tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post508329433615372873..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Benjamin Franklin in 1775 thanks Charles Dumas of the Netherlands for sending him 3 more copies of the newest 1775 edition of Vattel's Law of NationsMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-89032317576662626242015-08-09T14:58:05.450-04:002015-08-09T14:58:05.450-04:00Blogger Jon said... " ... Sometimes miscited ...Blogger Jon said... " ... Sometimes miscited is Emmerich de Vattel ,,,"<br /><br />You've obviously spent time seeking the TRUTH on the question of the attendant circumstances at birth of a U.S. natural born Citizen that constitutes being in congruity with the term of words usage and intent at A2S1C5 of the COTUS.<br /><br />I would ask that you look a bit further, and closer.<br /><br />You NARROWLY look at Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis, even though there is not one scintilla of evidence that either were in the considerations of the U.S. Congress when they wrote the 1790 Act; " an Act to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization ..."<br /><br />Look at the pertinent provisions, numbered here for the purpose of analysis;<br /><br />(1) And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. <br /><br />(2) And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: <br /><br />(3) Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:<br /><br />Reading them in the order written a pattern is sensed and reading them in reverse reveals the SOURCE of the pattern and the SOURCE of U.S. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH, simple stated without fanfare, bugles or tommes of manuscripts describing the doctrine, simply; " ... the right of citizenship ..." acknowledging again that the entire Act was specifically dealing with U.S. Citizenship, and NOT Greek, Italian, Roman, English, German or any other whatsoever, ONLY U.S. Citizenship which once obtained carried with it the RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP for the children of its U.S. Citizens parents.<br /><br />So, I will continue to challenge any person to disprove the characterization I make of the "established uniform Rule of US. Citizenship once obtained...i.e.,<br /><br />" Once a person IS a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world ..." (slc)<br /><br />... , expressed in the general static sense remaining true to applications in the dynamic cases while being subject to exceptions, conditions, and provisos.<br /><br />It is true that Vattel's children of citizen parents MUST derive their RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP from some source other than self-declaration, but you'll note that both jus soli and jus sanguinis are discarded by the proviso of #3.<br /><br />Many suggest that it is just the "implied understanding" that the Framers were familiar with Vattel and the reference to "law of nations" regarding maritime affairs obligated the Congress to let "nature have with the children of U.S. Citizens".<br /><br />The 1st Congress was much more precise than the succinct 276 word Act suggests, without very careful reading in CONTEXT of WHO they were addressing to.<br /><br /><br />Challenge stands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-41884409924881406842015-08-09T14:45:37.991-04:002015-08-09T14:45:37.991-04:00Jon,
The problem that I have with your argument i...Jon,<br /><br />The problem that I have with your argument is that the historical and legal record demonstrates that while the states may have adopted the English common law jus soli rule when they selectively adopted the English common law after July 4, 1776, the national government never did. On the contrary, among other evidence, the early naturalization Acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) and cases of the United States Supreme Court (see, for example, Minor v. Happersett (1875)), show that the national government adopted the jus sanguinis rule of citizenship of the law of nations and not the jus soli one of the English common law. The jus sanguinis rule was consistent with the Enlightenment teachings of John Locke, who espoused that government was based on consent of the governed and the right to expatriation. It was also consistent with the teachings of Emer de Vattel, the Founders and Framers favorite publicist on the law of nations. Finally, it was also consistent with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which also advocated Locke's consent-based theories of government and citizenship. The Framers were familiar with what Vattel wrote in Section 214 regarding the jus soli rule of England and they rejected it for national citizenship and replaced it with the jus sanguinis rule put forth by Vattel in Section 212. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-45228806076714705662015-08-09T14:02:22.263-04:002015-08-09T14:02:22.263-04:00Sometimes miscited is Emmerich de Vattel, in his w...Sometimes miscited is Emmerich de Vattel, in his work Les Droit des Gens (Law of Nations), taking out of context the words from Book I:<br /><br /> § 212. ... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. <br /><br />But he was writing of the rule of jus sanguinis that was municipal law (not the law of nations) for countries on the European Continent. A little further down, he explains:<br /><br /> § 214. ... there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner. <br /><br />The rule of jus soli goes back to at least 508 BC in Athens, when it was used to establish citizenship in districts called demes. The Romans mainly used jus sanguinis to organize the empire into national groups each with its own legal system (although they had to introduce the office of praetor peregrinus to adjudicate disputes between members of different groups). However, the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD made jus soli the rule for the entire Empire. The rule was carried to France and England under Roman domination, and the Normans adopted it and spread it to Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.<br /><br />However, jus sanguinis prevailed in many Eastern and Central European countries at the time Vattel wrote, and spread to other countries on the European continent. It displaced jus soli in Britain in 1983 and in France in 1993, mainly in response to immigration of persons of different ethnicity.Jon Rolandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14009899449185140706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47354239105492880482014-11-02T12:42:57.310-05:002014-11-02T12:42:57.310-05:00prsmith,
You are correct. I have written on the ...prsmith,<br /><br />You are correct. I have written on the need for a child to be born in the United States to two U.S. citizen "parents" extensively on this blog and in my briefs to the courts. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-81918209641781653832014-11-02T10:49:30.380-05:002014-11-02T10:49:30.380-05:00I know that I'm a day late and dollar short t...I know that I'm a day late and dollar short to this conversation but if I may. . .<br /><br />Back when the Constitution was penned, when a non-citizen woman married a citizen, she automatically gained citizenship and thus any offspring would have sprung from citizen parents (plural). Today, parents can have separate citizenships (Russian, Chinese, North Korean, etc.) Would it not make sense that in keeping with the US citizenship of both parents found back then that both parents would, likewise, need to be US citizens in order to produce a 'natural born citizen' child?prsmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07140414441170941366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-6080684260844956022010-05-11T14:31:46.247-04:002010-05-11T14:31:46.247-04:00Indeed, the Law of Nations or Principles of Natura...Indeed, the Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law was the guiding legal work of that era for the founders of our nation to unify the newly freed states.<br /><br />The 13 original colonies were free and independent sovereign states. The only set of guidance which could unite free and independent sovereign states were the Laws of Nature which are universal truths and as codified in the legal treatise by Emer de Vattel in his legal book, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. The founders looked to Natural Law and the Law of Nations to unify the 13 free and independent states, not to English Common Law which they just threw off. It's silly that people think our U.S. Constitution was based on English Common Law. How could the common law of one nation, a nation the colonies just rejected, be used to unite 13 newly freed and independent states, each with their own constitutions and laws of citizenship. No to accomplish that, the founders and framers looked to universal law to unite the colony states and form a new more perfect union in the U.S. Constitution. The framers and founders where quite well versed in the Law of Nations and that is what they used to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA.<br /><br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/thomas-jefferson-founder-of-our-nation.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/thomas-jefferson-founder-of-our-nation.html</a><br /><br />CDR Kerchner<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-36762620468304076712010-04-29T23:33:52.930-04:002010-04-29T23:33:52.930-04:00When I read the net some days I get the opinion th...When I read the net some days I get the opinion that some people as an analogy of the eligibility issues surrounding Obama are re-discovering "America" so to speak. Many things that some are just now "discovering" and writing again have been in my lawsuit filed in January 2009, prior to Obama's inauguration. It is good that they write about these issues, but they should point out that these points are in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and direct people to Mario's blog and www.protectourliberty.org to learn more about the case and that someone is taking action on those points. For example Nancy Pelosi's involvement in the fraud of the 2008 election and her signing two different versions of the DNC certification of nomination form.<br /><br />Here is a "Cliff Notes" table of contents for the complaint served on the various defendants. If you have not look at the complaint for awhile, you may wish to re-read this and/or the entire complaint. We have all the bases covered, imo. We just need to get into court in a trial on the merits.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint</a><br /><br />and ....<br /><br /><a href="http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/twelvecounts.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Twelve Counts charged in my case.</a><br /> <br />Feel free to pass along these links to help educate the world as to what is in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit.<br /><br />CDR Kerchner<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-43362999538946093962010-04-29T14:20:27.210-04:002010-04-29T14:20:27.210-04:00We have absolutely no reliable print media and the...We have absolutely no reliable print media and the courts have become little more than totally corrupted extortion devices. Congress is useless and it has no credibility whatsoever. My faith in the future of this nation wanes more by the hour. When the supreme law of any land is ignored, unenforced, and mocked by the courts, that country is on it's deathbed.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254885881347846017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-49203179325885055192010-04-29T11:14:31.453-04:002010-04-29T11:14:31.453-04:00True and Charles legal action names her and the ot...True and Charles legal action names her and the other traitors that had a duty to uphold their oath.<br /><br />Trouble is we no longer are a nation of laws but of opinion polls and raw power. A court system that is slow to respond to attacks from with-in or not respond at all.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">DixHistory</a><br /><br />===================<br />A pen said...Off topic?<br />In the case of Obama eligibility it is quite clear that HE must provide the necessary documents to prove he isDixhistoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04131112648747290805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-26315082512100439052010-04-29T06:50:07.772-04:002010-04-29T06:50:07.772-04:00Off topic?
In the case of Obama eligibility it is ...Off topic?<br />In the case of Obama eligibility it is quite clear that HE must provide the necessary documents to prove he is eligible. The person or entity who accepts those documents is not stated in the constitution however the duty clearly falls on every person sworn to uphold and defend the document including inspecting documents required by it. That said, there is one person who has signed a notarized statement (canadafreepress.com/.../...ification_Doc_1.jpg ) to that effect, Nancy Pelosi. It is she who must be charged with fraud . It is well established in the bill she signed that recognized the status of "natural born citizen" to be granted those born of citizen PARENTS , plural, also established in other historical texts which the senate had access to which due diligence would have uncovered ( ://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.RES.511: ). It is well established the BHO had a non-citizen father. She understood the law yet signed to a document that stated the impossible and that is the cornerstone of the fraud. True?A penhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519441140048530323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-87590248397631359282010-04-28T19:13:10.573-04:002010-04-28T19:13:10.573-04:00Hi. votes to ignore “birthers”. Catch the snark at...Hi. votes to ignore “birthers”. Catch the snark at the end. This is a journalist?<br /><br />http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/barack-obama-birth-certificate-linda-lingle.htmlMickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-88985847210918260712010-04-28T18:31:32.405-04:002010-04-28T18:31:32.405-04:00UNBC,
The gray matter is tired and forgets but ye...UNBC,<br /><br />The gray matter is tired and forgets but yes I did read it and that great link you posted brought it all back at:<br /><a href="http://www.nbcfund.com/chatforum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=171&sid=d294d73da8befd0db2bcadee7e6e251d" rel="nofollow">CRAIG V. US – 10th Circuit Court of Appeals</a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/obama.htm" rel="nofollow">DixHistory</a>Dixhistoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04131112648747290805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-79108164998174175442010-04-28T18:24:08.049-04:002010-04-28T18:24:08.049-04:00We have Bad News!
----
http://www.washingtonexam...We have Bad News! <br />----<br />http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/blogs/yeas-and-nays/Birthers-Beware_-Hawaii-allows-officials-to-ignore-duplicate-birth-certificate-requests-92324909.htmlJameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18521429952176263922010-04-28T18:02:44.952-04:002010-04-28T18:02:44.952-04:00If "ack-ma-jin-a-dad" has a baby while h...If "ack-ma-jin-a-dad" has a baby while he is here on visa, will the baby get to be president someday?<br /><br />Well he applied for a visa so we better hope he doesn't bring a pregnant wife with him.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12343959316501286996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-87018890260740582752010-04-28T17:15:33.697-04:002010-04-28T17:15:33.697-04:00Dixhistory said...
"UNBC, I take it that you ...Dixhistory said...<br />"UNBC, I take it that you are NBC both parents citizens and you was born on US soil."<br /><br />WE are on the same team.<br /><br />Did you not read Leo Donofrio's analysis of my case when the USCA 10th Circuit gave their 'orbita dictum' opinion when they dismissed in part and REMANDED in part?<br /><br />http://www.nbcfund.com/chatforum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=171&sid=d294d73da8befd0db2bcadee7e6e251d<br /><br /><br />They referred to my usage of Vattel as relying on a Swiss Philosopher in asserting my claim as a NBC.<br /><br />Anyway, you will see that Leo does not think I, or anyone else, has a 'RIGHT' to be acknowledged as an NBC, to which I disagree.<br /><br />If there are NO NBC's in the USA then there is NO ONE that can be selected and/or elected as POTUS.<br /><br />Yes, two citizen Parents, who were citizens at the time of birth, regardless of how they obtained their citizenship, and being born within the Jurisdiction of the US are the circumstances that are required to be 'considered' an NBC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-73019057155203131952010-04-28T14:42:50.879-04:002010-04-28T14:42:50.879-04:00UNBC, I take it that you are NBC both parents cit...UNBC, I take it that you are NBC both parents citizens and you was born on US soil. <br /><br />Am I to take from the below you are trying to push a legal action so a court will declare you with the term natural born citizen rather than just citizen?<br /><br />http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/obama.htm<br /><br />UNBC said <br />"I am SLCraig, the same that has filed a civil claim in the USDC/USCA/SCOTUS seeking to have MY citizenship status acknowledged and confirmed as being a 'natural born citizen' insofar as 'citizenship' is concerned."Dixhistoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04131112648747290805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-61139581811588532932010-04-28T14:02:08.165-04:002010-04-28T14:02:08.165-04:00cfkerchner said.."Your user ID implies you ar...cfkerchner said.."Your user ID implies you are a member of a group. Can you provide me with a website or blog where you post your research findings"<br /><br />Sir, I am only trying to be scrupulous in my readings and interpretations and as you are aware there are volumes of info on both sides of the issue.<br /><br />I am SLCraig, the same that has filed a civil claim in the USDC/USCA/SCOTUS seeking to have MY citizenship status acknowledged and confirmed as being a 'natural born citizen' insofar as 'citizenship' is concerned.<br /><br />In spite of the fact 'The Citizens Almanac' was 1st published in 2008 it is, even as we speak, being handed out to immigrants that come in contact with the USCIS, complete with the Un Constitutional usage of 'native' in lieu of 'natural'.<br /><br />Regarding the various editions of Vattel I did mean, in my small mind, the 1797 version being the 1st known usage of the ‘idiom’ in whole but remain curious how the 1759/60 edition is worded.<br /><br />I am not some skulking troll attempting to deceive, distract and derail honest inquiry and full understanding, quit the contrary, I, in my humble way and on my own path, am working as diligently as you and Mr. Apuzzo in efforts to expose the most despicable fraud ever perpetrated on this country of ours.<br /><br />I maintain a humble forum at http://nbcfund.com/chatforum<br /><br />By way of explanation of my thoughts in attempting to have myself ‘legally’ recognized as a NBC by the Guv’mnt it is my thought the NBC, in the 1st instant, is a ‘citizenship question’ and ONLY becomes a ‘Political Question’ at that time and in those situations when an ‘individual’ declares intention to stand for a ‘public office’.<br /><br />To me, it is important to SEPARATE the definition from being considered as ONLY a ‘political question’ because the courts will continue to ‘evade’ positing an answer when it is presented as a ‘political question’ citing ‘separation of powers’ doctrine.<br /><br />Being a Representative Republic that selects and elects its Representatives from the ‘People’ it must be considered OBVIOUS that the two forms of citizenship expressed in the Constitution in Articles I and II refers to the Peoples of the various States and being in various conditions of citizenship.<br /><br />In short, to me, NBC is a Citizenship Question first and incidentally a Political Question on those occasions mentioned above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-27613627107399371272010-04-28T13:22:06.976-04:002010-04-28T13:22:06.976-04:00UNBC:
Your use of the "Citizen's Almanac...UNBC:<br /><br />Your use of the "Citizen's Almanac" is "interesting" since the document has incomplete information relating the the nbC requirement for Presidential elibgibility (one must be "mative-born" and then some; you must also be born of two citizen parents and on US soil) and in any event that document is merely casual information without the force of law.<br /><br />You present it as though is is somehow superior to the black letter law in the US Constitution. <br /><br />IT IS NOT!!jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-72038008968396523562010-04-28T12:49:19.861-04:002010-04-28T12:49:19.861-04:00UNBC,
I just checked the publication and revision...UNBC,<br /><br />I just checked the publication and revision date of the document you cited. I see what you pointed us to was done in 2008. Why would we believe anything coming out of our system about who can be President in 2008 from our government when the entire Presidential election of 2008 was a fraud perpetrated on the American people by a corrupt Congress and Main Stream Media to ignore and subvert our Constitution. This type of document that you point out is more of the same attempts of the Progressives in both parties to change the Constitution without amending it. Numerous bills have been floated in the Senate to try and define what "natural born Citizen" means but they were killed. Why? Because they know what it means, i.e., Vattel's definition, and don't want the public to learn about it in the debates of such bills. A bill was tried and failed in late 2007/early 2008. So what do they do instead, they put out false and misleading government documents and false and misleading replies to letters from their Constituents. All so both parties can run ineligible candidates and both cover for each other and keep quiet about it and con the People. Our Congress and major media are corrupt.<br /><br />CDR Kerchnercfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-61393396760974559502010-04-28T12:37:07.494-04:002010-04-28T12:37:07.494-04:00UNBC,
You seem to be digging for things to quote ...UNBC,<br /><br />You seem to be digging for things to quote here to save or help Obama out of his con job and the fraud he has pulled on America.<br /><br />Your user ID implies you are a member of a group. Can you provide me with a website or blog where you post your research findings?<br /><br />The 1797 English language translation of Vattel was the first edition to use the explicit words "natural born Citizen" in Section 212 of Vattel as the translated meaning of the French word for the naturels or indigenous.<br /><br />So you do not have to go to an 1883 English version of Vattel to find the specific words in English as "natural born Citizen".<br /><br />That government document was obviously written by a progressives of the vein of Obama who also calls himself a native born Citizen and thus qualified to be President. But that is not what our constitution says. <br /><br />Government publications and Senate Resolutions do not amend the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 1, which requires a "natural born Citizen" not a native born Citizen, especially the way we use the words "native born" to mean today. Remember Vattel did not say "native born". He said the "natives" or the "indigenous" and then defined what he meant by those words IN ALL EDITIONS as being those born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens of the country.<br /><br />You can't just nitpick on one word and try to attach modern meaning to the word. You must read the entirety of the sentence and the rest of Section 212. And then you must realize that the 1797 English translation confirmed what Vattel meant in the French using the very words found in our U.S. Constitution, "natural born Citizen". And the Venus case in 1814 confirmed that is what "natural born Citizen" means in our Constitution.<br /><br />CDR Kerchnercfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-65052572654126144012010-04-28T08:57:46.608-04:002010-04-28T08:57:46.608-04:00Thanks for the response on the ‘1759/60 London pri...Thanks for the response on the ‘1759/60 London printing’ edition of Vattel. <br /><br />But what I am trying to ‘discover’ is if the ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen was to be found it that edition as it was used in Chiity’s 1883 translation. <br /><br />With my bias I find the meaning and intent of Vattels words even in French but many point out that the French versions do not form the idiom as a group of words and suggest that Chitty used the English form of NBC and imply that it includes all the meanings to be found in Blackstone.<br /><br />I have not been able to find a full version of the 1759/60 edition to see how Chap. 212 is expressed.<br /><br />But here is an example of what the US Guv’mnt would have us believe, from the USCIS publication of “The Citizen’s Almanac”, M-76 found on page #4;<br /><br />* Right to run for elected office.<br /><br />U.S. citizenship is required for many elected offices in this country.<br /><br />Naturalized U.S. citizens can run for any elected office they choose with the exception of President and Vice President of the United States, which require candidates to be native-born citizens. *<br /><br />http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-76.pdf<br /><br />I have a FOIA request asking for all information surrounding the inclusion of that ‘passage’ in the publication and cite this in the appeal in process at the Administrative Appeals Office regarding my request for ‘Certification’ as an NBC, insofar as citizenship is concerned.<br /><br />What I should have done before going to the USDC/USCA/SCOTUS last year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-25658610338881228452010-04-28T05:54:20.292-04:002010-04-28T05:54:20.292-04:00Since Clarence Thomas admits SCOTUS has been evadi...Since Clarence Thomas admits SCOTUS has been evading (deceit) the ineligibility issue...<br />and they know which cases are coming down the pike...<br />Aren't they simply concocting new excuses to evade what's to come? And since this is the case, isn't this all for naught?<br />And what's the recourse? Being dumped into serfdom of global Marxofascism?Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77542969713938731732010-04-28T04:12:14.629-04:002010-04-28T04:12:14.629-04:00The video is a hoax,
see Birther's Delight pa...The video is a hoax,<br /><br />see Birther's Delight part 1 and 2.<br /><br />I should have examined it more before I posted it here. Sorry. Way too much editing!!<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJUxsFBwcbsJoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12343959316501286996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-30724328248569344582010-04-28T03:51:47.570-04:002010-04-28T03:51:47.570-04:00There is something wrong with the video. Too many...There is something wrong with the video. Too many cutaways. Every time he says HI, Kenya or not born in the USA, the camera either goes to a long shot or his back is to the camera.<br /><br />then when he starts with, aannnd, his left hand is in his pocket but it wasn't in the camera angle right before that. It would be good to get both camera's videos before it was edited. <br /><br />what do you think?<br /><br />has this been debunked but I just never saw it before?Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12343959316501286996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-5740562500848022912010-04-28T02:57:45.538-04:002010-04-28T02:57:45.538-04:00Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Sunday, February 26, 1888, p...Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Sunday, February 26, 1888, p.6<br /><br />“We also wrote to the author of the work quoted from, Alexander Porter Morse, Esq., Washington, and received a very courteous and prompt reply, as follows:<br />Undoubtedly he would; [be eligible to the Presidency] provided the father was (as I infer the question in the shape in which it is put assumes), 1, a citizen of the United States, and 2, is not within the exception of the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. at Large 604), which is “that right of [American] citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.” The true rule may be thus expressed: “The child of an American citizen is an American citizen [by birth].” The place of birth is immaterial. Of the former tests of citizenship, the place of birth and the nationality of the father. The United States has given in her adhesion to the latter, as have several Continental States.” <br /><br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/30628967/Brooklyn-Daily-Eagle-Sunday-February-26-1888-p-6<br /><br />Alexander Porter Morse in 1888 placed an emphasis of the FATHER's Citizen status as that which was the essential in determining the child's citizen staus, whether he was born in the US or abroad. I posted the entire Brooklyn Eagle public domain article at Scribd.<br /><br />The article also cites that children born of aliens in the US are NOT 14th Amendment protected. Again, as with Vattel, the consensus keeps harping back in jurisprudence and legal opinion, that the father is the chief determinent in the child's nationality, regardless of where he or she was born.<br /><br />The Brooklyn Eagle also defends their past confirmations that a "natural born citizen" is US home born or jus soli by two US citizen parents in the article as being accurate. The only "abroad" concept allowable (in 1888, says the Eagle), is to be born on the high seas under the US Flag.<br /><br />What a help this paper is some 122 years later.Brianroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06460377944201908161noreply@blogger.com