An Obama worshiper offered that I should look at a Scribd site in which Freedom of Information Act documents were posted, as originally obtained the US Department of State
Lolo Soetoro U.S. Records - Allen v DHS State and Allen v USCIS - FOIA Releases Final 7-29-10
The essential page they referred me to was page 38 of the pdf.
[State Dept. doc quoted to reflect the original document. Please click on above go to pdf page 38 to view original. If they take it down, I intend that I will reScribd specific FOIA approved for release pages of interest and repost the link. ]
Memo to fi*e
A *4 *28 294
Sept. *4, *967
Pursuant to inquiry from Centra* office regarding the status of the applicants’ spouses’ child by a former marriage.
The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Hono*u*u, Hawaii Aug. 4, *96*. He is *iving with the app*icants’ spouse in Hono*u*u, Hawaii. He xxxxxxxxx is considered the app*icants step-child, within the meaning of Sec. *0*(b)(*)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the app*icant to the chi*ds’ mother on March *5, *965.
W. **. Mix
Direct link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35192432/Lolo-Soetoro-U-S-Records-Allen-v-DHS-State-and-Allen-v-USCIS-FOIA-Releases-Final-7-29-10
---------------------------------------
* is י
** is like a sub-scripted I with a longer base, and capped on top like the capital I.
Question: Whom is W. (**) Mix?
Question: From what source was the alleged memo derived?
A. Was it from Hawaii? We have no office origin, no stamp, no header or footer, nada.
1. Was it by an Immigration Naturalization Service employee?
2. Was it by another source? We do not know what they meant by "Central Office" as it could have been a memo other than a US Government Agency by the unprofessionalism of the typist.
3. Is the alleged memo even genuine?
(a). it is assumed that each yod (י ) shape is either a the tip of a small "l" or the tip of the same small “l” used as a numerical number "1", even though specifically, that is NOT the literal reading, but the subjective interpretation that must be placed upon the text for translation. If the letter "L" is intended as in the word "chi*d", notice in both the anomaly of height and of that in W. ** Mix, where the letter there as an alleged capitalized letter “L”, that Letter has a solid base, out of font character and size and of an entirely different key set that would not be found on the same 1967 era typewriters, manual or electric, as I remember them. Those who know intimately know more of 1967 era US Government or Commercially used typewriters, and can aid in specifics, feel free to comment.
(b). the words United States are in small case letter emphasis as "united states". By comparison, actual official documentation from the same cache and time period will capitalize nations, states, and even university titles. Suggesting that this is a rogue addition and highly suggestive of being a forgery added to the requested files.
The discrepancies of date and the case letters should be compared with file letter 000047, an ACTUAL US Gov't Memorandum -- to the "District Director, Honolulu, Hawaii" --in which the Central Office had (past tense) REVIEWED as of August 21, 1967 and dated August 25, 1967 and that of 000068, an actual Honolulu, Hawaii "memorandum for file" insert (although dated November 22, 1966). That latter Memorandum for file, would be what format Hawaii would have used, and inserted that with 000038 and the letter of 000039 to 000040. But with John Brennan's 2008 State Department Breach to destroy Obama's pre-2008 passports,
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/10/greta-van-susteren-and-others-in-media.html
on one of the 3 breaches, this memo of what the W. ? Mix insert says as of Sept. ?4. ?967 could have been inserted then.
Regardless, the very unprofessionalism of the pdf's p.38 memo, to even the childs' (pluralization of child to children), suggests that not only is p. 38 or 000046 addendum suspect, but it is so out of place we might as well confidently label it as a 90% likely forged document presented by either Brennan who was Quid Pro Quoed to his position for breaching Obama State Department files (etc.), or by those of the Obama Administration State Department (it seems to me).
Further, the marriage certificate of Lolo and Ann on page 20 of the link dates as March 24, 1965. On page 36 of the link (file page 000044), here and elsewhere we are informed that the date of marriage was on March 15, 1965.
Which is correct? March 24 on the actual Marriage Certificate of Lolo and Stanley Ann Dunham (Lolo Soetoro signing after her on her line, as well as directly abover her, too) or March 15, on the claims to the US State Department as testified to by District Director John F. O'Shea?
Barack is still never mentioned by name, nor do we have any other testimony than that Ann lived with and was supported by her parents until she was married to Lolo. Then she becomes the bread winner, acts as if she never went away to Washington State, always lived with her Mom and Pop in their apartment, yada, yada, yada. She lied, and reinvented her past in order to live with her new husband. She spoke French, was learning Indonesian, and left out (Balshoye Spasiba - Thank you very much" ) her Russian Language classes. She clearly knew enough phrases like : Ya ni gevayoo n'vashim yikazye -- "I don't speak your language". But why tell them she knew Russian when she eagerly wished to enter an "anti-American" nation over-run by "Communists at a fever pitch"? Or words to that effect. Unless such a pro-Communist anti-American locale "felt like home" to her liberal anthroplogical ideologies?
We know that Barack grew up to be an ideologue in the pro-Communist offshoot as a Communist-Socialist in the Chicago Unit of the Democratic Socialists of America (formed specifically by Communists wishing to morph their names to something more "Democratic" and "American" sounding). He is also anti-American Usurper in the Presidency without a 333 US 640 @ 653 required 533 US 53 @ 54, 62 Hospital Birth Certificate with Witnesses to the Birth.
The pro-Obama link and documents would be skewered in a Court of Law as having no reason to be taken as credible, nor meeting the Supreme Court legal definition of proof of identity as laid out in 533 US 53 @ 54,62, and as 333 US 640 @ 653 says, Obama is obligated by Law to provide that proof...nobody else is required to have to disprove him as regarding his "birth certificate and identity". And apparently, those who worship and defend Obama cannot even meet the basic minimums of one simple Supreme Court Requirement of producing a simple hospital record with witnesses to the birth, and then mock others for their hypocrisy?
Oh yeah, uh huh....
But then, I cannot always say that I am always right either. Such as needing Congress (as well as the Courts) in order to overcome a Usurper like Obama. In 1800, the answer from a US Senator was to look to the State Legislatures, NOT Congress, for help. I wasted many letters and many months writing Congress, and getting no where there. But this Usurpation angle of the Left to overthrow the Country from within via the Presidential Elections was new to me, and I believe all Americans but for those who planned, conspired, and enabled it to happen (it seems to me).
Reflection upon an 1800 quote I came across:
It seems that in 1800, there was a reference on how to properly go about challenging an unqualified person becoming President, like Obama the foreign natural born citizen via his foreign national father. Unfortunately for us, the circumnavigation of Article 2 of the US Constitution was with perhaps the knowledge that only by a written and announced protest during one moment in Congress, when the Vice President was supposed to allow for any written challenge or protest by a combined agreement of at least one House Representative and one Senator in protest together. But as I previously reported, on January 6, 2009, VP Richard Cheney violated protocol and refused such protocol.
The remedy to Obama, according to then Senator Charles Pinckney in 1800, is for us to make remedy, not through petitioning Congress, but through a concentrated effort via the State Legislatures.
Although, in today's politics, it would still mean a challenge and assault by the Usurpers at the Federal Level to use the Department of Injustice to prosecute in Court as they did Arizona on Immigration Law, and in pushing a pro-Islamic Agenda on those resisting Islamic proselytization. Even the military chaplains are now being forbidden to declare Jesus as their L-RD and Savior publicly in the military :
"Chaplains in the United States military are not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus Christ. " Franklin Graham lamented
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/fran...mo_code=B5BB-1
while Islamists continue to proselytize, and Obama demands we give US Lands and sovereignty piece-meal to Indian (aka. Native American ) Tribes
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=243153
like Van Jones was raising his voice to his crowds (shouting "Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth!") in his speech that Glenn Beck used to like to run.
@ca. 1:00 ff.
But then, all that "greening" to him is a means to an end and a purposeful deception.
I want a traditional and literal regreening of our evironment in the US, including billions of trees planted, as I have previous proposed,
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2009/12/canadian-firm-plants-trees-to-absorb.html
unlike Leftist hypocrites who blow this off. Private fruit trees and gardens should not be outlawed and over-regulated as the
Obama Administration is more and more encroaching upon Americans in their anti-Liberty pro-Communist regulations upon Americans. This was known as far back as March 2009
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92002
but has increasingly become enforced as a reality.
At any rate...our deliverance Legislatively, says an 1800 US Senator, will come via the rise of the State Legislatures exercising their State Rights to pass and enforce Laws to uphold and strengthen the US Constitution's Intent.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
[Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
CCLXXXVIII. Charles Pinckney in the United States Senate., p. 386
[From: 1 Annals of Congress, Sixth Congress, 129--139.]
March 28, 1800.
(Page Image link)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=389&itemLink=D?hlaw:10:./temp/~ammem_4pde::@@@mdb=mcc,gottscho,detr,nfor,wpa,aap ,cwar,bbpix,cowellbib,calbkbib,consrvbib,bdsbib,da g,fsaall,gmd,pan,vv,presp,varstg,suffrg,nawbib,hor yd,wtc,toddbib,mgw,ncr,ngp,musdibib,hlaw,papr,lhbu mbib,rbpebib,lbcoll,alad,hh,aaodyssey,magbell,bbc, dcm,raelbib,runyon,dukesm,lomaxbib,mtj,gottlieb,ae p,qlt,coolbib,fpnas,aasm,denn,relpet,amss,aaeo,mff ,afc911bib,mjm,mnwp,rbcmillerbib,molden,ww2map,mfd ipbib,afcnyebib,klpmap,hawp,omhbib,rbaapcbib,mal,n cpsbib,ncpm,lhbprbib,ftvbib,afcreed,aipn,cwband,fl wpabib,wpapos,cmns,psbib,pin,coplandbib,cola,tccc, curt,mharendt,lhbcbbib,eaa,haybib,mesnbib,fine,cwn yhs,svybib,mmorse,afcwwgbib,mymhiwebib,uncall,afcw ip,mtaft,manz,llstbib,fawbib,berl,fmuever,cdn,upbo verbib,mussm,cic,afcpearl,awh,awhbib,sgp,wright,lh btnbib,afcesnbib,hurstonbib,mreynoldsbib,spaldingb ib,sgproto,scsmbib,afccalbib%230030390&linkTex t=1
"Knowing that it was the intention of the Constitution to make the President completely independent of the Federal Legislature, I well remember it was the object, as it is at present not only the spirit but the letter of that instrument, to give to Congress no interference in, or control over the election of a President. It is made their duty to count over the votes in a convention of both Houses, and for the President of the Senate to declare who has the majority of the votes of the Electors so transmitted.
It never was intended, nor could it have been safe, in the Constitution, to have given to Congress thus assembled in convention, the right to object to any vote, or even to question whether they were constitutionally or properly given.
This right of determining on the manner in which the Electors shall vote; the inquiry into the qualifications, and the guards necessary to prevent disqualified or improper men voting, and to insure the votes being legally given, rests and is exclusively vested in the State Legislatures.
If it is necessary to have guards against improper elections of Electors, and to institute tribunals to inquire into their qualifications, with the State Legislatures, and with them alone, rests the power to institute them, and they must exercise it. "
In other words, we need to grass roots pressure the States to both amend their laws to demand 333 US 640 @ 653 with 533 US 53 @ 54,62 be followed, and vet those who run for President in each respective State to PROVE he or she is US "jus soli" Born with a Hospital Birth Certificate and Witnesses to the Birth, and has the US Supreme Court required US Citizen Father, and I would argue with the advent of Amendment 19 to the US Constitution
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am19
as well as the Act of May 24, 1934, as referred to by Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the Oral Arguments of 533 US 53, we should require that of a US Citizen Mother in the State Bill language to become Law also. In other words, in order to be a US Natural Born Citizen, as was intended by the Founding Fathers and in subsequent Laws of Congress, and even the "living Constitution " evolvement argued by the Liberals etc., even by Leftist standards, a US Natural Born Citizen MUST HAVE BOTH a US Citizen Father and Mother at the time of their provable US Birth with (notarized documentation of ) witnesses to that birth. Such would stand any lawsuit thrown at it by Obama or his minions, as long as the US Constitution and this Republic as it still stands is not yet overthrown by them, or the Supreme Court outlawed or purged but for Sotomayor and Kagan, etc.
Those who will resist such State Legislation to shore up the US Constitution from those who shouldn't be President unless a 100% via both parents US Citizen, without any foreign political influence at birth, are likely those who with great temerity/rashness and vacuacy/idiocy support an alien father of any type impregnating a US minor and having her give birth on US Soil, and then claiming such is a US Natural Born Citizen, could care less if the son of any foreign dictator in power has influence upon the Presidency of the United States or not. Let us say that the father is a living terrorist like who later becomes leader of Hamas, or actively sits on the Council of Iran, or becomes some Communist style dictator like Kim Jong-il of North Korea. Let us also say that the child keeps in constant communication with his father by phone, visits the foreign lands native to his father regularly, is indoctrinated to believe as his father believes , runs for President and is unvetted and wins. He claims to be US born but nobody really knows. There are, like with Obama, no vault Long Form Birth Certificate copies of the Hospital and Witnesses to the Birth, the Media cover up and scandalize any who question, and so forth. By having legience to his father and the lands of his father, is that child who becomes President a United States Natural Born Citizen? Obama's supporters, as long as they sense Obama could possibly be involved in the hypothetical feel compelled to answer in the affirmative, as if they were hypnotized and compelled to answer "yes"...even when Hamas, Iran, and North Korean biological/paternal origins rule Obama out...perhaps they include him because of his equivalent anti-US philosophical and political sympathies? Hmmn.
To further go along this route, let me ask this of those who cite St. George Tucker and James Iredell: Is that alleged US Soil birth and alleged maternal citizenship all that was meant by those like St. George Tucker who spoke of that "happy means of security against foreign influence" ? Or is that a mistake of interpretation of St. George Tucker on your part to suppose that a soil of whatever nation they are found in birth alone, ipso facto, confers an NBC status as well? And when James Iredell spoke of a native born citizen on July 30, 1788, did he mean a child whose only claim to citizenship was via his mother to that foreign land she was born in made him a Natural Born Citizen? Even though Congress passed Legislation in 1790
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
by a majority of like agreement, not long after Iredell's debate points, that any US Citizen father who sired a child in any part of the world and that child was birthed by its mother even on foreign soil, they considered that child to be a US Natural Born Citizen because of the (then) US Citizen Father, even without jus soli? So what was the intent of US Constitutional Law as it respected paternal v. maternal passing on of citizenship, with or without jus soli in US LAW during this respective period by many who also ratified the US Constitution the year before? The US Constitution was fully ratified in 1789, keeping the wording "natural born citizen" rather than just "born citizen". Is it so difficult, those who fawn incessantly over Obama the same way Nazi Germans used to fawn over Hitler, is it really so difficult to use your own brain to think of the various differences of circumstances as why this might be so? Variants as easy to discover Founder's Intent, such as the king of England or ruler in some other Nation sending his pregnant mistress to have a US soil birth, or to impregnate a US Citizen female visiting England or some other foreign power to have a US Soil birth, and then sponsoring the mother and child, providing tutors and others in rearing that child to help them one day run for offices and eventually help Usurp the US government for the glory of their nation 40 or 50 years later. These are -- or at least should be -- easy to discern for those not under the influence of booze or drugs, or even political and anti-Christian intoxications.
[Recolored and enlarged for better readability on 12/24/2013]
Lolo Soetoro U.S. Records - Allen v DHS State and Allen v USCIS - FOIA Releases Final 7-29-10
The essential page they referred me to was page 38 of the pdf.
[State Dept. doc quoted to reflect the original document. Please click on above go to pdf page 38 to view original. If they take it down, I intend that I will reScribd specific FOIA approved for release pages of interest and repost the link. ]
Memo to fi*e
A *4 *28 294
Sept. *4, *967
Pursuant to inquiry from Centra* office regarding the status of the applicants’ spouses’ child by a former marriage.
The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Hono*u*u, Hawaii Aug. 4, *96*. He is *iving with the app*icants’ spouse in Hono*u*u, Hawaii. He xxxxxxxxx is considered the app*icants step-child, within the meaning of Sec. *0*(b)(*)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the app*icant to the chi*ds’ mother on March *5, *965.
W. **. Mix
Direct link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35192432/Lolo-Soetoro-U-S-Records-Allen-v-DHS-State-and-Allen-v-USCIS-FOIA-Releases-Final-7-29-10
---------------------------------------
* is י
** is like a sub-scripted I with a longer base, and capped on top like the capital I.
Question: Whom is W. (**) Mix?
Question: From what source was the alleged memo derived?
A. Was it from Hawaii? We have no office origin, no stamp, no header or footer, nada.
1. Was it by an Immigration Naturalization Service employee?
2. Was it by another source? We do not know what they meant by "Central Office" as it could have been a memo other than a US Government Agency by the unprofessionalism of the typist.
3. Is the alleged memo even genuine?
(a). it is assumed that each yod (י ) shape is either a the tip of a small "l" or the tip of the same small “l” used as a numerical number "1", even though specifically, that is NOT the literal reading, but the subjective interpretation that must be placed upon the text for translation. If the letter "L" is intended as in the word "chi*d", notice in both the anomaly of height and of that in W. ** Mix, where the letter there as an alleged capitalized letter “L”, that Letter has a solid base, out of font character and size and of an entirely different key set that would not be found on the same 1967 era typewriters, manual or electric, as I remember them. Those who know intimately know more of 1967 era US Government or Commercially used typewriters, and can aid in specifics, feel free to comment.
(b). the words United States are in small case letter emphasis as "united states". By comparison, actual official documentation from the same cache and time period will capitalize nations, states, and even university titles. Suggesting that this is a rogue addition and highly suggestive of being a forgery added to the requested files.
The discrepancies of date and the case letters should be compared with file letter 000047, an ACTUAL US Gov't Memorandum -- to the "District Director, Honolulu, Hawaii" --in which the Central Office had (past tense) REVIEWED as of August 21, 1967 and dated August 25, 1967 and that of 000068, an actual Honolulu, Hawaii "memorandum for file" insert (although dated November 22, 1966). That latter Memorandum for file, would be what format Hawaii would have used, and inserted that with 000038 and the letter of 000039 to 000040. But with John Brennan's 2008 State Department Breach to destroy Obama's pre-2008 passports,
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/10/greta-van-susteren-and-others-in-media.html
on one of the 3 breaches, this memo of what the W. ? Mix insert says as of Sept. ?4. ?967 could have been inserted then.
Regardless, the very unprofessionalism of the pdf's p.38 memo, to even the childs' (pluralization of child to children), suggests that not only is p. 38 or 000046 addendum suspect, but it is so out of place we might as well confidently label it as a 90% likely forged document presented by either Brennan who was Quid Pro Quoed to his position for breaching Obama State Department files (etc.), or by those of the Obama Administration State Department (it seems to me).
Further, the marriage certificate of Lolo and Ann on page 20 of the link dates as March 24, 1965. On page 36 of the link (file page 000044), here and elsewhere we are informed that the date of marriage was on March 15, 1965.
Which is correct? March 24 on the actual Marriage Certificate of Lolo and Stanley Ann Dunham (Lolo Soetoro signing after her on her line, as well as directly abover her, too) or March 15, on the claims to the US State Department as testified to by District Director John F. O'Shea?
Barack is still never mentioned by name, nor do we have any other testimony than that Ann lived with and was supported by her parents until she was married to Lolo. Then she becomes the bread winner, acts as if she never went away to Washington State, always lived with her Mom and Pop in their apartment, yada, yada, yada. She lied, and reinvented her past in order to live with her new husband. She spoke French, was learning Indonesian, and left out (Balshoye Spasiba - Thank you very much" ) her Russian Language classes. She clearly knew enough phrases like : Ya ni gevayoo n'vashim yikazye -- "I don't speak your language". But why tell them she knew Russian when she eagerly wished to enter an "anti-American" nation over-run by "Communists at a fever pitch"? Or words to that effect. Unless such a pro-Communist anti-American locale "felt like home" to her liberal anthroplogical ideologies?
We know that Barack grew up to be an ideologue in the pro-Communist offshoot as a Communist-Socialist in the Chicago Unit of the Democratic Socialists of America (formed specifically by Communists wishing to morph their names to something more "Democratic" and "American" sounding). He is also anti-American Usurper in the Presidency without a 333 US 640 @ 653 required 533 US 53 @ 54, 62 Hospital Birth Certificate with Witnesses to the Birth.
The pro-Obama link and documents would be skewered in a Court of Law as having no reason to be taken as credible, nor meeting the Supreme Court legal definition of proof of identity as laid out in 533 US 53 @ 54,62, and as 333 US 640 @ 653 says, Obama is obligated by Law to provide that proof...nobody else is required to have to disprove him as regarding his "birth certificate and identity". And apparently, those who worship and defend Obama cannot even meet the basic minimums of one simple Supreme Court Requirement of producing a simple hospital record with witnesses to the birth, and then mock others for their hypocrisy?
Oh yeah, uh huh....
But then, I cannot always say that I am always right either. Such as needing Congress (as well as the Courts) in order to overcome a Usurper like Obama. In 1800, the answer from a US Senator was to look to the State Legislatures, NOT Congress, for help. I wasted many letters and many months writing Congress, and getting no where there. But this Usurpation angle of the Left to overthrow the Country from within via the Presidential Elections was new to me, and I believe all Americans but for those who planned, conspired, and enabled it to happen (it seems to me).
Reflection upon an 1800 quote I came across:
It seems that in 1800, there was a reference on how to properly go about challenging an unqualified person becoming President, like Obama the foreign natural born citizen via his foreign national father. Unfortunately for us, the circumnavigation of Article 2 of the US Constitution was with perhaps the knowledge that only by a written and announced protest during one moment in Congress, when the Vice President was supposed to allow for any written challenge or protest by a combined agreement of at least one House Representative and one Senator in protest together. But as I previously reported, on January 6, 2009, VP Richard Cheney violated protocol and refused such protocol.
The remedy to Obama, according to then Senator Charles Pinckney in 1800, is for us to make remedy, not through petitioning Congress, but through a concentrated effort via the State Legislatures.
Although, in today's politics, it would still mean a challenge and assault by the Usurpers at the Federal Level to use the Department of Injustice to prosecute in Court as they did Arizona on Immigration Law, and in pushing a pro-Islamic Agenda on those resisting Islamic proselytization. Even the military chaplains are now being forbidden to declare Jesus as their L-RD and Savior publicly in the military :
"Chaplains in the United States military are not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus Christ. " Franklin Graham lamented
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/fran...mo_code=B5BB-1
while Islamists continue to proselytize, and Obama demands we give US Lands and sovereignty piece-meal to Indian (aka. Native American ) Tribes
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=243153
like Van Jones was raising his voice to his crowds (shouting "Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth!") in his speech that Glenn Beck used to like to run.
@ca. 1:00 ff.
But then, all that "greening" to him is a means to an end and a purposeful deception.
I want a traditional and literal regreening of our evironment in the US, including billions of trees planted, as I have previous proposed,
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2009/12/canadian-firm-plants-trees-to-absorb.html
unlike Leftist hypocrites who blow this off. Private fruit trees and gardens should not be outlawed and over-regulated as the
Obama Administration is more and more encroaching upon Americans in their anti-Liberty pro-Communist regulations upon Americans. This was known as far back as March 2009
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92002
but has increasingly become enforced as a reality.
At any rate...our deliverance Legislatively, says an 1800 US Senator, will come via the rise of the State Legislatures exercising their State Rights to pass and enforce Laws to uphold and strengthen the US Constitution's Intent.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
[Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
CCLXXXVIII. Charles Pinckney in the United States Senate., p. 386
[From: 1 Annals of Congress, Sixth Congress, 129--139.]
March 28, 1800.
(Page Image link)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=389&itemLink=D?hlaw:10:./temp/~ammem_4pde::@@@mdb=mcc,gottscho,detr,nfor,wpa,aap ,cwar,bbpix,cowellbib,calbkbib,consrvbib,bdsbib,da g,fsaall,gmd,pan,vv,presp,varstg,suffrg,nawbib,hor yd,wtc,toddbib,mgw,ncr,ngp,musdibib,hlaw,papr,lhbu mbib,rbpebib,lbcoll,alad,hh,aaodyssey,magbell,bbc, dcm,raelbib,runyon,dukesm,lomaxbib,mtj,gottlieb,ae p,qlt,coolbib,fpnas,aasm,denn,relpet,amss,aaeo,mff ,afc911bib,mjm,mnwp,rbcmillerbib,molden,ww2map,mfd ipbib,afcnyebib,klpmap,hawp,omhbib,rbaapcbib,mal,n cpsbib,ncpm,lhbprbib,ftvbib,afcreed,aipn,cwband,fl wpabib,wpapos,cmns,psbib,pin,coplandbib,cola,tccc, curt,mharendt,lhbcbbib,eaa,haybib,mesnbib,fine,cwn yhs,svybib,mmorse,afcwwgbib,mymhiwebib,uncall,afcw ip,mtaft,manz,llstbib,fawbib,berl,fmuever,cdn,upbo verbib,mussm,cic,afcpearl,awh,awhbib,sgp,wright,lh btnbib,afcesnbib,hurstonbib,mreynoldsbib,spaldingb ib,sgproto,scsmbib,afccalbib%230030390&linkTex t=1
"Knowing that it was the intention of the Constitution to make the President completely independent of the Federal Legislature, I well remember it was the object, as it is at present not only the spirit but the letter of that instrument, to give to Congress no interference in, or control over the election of a President. It is made their duty to count over the votes in a convention of both Houses, and for the President of the Senate to declare who has the majority of the votes of the Electors so transmitted.
It never was intended, nor could it have been safe, in the Constitution, to have given to Congress thus assembled in convention, the right to object to any vote, or even to question whether they were constitutionally or properly given.
This right of determining on the manner in which the Electors shall vote; the inquiry into the qualifications, and the guards necessary to prevent disqualified or improper men voting, and to insure the votes being legally given, rests and is exclusively vested in the State Legislatures.
If it is necessary to have guards against improper elections of Electors, and to institute tribunals to inquire into their qualifications, with the State Legislatures, and with them alone, rests the power to institute them, and they must exercise it. "
In other words, we need to grass roots pressure the States to both amend their laws to demand 333 US 640 @ 653 with 533 US 53 @ 54,62 be followed, and vet those who run for President in each respective State to PROVE he or she is US "jus soli" Born with a Hospital Birth Certificate and Witnesses to the Birth, and has the US Supreme Court required US Citizen Father, and I would argue with the advent of Amendment 19 to the US Constitution
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am19
as well as the Act of May 24, 1934, as referred to by Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the Oral Arguments of 533 US 53, we should require that of a US Citizen Mother in the State Bill language to become Law also. In other words, in order to be a US Natural Born Citizen, as was intended by the Founding Fathers and in subsequent Laws of Congress, and even the "living Constitution " evolvement argued by the Liberals etc., even by Leftist standards, a US Natural Born Citizen MUST HAVE BOTH a US Citizen Father and Mother at the time of their provable US Birth with (notarized documentation of ) witnesses to that birth. Such would stand any lawsuit thrown at it by Obama or his minions, as long as the US Constitution and this Republic as it still stands is not yet overthrown by them, or the Supreme Court outlawed or purged but for Sotomayor and Kagan, etc.
Those who will resist such State Legislation to shore up the US Constitution from those who shouldn't be President unless a 100% via both parents US Citizen, without any foreign political influence at birth, are likely those who with great temerity/rashness and vacuacy/idiocy support an alien father of any type impregnating a US minor and having her give birth on US Soil, and then claiming such is a US Natural Born Citizen, could care less if the son of any foreign dictator in power has influence upon the Presidency of the United States or not. Let us say that the father is a living terrorist like who later becomes leader of Hamas, or actively sits on the Council of Iran, or becomes some Communist style dictator like Kim Jong-il of North Korea. Let us also say that the child keeps in constant communication with his father by phone, visits the foreign lands native to his father regularly, is indoctrinated to believe as his father believes , runs for President and is unvetted and wins. He claims to be US born but nobody really knows. There are, like with Obama, no vault Long Form Birth Certificate copies of the Hospital and Witnesses to the Birth, the Media cover up and scandalize any who question, and so forth. By having legience to his father and the lands of his father, is that child who becomes President a United States Natural Born Citizen? Obama's supporters, as long as they sense Obama could possibly be involved in the hypothetical feel compelled to answer in the affirmative, as if they were hypnotized and compelled to answer "yes"...even when Hamas, Iran, and North Korean biological/paternal origins rule Obama out...perhaps they include him because of his equivalent anti-US philosophical and political sympathies? Hmmn.
To further go along this route, let me ask this of those who cite St. George Tucker and James Iredell: Is that alleged US Soil birth and alleged maternal citizenship all that was meant by those like St. George Tucker who spoke of that "happy means of security against foreign influence" ? Or is that a mistake of interpretation of St. George Tucker on your part to suppose that a soil of whatever nation they are found in birth alone, ipso facto, confers an NBC status as well? And when James Iredell spoke of a native born citizen on July 30, 1788, did he mean a child whose only claim to citizenship was via his mother to that foreign land she was born in made him a Natural Born Citizen? Even though Congress passed Legislation in 1790
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
by a majority of like agreement, not long after Iredell's debate points, that any US Citizen father who sired a child in any part of the world and that child was birthed by its mother even on foreign soil, they considered that child to be a US Natural Born Citizen because of the (then) US Citizen Father, even without jus soli? So what was the intent of US Constitutional Law as it respected paternal v. maternal passing on of citizenship, with or without jus soli in US LAW during this respective period by many who also ratified the US Constitution the year before? The US Constitution was fully ratified in 1789, keeping the wording "natural born citizen" rather than just "born citizen". Is it so difficult, those who fawn incessantly over Obama the same way Nazi Germans used to fawn over Hitler, is it really so difficult to use your own brain to think of the various differences of circumstances as why this might be so? Variants as easy to discover Founder's Intent, such as the king of England or ruler in some other Nation sending his pregnant mistress to have a US soil birth, or to impregnate a US Citizen female visiting England or some other foreign power to have a US Soil birth, and then sponsoring the mother and child, providing tutors and others in rearing that child to help them one day run for offices and eventually help Usurp the US government for the glory of their nation 40 or 50 years later. These are -- or at least should be -- easy to discern for those not under the influence of booze or drugs, or even political and anti-Christian intoxications.
[Recolored and enlarged for better readability on 12/24/2013]
No comments:
Post a Comment