Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen!

January 2, 2012
Posted by clinicalthinker @ 18:32 PM

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen!”.

Tags: , , , , , ,


48 Responses to “Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen!”

  1. Capt-Dax Says:

    •Alexander Hamilton – “Citizen”
    •John Jay – “Natural Born Citizen”
    2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Adopted 9 July 1868 -

    3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -

    4. Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents -

    •The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
    •Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
    •Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
    •Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
    •United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    Thank you Sir.

  2. Sophie Says:

    Interesting that you were able to find this. Just came across the Venus decision and the other 3 Supreme Court Cases. A very important time in history!!! Thanks

  3. ClinicalThinker Says:

    Yes Sophie it indeed is an important time in history. Hope America come out the other side unscathed :)

    You are welcome.

  4. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    I have a new post about Rick Santorum not being able to prove that he is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Send me your email so I can email you direct and you post as you will.

    See http://noonan4president.blogspot.com

  5. EL CID Says:

    Why did congress accept a “non-natural born citizen” (born of two US citizen parents), in Obama, contrary to the Constitutional requirement: ( Article.II.SECTION. 1.)
    Was it an oversight of proper vetting? Or a purposeful collusion against OUR Constitution?

    “The discussion in the Minor v. Happersett case clearly defines a “Natural Born Citizen” as a child of two citizen parents.”

    “This sentence indicates doubt in regard to the definition of citizen, not to the definition of “natural born Citizen” which requires both parents to be citizens.”

    “The Constitution of the United States
    Article.?II.
    SECTION. 1.
    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen
    of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
    Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
    neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall
    not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
    fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    IT IS TIME TO START IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE HE DOES MORE HARM!

  6. Sharon Says:

    You’re absolutely wrong about Romney’s citizenship. George Romney was born in Mexico by U.S. citizens (his parents). They retained their citizenship, so that made George Romney a U.S. citizen. He was never a citizen of Mexico because of Mexican law. I think you should do a little research on it instead of spouting nonsense.

  7. ClinicalThinker Says:

    El Cid
    I can not answer to the why no one has done anything about this problem of “natural born citizen” yet in regards to Obama.

    My guess would be by the time anyone realized what had gone on they were afraid to address it.

    Now it is becoming clear Obama will be a one term President. Perhaps there are those intend to press the issue after he is out of office.

    Do I expect anyone to IMPEACH him?
    Not with this senate.
    Why should they hammer a few more nails into their coffin lids. They have enough problem keeping their jobs for other reasons right now.

    Time is the healer of all things and good things come for those willing to wait :)

  8. ClinicalThinker Says:

    @Sharon
    You know in the end you might be right … I continue to check out the information as we debate this issue. If I find what I have posted from my research to be wrong I will make the correction here.
    To date from my research it is not wrong.

    However that being said … if you have proof how/where (please be exact in case law) where his parents RETAINED THEIR CITIZENSHIP?
    I am not so interested in your opinion today … I am more interested in case law from the time of the Mormons being stripped of their rights in the mid 1800′s. Those laws against polygamy were what caused them to flee and open up the Missions in Mexico.

    From what I can find both sets of grandparents … “parents” lost citizenship which would then mean both grandparents were not Citizens even though they were born in the US … that would mean George W. Romney who was clearly BORN IN MEXICO was not a citizen and since he was not apparently naturalized he is not likely a citizen period. How then did he become governor?
    Simply another of those nasty little over-sites we are faced with today?

  9. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    Hey! Check out Devvy’s new article at:
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd520.htm

    “WILL THERE BE A CITIZENSHIP ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGE FOR ROMNEY?”

    She quotes the current Mexican Constitution, but I cannot find an English copy of the 1857 Mexican Constitution. They hide their former constitutions well and deep. They would tell if the new citizens had to reject US citizen when they took an oath to gain Mexican citizenship.

  10. Democrats To Possibly Question Romney's Eligibility To Be President Due To His Father Being Born In Mexico - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum Says:

    [...] wouldn't be a natural born Citizen thus not eligible for Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution. Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen! Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen! | [...]

  11. Devvy Kidd Says:

    Mitt’s grand parents were U.S. citizens.

    Mitt’s father was born in Mexico.

    I’m not a Romney supporter, but could you tell me where you got the documents which prove the Romney clan gave up their U.S. citizenship?

    Thank you.

  12. Sophie Says:

    from the definition “Natural Born” your parents need to be U.S. citizens and you were born in the U. S. Mitt’s father was not born in the U.S. thus he wasn’t a “Natural Born Citizen” and can not pass that onto Mitt.

  13. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    The LDS member petition the US President (1834)
    History of the Church – Vol 1

    Second Petition to the President of the United States.

    Liberty, Clay County, Missouri, April 10, 1834.

    To the President of the United States of America

    We, the undersigned, your petitioners, citizens of the United States of America, and residents of the county of Clay, in the state of Missouri, being members of the Church of Christ, reproachfully called “Mormon,” beg leave to refer the President to our former petition, dated in October last; and also to lay before him the accompanying hand-bill, dated December 12th, 1833, with assurances that the said hand-bill exhibits but a faint sketch of the sufferings of your petitioners and their brethren, up to the period of its publication.
    483 – 484
    The said hand-bill shows, that at the time of dispersion a number of our families fled into the new and unsettled county of Van Buren; but being unable to procure provisions in that county through the winter, many of them were compelled to return to their homes in Jackson county or perish of hunger. But they had no sooner set foot upon that soil-which a few months before they had purchased of the United States-than they were again met by the citizens of Jackson county, and a renewal of savage barbarities was inflicted upon these families by beating with clubs and sticks, presenting knives and fire arms, and threatenings of death if they did not flee from the county. These inhuman assaults upon a number of these families were repeated at two or three different times through the past winter, till they were compelled at last to abandon their possessions in Jackson county, and flee with their wounded bodies into this county, here to mingle their tears and unite their supplications, with hundreds of their brethren, to our Heavenly Father and the chief ruler of our nation.
    484
    Between one and two thousand of the people called “Mormons” had been driven by force of arms from the county of Jackson in this state since the first of November last, being compelled to leave their highly cultivated fields-the greater part of their lands having been bought of the United States-and all this on account of our belief in direct revelation from God to the children of men according to the Holy Scriptures. We know that such illegal violence has not been inflicted upon any sect or community of people by the citizens of the United States since the Declaration of Independence.

    That this is a religious persecution is notorious throughout our country; for while the officers of the county, both civil and military, were accomplices in these unparalleled outrages, engaged in the destruction of the printing office, dwelling houses, etc., yet the records of the judicial tribunals of that county are not stained by any record of crime committed by our people. Our numbers being greatly inferior to the enemy were unable to stand in self defense; and our lives, at this day, are continually threatened by that infuriated people, so that our personal safety forbids one of our number going into that county on business.

    We beg leave to state that no impartial investigation into this criminal matter can be made, because the offenders must be tried in the county where the offense was committed, and the inhabitants of the county, both magistrates and people, with the exception of a few, being combined, justice cannot be expected. At this day your petitioners do not know of a solitary family belonging to our Church in Jackson county but what has been violently expelled from that county by the inhabitants thereof.

    Your petitioners have not gone into detail with an account of their individual sufferings from death, and bruised bodies, and the universal distress which prevails at this day, in a greater or less degree throughout our community. Not only have those sacred rights guaranteed to every religious sect been publicly invaded, in open hostility to the spirit and genius of our free government; but such of their houses as have not been burnt, and their lands and most of the products of the labor of their hands for the last year, have been wrested from them by a band of outlaws congregated in Jackson county, on the western frontiers of the United States, and this within about thirty miles of the United States military post at Fort Leavenworth, on the Missouri river.
    484 – 485
    Your petitioners say that they do not enter into a minute detail of their sufferings in this petition lest they should weary the patience of their venerable chief, whose arduous duties they know are great, and daily accumulating. We only hope to show him that this is an unprecedented emergency in the history of our country, that the magistracy thereof is set at defiance, and justice checked in open violation of its laws; and that we, your petitioners, who are almost wholly native born citizens of these United States, of whom we purchased our lands in Jackson county, Missouri, with intent to cultivate the same as peaceable citizens, are now forced from them, and are now dwelling in the counties of Clay, Ray and Lafayette, in the state of Missouri, without permanent homes, and suffering all the privations which must necessarily result from such inhuman treatment. Under these sufferings your petitioners petitioned the governor of this state in December last, in answer to which they received the following letter:

    * * * * * * * * *
    485
    By the foregoing letter from the Governor, the President will perceive a disposition manifested by him to enforce the laws as far as means have been furnished him by the legislature of this state. But the powers vested in the executive of this state appear to be inadequate for relieving the distresses of your petitioners in their present emergency. He is willing to send a guard to conduct our families back to their possessions, but is not authorized to direct a military force to be stationed any length of time for the protection of your petitioners. This step would be laying the foundation for a more fatal tragedy than the first, as our numbers at present are too small to contend single handed with the mob of said county; and as the Federal Constitution has given to Congress the power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, or repel invasions: and for these purposes the President of the United States is authorized to make the call upon the executive of the respective states; therefore, we your petitioners, in behalf of our society, which is so scattered and suffering, most humbly pray that we may be restored to our lands, houses, and property in Jackson county, and protected in them by an armed force, till peace can be restored. And as in duty bound, will ever pray.

    Here followed one hundred and fourteen signatures, among whom were: Edward Partridge, John Corrill, John Whitmer, Isaac Morley, A. S. Gilbert, W. W. Phelps, etc., etc.

    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

    On another webpage states the following:
    The Mormon Colonies in Mexico

    Thomas Cottam Romney
    Mormon Studies

    “Romney’s unique vantage point is the strongest draw of this narrative: Romney and his family lived much of their life in the Mexican Mormon colonies. But the narrative’s value is much broader and deeper than just that. Romney’s insights into Mexican politics and personalities, and his view of the course of history from inside rather than from outside, are fascinating, colorful and opinionated. He was clear about who he admired and why, and who he did not.”
    —from the Foreword

    In the 1880s, as a precondition to granting Utah statehood, the United States government enacted laws to put a stop to the Mormon practice of polygamy. Those who continued to practice this principle were forced underground as federal marshals roamed the territory searching for “polygs.” In response, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints looked for safe places to send its members; many found refuge across the border in Mexico.
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

    All Constitutional rights of the LDS were stripped away by Federal, State and local authorities. For the most part The LDS were not citizens of any state or territory, and voting rights, the right to own property and hold elected office were stripped from the LDS. The LDS had no citizenship and could not claim the rights that all other citizens had. Here is a second webpage describing the Mormon entrance into Mexico.

    The Mormons Seek Mexican Lands to Colonize

    By: Thomas Cottam Romney
    From: “The Mormon Colonies in Mexico” 1938

    While the doctrines of the Church were being preached with vigor by the Mormon elders in the city of Mexico and its environs, a movement was being launched by the Church toward the purchase of lands in Mexico on which to plant colonies. Such an exigency arose because of the widespread opposition to polygamy-a social institution of the Mormons.

    Now this order of marriage should not be confused with the marriage commonly in vogue among the membership of the Mormon Church. I refer to Celestial marriage. Before ever plural marriage was revealed, Joseph Smith had received a revelation (May 16 and 17, 1843 ) dealing with “Celestial” marriage, referred to, also, as the “everlasting covenant of marriage.” In this revelation it was revealed that in the Celestial glory there are three degrees and that in order to attain to the highest of these a man must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage; “if he does not, he cannot obtain it.”

    A compliance with this law merely means that a man in full harmony with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints takes a woman to the temple and in the presence of witnesses has her sealed to him over the altar as a wife for time and all eternity. The sealing must be performed by one authorized of the Lord, and according to the Mormon belief there is only one man on the earth at one time who holds that authority. The President of the Church is that man, but since it is not feasible or even desirable for him to perform all the temple marriages of the Church, he has the power to delegate others to act in his stead. The marriage ceremony, unlike the civil ceremony or even that of other churches, unites a couple not only for this life but its binding force is perpetuated beyond

    (50)

    the grave. Under this order of marriage all children born under this covenant will belong to the couple so united, eternally.

    This doctrine is based, obviously, on the assumption that the family organization consisting of father, mother and children will continue on in the metaphysical world, or what we ordinarily think of as the “spiritual world.”

    Now “plural marriage” connotes all this and more. More, in the sense only that instead of a man having but one wife sealed to him he will have two or more thus united with him in wedlock.

    The doctrine of “plural marriage,” commonly known as “polygamy,” from the days of Nauvoo, had been one of the cardinal doctrines of the Church. It is a historical fact, not generally known, that but few of the male members of the Church at any one time entered into that order of marriage. Yet the vast majority of the devotees of the Church believed it to be a divine principle. Brigham Young usually has been accredited, by the uninformed, with having first introduced polygamy into the Church, but such is not historically true. Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism, was responsible for its introduction among his followers. The revelation setting forth the principle of “plurality of wives” and commanding its practice was given to the Prophet in Nauvoo, Illinois, July 12, 1843, less than one year before his death at Carthage jail. The Revelation appears to have come as a result of a query in the mind of Joseph Smith, Jr., as to why the Lord justified the practice of polygamy by the Patrirachs of the Bible including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon. Adultery is condemned in the strongest terms in the Revelation but the doctrine of “plurality of wives” entered into in the spirit of righteousness is declared holy. If a man is given “ten virgins” in marriage for time and eternity by the law of the Lord, the Revelation declares that “he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him, therefore is he justified.”

    (51)

    Joseph, the Prophet, lived the principle as well as having taught it if the testimony of his most intimate friends can be relied upon. A number of women of known veracity testified to having been sealed to the Prophet in Nauvoo as his wives.

    Long since, the Church discontinued the practice of polygamy, yet, in the days of which I write, those who had contracted plural marriages felt they had neither broken the laws of God nor of man and, to their credit be it said, many of them would have stood by their families to the death.

    A bitter war was on against the practice by enemies of the Church and, in instances, devout and well meaning men and women denounced the doctrine in most vigorous terms. Even the Government joined in the fight. Legislative enactment by Congress, known as the Edmunds Tucker Act, against the practice of plural marriage, resulted in the prosecution and imprisonment of scores of devout believers in the doctrine of polygamy. Many who had not yet come to trial or imprisonment were in constant hiding in order to escape the clutches of laws deemed by them to be unconstitutional as well as tyrannical in the extreme. Husbands were separated from wives and children in many instances from their parents. Homes that had known nothing but contentment and peace were broken up and terror reigned throughout the land.

    This state of affairs induced John Taylor and George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency of the Church to address a letter to President Christopher Layton of an Arizona Stake suggesting that an effort be made to obtain “a place of refuge under a foreign government to which our people can flee.” The letter was dated Dec. 16, 1884, and in part is as follows, “A general attack is being made upon our liberties throughout all the territories where our people reside. It is said that prosecuting officers in making this raid are acting under instructions from the department at Washington. Whether this be true or not, there can be no question that

    (52)

    there is apparently a concert of action on their part to push our people to the wall and to destroy our religious liberty and with it our religion itself. Even the Utah Commissioners in making their report to the government recommend measures not to punish polygamy alone but to destroy our religion. In Utah Territory God-fearing men, whose only offense is that they have obeyed a command of the Almighty, are thrust into prison while appeals are pending in a higher court, being refused bail, a boon which should be granted to every person not guilty of a capital offense. These men are incarcerated in the penitentiary in the midst of a crowd of the vilest criminals, one of whom is a convicted murderer. In Arizona we learn that the same course is being pursued, that to be accused before any of these courts is equivalent to being convicted. The usual rule is entirely reversed. Under a proper system of jurisprudence an accused man is presumed to be innocent until proof of his guilt is furnished. Our counsel has been and is to obtain a place of refuge under a foreign government to which our people can flee when menaced in this land. Better for parts of families to remove and go where they can live in peace than to be hauled to jail and either incarcerated in the territory with thieves and murderers and other vile characters, or sent to the American Siberia in Detroit to serve out a long term of imprisonment.

    The Saints in your various Stakes should contribute of their means to form a defense fund so that our brethren who are assailed will not in addition to the anxiety and annoyance which they have had to endure, be compelled to bear the brunt of defending themselves alone. This should be vigorously pushed and the fund be made available at once. We send this by the hand of Elder Seymour B. Young who will also be able to state to you our feelings more in detail than the limits of this letter will permit.”

    In a letter addressed to Seymour B. Young these same correspondents wrote: “You will see from what was said to you and from our letter how important we think it is that

    (53)

    there should be a place of refuge obtained for our people, a place to which the eyes of those who are in jeopardy and who are oppressed may turn with some hope of finding some peace and liberty which are denied in their own land.”

    Ante-dating the above letter, exploring expeditions had gone into Mexico for the purpose of locating suitable places for Mormon settlements, but with little success. In 1881, Alexander Findlay Macdonald, David Kimball, C. I. Robinson and one or two others made a trip into Sonora, and in 1882 a party of thirty-two moved to a ranch on the San Bernardino river at a point where the boundary lines of the two Mexican states, Sonora and Chihuahua and Arizona and New Mexico meet with the intention of establishing the first Mormon colony in Mexico, but due to a scarcity of farming land, the group was counselled by Apostles Snow and Thatcher to abandon the project. No further moves were made in the direction of settlement until 1884 when Apostles Brigham Young, Jr., and Heber J. Grant, accompanied by parties from the Salt River and St. Joseph settlements of Arizona, attempted to make a treaty with the Yaqui Indians to settle in southwestern Sonora. The party of twenty-four went by train from Nogales, Arizona, to Hermosillo, Sonora, and arrived there on December 3rd. Elders Young, Grant and Macdonald called at the state capitol to pay their respects to the Governor but he was absent. They therefore called upon the Secretary of State who gave them an enthusiastic welcome. He counselled them, however, against going into the Yaqui country as the Indians were on the warpath. The following day, December 4th, members of the expedition visited the Governor upon his return to the capital and from him they received the same advice as had been given them by the Secretary of State. The Governor offered to give them an escort into any part of the State into which they wished to go.

    At two o’clock in the afternoon a group o£ seven men under the leadership of Brigham Young, Jr., left by train

    (54)

    for Guaymas, located near the mouth of the Yaqui river, and arrived at their destination on the evening of the same day. The following morning they called on the American Consul, Mr. Willard, from whom they received encouragement to pay the Yaqui Indians a visit. For the sum of fifteen dollars they chartered a boat to take them down the Yaqui river to its mouth and return. When ready to embark a multitude of natives, including a Catholic priest, congregated on the river bank to witness the departure of the boat and to warn the members of the expedition of the urgent need of confessing their sins and making restitution for the same before entering upon their perilous journey. Even their guide, Valenzuela, fearful of the undertaking, refused to accompany them. A terrific gale was blowing and for several hours it seemed that the boat would be dashed to pieces by the angry waves. Without accident, however, they finally reached the port for which they were headed, but imagine their dismay when they learned that to reach the Yaqui village they must wade knee deep through the water for a distance of five miles. Undaunted, they pushed forward to their destination and were rewarded by a kindly welcome from a race of Indians whose war-like reputation had spread terror throughout northern Mexico. The Mormon elders were glad of the privilege of bearing testimony to the Christian faith but no conversions were reported. The exposures and hardships of the trip proved disastrous to the health of the Mormon Apostle, Brigham Young, Jr. Attacked by yellow fever he left for Salt Lake City accompanied by Heber J. Grant, his fellow Apostle, who was also ill. As soon as the report of the expedition to Mexico was made public the press agents throughout the country sought to stir up strife by circulating a scurrilous tale which reflected upon the loyalty of the Latter-day Saints toward the United States. The story was to the effect that the Mormons were in collusion with the Yaqui Indians to make war upon the American Union. With the thought of forestalling

    (55)

    further trouble the President of the Church advised against colonization in the Yaqui territory, for the time being at least.

    Pursuant to instructions from the Presidency of the Church, Alexander F. Macdonald [O. P. Brown's third father-in-law] and Christopher Layton [O.P. Brown sister's father-in-law] left St. David, Arizona, on January 1, 1885, in further quest of land in Mexico. At the station of San Jose on the Mexican Central Railroad, the travellers found a group of Mormons engaged in hauling salt. The personnel of the party consisted of John W. Campbell, Joseph Rogers, John Loving and Peter McBride. They had gone into Mexico to seek employment but principally to locate a home. Macdonald and Layton did considerable scouting in various parts of the country but principally along the Casas Grandes River in northern Chihuahua. In this region they visited Corralitos, Janos and La Ascencion and were impressed with the facilities offered for making a livelihood. At Corralitos 300 acres of fertile land were rented which were soon thereafter planted to crops by Mormon colonists. Leaving the Casas Grandes Valley, Macdonald and companion pushed westward into the tops of the Sierra Madre Mountains and explored the Corrales Basin, beautiful for situation and offering splendid opportunities for grazing and agricultural pursuits. From this point the two explorers went directly to their homes in Arizona. In the meantime small companies of home seekers came pouring in from different parts of Utah and Arizona and established themselves along the banks of the Casas Grandes River. Among the first to arrive was a band from Arizona, most prominent of whom were Jesse N. Smith, George C. Williams, Lot Smith, William B. Maxwell and William C. McClellan. These pioneers had arrived sometime in February, 1885. On the 4th of March 1885 the same year this group was joined by a company led by Apostle Moses Thatcher and Alexander. F. Macdonald who had left St. David, Arizona, February 23 1885, and had come by team by way of Dragoon Pass, Bowie Station, San Simon Station and Mesquite Springs. On March 6, 1885

    (56)

    others arrived headed by John H. Earl, Joseph H. James, Israel Call and, a few days later, these companies were strengthened by the arrival of other colonists, chiefly from Snowflake, Arizona, among whom were Chas. W. Merrill, Levi M. Savage, Charles Whiting, Sullivan C. Richardson, Ernest L. Taylor, Joseph and Philip Cardon and Sixtus E. Johnson. This was the beginning of Mormon Colonization in Mexico that finally resulted in the establishment of eight permanent Mormon settlements, six of which were located in the state of Chihuahua and the other two in Sonora.

    Practically all of the early arrivals were of very limited means; not that they were a class devoid of financial ability, but their accumulations had largely been dissipated during the years of persecution that had preceded their advent into Mexico. The question of a livelihood in a strange land was therefore one of prime importance. To secure lands sufficient and suitable for cultivation the colonists established themselves in several small communities stretching along the Casas Grandes River for a distance of more than 60 miles. The first camps organized were adjacent to La Ascension, a typical Mexican village about ninety miles South of Deming, New Mexico, and not far from the spot on which later arose Colonia Diaz, one of the largest Mormon settlements in Mexico. The other important camps in this early period, were one at a point five miles north of Casas Grandes on the Casas Grandes River and from La Ascencion about 60 miles, and one at Corralitos, about twelve miles north of Casas Grandes. There were about 350 colonists in Mexico six weeks after the arrival of the first group. In the latter part of April, 1885, an exploring party consisting of George Teasdale, an Apostle of the Church, A. F. Macdonald [O.P. Brown's third father-in-law], Miles Park Romney [O.P. Brown's first father-in-law] and others were sent out in quest of other suitable lands for settlements. The journey took them up the Janos River as far as Casa de Janos, where they discovered a level tract of land of 1000 acres in extent, but nothing tangible resulted

    (57)

    from their trip. In the month of May, Moses Thatcher went to Paso del Norte (Cuidad Juarez) across the Rio Grande from El Paso to negotiate for the purchase of a tract of land offered by R. J. Garcia for $10,000 but the deal was not made due to the owner changing his mind relative to the price of the property.

    The influx of Mormon refugees into Mexico and their increasing activity aroused the suspicion and dislike of certain local Mexican officials, foremost of whom were the Jefe Politico of the Canton de Galeana. In a letter addressed to the Secretary of the State of Chihuahua, he announced that an armed force of Mormons had come into the state without declaring their intentions, the implication being that they had come for conquest. In reply the Secretary of State declared that the Mormons must be ordered out of the country at once or as soon as it was possible for them to comply with the orders. On April 9 1885, a letter was received by A. F. Macdonald from the chief magistrate of Casas Grandes in which reference is made to the expulsion order of the Secretary of State. The letter concludes with the following: “According to the foregoing which I have transcribed for your information, I hereby command you, together with the other families which you represent, to leave the state within the period of 16 days from this date, April 9, 1885.”

    Immediately upon receipt of the letter, Macdonald went to the camp Corralitos to confer with George Teasdale, the Ecclesiastical head of the colonists in Mexico since the return of Moses Thatcher to Salt Lake City. The situation was truly grave. The band of Mormon exiles were facing deportation to a land from whence they had fled to escape the wrath of their enemies. To forestall such an eventuality steps must be taken at once. On the 11th of April 1885, Teasdale, Macdonald, Turley and Moffatt left by train for Chihuahua City to intercede with the governor of the state for an annulment of the expulsion edict. They arrived at San Jose on the Mexican Central Railroad

    (58)

    and left by rail for the city of Chihuahua at once, arriving there on the 15th of April 1885. Their conference with the Governor proved disappointing. He was adamant to their supplication and strongly insisted that the Mormons must quit the State. A letter was written at once to Moses Thatcher at Logan, Utah, relative to the matter, and the following day a telegram was dispatched to him by Church authorities asking him to go to the City of Mexico to intercede with the federal officials in behalf of the colonists. A letter was received from Moses Thatcher in answer to the message sent him, April 27th, in which he stated that Helaman Pratt, then a missionary in Mexico City, had been asked to request of the head of the government a stay of proceedings until Moses Thatcher and Brigham Young, Jr., could arrive at the Capital. Upon receipt of the telegram, Helaman Pratt, in company with a fellow missionary, Franklin R. Snow, called upon a prominent lawyer of Mexico City for assistance in getting the matter properly before the heads of the government, but he demanded $100 in advance, an amount the elders could not reach. They therefore repaired to the national capitol to lay the matter before Senor Carlos Pacheco, Minister of Colonization, but were requested to call the following day when an interview would be granted. The following day, April 28, Pratt and Snow were admitted to the national palace and had an interview with Senor Fernandez Leal, subminister, who promised to use his influence in favor of the Mormons. On May 9, 1885, Apostle Brigham Young, Jr., and Moses Thatcher arrived in Mexico City. Reporting their visit by letter to A. F. Macdonald from the Humboldt Hotel, May 15, 1885, they stated that they had met Helaman Pratt, Franklin R. Snow and Isaac J. Stewart, who “are quite hopeful of the future for Mexico and her people. We found that your application for a stay of proceedings was acted upon and the document highly spoken of by the Federal officials. Brother Pratt had also been busy and we have experienced the results of their labors. We have met

    (59)

    Secretary of State Mariscal, who received us warmly and manifested an honest desire to forward our interests by his influence with the President and Cabinet. We have had two interviews with Senor Don Carlos Pacheco, Secretary of Public Work, and Governor of Chihuahua. He expressed personal regards for our people and in all our conversation, when opportunity afforded, expressed the hope that the Mormons would conclude to colonize within the Mexican borders.” He said he was astonished and could not understand why the Mormons had received such abusive treatment as he had given orders to the acting governor to treat them courteously. He explained that he was Governor of Chihuahua, but had not had time to go to the state to give the matter his personal attention, but if a letter were addressed to him, enclosing the acting Governor’s order, he would act upon it officially. The result was that the acting Governor was finally removed from office by Minister Pacheco, and another man put in his place.

    In an interview with President Porfirio Diaz, the Mormon Apostles were informed that the Mormons were not only welcome as colonists in Mexico, but that the Government was anxious to have them help in the development of the country. Should they find suitable locations in Sonora and Chihuahua, they could settle there or they would be equally welcome any place else they might choose to live in, except in what was known as “Zona Prohibida.” Those of the colonists who had located on such lands were ordered to vacate such holdings immediately after the harvesting of their crops and to seek another location. The expulsion edict was annulled. The Mormons remained in Mexico.

    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

    MY COMMENT: The Romney and Pratt families cannot claim citizenship of the United States, for their citizenship had been stripped away by DE FACTO force of the Federal government.

  14. ClinicalThinker Says:

    Hi Davvy,

    Much of this information was given to me by a woman on a forum.

    Everything she posted was documented with links sometime last April … when I got to the piece in June part of those links were gone, scrubbed or not complete.

    I tracked down what I could and posted what I could.

    Now I am going back over everything looking for specific documentation.

    I am told that because of Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act and the Edmunds Act stripped the Polygamist Saints of their rights it did not strip them of citizenship. These families left the USA for respectively 17 to 30 years. Gaskell came back in 17 because of the revolution.
    I am in process of trying to verify if they indeed did lose citizenship or not.

    Here is my other page on this subject:
    http://usa-wethepeople.com/2011/10/mitt-romney-barack-obama-vs-natural-born-citizenship-and-the-constitution/

    I see that Edward Noonan has posted some data that might be helpful too. I have yet to read that.

    So far I can document with congressional docs that if Mitt Romney were not Mormon he would be a “natural born citizen”. The fact that he is and his family fled to Mexico and lived there muddies the waters considerably.
    I have a lot of legal documentation and links to sift through.

    I still am leaning towards Gaskell (Mitt’s grand daddy) no longer being a citizen but that might not be true. If he did not lose citizenship (how long can you be expatriated and remain a citizen?) he was gone for 17 years. His father never came back and died there.
    There is also a little problem with George W. being a dual citizen?

    It is a real mess … I am at the point of ripping hair right now.

    Now Rick Santorum is suspect and I am told Nikki Haley is also a problem.

    Is there anyone running that is not?

    Thank you for the ping … I will keep both you and Edward posted on anything I can find.

    If Romney is a “NBC” I want to correct this as soon as possible.

    Since MSNBC is hot an heavy on the Romney Mexican background it would not surprise me if they start trying to get him booted.

    They have to take care because they could get their guy booted at the same time or legitimized whatever way the wind blows I suppose :)

  15. Oscar Y. Harward Says:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

  16. Dr. Conspiracy Says:

    Hi, thanks for dropping by the blog. You said “My experience tells me between 2/3 and 3/4 of the public is ignorant of how our founders defined the term ‘natural born citizen’.”

    Given the decline in public education in the US, you’re probably being generous. However, folks that agree with you are 100% ignorant of how the Founders defined the term.

    If you would like to remedy that, read the paper produced by the Congressional Research Service (a part of the Library of Congress) for members of Congress. It explains it pretty well.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

    By the way, Professor Charles Gordon wrote a really interesting paper in the Maryland Law Review back when George Romney was running for President. You might look it up.

  17. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    @Dr Conspiracy – Again you prove that you are quack! A quack is a Dr. that has no medical qualifications. And you have as much qualifications to regurgitate on this matter as your High-Lord-Master-Mahon “Seotoro” is qualified to be POTUS.

    This bilge that you link to was produced by the bottom feeders of the Democrat/Marxist Party and this cesspool bilge is rejected by anyone with a true knowledge and love for the Constitution.

    I was just reviewing the webpage of Leo Donofrio, Esq. and read something that I had picked up on before. It was a statement from the Minor v. Happersett case. So I made this following comment on his comment block:

    No Responses Yet to “Minor v. Happersett Revisited.”
    Edward C. Noonan Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    January 9, 2012 at 1:48 PM

    Was I the only pupil that was awake in my 1966 high school civics class when I was taught, the meaning of a Natural Born Citizen? My teacher taught me, “Natural and Alien are opposites. If there is any aspect of your birth that is alien…like having an alien parent, or you were born in an alien land, then you cannot be considered NATURAL. Period!

    And here, you remind us by quoting the Minor case: “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.”

    How can it be more clear than this that Mr. Soetoro is a fraud!

    Edward C. Noonan
    President 2012

  18. ClinicalThinker Says:

    Welcome Dr. Conspiracy,

    Apparently we are on the same page on those ignorant of the term “natural born citizen”.

    I am sure you fully understand ignorant used here means ignorant (i.e.) uneducated or unaware?

    Unfortunately that does not include those who are educated on the matter but simply CHOOSE TO EITHER IGNORE or SPIN the FACTS as they are rolled out to the world or public in general (for whatever reason). I call that unethical, corrupt or stupid … take your pick any or all.

    I am fairly sure you are also up to speed on the position of SCOTUS in our government. You know that little prickly REALITY THEY ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND? (i.e.) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

    That being said I am further certain you UNDERSTAND that any OPINION be it legal or otherwise is simply that.

    You know also I assume that all the opinion making, weeping and wailing your side is doing is fruitless as law and certainly does not over ride the SCOTUS cases on the book to date in regards to this matter.

    Let me make it simple for those who might be a little comprehensively challenged … OPINION since 1898 is a worthless argument today. I am certain those vested in these latter day opinions will froth at that reality. However if they are actually legal scholars they already know that to be true.

    The opinion link you provide is from 2011 and by the way is passed from ignorant to ignorant as some kind of proof for those who remain UNEDUCATED.

    Opinions are like? … you know the drill.

    Your side continuing to roll out this banter on what YOU THINK THE FOUNDERS MEANT is foolish at best since they (definitions of old) were very clear as well as numerous CHISELED IN STONE records archived and available to everyone.

    I get it that you and your group find this troubling.

    In the end none of this works out well for Barack Obama. Should his BC also end up being a fraud it will not work out well for anyone on the fraud team either.

  19. ClinicalThinker Says:

    Thank You Oscar this will be helpful no doubt :)

  20. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    @Dr Conspiracy
    I will respond to two of your points. You declare that the Surpreme Court is the SUPREME LAW of the land. That is totally incorrect and you know it. The Constitution clearly states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    The JUDGES are not Supreme although they are members of the SUPREME COURT, but instead it is the CONSTITUTION is what is supreme. But even that is not the full nature of our land. It is the PEOPLE that are Supreme and we are soveriegn by our obedience to our Father in Heaven. And all laws of Congress and any rulings of the SCOTUS must comply with the Constitution…and all must comply with God’s law. But this is not done in modern times and the POTUS and Congress and the SCOTUS think they can trump the constitution and they can dump our Father in Heaven as well. So Dr. Conspiracy, you again fail the muster of the true supreme law of our land. And you fail your true Lord and Master. As does King Soetoro (aka BHO). Else prove to me I am wrong.

    The second point:

    For over 3 years now I have seen your silly rebuttals without a single word of truth in your so-called “debunking birthers.” How can I tell you are lying? Your lips are moving! You never come up with and FACTS but you are the king of arm-chair quarterbacking. You wait for some one to find something new about the Soetoro birth mess and you and your ilk just sit back and trash-talk it… with no research, no new “proofs” but nothing more than your jaws flapping in the wind. If you really want to have a discussion concerning the trash that the Congressional Research Service we can have a go at it…but I doubt you really are ready for a serious and truthful discussion. Until you do, please return to your master Soetoro and tell him that you will serve him until the end of time… Remind him that you think he is the greatest monarch that Amerika has ever had.

    ed//

  21. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    @Dr. Conspiracy
    Apuzzo Esq. wrote an awesome piece today about you and your minions. You need to read up on why eventually you and your obots will eventually LOSE:

    Sunday, January 8, 2012
    How Obama’s Enablers Mislead the Public on the Meaning of an Article II “Natural Born” Citizen

    How Obama’s Enablers Mislead the Public on the Meaning of an Article II “Natural Born” Citizen

    SEE: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-obamas-enablers-mislead-public-on.html

    By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    October 10, 2011
    Reposted January 9, 2012

  22. ClinicalThinker Says:

    @Edward thank you for Appuzo’s reprint of this article :)

    The problem with the Dr. Conspiracies in the world is they are FRAUDS.

    They deliberatly live by a code of deceit, trickery, and dishonestly.

    They are not simply misguided or ignorant albiet when BUSTED at their fraudulent behavior they feign ignorance.

    These individules are at the core of our ignorant decline in the USA.

    They unashamedly promote this ignorance knowing there is a large segment of society who have a propensity to become their “useful idiots” and promote their cause.

  23. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    Devvy replied to my reply. You can read her best guess on this matter and then my best guess follows her best guess at my webpage:
    htt://noonan4president.blogspot.com

    She sent the link to a 1969 Congressioinal discussioin on the matter of George Romney vs. Natural Born citizen. It has been a while since I have read the entire piece. But it is worth reading and saving.

  24. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    @Clinicalthinker…

    You gotta review this one:
    http://www.angryblacklady.com/2012/01/11/what-hath-orly-taitz-wrought-the-rise-of-the-mitt-romney-birthers/

    It’s about Romney and the building “crashing sound” that is coming down the mountain. The piece is entitled
    What Hath Orly Taitz Wrought? The Rise of the Mitt Romney Birthers

    Be sure to watch the video on this page.

    She ends this piece with the jab against me?

    “Even as we speak, commenters in the nether reaches of the right-wing sewers of the internets are building their case against the candidacy of Mitt Romney on Constitutional grounds. Even if the combined Jesus-loving power of Perry, Bachmann and Santorum can’t bring down the Mittster, these plucky patriots are confident that they hold the key to finishing him off.”

    Hey! Doesn’t she know I am hunting down Santorum and Rubio as well?

    Edward C. Noonan
    Natural Born Citizen President 2012

  25. ClinicalThinker Says:

    @Edward the more your site gets linked to these wingnuts the more exposure you get … LOL

    I did see the video in full on TV last nite.
    I have it recorded and am getting new TV capture equipment hooked up so maybe I can make my own video stuff.

    Sometimes they do not quite clip everything needed.

    The progressive mindset is a bit tiring.
    I must admit my tolerance level for the “seriously dense” (which seems to define most progressives) gets less and less as I age …

  26. Mad Angel on FB Says:

    I have done extensive research on Obama and there is no doubt he is a British citizen by his father….what has mystified me is how the courts keep dismissing his cases on “standing” I’ve come to the conclusion that this probably is the reason…the re-establishment of British rule in 1871:

    Two Constitutions in the United States. 1st was suspended in favor of a Vatican corporation in 1871.
    http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=4448

    Mad Angel on FB

  27. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    I have heard so many “theories” over the 63 years of my life that I don’t know which one to believe. So I accept THEM ALL and I say, let the best theory prevail.

    One such theory has been offered by Gary North. One of his most recent publications is “Conspiracy in Philadelphia.” It is online and is easily downloaded. In it, he claims the the “founding fathers” were mostly “scoundrels” and did not have the authority to DUMP the Articles of Confederation, and instead conjure up a completely new document. In it, as a theologican, North claims the Christianity of America was rejected and instead Deisim was the favored slant of the new America.

    Wikipedia summarizes Deism as:

    Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) in religious philosophy is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or “the Supreme Architect”) does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the Clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

    North gives some sound arguments for his theories.

    But needless to say, it does not matter if the Constitution was written in 1783 or 1871…Both have been breached! We have the requirements of the head leader of this nation being thrwarted. Hence, The Corporate head “Soetoro” is not qualified to run the Corporation as well. So either way…the poopie is hitting the fan!

    Therefore the Corporate by-laws (if that is what you want to call the Constitution) definitely frown on the qualifications of Romney, Santorum, Rubio, and the rest to the non-NBCs.

  28. Maggie A Says:

    The ACTUAL DECISION of US versus Wong Kim (Decided 1898) was,
    “A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html

    YOUR QUOTE comes from an earlier 1875 case, Minor versus Happersett:
    In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, the Supreme Court, made an incidental reference to the issue: “[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. 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.” 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).
    http://beforeitsnews.com/story/566/241/Professor_Charles_Rice_on_Obamas_eligibility.html
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html

    And that is a straight forward FACT which you got ass-backward and wrong. But what else can be expected from a Birther? Certainly not accuracy. Or to ever admit you were incorrect. Actual facts are irrelevant. Only what you want to believe counts. And just having read the actual facts isn’t going to change your opinion on the matter. But your opinion also doesn’t change the actual facts.

  29. Maggie A Says:

    Thought I’d add this because, well, you’re a Birther. In case you don’t understand it, it’s the most RECENT Supreme Court decision that is the law. Not earlier decisions. Otherwise “separate but equal” would still be the law of the land, and we’d still have legal racial segregation as it was upheld in Plessy versus Ferguson in 1896. But “separate but equal” is NOT the law of the land no matter what the Supreme Court decided in 1896 because the Supreme Court struck down its own decision in 1954′s Brown versus the Board of Education. 1954 decision trumps the 1896 decision. The same way 1898′s US versus Wong Kim Ark trumps 1875 Minor versus Happersett. You Birthers seem to think “once a law, always a law” at least when it comes to picking and choosing the law you like. But that’s not the way it works in this country. The law is whatever the Supreme Court says latest. Got that?

  30. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    Sorry young lady (or whatever age you are), but you are wrong. I understand the sorry state of the Public education system, but I guess you are the result of it. You don’t seem to understand how our system is supposed to work. So I will instruct you.

    The bases of our law is the principal that all of our laws come from God. And within those laws is the concept that from that God we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away. The only request of us from God is that we live righteously and do-good among our neighbors. The reasoning is because we are all sovereign and no one should be master over another. We are built upon a concept of self-rule and self-determination.

    You error in saying that the Supreme Court is the LAW OF THE LAND. That is so incorrect! The Constitution is the Supreme (secular) LAW of the land. The SCOTUS merely is given the power to interpret the law and determine the laws of our land as per Constitutionality. The Supreme Court has no Constitutional authority to legislate nor decree any new concepts or theories…which they current do (in violation of the Constitution)!

    I suggest you take some night classes and find someone in your area that can instruct you more fully on the founding father’s insights on why and how our nation works. But until then, please let me point out you have failed Civics 101 once again.

  31. ClinicalThinker Says:

    @Maggie A …. you might want to direct your comments to someone specific.
    Since you have not I will answer as if you addressed your comment to me directly.

    Birther? So that makes you an Obot?
    Both sides can play the childish name calling game.
    Stupid and childish I admit but I will play along treating you as such.
    What “I GET” is “the Constitution” … the Supreme Court decisions on “natural born citizen” and a few documents recovered from congressional records of old. Yes and I got an A+ in reading comprehension during all of my educational years.

    I have never claimed that Minor trumped Wong Kim Ark.
    I have always maintained Wong Kim Ark in fact supports Minor in defining “natural born citizen”.
    In fact both cases FULLY SUPPORT what was defined by John Bingham 9 to 30 years before both cases were brought before SCOTUS.

    The definition by John Bingham which is clear enough for a 3rd grade student to understand providing he was not educated by an Obot … can be viewed at the link below with the section highlighted.
    http://usa-wethepeople.com/images/bingham-natural-born.jpg

    That document was found archived in: 39th Congress Senate and House Debates (December 4, 1865 to July 28, 1866) PP Page 961 of 1920 Page 1291

    The pertinent statement says:

    “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

    TO DATE: Minor and Wong Kim Ark are based on this interpretation.
    For the OBOTS who hang their hat only on Wong Kim Ark let me quote directly from the Justice Gray opinion. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

    “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.”

    Let me further point out that the OBOT claim that the definition of “natural born citizen” is newly made up by “birthers” is beyond stupidity.
    Unless OBOTS have suddenly decided to pull a Bill Clinton on the ignorant of the world and … redefine 146 years back as NEW … and the ignorant fall prey to the con.

    So like it or not … until SCOTUS decides to take up the “natural born citizen” issue it stands as it is since Wong Kim Ark in 1898.

    A child born on US soil of 2 (that would be two) citizen parents.
    No matter what Obama ends up toast probably at the hands of his own handlers.

  32. For my Liberty Says:

    WOW! I want to COMMEND ALL of you for your hard work and perseverance! UNLESS Martial Law is declared on the Citizens of the USA by the FRAUD in OUR HOUSE, WE WILL GET HIM OUT! America needs a RESET and we need to get BACK to the Constitution and MORALS! THANK YOU SO MUCH! I am spreading this far and wide both about “Ovomit” AND about Romney!

  33. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    Whoa!

    As much as I disagree with Media Matters, their post of today was right “on!” It deals with WND and their claim that Romney’s birth question is bogus. Read here:

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201150005

    You can see why my approval of WND has dropped a foot or two…

  34. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    I left this COMMENT on the WND webpage this morning:

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

    Jerome,

    You are incorrect in just about everything you say regarding this matter. To regain some repute in this matter, you will need to conclusively prove that DUAL CITIZENSHIP was okay under Article II. And this is impossible to do. There is no question that the entire Mormon Colony became Mexican Citizens. You cannot be able to prove that they could be citizens of both the US and Mexico at the same time under 1880-1890 rules of naturalization.

    Even if you can prove that Dual Citizenship was acceptable to both countries in the period of 1884-1907 then this still does not cut the muster of “natural born.” As per the most court rulings, there can be no “ALIEN” part of the equation. In the Romney case, when Gaskell took the loyalty oath to Mexico, he lost his American citizenship. And when George was born, no American citizenship was implied or granted. Hence, George was an illegal alien. And if daddy was illegal, Mitt Romney is one too. Else PROVE that Gaskell’s American citizenship was not renounced when he took the loyalty oath to the Mexican government.

    Edward C. Noonan
    NBC President 2012

    LET’S SEE IF THEY WILL APPROVE AND PRINT IT…

  35. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    I just lost a ton of respect for Dr. James Manning. His lies concerning questions of Mitt Romney’s so called
    Natural Born Citizen birth are beyond belief. Manning just poopied on the Constitution…to protect his
    Republican candidate(s).

    http://atlah.org/2012/01/17/the-manning-report-17-january-2012/

    Manning can never be trusted again!

    Edward C. Noonan
    NBC PRESIDENT 2012.

  36. Capt-Dax Says:

    It is absolutely clear that Mitt Romney is
    NOT a Natural Born Citizen..

    unless he can prove that George Romney
    gained citizenship from naturalization
    prior to Mitt’s birth in 1947.

    http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/01/08/breaking-mitt-romney-not-fit-romney-not-natural-born-to-be-u-s-president/

  37. Edward C. Noonan Says:

    I have been busy with an OBAMA BALLOT CHALLENGE filed against the Secretary of State (CA).

    We are hiring a high powered attorney (and high price) to get this challenge in court.

    But I wanted be sure that you saw the Jan 2012 piece at http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/15/ballot-challenge-to-mitt-romneys-eligibility-filed-in-illinois/

    I am attempting to get a challenge done in California on the Romney questions as well.

  38. Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen! | USA-wethepeople.com | "i HATE scott WALKER...Don't You?" ($14 RECALL shirts) FREE Subscriptions! Says:

    [...] Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen! | USA-wethepeople.com. Link to this post!Share this:Share This entry was posted in Republican Crimes and tagged birther [...]

  39. Obama’s Lawyer Admits Birth Certificate is FAKE, & Birthers target Mitt Romney | TrenchPress Says:

    [...] As anothers site states: “No matter how anyone slices, dices or ginsus it Barack Obama has painted himself in a corner with his released Birth Certificate (be it real or fraud). His father NEVER WAS A US CITIZEN.” “To be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN … you must be born in the country and your parents must BOTH BE CITIZENS.” Usa-wethepeople.com [...]

  40. Allen Eugene Booth Says:

    Did George Romney have to be a U.S. citizen in order to to be Governor of Michigan? Also, wasn’t Willard Mitt Romney born in Detroit? Was George Romney a member of the Mexican Armed Forces, a Mexican diplomat, or otherwise employed by the Mexican government at the time of his son’s birth? It looks like Mitt Romney is an “anchor baby”.

  41. Romney isn't a natural born citizen either? Says:

    [...] isn't a natural born citizen either? http://usa-wethepeople.com/2012/01/m…-born-citizen/ If you can bitch about Obama then you might have to bitch about Romney too. Both should be kicked [...]

  42. Guild Wars 2 Twitter Says:

    Trackback…

    …Straight after browsing your article, I finally decided to share this article on Yahoo. This is truly one fantastic data to share to my friends……

  43. Dewey Deschaine Says:

    Right here is the right website for anyone who wishes to find out about this topic. You know a whole lot its almost tough to argue with you (not that I personally will need to…HaHa). You certainly put a new spin on a topic that’s been discussed for years. Wonderful stuff, just excellent!

  44. ClinicalThinker Says:

    Thank you Dewey.
    Economics and I do our best to point out facts as we find them.

  45. JOe Says:

    I have read so many posts about the blogger lovers but this article is actually a nice article,
    keep it up.

    Here is my homepage :: JOe

  46. Edward C Noonan Says:

    I was slightly offended when I used GOOGLE TRANSLATE to understand the above French posting of June 23rd.

    Could this post be removed?

  47. clinicalthinker Says:

    Yes it can and is … thanks for the heads up :)


Leave a Reply



6 − = 3