Posted on 08/11/2010 7:59:11 AM PDT by Alaphiah123
One of the greatest lessons that I learned from the 2008 presidential elections was that Democrats would rather elect a constitutionally ineligible foreign-born enemy of this country and its constitution rather than elect a Republican. Even if that Republican was a “Republican in name only” and even if that Republican self ascribes himself as a Maverick, which is code for “I screw Republicans over all the time just like you Democrats.”
I fully expect the usual suspects the Lindsey Grahams, the Susan Collins, the Olympia Snows and the Scott Browns to stab Republicans in the front (so often it’s not the back anymore) but what I didn’t expect is someone that I supported and voted for to stab Republicans in the back.
Yet stabbed in the back, is exactly how I felt when I read reported in Worldnetdaily.com that Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) made the claim that there's no need for the president to have been born in the United States – or to have two parents who are U.S. citizens – to be a "natural born citizen" and be eligible for the Oval Office. (see article)
(Excerpt) Read more at creatingorwellianworld-view-alaphiah.blogspot.com ...
See post 20!!!
An only way these thugs can understand what we mean is to hitting them on the pocket book, I told RNC the same!!!
Bjorn, we don't need any birth certificates. Chief Justices John Marshall, Morrison Waite and Charles Evans Hughes wrote, in supreme court decisions that a natural born citizen is “born of the soil of citizen parents.” The principle author of the 14th amendment John Bingham said to the House of Representatives while arguing for the passage in 1866 “...which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.”
If we have a write-in candidate in Bilbray’s district, we should vote Bilbray out of office. Every Senator signed Senate Res. 511 in 2008 clarifying natural born citizen in order to make McCain appear eligible. In SR 511 Leahy, McCaskill and former Judge Michael Chertoff said “...because he was born of two American citizen, it is my belief that John McCain is a natural born citizen.” All of our legislators, much as I approve of some of their efforts to end Obamacare and defend our borders, have agreed to try to keep us “stupid” about the clear meaning of our framers and justices. They even avoid John Bingham, "The Madison of the 14th Amendment," as they discuss the likely misinterpretation leading to anchor babies. It is too dangerous an issue. Nathan Deal was one congressman with the courage to ask. When he did, the House Ethics Committee suddenly found something suspicious in his distant past (I'm glad to see he prevailed in Georgia's Governor's race, not that his Rep. Opponent was not worth).
The moment some Obot raises Wong Kim Ark, pay no attention. The definition of natural born citizenship has never been changed, and was last cited in 1939 in Perkins v. Elg by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. Wong Kim was made a citizen, not a natural born citizen, and its author, Justice Grey, cited Minor v. Happersett - ‘born on the soil of citizen parents’ for natural born citizenship.
Wpmg Kim's Justice Grey, perhaps not coincidentally, because his decision is a bit crazy with irrelevent commentary (dicta) was the only Supreme Court Justice until Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor appointed by an ineligible president, Chester Arthur. We didn't learn about Chester Arthur's crime until attorney Leo Donofrio found Arthur's father's naturalization documents in 2008. Arthur's father was a British subject, not naturalized until Chester was 14 years old. Obama’s father was never naturalized, never a citizen, never had sole allegiance to the U.S. and its Constitution, thus Barack is simply and clearly ineligible to be president.
Do you have any doubt that this government, either party, would lie to the public? They, as individuals, would clearly lie to protect their incomes, and to protect themselves from charges which could extends as far as treason, one of the few words actually defined in the Constitution - most terms in the Constitution are intentionally defined by common usage - common law. Bilbray is a team player, a small time career politician, and his career is on the line. He's a Republican in a very blue state. We pay legislators to know and respect the Constitution. Either he doesn't know it, or he doesn't respect it. I suspect both statements are true.
While it sounds audacious, read a just a bit and you will learn that there is no doubt, no uncertainty, and that who is a citizen and who are natural born citizens is at the core of our republic of laws rather than a nation built upon privilege and bloodlines.
One of the best references to the legal foundation of presidential eligibility the site run by a retired Naval Commander and his citizenship-expert and international law attorney, Mario Appuzo. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ Their case was filed after the election but before the inauguration, and is working its way to the Supreme Court. Cmdr. Kerchner and Apuzzo make a compelling “equal protections” case since McCain had at least five congressional hearings about his ineligibility; the Commander sent registered letters to congress asking many congressmen to evaluate Obama’s eligibility. Obama even signed Sen.Res. 511, effectively agreeing that a natural born citizen has two U.S. citizen parents. He also cosponsored a bill. SB 2678, by Obama election committee member and senator Clair McCaskill in Feb 2008 “to make the children of U.S. citizens in the military born on foreign soil eligible to the presidency.” Who do you think they were talking about? The Dems paved the way for the ineligible McCain so that no Republican would dare raise the issue of Obama’s patent ineligibility. Raising the issue would certainly have cause Dems to remove McCain. Hillary was probably stronger than Obama anyway, and no credible Republican was there to challenge Hillary.
This is massive corruption in both parties. Both parties want the public to remain ignorant - not stupid; who ever read the history of natural born citizenship before this? The courts are, as Justice Thomas pointed out recently, “evading the issue.” The people need to purge both the house and the senate. Our press and pundits are afraid of truth. When they assiduously avoid our greatest Chief Justices, John Jay, John Marshall, author of Marbury v. Madison, becuase he was so clear about Vattel and repeated “born on the soil of citizen parents,” you know something is wrong. Notice that Glen Beck never mentions them. Mark Levin, who lays the foundation in his book Liberty and Tyranny by quoting Madison (p37) who explains that the Constitution is meaningless if not interpreted in the language of the framers. Have our pundits been threatened? Probably.
So we must relearn the obvious, that the allegiance of a son or daughter is most dependent upon the allegiance of the parent. The idea was repeated by Aristotle and frequently by other Greek and Roman philosopher. It became part of “the natural law”, the first original legal curriculum taught in the new U.S., established at William and Mary by Thomas Jefferson in 1779. The book Jefferson chose was Vattel’s Law of Nations, one of many based upon variants of the natural law, but by far the most popular. (Don't you think Glen Beck would have included this remarkable and most important thread in the thinking of our framers if he hadn't been threatened?) John Marshall was a law student at William and Mary in 1880. George Washington, an uncle of Marshall, was interviewed by the press on his first day in office in New York in 1789. The press reported that the only book on his desk was Law of Nations. The New York Lending library records exist, showing Washington withdrew Vattel, and never returned it!
Ridicule is an effective tactic for suppressing facts. Think for yourselves. Requiring that our president be born of parents who support the principles of our founding is more than rational, it is wisdom born of millenia of human experience. Also, it is our law. We, a nation of immigrants, demand natural born citizenship only for our president. The majority of our citizens are natural born citizens. Those who ignore our framers and Constitution are sadly demonstrating their weakness. Clever adversaries control much of our media. Even Fox and the WSJ are owned by News Corp. whose largest investor is Walid Bin Talal (who funded Obama at Harvard according to Percy Sutton, and is a major benefactor of Harvard).
Mark Levin made a veiled threat to raise the issue of Obama’s father if Obama continued attacking a “grassroots” organization with which he is involved. It may be that those using public media know how dependent our media are upon government (just keep track of the Ad Council-sponsored spots on radio some time). The fear is understandable, but if Obama succeeds, the First Amendment will shortly be as relevant as natural born citizenship. Whatever the reason, there is simply no question that Obama was born of a British father, and thus was born a British subject - he was not born with sole allegiance to the U.S. - and is not a constitutional president. Obama was perfectly honest about his allegiance in “Dreams from my Father.” We let it happen; we are paying the price, and we must now correct that mistake.
Right now the money that isn’t given to people like Scott Brown could be very well-spent by pitching it in for The Post & Email Legal Fund. I can’t say what we’ve got because I don’t want to jeopardize the investigation but a critical lead has opened up. It will only be exploitable for a short time, but hopefully just in time for Lt Col Lakin, Lord willing. This is one that could have huge legal ramifications. That’s all I better say.
If you could ping your list and we can get the word out it would be great. Maybe just C&P this post to them. http://www.thepostemail.com
We will act on the lead as soon as we have the money to do it.
Hey Rogers, we need your “military expertise” to digest the following regarding your friends there???
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/14/dear-commanding-general-mg-carla-hawley-bowland/
And don’t forget this one too, Rodger???
I just want to remind you and your FRiends here on the paragraph fourth from the bottom: United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 .....that is something you seems to have forgotten!!!
This “lady”(?) without cojones need to have her inbox full of messages: “Don’t tase me, bro”!!!
carla.hawleybowland@us.army.mil
Ah yes, danamco...still arguing for a military coup.
If you read either our history or the Constitution, you would understand that the Founders feared military involvement in politics far worse than they feared someone born of an alien father...
Civilian control of the military isn’t without reason. If Congress and the Courts agree Obama is the President, then the military must go along. And if you don’t understand that, danamco, then you do not understand America or the requirements for freedom.
If Congress or the Courts decide Obama must be removed, the military will comply. Until then, any officer trying to remove Obama by force is guilty of treason - and an attack on America. This is a far more important principle than the ‘raging debate’ on what is meant by NBC.
Actually...
“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… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” - Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795)
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land...“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.” - James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
And of course, from the Supreme Court:
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.
124 U.S. 478.
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell’s State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co.Lit. 8a, 128b, Lord Hale, in Hargrave’s Law Tracts, 210, an in 1 Hale P.C. 61, 62; 1 Bl.Com. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl.Com. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, p. 173-177, 741.
In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: “The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil.” P. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying:
The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.
And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which
the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, [p657] must depend,
he yet distinctly recognized that a man’s political status, his country, patria, and his “nationality, that is, natural allegiance,” “may depend on different laws in different countries.” Pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word “citizen” not as equivalent to “subject,” but rather to “inhabitant,” and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:
By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.
Cockburn on Nationality, 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:
“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.
The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:
1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.
2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.
And he adds:
The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.
Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
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, 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.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
All of which led that raging liberal Ed Meese (remember Ronald Reagan?) to write:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …” THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
And please stop LYING about SR511, which, as you know, was written about McCain, and said a person BORN ABROAD of 2 citizen parents is still a NBC.
They've been warned.
The black-out of the topic happened abruptly. Our talk radio host had been discussing it when the topic became forbidden all of a sudden. Same thing happened with other hosts.
Not surprisingly, as usual, you very “elegantly”(?) sidestepped the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 and telling us that we are too stupid to understand the military at all, let me spell it out in plain language fom the article:
“United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” That might be exactly the case.
Since you have been aware of this crime for some time now and still continue to ignore your responsibilities to the people of the United States, this makes you guilty of the crime of misprision of felony.”
Also Spaulding have lectured you extensively at how the “civil” are looking at “YOUR”(?) military opinions in such other simple wording that even your poor “military” brain lacks or refuses to understand either:
Quote. “This is massive corruption in both parties. Both parties want the public to remain ignorant - not stupid; who ever read the history of natural born citizenship before this? The courts are, as Justice Thomas pointed out recently, “evading the issue.” The people need to purge both the house and the senate. Our press and pundits are afraid of truth. When they assiduously avoid our greatest Chief Justices, John Jay, John Marshall, author of Marbury v. Madison, becuase he was so clear about Vattel and repeated “born on the soil of citizen parents,” you know something is wrong. Notice that Glen Beck never mentions them. Mark Levin, who lays the foundation in his book Liberty and Tyranny by quoting Madison (p37) who explains that the Constitution is meaningless if not interpreted in the language of the framers. Have our pundits been threatened? Probably.
So we must relearn the obvious, that the allegiance of a son or daughter is most dependent upon the allegiance of the parent. The idea was repeated by Aristotle and frequently by other Greek and Roman philosopher. It became part of “the natural law”, the first original legal curriculum taught in the new U.S., established at William and Mary by Thomas Jefferson in 1779. The book Jefferson chose was Vattel’s Law of Nations, one of many based upon variants of the natural law, but by far the most popular. (Don’t you think Glen Beck would have included this remarkable and most important thread in the thinking of our framers if he hadn’t been threatened?) John Marshall was a law student at William and Mary in 1880. George Washington, an uncle of Marshall, was interviewed by the press on his first day in office in New York in 1789. The press reported that the only book on his desk was Law of Nations. The New York Lending library records exist, showing Washington withdrew Vattel, and never returned it!
Ridicule is an effective tactic for suppressing facts. Think for yourselves. Requiring that our president be born of parents who support the principles of our founding is more than rational, it is wisdom born of millenia of human experience. Also, it is our law. We, a nation of immigrants, demand natural born citizenship only for our president. The majority of our citizens are natural born citizens. Those who ignore our framers and Constitution are sadly demonstrating their weakness. Clever adversaries control much of our media. Even Fox and the WSJ are owned by News Corp. whose largest investor is Walid Bin Talal (who funded Obama at Harvard according to Percy Sutton, and is a major benefactor of Harvard).” Unquote.
I have great comfort that YOU no longer serve in the military as defending us from domestic enemies, because what you totally ignorant posts here, I would have no difficulties seeing you as a modern day Benedict Arnold, or rather a clone of Bradley Manning, and as Sarah Palin recently said “without cojones” to stand up to the tyranny, and definitely still being a first class FINO !!!
Interestingly, Glenn Book is digging down in “old” history and he is “playing” with the word REVOLUTION. Question is what kind of Revolution is he really referring to???
Right at that time I remember that Rush Limbaugh was "called"(?) out of town one day and back on the air next day!
He never one time mentioned the reason for that specific day he was not behind the Golden Microphone, NOT ONE TIME!!
Normally he has ALWAYS told the listener when he leaves the microphone. And suddenly he would rapidly cut off anyone who would raise the eligibility issues on air, which make absolutely NO sense. I'm sure he's keeping an "eye" on F.R. and then sporadic thrown in a "little" short bone on the issue here and then, but not consistently. The other talking heads have similar gag orders, even Glenn Book has alluded to it!!!
Yes, Danamco, the vanished eligibility discussions were dramatic. Someone with too much hyperbole for most suggested there were threats, but the author of that idea, from the Canadian press, never substantiated the claim with a name or documents.
Wondering about that sudden silence while doing chores, I stopped at every radio programming break, and kept track of public service announcements for one hour one weekday evening, listening to the same conservative local station. I had gotten tired of “Lobster Claw Hands” and “Rachel, whose parents didn't really know she as a drug addict” again and again. About three quarters of the advertising was government sponsored, usually by the Ad Council with HHS or some non-profit no one has ever heard of.
It isn't obvious, but if over half a private company depends upon one client, a good board of directors will force a change, because that one client can take down the company. It's just a thought, but may explain the silence. We all know the Saudi’s own the largest block of News Corp, which owns Fox, WSJ, as well as major parts of Apple, Cisco, Citibank, and Harvard. It isn't so obvious that commercial broadcasting can be shut down with a few words to the shadow behind the curtain, already supporting Public Broadcasting, PBS, NPR. It is all becoming National Public Radio. The left can't eliminate Rush or Beck or whomever, but they can kill the “private” broadcasting networks. They know listeners will disappear, which is probably the only reason that shoe hasn't yet dropped.
The control of television is more obvious, but conservatives are more influenced by radio, which spigots are controlled by the Ad Council. Could that be why the 1st Amendment has been effectively stymied around eligibility discussions? You think?
No one will ever be charged or convicted of treason because of obeying the legal orders of the man recognized as President of the USA by Congress and the Courts.
He WOULD be guilty of treason if he tried to override Congress & the Courts by use of military power.
That you do not understand that means you don’t understand what being an American is, nor in how Americans view and use the military. We are not a banana republic, nor will anyone in the military allow someone like yourself to turn us into one.
And there is NO evidence that Vattel was on the Founder’s minds when they wrote natural born citizen - it was, after all, not found in ANY copy of Vattel until years AFTER the Constitution was written, and then only as a poor translation of the French. The copy of Vattel George Washington borrow made no mention of natural born citizen...did it? Nope - it was borrowed in 1789, and Vattel didn’t have NBC in a translation until 1797.
Yep! The men in black helicopters paid a visit to Rush...but were they from the American government, or Mars?
Dumbass, you SHOULD know that he has his own EIB-one, a Gulfstream G550, and able to fly most places but NOT to Mars. For keeping up you Potassium, you probably need to eat more BANANAS while you still keeping your “combat” knee-pads on!!!
http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/gallery/EIB1/RushG550.html
Boy, there's a lecture worth paying attention to. And, as the one person among this little group of debators who has actually sworn allegiance to a foreign king, I will certainly pay particular attention to what you have to say.
I can't think of another nation on Earth that has avoided the disaster of a military coup. I would rather endure another six years of Obama Marxism than run the risk that our military would ever inject itself into our political system. Washington was offered the crown by the Army and he refused. He established the standard by which all military officers since have striven to follow.
“And there is NO evidence that Vattel was on the Founder’s minds when they wrote natural born citizen - it was, after all, not found in ANY copy of Vattel until years AFTER the Constitution was written, and then only as a poor translation of the French. The copy of Vattel George Washington borrow made no mention of natural born citizen...did it? Nope - it was borrowed in 1789, and Vattel didn’t have NBC in a translation until 1797.”
You are just such a planted mole and liar that gets misleading talking point from higher ups enabler like yourself:
The cover page from Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 work The Laws of Nations.
Vattel’s Influence on the term
a Natural Born Citizen
What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.
The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
“Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence. He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel’s use of the word “natives” in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.”.
If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father’s were influenced from Blackstone’s Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England was a natural born subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born Citizen can become President. Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Born Subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural born. Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President.
Mr. Rogers must be getting lonely. His very lengthy response, #28, to my earlier note was an impressive example of misdirection. It was reminiscent of a technique used by one of our great mathematicians, R.L. Moore, ot U.T. Austin, at least three of whose students were awarded Fields Medals, the highest award in mathematics (reputedly because Nobel's wife had an illicit affair with a mathematicion, and there is no Nobel prize for mathematics). Moore created his own notation, and his courses were about problem solving. At least half of the problems he assigned, theorems to be proved, were wrong.
Mr. Rogers does an excellent job of leading potential readers away from the question to be answered. Following Mr. Rogers’ little essays, usually assuming that his objective is to mislead, leads to a more firm understanding of the meaning of our greatest minds. Perhaps he is not an Obot but is trying to help us all understand the machinations of the statists?
An example from his long essay is his citation of a decision by a Connecticut jurist, but which doesn't contradict the Vattel, Marshall, Jay, Kent, Story, or Waite definitions, which are identical; it refers to the rights of citizens. Citizens have all the rights of natural born citizens, but cannot be president unless the are born on the soil of citizen parents.
Mr. Rogers then leads to James Kent, who is a wonderful resource for the meaning of citizenship. Again, there are not inconsistencies, but if one has the time to read Kent's writing, the intentions of our framers are reinforced. The editor of the Kent Commentaries, perhaps noting that Kent simply repeated the Vattel definition in his commentary on Article II Section I, referred to Joseph Story's longer exposition of the rationale behind natural born citizenship. Mr. Rogers is leading us to a better understanding. For those who don't have time, here is the Joseph Story explanation of why we require that a president be a natural born citizen:
It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.
Thanks Mr. Rogers. Justice Joseph Story, the scholar of the Marshall court, was perhaps where you were leading us.
In reference to my comment earlier about Harvard investment by Alwaleed bin Talal, here is a new course for Harvard Students, which is consistent with the announcemt yesterday that Harvard is dis-investing all of is funds in Israeli corporations. http://www.islamicstudies.harvard.edu/
Harvard, home of Obama, Kagan, Holdren, and Alwaleed bin Talal (who actually graduated from Menlo College and U. of New Hampshire, but ‘bought Harvard’ along with Obama’s law school credentials (according to Malcolm X's attorney, Percy Sutton) and his editor's title at the Law Review.
Thanks again Mr. Rogers, for helping us understand the truth.
And WHO is that person???
My guess would be Frederik IX
from danamco:
Well normally I don’t post my resume and life experience. But one year in the Royal Danish Navy. One year transferred to the Army’s Air-force and then one and half year in the Danish Air-force when it became a separate unit in itself, flying with the old Sea-Otter and Catalinas left us from the U.S. during 1947-1951!
Four years stationed in Greenland e.i. building Station Nord, about 400 miles fom the North Pole. Then Prins Christan Sund, Blue West One and BW-8 and Thule Airbase (Dundas) all 1951-1956!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.