This was sent my way by George.

It made me laugh out loud but certainly hit a note of truth in those of us tired of the whining progressive ever promoting the taking of our hard earned money. Then insisting to pass it to those who choose to sit on their duff for a public hand out.

More and more the MIDDLE CLASS is beginning to realize THEY ARE the ones that progressives EXPECT TO PICK UP THE TAB for the whole mess.

I do not know if there is even a real John J. Wall … however this letter certainly hits all points on what most of middle America is thinking.

For those of you who have not wrapped their mind around EXACTLY WHO middle America is?
Middle America is the average Joe who works long and hard.
Comes home at night HOPES to relax and not be faced with some incessant political scolding by a President who has NEVER PUT IN A HARD DAYS LABOR IN HIS LIFE.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, regressive s, Marxists, and Obama supporters, et. al.:

We have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

1. Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides had such distinct and disparate tastes.

2. We don’t like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.

3. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

4. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.

5. We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar, and bio-diesel.

6. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O’Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

7. We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.

8. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless homeboys, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.

9. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks.

10. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

11. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

12. You can have the peace-niks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

13. We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

14. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, and Shirley McLain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

15. We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks, and over sized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

16. You can give everyone health-care if you can find any practicing doctors..

17. We’ll continue to believe health-care is an earned luxury and not a right.

18. We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem.”

19. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya,” or “We Are the World”.

20. We’ll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

21. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our constitution and our flag.

22. Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, we’ll bet which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S.: Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbra Streisand, and Jane Fonda with you.

P.S.S.: And you won’t have to “Press 1 for English” when you call our country..

If you can’t stand behind our Military, Please feel free to stand in front of them!

Well I think the good citizens of North Carolina need to recall their governor post haste.

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue said at a rotary club event in Cary, N.C., according to the Raleigh News & Observer. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”

Now her handlers are trying to pass the very telling stupid rambling of the governor as a joke.

You listen and decide how much of a joke she meant it to be or HOW MUCH OF A JOKE SHE IS.

Stating the obvious for those informed. This European trader tells the BBC that the European Union is toast. The realization dawned on most of the traders when they realized Germany was the only player that had the economy and resources to bail out the PIIGS, or China. When the German people realized that a bail out would increase their national debt, in a best case scenario 32%, in a worse case scenario 52%, a German equivalent of the American “Tea Party” was spontaneously formed. In days gone past the peasants would set up barricades throughout the large cities, find the elites, then tar and feather them.

China is suffering stagnant growth and inflation from all the dollars they imported from America combined with sluggish international economic growth. China will not ride to the rescue.

Bernanke can print more money, with the consequences of further aggravating the US 3.8% inflation rate, just as the 2012 election cycle is beginning.

For those thinking the rush to the American dollar as a safety is a long term trend, think again. We have a majority states that could possible go bankrupt. We are Europe in a couple of years at best.

And my university rides my ass because I detest teaching Keynesian economics and prefer to teach Austrian economics.

As time goes on Herman Cain sounds more and more logical amid the political rhetoric foisted our way by those in the running for President.

Here is a video presented by Dick Morris who so far endorses no one but is interviewing them all.

HERMAN CAIN ON THE ECONOMY

HERMAN CAIN INTERVIEW ON NEW IDEAS TO TAME IRAN

HERMAN CAIN INTERVIEW ON FAIR TAX

HERMAN CAIN ON CLASS WARFARE

Herman Cain seems to have the ability to see a problem and come up with a viable solution to fix it. All of this WITHOUT a bunch of BullCrap rhetoric foisted our way by others in the running.

Updated: Sunday, 25 Sep 2011, 1:12 PM EDT
Published : Sunday, 25 Sep 2011, 1:12 PM EDT

(NewsCore) – Businessman Herman Cain topped the Florida straw poll in a surprise victory Saturday, beating Texas Gov. Rick Perry whose momentum continues to slide after a widely-criticized debate performance this week.

Cain emerged well ahead of the pack with 37.1 percent of the vote. Perry finished second with 15.4 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney followed close behind in third place with 14 percent.

Before Thursday’s bruising debate, Perry had been the favorite to win Florida’s Presidency 5 poll, a non-binding test of popularity in what is historically a key swing state. But Perry’s momentum has stalled since that performance, in which he appeared to stumble during a question about foreign policy and bungle an attack on Romney.

Perry also risked losing some conservative support by making a full-throated defense of a Texas policy that provides in-state tuition rates for children of illegal immigrants. “I don’t think you have a heart,” he said of those who oppose the policy.
Whole Story ….

The following appeared in Lew Rockwell on 9-24-2011

Austrian economist Gary North

This is denied by the New World Order’s promoters of international unification. They have been planning for this since the end of World War I. They have been actively implementing this by stealth since the early 1950s. They used treaties to bring this political unification to pass. They used economic unification as the bait. The hook of political unification was always buried in the bait.

The threat facing the NWO is that the economic bait has turned out to be poison. The EMU is based on a common central bank and a common fiat currency. But without a common system of government, there can be no fiscal union. There can be no central planning by Keynesian means.

Soon to be in the dust bin of history

The Party Line of the EU and the ECB is that there is no unity-threatening problem or series of problems facing the central government. They insist that the current problems are temporary.

We have heard all this before.

THE BREAKDOWN OF COMMUNISM

Socialism never works. It always ends up in war, bankruptcy, or both.

The second greatest event was the decision of Deng Xiaoping in 1978 to free up Chinese agriculture. That led to the most rapid economic growth in human history. Nothing like it had ever happened to so many people. South Korea’s per capita economic growth, 1950 to 1990, was greater, but South Korea was a much smaller nation.

Communism was the most powerful ideology of tyranny in man’s history. It failed operationally in the USSR in less than 75 years. It failed in Communist China in less 30 years.

The cash nexus seduced the vanguard of the proletariat. The inevitable socialist victory was exposed as a gigantic fraud. The messianic religion of Marxism went down with the two Communist ships.

Today, the rag-tag army of tenured Marxist professors in Western universities have as their only surviving models Cuba and North Korea. The satellite photo of the two Koreas – bright lights in the south, one light in the north – is the most powerful epitaph of Communism there is.

Now another victory of liberty over centralized politics is unfolding. It is taking place in Western Europe. It is not going to be reversed. The New World Order’s number-one poster child – the European Union – has begun to fall apart. Nothing will reverse this.

There are those in the West who will deny this. There are also those who from 1992 until today insist that the collapse of the USSR was in fact a gigantic deception. The Communists are still in control, they tell us. These people cannot bring themselves to admit that Communism lost the battle. Like the original Communists, they believe in the absolute sovereignty of political power. They believe that the West could not possibly have won, because the Communists were better at intrigue and military power. But the West did win, because the Communist leaders gave up the dream of a socialist world and decided to go for the money.

Let me tell you how I knew that the Communists had failed completely. First, the new Russian government changed major cities’ names back to their pre-Bolshevik names. Leningrad became St. Petersburg. Stalin re-named Volgagrad to Stalingrad in 1925. Khrushchev changed it back in 1961 as part of his de-Stalinization program. Both changes revealed the nature of politics in Russia. The names of cities were testimonies to the ruling power. That was why the name changes after 1991 were significant.

Yea all these countries will fly strait, not.

The fall of the Soviet Union was no deception. It was real. That was two decades ago.

There is another fall coming.

BREAKDOWN TO BREAK-UP

I will state it again. The breakdown of the European Monetary Union will be followed by the break-up of the European Union.

The EMS is breaking down. A few columnists in the West are now admitting this. On the whole, however, the Party Line of the media follows the Party Line of the EU bureaucrats: “The crisis in Greece is a temporary aberration. It will be solved by EU, IMF, and ECB policies.”

The problem with the Party Line is that Greece keeps flaring up. Short-term interest rates are over 100%, indicating a loss of faith by investors in the Greek government’s ability to make interest payments in euros. If the EU, the IMF, and the ECB had a plan to deal with the underlying problem in Greece – its looming inability to make interest payments in euros – they would have implemented it. They keep announcing temporary bridge loans. These “bridge loans” are in fact sinkhole loans. Everyone presumably knows this, yet they do not invest accordingly. The various stock markets’ wild gyrations in Europe indicate that hope and fear are balanced, unlike any government’s budget.

Hope will degrade into fear as reality sets in. What is reality? That large European banks bought Greek government bonds, because they assumed that no member of the EMU would pull out as a way to default on euro-based debt. But it is clear that this is exactly what Greece will do. The default is statistically inevitable. The sinkhole is a bottomless pit.

Progressive communism was always at the root of the EU

That world is gone, but there are domestic politicians in PIIGS nations who would very much like to restore it. They are being pushed hard by voters to break free of the “austerity” programs being rammed down their throats by the IMF and ECB.

The Bible teaches, “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is the servant to the lender” (Proverbs 13:22). This ticks off the borrowers. The Bible also teaches, “The wicked borroweth and payeth not again” (Psalms 37:21a). This really ticks off the borrowers. “That’s an insult to our integrity!” Then, when their governments announce limited cutbacks in domestic spending, the threatened employees take to the streets. “You owe us what you have promised!”

In short, voters want to impose austerity on the creditors. They do not want creditors to impose austerity on their welfare state governments.

Some interest groups are going to get stiffed. The Party Line at the EU, ECB, IMF is that employees of high-deficit countries are going to get stiffed. The Party Line in the Greek trade unions is that the ECB, IMF, EU bureaucrats are going to get stiffed. Politicians in PIIGS nations claim that no one is going to get stiffed if the ECB, IMF, and EU will just lend more money to tide them over. The commercial bankers want the EU and ECB to serve as lenders of last resort to banks, so that, when the PIIGS default, the bankers will not lose their bonuses. Voters in Germany don’t want to get stuck with the tab for bailing out PIIGS or banks. Investors in European stocks keep sounding like Rodney King. “Can’t everyone just get along?”

The New World Order’s promoters are wringing their hands and pleading, “We worked so hard to sneak through this deal. We are not quite finished with our plans. Now voters are trying to kill it. It’s just not fair!” I think of a classic video scene that best describes the present predicament of the NWO.

THE BEST-LAID PLANS

The Wall Street Journal published a report on the breakdown of the EMS. I liked the way it started out:

When the history of the rise and fall of postwar Western Europe is someday written, it will come in three volumes. Title them “Hard Facts,” “Convenient Fictions” and – the volume still being written – “Fraud.”
The author says that the first hard fact was military necessity in the post-War period. The Cold War began.

The next hard fact was hard money. He correctly identifies this as “the gift of Ludwig Erhard, author of the economic reforms that created the Deutsche mark, abolished price controls, and put inflation in check for generations.” Erhard was a disciple of Wilhelm Roepke, who was a disciple of Ludwig von Mises. In mid-June, 1948, Erhard unilaterally abolished the entire Allied military system of price controls, fiat money, and rationing. The next day – literally – the “German economic miracle” began.

The author continues: “The third hard fact was the creation of Jean Monnet’s common market that gave Europe a shared economic – not political – identity.” The author has fallen for the ultimate fraud. Monnet had been working for political unification ever since he and Raymond Fosdick, John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s agent, sat together at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919. In 1919, Fosdick sent a letter to his wife. He told her that he and Monnet were working daily to lay the foundations of “the framework of international government.” [July 31, 1919; in Fosdick, ed., Letters on the League of Nations (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 18.] Fosdick returned to New York City in 1920, where he took over running the Rockefeller Foundation for the next 30 years.

Lots of history of totalitarianism. The EU being the latest dive into dictatorship and the latest failure.

The author accurately describes the suicide of Western Europe.

In 1965, government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 28% in Western Europe. Today it hovers just under 50%. In 1965, the fertility rate in Germany was a healthy 2.5 children per mother. Today it is a catastrophic 1.35. During the postwar years, annual GDP growth in Europe averaged 5.5%. After 1973, it rarely exceeded 2.3%. In 1973, Europeans worked 102 hours for every 100 worked by an American. By 2004 they worked just 82 hours for every 100 American ones.

He argues that “It was during this general slowdown that Europe entered the convenient fiction phase.” One fiction was that adding new members to the EU would enable the European economy to rival the output of the United States. Another fiction was that there was a central core of outlook and values that would unify the new collective. Here, he is woefully naive. That had been the assumption of the United Nations Organization from the beginning, and the League of Nations before it. That was the heart of Monnet’s vision. It did not start in 1973.

And there was, finally, the whopping fiction that Europe had its own “model,” distinct and superior to the American one, that immunized it from broader international currents: globalization, Islamism, demography. Europeans love their holidays and thought they were entitled to a long holiday from history as well.

He’s got that right!

Then he lists the frauds. First, Greece was allowed into the European Monetary Union. But that was not a fraud. The critics in the 1990s said that all of the Club Med nations would run deficits. They warned that the euro could not hold.

There was no fraud involved in letting in the PIIGS. This was basic to Monnet’s vision from 1919. It had to work. It must work. It is ordained to work. This is the NWO’s religion.

The non-PIIGS bankers thought it would work. They loaded up on PIIGS sovereign debt.

This was not fraud. This was the implementation of a deeply political religion. This was self-deception on a continental scale.

Yet he is right on this point.

There was the fraud of the so-called Maastricht criteria – the fiscal rules that were supposed to govern the euro only to be quickly flouted by France and Germany and then junked altogether in the current crisis. There was the fraud of the European Constitution, overwhelmingly rejected wherever a vote on it was permitted, only to be revised and imposed by parliamentary fiat.

What is now happening in Europe isn’t so much a crisis as it is an exposure: a Madoff-type event rather than a Lehman one. The shock is that it’s a shock. Greece was never going to be bailed out and will, sooner or later, default. The banks holding Greek debt will, sooner or later, be recapitalized. The recapitalization will be borne by German taxpayers, and it will bring them – sooner rather than later – to the outer limit of their forbearance. The Chinese will not ride to the rescue: They know not to throw good money after bad.

And then Italy will go Greek. Europe’s crisis will lap on U.S. shores, and America’s economic woes will lap on Europe’s – a two-way tsunami.

He sees that this fraud is not going to hold together. There is a reason for this.

The “fiscal union” that’s being mooted will never come to pass: German voters won’t stand for it, and neither will any other country that wants to retain fiscal independence – which is to say, the core attribute of democratic sovereignty.
He makes a forecast: “What comes next is the explosion of the European project.” Then he makes an assessment: “Given what European leaders have made of that project over the past 30-odd years, it’s not an altogether bad thing.” I’ll say not. It is a great thing. It is, in fact, the greatest thing that is likely to happen in the first two decades of the 21st century. It is the extension of the two break-ups of the 20th century.

But it will come at a massive cost. The riots of Athens will become those of Milan, Madrid and Marseilles. Parties of the fringe will gain greater sway. Border checkpoints will return. Currencies will be resurrected, then devalued. Countries will choose decay over reform. It’s a long, likely parade of horribles.

CONCLUSION

The price of the break-up of the ECB, the EMU, and the EU will be high because of the frauds and convenient fictions that preceded them. If Europe’s voters had not created welfare states, if they had not consented to a common fiat currency, but instead had abolished all central banking and had allowed competing private currencies, and if they had abolished tariffs and not created a bureaucratic monstrosity of non-governmental agencies with the power of government – the WTO and its peers – there would be low transition costs. But they listened to Monnet. They will now pay the price.

So will all of its trading partners. So will the large American banks that sold credit default insurance to European banks.

September 24, 2011

Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.

Copyright © 2011 Gary North

I am amazed at the lengths people will go to in order to deny the FACTS of who is a citizen and WHO IS NOT according to our founding documents. People that normally we would consider intelligent.

Finally I realize these supposed intelligent people fall into 2 groups.

1. Those who DO UNDERSTAND but want to convince everyone else their SKEWED TRUTH is correct to further their own personal agenda.

2. Those who for whatever reason honestly do not have the cognitive ability to track FACT.

Whatever the case I no longer waste my time in debate.

I present the facts backed up with congressional records (images) that define both citizenship as well as natural born citizenship.

Here is my latest find on youtube.
It is very clear and backed up with congressional documents from 1866.
Those documents have links below where you can see them up close and personal yourself.

Educate yourself on what our founding fathers actually said.

You can also look up the documents at The Library of Congress the Congressional Globe.

Documents from Congressional Globe:

They are the same documents referenced in the video above.
When these images open if you click on them they will get big enough to read well.

Doc. 2890
Doc. 2893
Doc. 2895
Doc. 2897

I just ran across this new very comprehensive well documented article on “natural born citizen”.

Personally I have read everything I can get my hands on that defines this term way back in the time of our founders.

I do not take into account TODAY’S OPINION.
The reasons no doubt are obvious … opinions are like … well you get the picture.
Give me the FACTS only.

I am stuck on John Bingham’s clear definition from congressional records in 1866.
Large view HERE
The world TODAY can argue until the cows come home about who agreed or did not agree with Bingham’s definition.

The reality is I find no congressional record quote that disagrees with Bingham.
Therefore I assume it is safe to believe there was no authoritative argument on record from that time.

Sifting through this data of old was not easy for me. I can not imagine it is easy for others either. So when I run across something that explains the data again in a different or more inclusive way I am more than happy to reprint it here for all of you to evaluate.

Thank You Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

This is FROM:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 20, 2011

I just read an article regarding a debate going on in Liberia about Presidential and Vice-Presidential eligibility requirements. The issue is whether the residency has to be immediately before the election. The article may be read at http://allafrica.com/stories/201109200851.html.

The President or Vice-President eligibility requirements in Liberia are: (1) being a natural born citizen 35 years or more, (2) 10 years residence in Liberia 10 years prior to elections; (3) owner of unencumbered real property worth not less than 25,000; and (4) President and Vice-President must not come from the same county.

Note that the Liberian Constitution even considers those acquiring the status of “citizen” after birth as “natural born citizens.”

What struck me as interesting is that they treat their “natural born citizens” like the Founders and Framers treated plain “Citizens” of the United States (distinguished from “natural born” Citizens of the United States). What is also interesting is that Liberia considers a person to be a “natural born citizen” even if that status was not acquired at birth. Indeed, they have created a contradiction and oxymoron right in their own Constitution.

I suspect that Liberia is treating a “natural born citizen” just like the British treated their “natural born subject.” For the British, who followed the feudal and monarchial system of subjectship with allegiance to a sovereign King rather than a true republican system with voluntary membership and allegiance to the sovereign nation and its people through free choice made by a child’s parents who then pass that decision to their children, it did not matter if one was truly a “natural born subject” or even a naturalized subject, for they considered all their subjects to be “natural born subjects,” which conveniently for the King carried with it allegiance to the King for life.

The Founders and Framers did not adopt the same oppressive system for the constitutional republic. They rejected that a person was born into the allegiance of a King or any nation for life. They also rejected that one could be born with allegiance to more than one nation or later in life maintain multiple allegiance at the same time. Throughout the Constitution, they were careful to distinguish between a “natural born” Citizen of the United States and a “Citizen” of the United States. In their eyes, a “natural born” Citizen was born with sole and absolute allegiance and jurisdiction to the United States and its people. They gave Congress the power to add additional members to the new republic through naturalization, which could be granted to a person only if he or she swore or affirmed to have the same sole and absolute allegiance to the United States which a “natural born” Citizen acquired by nature at birth. So for the Founders and Framers, all the “citizens” of the republic, either by birth or naturalization, had sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction to the United States. Through this process, people could make a decision based on free will whether they first and then through them their children wanted to become members of the republic.

The Constitution gave Congress the power to make uniform the naturalization laws. Congress first exercised that power in 1790. The act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, c. 3, provided for the naturalization of aliens and then provided that “the children of such persons 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.”

The third section of the act of January 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 414, 415, c. 20, provided “that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” etc.

The fourth section of the act of April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153, 155, c. 28, carried into the Revised Statutes as section 2172, was: “That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.”

The provision that children born in the United States to alien parents was carried in all the following naturalization acts, including the that of 1804, 1855, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which required that the child be born in the United States and not be “subject to any foreign power.” Given the world-recognized doctrine of jus sanguinis (also utilized by our own Congress in 1790 to make children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “natural born citizens” and starting with 1795 “citizens of the United States”), the only way such a child could be born not subject to any foreign power was to be born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents or to parents who had long lost any foreign nationality who at that time were American slaves and their descendents.

As we can see, Congress, in all of these acts, did not make any exception for children born in the United States. It simply said that any child of any person who naturalized would fall under the act. This is broad language and included also children that were born in the United States. If Congress meant to exclude children born in the United States from having to naturalize it surely knew how to do so by using simple language. Hence, Congress considered children born on U.S. soil to alien parents to be themselves aliens.

From a reading of the text of these acts, we can see that only non-naturalized persons, i.e., person not acquiring citizenship under these Congressional Acts could be “natural born” Citizens. From this legislative history, we can see that the only persons not needing naturalization, i.e., not needing any positive law to acquire U.S. citizenship, were the children born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. This is confirmed by, among others, the following historical and judicial sources:

(1) Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758):

Ҥ 212. 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.”

(2) David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) . He said that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizens. He defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born to citizen parents. Concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, he said that birthright “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He continued that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7; Finally, he said that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

(3) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814). Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cited Vattel and provided his definition of natural born citizens, and said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’” Id. at 289.

(4) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Justice Daniels concurring cited Vattel and the The Law of Nations and provided his definition of “natural born citizen” and removed Vattel’s references to “fathers” and “father” and replaced them with “parents” and “person.” He stated: “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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .”

(5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it held:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”
Id., at 167-68.

Minor did not cite Vattel but as can be seen the Court’s precedential definition of a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen” are taken directly out of Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Section 212. Hence, when Minor said “common-law,” it was not referring to the English common law but rather to American common law which had its basis in citizenship matters in natural law and the law of nations. Minor also distinguished between “natural-born citizens” and “citizens.” When Minor spoke of the “common-law,” it referred to the “citizens” and the “natives or natural-born citizens,” explaining that there never has been any doubts that the children born in the country to “citizens” were the “natives or natural-born citizens.” So Minor concluded that any person who is a “natural-born citizen” is necessarily also a “citizen.” The Court, was not, however, willing to say that a child born in the country to parents who were not U.S. citizens was even a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment, let alone a “natural-born citizen” under Article II. The Court added that “there have been doubts” as to whether that child is even a “citizen.” Having decided that such a child is not a “natural-born citizen,” it left the question of whether such a child is a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to another day.

It is important to understand that if the English common law prevailed in the United States to define national citizenship, the Court would not have stated that “there have been doubts” whether children born in the country to alien parents were citizens. Under English common law, there was no doubt that such children would have been “natural born subjects,” for under that law the citizenship of the parents was not a factor in determining subjectship when the child was born in the dominion of the King.

So as we can see from this case law, and especially from the precedential definition confirmed by Minor, a “natural born Citizen” was well defined. All other persons not falling under the well-established American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen,” who wanted to be “citizens” needed a Congressional Act (positive law) to gain membership in the United States which we call naturalization. And these latter persons became so naturalized either at birth or after birth only by Congress.

(6) All this continued unchanged until the U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice Horace Gray–who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur whom history has recently shown was not a “natural born” Citizen (see the legal research of Attorney Leo Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/ )–decided the famous case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The question that Minor did not answer was answered by Wong Kim Ark, in which the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen” of the United States either under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the Fourteenth Amendment which had been adopted in 1868. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to domiciled alien parents to be a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wong Kim Ark applied the Fourteenth Amendment and colonial-era English common law to determine whether a person born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a “citizen” of the United States under that Amendment. With the Wong Kim Ark decision, even the judicial branch of government, like Lord Coke did in Calvin’s Case (1608), naturalized a person at birth. By doing so, it went beyond what as we have seen above Congress had always expressed in its naturalization statutes was a born “citizen” of the United States and expanded that “citizen” class. Indeed, Wong Kim Ark did not change the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it created another class of born “citizens,” those born in the United States to one or two alien parents. Congress had never considered these children to be born “citizens” of the United States. Rather, Congress had always required that these children naturalize, either derivatively when their parents became citizens if done before the child’s age of majority or on their own if done thereafter. These born “citizens” do not meet the definition of a “natural born” Citizen but because of the Wong Kim Ark decision are nevertheless granted a birthright citizenship through naturalization at birth. By naturalizing Wong at birth, the Wong Kim Ark decision, like Congressional Acts which also naturalize children at birth, also created the anomaly that these children are born with allegiance and jurisdiction to the United States and to the nations of their alien parents (through jus sanguinis citizenship), but are not despite our citizenship history required to give an oath of sole allegiance to the United States.

Hence, we now have three birthright citizenships, (1) one under Article II which gives the national status of “natural born Citizen” of the United States, (2) another under the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) which gives the national status of born “citizen” of the United States to person born in the United States to one or two domiciled alien parents and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and (3) another under Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401et seq.) which also give the status of born “citizen” of the United States to children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents. But because the Founders and Framers distinguished in Article II’s grandfather clause between “natural born” Citizens of the United States and “Citizens” of the United States (prior to the adoption of the Constitution, one could be a “Citizen” of the United States and be eligible to be President but for those born after its adoption, one had to be a “natural born” Citizen”), only a person who has Article II “natural born” Citizen status is eligible to be President. This means that only a person who was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents is eligible to be President.

This all brings us to putative President, Barack Obama. If Obama was born in Hawaii (a fact that he has yet to conclusively prove) and if his parents are Barack Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham (it is reported that these are his parents), he can be a Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) born “citizen” of the United States, but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States which is the constitutional standard that he must meet to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a “citizen” of the United States at the time of Obama’s birth. But his father, being born in 1934 or 1936 in what was then the British colony of Kenya, was under the British Nationality Act of 1948, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (“CUKC”). Obama himself by right of decent from his father under the same Act was also born a CUKC. Hence, because Obama was not born in the United States to United States citizen parents, he was not born under the sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Obama was not born with sole citizenship in the United States. Consequently, he was not born with unity of allegiance to and citizenship in the United States. Obama, therefore, cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, just as much as if he had not been at least 35 years of age or 14 years a resident of the United States.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 20, 2011

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

You can view this article with references HERE:
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved