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.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Ginsberg in Nguyen v. INS validates my statements that pre-May 1934, it was the father who specifically passed NBC status to the child in US Law

(Hat tip to Roberts the Man and Trip)

Mr. Kneedler: Absolutely.

Once a person is a citizen, they are a member of our national community and entitled to all of the rights of any other citizen.

Justice Ginsburg: But you think he might be denaturalized, the way a naturalized citizen could be?

Mr. Kneedler: There would have to be, certainly as a statutory matter and perhaps as a constitutional matter, some defect in the original naturalization or the original...

Justice Ginsburg: But there was no naturalization.

Mr. Kneedler: No, but that's why I think the prospect... I mean, I suppose if in a situation like this the child was recognized as a U.S. citizen on the ground that the parent was a U.S. citizen and then it turned out that the parent was not a U.S. citizen after all, then the child's citizenship could be revoked on the ground that it was fraudulently or improperly procured, so it would be a situation with a factual predicate for the grant of citizenship in the first place.


Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, I have this problem with it.

You would surely have a huge statelessness problem if you didn't recognize that the child born abroad to U.S. citizens is a U.S. citizen because, as you point out in most countries in the world, they go by blood, not by land of birth.

So... but you don't have that situation with... an alien coming to our shores is a citizen of someplace.

So the... you call the child born abroad an alien, but in most places in the world that child would not be a citizen of the place in which that person is born; isn't that so?

Mr. Kneedler: Well, again, that may depend.

I mean, if you have a child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents, that may be true, it may not be true, depending on the country.

Justice Ginsburg: Well, I thought you said in your brief that in most places, and I think it's right, they do not go on just solely, they go on the parentage.


Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.

That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.

I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so.

Mr. Kneedler: It would be subject to judicial review, and under the facially legitimate bona fide standard of Kleindienst v. Mandel and Fiallo, it would be necessary to ask what Congress was up to in a situation like that, so we are not suggesting that there is...

Justice Ginsburg: Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our Nation's history, that the father's citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother's?

Mr. Kneedler: Given the developments of equal protection under the law in this country, this Court might well conclude that it would not be facially legitimate for Congress simply to decide to go back to as you described it, the bad old days where all rights were thought to derive from the father or the husband.

So we are not suggesting that.

The transcript and tape is available at:

And don't forget to read the Nguyen v. INS decision @ 54 and 62.


Obama Sr.'s paternity was validated in divorce proceedings by Ann Dunham-Obama when Barack Jr. was but an infant (allegedly).

In those two passages of Nguyen v. INS decision @ 54 and 62, we see that Obama is required by Supreme Court Law to produce his Long Form Birth Certification showing WITNESSES to the birth, and the computer fraud his campaign produced is ILLEGAL and UNACCEPTABLE based on Supreme Court Law.

@ 62: "The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records AND THE WITNESSES who attest to her having given birth." [emphasis mine]

Hence, Obama has FAILED to show his citizen identity to the Presidency, and in fact...by the Oral arguments in the case, we can state that Obama could possibly hold as many as 4 nationalities, 3 retroactive to his birth OR be a birth alien to the United States (depending solely upon what the Supreme Court decides). Until such a time, we must consider him in ALL CASES as NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen (of 2 US Citizen parents)...and by International Law, as the child of a foreign national alien father (since the Communist-Socialists love International law and want the US to follow it) , Obama must be recognized as irrevocably a Kenyan Natural Born Citizen forever, and unConstitutional and ineligible to the US Presidency. Barack Obama in US Law and in International Law, must be ruled as a Usurper to the US Presidency and denounced.

At any time, Obama's usurpation Presidency can legally be brought before the United Nations by America's enemies (North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.), and they can singularly or collectively call for a vote of nonrecognition. With but a single vote, US diplomatic relations and all treaties could be suspended or even indefinitely cease. The USA, with the stroke of the diplomatic pen, could be ruled a rogue nation, and not only must all our troops be returned to the US from all bases abroad...but all our overseas assets subject to seizure, and we could legally be fired upon and lose in International Courts and at the UN. Virtually overnight, this fraud Obama can still create an external (not just internal) cataclysmic reaction that can reduce the United States from being a Superpower, to being an isolated medium power with a no-confidence stock market crash that would settle possibly as low as 3300 on the Dow Jones in as little as a week, while overseas markets soar with the seizure of foreign US assets and US owned companies. The world can change overnight that quickly, becuase we are now losing the Second Cold War, and America is oblivious to such an event even being waged.

Whether he and his co-conspirators do it or the UN does it...I personally believe that the Usurper Obama personally joys in any destruction of America he can bring about, regardless of his archilochean thespian antics. America's last best hope is a Supreme Court nullification of the Obama Presidency based on his unconstitutional status as NOT being a United States NBC of 2 US Citizen Parents (jus sanguinis) as well as born here (jus soli), if he even was.

No comments:

Post a Comment