Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

The 19th Century Distinction on the Natural Born Issue in Print, and a 21st Century danger

In the 1800s, as with today, there were those who skirted the fringes of the Natural Born Citizenship issue with the naturalization of the father passing on a "status" if the father was naturalized as a United States Citizen before the child's 21st birthday AND the child was born on US Soil (having a claim of "jus soli").

But in our day, the National Public Radio African Continent correspondant, Ofeibea Quist-Arcton, on October 9, 2008

and various Africa Media (Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria)

can all report Barack Obama as a Kenya foreign born Candidate to the US Presidency (having no jus soli, and no US citizen father), and it is all blown off by the Communist-sympathetic and Communist-Socialist agenda promotive Major Media.

The NPR's own promo of the October 9, 2008 audio interviews, states that:
Ofeibea Quist-Arcton "... also describes the stories that have been exciting, including the U.S. presidential race of Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama."

That quote, pulled on April 9, 2010, is NPR's (National Public Radio's) direct quote, and in full context. That means a direct conspiracy among those in the various Communist-Socialist loving Major Media to put a known unqualified and known unConstitutional Presidential Candidate into the White House based on some criminal conspiracy justifiction to themselves that it was about "Civil Rights", "Social Justice", and the color of Barack's skin that allows them to overthrow the Constitution.

Really? So if the Republicans get someone born in Austria with a caucasian Austrian father and an caucasian American mother, who also lived in Great Britain and was adopted there at age 7, moves to America and is reared up as a Communist who calls himself a Democratic-Socialist...by the same rules, because he is white, to put him into office is now justified because the US Electoral System is now supposed to be allowed to be reduced to whatever one feels is "moral justification", and screw the Law? These Communist-Socialists are not only Criminal, they are anarchist nuts who appear to at least border-line meet the legal definition of insanity.

In October 1856, John G. Clayton said: "...just as the twig is bent the oak inclines, and so you find that you cannot put the American brain into the foreigner's head, for he will not forget his old allegiance, even though he forswears it."

When Barack Obama wrote Dreams from My Father, while in his (alleged) early 30s with Bill Ayers in the 1990s, he proves this very point made by a TEA PARTY "like" Third Party, American Party movement in 1856, that could just as well as have been in our current headlines or viral video quotes (hypothetically) used in regard to describing and exposing Barack Obama the Presidential Usurper.

In the New York Times of February 2, 1892, the debate about the governorship of Nebraska was in dispute in the general public and had been argued before the US Supreme Court. The public domain excerpts of the article, read:

“WASHINGTON, Feb. 1. -- In these dispatches that announcement was made Jan. 2 that the Supreme Court of the United States was ready to announce its decision that James E. Boyd, Democrat, was the rightful Governor of Nebraska, instead of John M. Thayer, Republican, who had continued in the office by virtue of a decision of the Supreme Court of Nebraska. …the Supreme Court, after waiting a month, handed down a report …All the Justices except Justice Field concurred in the conclusion that Boyd was a citizen of the United States and entitled to the office of Governor of Nebraska.
…it must be considered as established that Boyd’s father, having exercised all the rights of a citizen, had in fact, in 1868, taken out his final naturalization papers, notwithstanding he did not have the record of such final naturalization papers.
Justices Harlan, Gray, and Brown, while concurring in the conclusion that Boyd was a citizen of the United States, did so on the ground that the exercise of all the rights and privileges of citizenship by Boyd’s father, as shown on record, established the assertion made by James E. Boyd and his father that …his father…had, in 1854, taken out his final naturalization papers , although there is no documentary proof of the issuance of those papers.


The NY TIMES referred to:

BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892)

Where on February 1, 1892, they released:

“(4) That where no record of naturalization can be produced, evidence that a person having the requisite qualifications to become a citizen did in fact and for a long time vote and hold office and exercise rights belonging to citizens is sufficient to warrant a jury in inferring that he has been duly naturalized as a citizen.”

In relevance for us today, they stated that a foreign born person who had taken out naturalization papers, made the consistent attempts and efforts to join the society, and made all the efforts of a citizen, having regularly taken oaths of allegiance to the United States and its Constitution, having not been found in violating such oaths in word or in deed, might be considered to attain a naturalization status as a citizen as long as such papers were filed before the child's 21st birthday, which is what Senator Bayard argued in his letter to A.P. Hinman.

But get this: He, the child who was under the age of 21 when the father filed, is ONLY naturalized…he, the child, does NOT become a “natural born citizen” if either he is foreign born or if the father never naturalizes to the USA by the child's 21st birthday (if the child was born on US soil); but is as a “naturalized citizen of the United States” totally ineligible to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the United States.

And without Barack Obama Sr. ever filing an intent of naturalization to the United States of America prior to Barack's 21st birthday, the enemies of the US Constitution CANNOT even make the case of "intent", before launching their metaphorically unfliable fluge argument off the cliff to the jagged rocks of legal rebuke below.

The Brookly Daily Eagle July 30, 1859
"The matter therefore stands thus – Foreign governments claim the right to treat persons born under their jurisdiction as citizens under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, and to ignore the fact of their naturalization abroad, should they return afterwards. The United States holds the opposite doctrine."

In over 150 years since the writing of that passage, it essentially still holds true for us today: Foreign governments -- even in the 21st Century, indeed still -- claim the right to treat persons born under their jurisdiction as citizens under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, and to [still] ignore the fact of their naturalization abroad, should they return afterwards.


So we have to wonder, hypothetically, could Kenya, Great Britain, or Indonesia "legally" specifically seize and detain Barack Hussein Obama Jr. or anyone he specifically apoints as a US Representative of his Administration, and make their case stick in International Court of their rights to do so? Hypothetically, the legal answer is: Yes, they can.

Can any nation, hypothetically, dishonor / break any US Treaty signed by Barack Hussein Obama Jr. without being in International violation to the Treaty signed by Obama and their top representative? The answer: Yes, they have the hypothetical legal right to do so, as any and every treaty negotiated by the Barack Obama Administration can be Internationally challenged and PROVEN as legally NON-BINDING in an International Court of Law (where Obama wants all final US cases to be tried via Harold Koh and other "trans-nationalists", aka. Communist-Socialists)on the unConstitutionality of Barack Obama as NOT a US Natural Born Citizen, but an illegal usurper...hence, a criminal furthering a criminal enterprise and conspiracy.

In other words, by any action Obama commits, the United States is legally culpable (each and every time, as a criminal count they could so levy) as furthering a criminal conspiracy and criminal enterprise upon the world.

The danger we face each and every day, is that at any time, and in one moment at the United Nations, we as a nation can lose our United Nations founder's "seat" with our "veto power", lose all or most of our influence and our global "participation", and could even potentially be entirely shut out, censured for an undetermined period, and "unrecognized" at any time these other nations choose to do so, BASED ON THE US CONSTITUTION'S ARTICLE 2.1 being flung back at us on the "Natural Born Clause".

In my opinion: Anyone who defends Obama's "right" to NOT prove his NBC staus, is in my opinion, and specifically only upon this subject, either an idiot or a co-conspirator with Obama (be it by benign neglect or intentionally). Those of us who speak out and warn our nation, including the alleged watchdogs (the Media, the Legislators, et al.), are free from the guilt of co-conspiracy or the furtherance of Obama's international criminality.

Perhaps this year, the Nobel awards can give Obama a new medal and cash prize award labeled "the PT Barnum Nobel prize", for making the United States into a nation of "suckers".

So while we still have a Republic of the United States of America, and our US Constitution in its current -- as yet unaltered -- state...I say, let us swiftly, LEGALLY and PEACEFULLY resolve the issue before the United States Supreme Court, and may the best legal argument win. The US SUPREME COURT: THAT is the venue on how, where, and when this should all be settled.

Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."

But Obama, I sincerely believe, is too chicken to go there, knowing the rest of his life will likely be sentenced by the Supreme Court Justices to some cell in isolation at a Super-max prison facility, when he is found guilty by the Courts.

So his plans are to avoid and delay, and hope to change the US into a different kind of Government...one where the current US Constitution is of no effect, and abolished.

But regarding these last two above sentences, that may be just my legal and peaceful benign opinion.

No comments:

Post a Comment