was presented by the cold case posse. Over and over they asked, “are you calling the president a liar?”. They were having a meltdown. “”
PING
In the words, or um, word, of Andrew Breitbart, “So?”
I don’t understand why people keep posting this stuff.
It’s over. We lost. Get over it.
Talking about Obama’s citizenship at this point is like arguing about whether or not Reggie Jackson stole the World Series from the Dodgers by cheating in that World Series back in the 1970’s.
It would be folly not to respect the capabilities of legal researchers who understood the subtle difference in in the US Code as it applies to Hawaii. It would be no surprise to find they were students of a Harvard Con Law professor we have come to know, but the law schools are full of progressive law professors to whom the Constitution is an obstacle - just watch Soros-sponsored law.gov symposia at major law schools on Youtube. Good defense attorneys are expert at research to find a technicality, a loophole in the law to circumvent original intent and justify their employment. For academia, acceptance into the inner circle of Marxists who know we aren't capable of knowing what is good for us, is probably job security.
There are some guideposts when reading about legal obfuscation to protect Obama. I never forget that Barack has never, himself, claimed natural born citizenship. He claimed 14th Amendment Citizenship, “Native-born citizen of the U.S.” which is sufficiently confusing to quiet the majority, who, including myself three years ago, don't know the difference. That is probably why so many Obama supporters are now pitching jus soli, or 'native-born' citizenship as equivalent to 'natural-born.' Obama supporters, and many Republicans including all who support Rubio's nomination for VP, conflate the two definitions, even after every senator signed SR.511 in Apr. 2008, affirming the requirement for two citizen parents. They either don't know, or have chosen what they feel is the more powerful side to ally with.
The significance of “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” seemed irrelevant at first, in the context of Minor, since it applies to birthright citizens, not natural born citizens. For some, Barack Sr. was under US jurisdiction while he was here. Others argue that 'jurisdiction' means 'not owing allegiance to any other authority' - complete jurisdiction' - Senator Trumbell, who supported John Bingham's bill, which became the 14th Amendment, through the Senate. Trumbell's interpretation means baby Barry did not necessarily qualify for birthright citizenship, was not born a citizen, but since Hawaii didn't require jurisdiction, he became a citizen at birth, though not a natural born citizen. That is my attempt to interpret Danae's concise recital of US Code, 8 (1405).
Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese subjects, but Justice Gray's court made him a citizen anyway, perhaps because of a special treaty we had with China that isn't discussed in the decision, a decision which Leo Donofrio has made an excellent case for being ill-formed, and politically motivated. We accept anchor babies as citizens, jus soli babies born to illegal aliens. We know nothing of their allegiances. I know I'm still missing something important about 8 USC (1405). But US Code naturalizes citizens, so the baby would be naturalized at birth, but never natural born? I will ponder it, and perhaps Danae will clarify (assuming I'm not the only one in her class who doesn't understand the significance).
We can be pretty sure that the the parents of Sudanese Jihadi's don't have allegiance to the U.S., though if they are picked up by Sheriff Arpaio's soldiers, our new ICE rules will guarantee them Halal food, prayer rugs, Korans, transgender drug treatment if they claim to be changing sex, athletic facilities and their own Bluetooth headphones so that they can listen to entertainment from the Muslim Brotherhood Network or Al Jazeera.
If Obots could convince people that native born and natural born citizens were synonymous, then citizens born to one or more aliens could be claimed natural born. The Minor definition is logically inconsistent with that notion, but if the purpose is to defer judgment until the left destroys what remains of an independent judiciary, perhaps delay is the objective?
Danae, for those who have followed the Justia saga, revealed something else I didn't know, and which is very interesting. The connection of Justia CEO Tim Stanley to Soro’s Center for American Progress was already clear. If they remain on Youtube, you can find a dozen videos in CAP conference rooms with Tim Stanley as a panel member or principal lecturer. The new fact is that Carl Malamud, who was almost appointed Director of the US Printing Office, and was/is CIO of Center For American Progress, used his access to government archives to populate for-profit Justia.com’s constitutional archives. That sounds like a felony, becuase, while I don't know Justia's profitability, from the number of employees, 50 to 100 million seems reasonable. Whether it was Stanley or Malamud who edited the documents in 2008, documents which previously were displayed correctly on Justia.com, they knowingly falsified Supreme Court cases, and benefited financially from those fraudulent documents. Their purpose was clearly to derail efforts to use the Internet to learn about the previously obscure laws covering natural born citizenship, but in the process, defrauded users of the site who were told the two dozen supreme court decisions were accurate digitized reproductions. Perhaps it was just a dirty little secret among law school professors - "Don't cite Justia's cases which might cite Minor, because they are protecting Obama."
Danae also presents a different analysis of the Minor construction, which probably means she is correct, and which should be carefully read. That Mrs Minor could not be made a citizen by the 14th because she was natural born is an assertion I will have to ponder, because being a natural born citizen, the US certainly had jurisdiction over her parents, and thus over Virginia. I did not realize that the 14th bestowed suffrage on former slaves, and presume voting remained a state's rights issue, meaning post 14th former slave women would not have acquired suffrage?
I don't recall where I got my interpretation - probably from Donofrio or Apuzzo: Before the 14th, Mrs Minor's was the only Constitutionally defined class of citizen, and she didn't have voting rights then. The 14th didn't address suffrage. The Minor court had no problem with the assertion that being a natural born citizen made Mrs Minor a citizen. She didn't need 14th Amendment certification, but the court did need to affirm the definition in order to use it in a case, making it precedent, since they cited no other authority than natural law - "It was never doubted."
Danae observes that Equal Protection applied to male citizens would include suffrage. Why should gender be excluded? The 14th didn't address gender explicitly, which is why there was a 19th Amendment, but women would seem to have been included in "All persons born or Naturalized in the United States?" Still, we don't really care whether Obama was or was not a native-born citizen if we believe Chief Justice Waite and his court meant what they told us about natural born citizens. Of course, if Barry was not born a citizen at all, a claim made by Arizona Professor Gabriel Chin about John McCain, then he cannot be natural born either - the inverse relationship used by Justice Waite to assert that because Mrs Minor was a Natural Born Citizen, she was a citizen. That may be the reason Hawaii's loophole was so important. Barry's father was never under "complete jurisdiction", and Hawaii never asked because of US 8 (1405).
Our nation wouldn't know about Chester Arthur's usurpation but for Leo Donofrio. Politics keep his amazing discovery from being recognized by legal academia, while courts are fully aware and have already used it in decisions such as Indiana Supreme Court's abysmal Ankeny decision. It is no longer surprising that pundits and businesses like Hillsdale College censor their exposition of our Constitution, while their self-proclaimed expertise pays their bills and lots of books filled with the wisdom of our framers, unless that wisdom might be a threat to the current regime.
Until our books are burned, as has happened in many totalitarian dictatorships, the truth can be found on paper. Sadly, while digital documents are so easily corrupted and removed as Soros and Justia demonstrated, paper archives remain. There is an analog with our voting technology. Electronic voting is entirely unverifiable, which is why Germany has returned to paper ballots. Neither politcal party wants paper ballots, which sadly affirms their complicity, and may also mean that our votes may not insure the removal of the man who wants to destroy our form of government. Only programmers and clients know how votes are counted, because the process and the machines are opaque, and that opacity has been protected by the court. The thought police cannot yet prevail, but you'll know when they really burn books.
Thank you Danae. There is some irony that you got published by Pravda. It is clear that the Obama regime finds the 1st Amendment an inconvenient obstacle, just as Obama told us he found the the Constitution an obstacle to the changes he thought were needed in the U.S.
Great work, glad that this powerful article is out there!
As always, you are in my prayers.
No matter what evidence is uncovered, the American people will disbelieve. They see no association between forgery and “our president.”
Never thought I’d see the day that I would look at Pravda with more respect than the LSM!!!
Awesome summary of a complex issue. Thanks for posting!
I love it. If I’m not already on your ping list, please include me.