Monday, October 1, 2012


U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan Rules Natural Born Citizen Requirement Not Repealed By The 14th Amendment Or The 5th Amendment

Abdul Karim Hassan vs FEC - Court Opinion - District Court for the District of Columbia - 10/1/2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

"Plaintiff Abdul Karim Hassan brings this action against the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), seeking a declaratory judgment that (1) the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013, which provides public funding to Presidential nominees of major or minor political parties, is unconstitutional and invalid, and (2) the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution1 is irreconcilable with, and has been “trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

--JUMP--

"Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."

"Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid."

"Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail."

CONTINUED HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/108620619/Abdul-Karim-Hassan-vs-FEC-Court-Opinion-District-Court-for-the-District-of-Columbia-10-1-2012

MORE HERE: http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20121001_Hassan_v._FEC.shtml

BACKGROUND ON HASSAN'S CASE HERE: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/09/fec-unanimously-ruled-foreign-born.html
 


2006: Obama In Kenya: I Am So Proud To Come Back Home - VIDEO HERE. 

2007: Michelle Obama Declares Obama Is Kenyan And America Is Mean - VIDEO HERE. 

2008: Michelle Obama Declares Barack Obama's Home Country Is Kenya - VIDEO HERE. 

FLASHBACK: Obama Is The Original Birther! Obama In 1991 Stated In His Own Bio He Was Born In Kenya. DETAILS HERE. 


SHOCK CLAIM: Breitbart Reporter Charles Johnson Has Documented Proof Obama is Indonesian Citizen - AUDIO HERE. 

WATCH SHERIFF JOE'S 2ND OBAMA INVESTIGATION PRESS CONFERENCE HERE: CLICK HERE.

WATCH SHERIFF JOE'S 1ST PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html 

SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Abdul Karim Hassan vs FEC - Court Opinion - District Court for the District of Columbia - 10/1/2012
New Ad - AZ Sheriff Arpaio - Obama Birth Cert & Draft Reg Card Are Forged! Wash Times Natl Wkly - 12 Ma...

171 comments:

  1. Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid."

    "Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail."


    Well, tell the idiotic OBots the obvious like this judge ruled and they squeal like stuck pigs. Either you OBots are liars like Obama or ignorant to the point of silliness. So what is it? I suspect you are both. You'll say and do anything to be childish and selfish.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well of course the nbc requirement isn't repealed by the 14th Amendment. It's enshrined in it. The 14th Amendment makes that abundantly clear in it's first sentence.

    Birthers will always try to spin a distinction that has never been made. The law is clear: those that are born here are natural born citizens, those that are made citizens later are naturalized.

    And that somehow validates the birthers? Please, do explain.

    ReplyDelete
  3. RS, no one has ever said that a person who is not NBC can be eligible to be President. We have simply, and correctly, stated that a person born on US soil regardless of the citizenship of the parents is NBC. That is consistent with every case ever decided by the US Supreme Court, all the more recent cases brought by birthers and the US Code.

    A person who is a citizen at the time of his or her birth is a NBC. The Plaintiff in the reported case as a naturalized citizen. Every case ever decided has equated natural born and native citizens. Even the opinion above is consistent with that because the Plaintiff was referred to as a a Guyana native.

    Not only are everyone you lump together as Obots lying on this subject, or silly, it is birthers who are either liars or ignorant. How comical that you would try to turn that around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IF (BIG little word) Obama's birth parents were who he stated they were - Obama was born of a father who was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same. The term ‘natural born cThe Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “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.”Citizen’ is defined, at least since 1758, as ‘a child born in the country of parents who are citizen.""Here is the law per FindLaw.com that applied at the time of his birth—if his parents were legally married [LA: which of course is a big question, but we can’t deal with all questions at once]:

      “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986: If only one parent (Stanley Ann Dunham) was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. If the above law is found to be the correct law applying at the time of the ‘supposed” birth of Barak Obama, he is legally not qualified to hold the office of President.”- - - then there still remains the question as to whether Obama changed his name after being adopted (Indonesia) by Barry Soretoro - no records have been found where a name change was submitted - -

      Delete
    2. I'll reply to my own post in that I neglected to mention that one seems to address that it was the laws that were in effect AT THE TIME OF OBAMA'S (or whatever his name is/was) BIRTH!

      Delete
  4. @AndyYou don't get it do you?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @AndyAs long as BOTH parents are American citizens then they are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Anonymous

    I do get it. Moreso than any birther. The natural born citizenship clause has NEVER required citizen-parents. The Supreme Court has never ruled that, and neither is this court.

    And no one gives any serious credence the 14th Amendment changing the natural born citizenship clause. The clause is still there: only natural born citizens (those who are born citizens) can ever be the President of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Andy answered his own question....this is an auditory processing deficit & depressed comprehension.

    Vote Romney - you vote Netanyahu, you vote for war, you vote for dead Americans and dead Persians and dead people around the planet.
    You vote for a zionist grip on the USA even tighter than under Obama.

    Vote Obama and you clearly vote for a person who is usurping the office of President as being a dual citizen at birth not a natural born one as the Senate itself stipulated in the case of John McCain. You vote for a man who with Republican assistance has finished turning the USA into a fascist and police state.

    Vote third party, vote gary Johnson. Vote anything you like but refuse to vote for the Teedledee and Tweedledum taking the USA and world to perdition and worse.

    Here is what our future portends in January 2013:
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjRJ2pUV6wEM&v=jRJ2pUV6wEM&gl=US

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Anonymous

    @AndyYou don't get it do you?

    Andy is the resident dunce and Obama penis puller. It's a job most Americans won't do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anonymous,Thats insane,if a French married couple had a child in the US would you call that a NBC?No!Just because a person is born in America it will never make them a NBC.The court has already ruled on the 2 parent citizenship rule BY THE WAY!

    ReplyDelete
  10. California Birther/Dualer/DoubterOctober 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

    Andy and Anon at 4:11 p.m.: You're full of shit. A person who is born here of parents who are not U.S. citizens themselves may be a native-born citizen but is definitely not a natural-born citizen. The native born is in essence a naturalized-at-birth or statutory citizen because he/she needs the 14th Amendment to be a U.S. citizen. In contrast, a natural-born citizen needs no statute to be such, since he/she was born here without any divided allegiances resulting from parent(s) not being American citizens themselves. Got it?

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Anonymous
    no one has ever said that a person who is not NBC can be eligible to be President. We have simply, and correctly, stated that a person born on US soil regardless of the citizenship of the parents is NBC. That is consistent with every case ever decided by the US Supreme Court, all the more recent cases brought by birthers and the US Code.

    No DUmb OBot.

    A person who is a citizen at the time of his or her birth is a NBC.

    No again OBot.


    Not only are everyone you lump together as Obots lying on this subject, or silly, it is birthers who are either liars or ignorant. How comical that you would try to turn that around.

    You support an incessant liar then approve of lying... all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Anonymous

    We have simply, and correctly, stated that a person born on US soil regardless of the citizenship of the parents is NBC

    Wrong, moron and how many times do you need to be told - that's a NATIVE BORN

    You O-Holes could careless about the rule of law. And there's no hope you'll ever learn anything due to comprehension problems.

    Even eHow gets it right -

    Natural Born Citizen

    A "natural born citizen" is a citizen who was born in the U.S. and whose parents were both U.S. citizens. Thus, if you were born in U.S. territory and both of your parents are U.S. citizens of any type, then you are a natural born citizen. According to Article II of the U.S. constitution, only natural born citizens are eligible to run for the office of presidency.

    www.ehow.com/list_7610052_types-citizens.html#ixzz285qXsPN8

    And here -

    Two Categories of Citizenships

    There are two categories of citizenship:[1]

    Natural born
    Naturalized

    Natural Born

    Natural born citizenship is the acquirement of citizenship at the moment of birth.[2]

    There are only two types of natural born citizen:

    Native-born is being born within the territory of the state or commonwealth under the principle of jus soli,
    Attaining citizenship through the parents’ citizenship status under the principle of jus sanguinis.

    http://truthmonk.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/united-states-citizenship-categories-and-definitions/

    ReplyDelete
  13. @anonymous. Yes, that is the law. Anchor babies ARE NBC. And NO court has ever ruled that there is a citizenship requirement of the parents in order to create a NBC. If you think Minor v. Happersett does you would mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Death Angel

    And Death Angel is our resident circle-jerker. Stick around - he'll get you all aroused, but always fails in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Andy, you are absolutely too dumb to even argue this subject. 1. You evidently haven't thoroughly studied NBC clause. or 2. You have and are just too ignorant to comprehend.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Anonymous
    Actually, you're wrong. Just read Wong Kim Ark. Chinese citizens, instead of French, but definitely an NBC.

    ReplyDelete
  17. California birther. At least five SC cases have stated that NBC and native born are the same thing, including Minor, Rusk, Luria, WKA and Baumgartner. Given the fact that you are wrong, perhaps you shouldn't be so arrogant. GOT IT?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @California Birther/Dualer/Doubter

    Someone born here doesn't necessarily need the 14th Amendment, though it does enshrine in the Constitution the law that existed before, while also keeping people from stopping those who were denied that right by being black.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @RS

    Hey, RS. You want to back up any of your denials with actual citations, or are you just in toddler mode, constantly saying "no" for no reason at all?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I do get it. Moreso than any birther. The natural born citizenship clause has NEVER required citizen-parents. The Supreme Court has never ruled that, and neither is this court.

    ...another lie, chief justice WAITE said that an NBC requires two parents as US citizens. No court case has said otherwise.

    Also, the early congressional papers also alluded to this

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Anonymous

    ote Romney - you vote Netanyahu, you vote for war, you vote for dead Americans and dead Persians and dead people around the planet.
    You vote for a zionist grip on the USA even tighter than under Obama.


    Here's another delusional Ron Paul monkey.

    Obama has gotten two thirds killed in Afghanistan in one third of the time.

    Not to mention Obama's follies in Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, and Sudan.

    Obama = war monger.

    Vote third party, vote gary Johnson. Vote anything you like but refuse to vote for the Teedledee and Tweedledum taking the USA and world to perdition and worse.

    Here's some advice - sit home on election day and don't vote, you're too damn stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And California birther, there is no mechanism for a person to be naturalized a birth. Here is hint, if you have to create a new category of citizen in order to try to make your point you might want to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Anonymous

    Show me anywhere that the Supreme Court has ruled that one MUST have 2 citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. Just once. (Challenge - Minor doesn't settle the "doubts" so it can't be authoritative!)

    Or even better - show me some law that says that. Just one. Anything.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Anonymous

    @Anonymous,Thats insane,if a French married couple had a child in the US would you call that a NBC?

    No, that's called an anchor baby and exactly what the Founding Fathers were preventing.

    That's why you need to US citizen parents at the time of birth.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Anonymous

    To Anon @4:24

    You say Zionist like that's a bad thing. Would that we had a president with the intellect, insight, sheer metal and integrity of Benjamin Netanyahu. I am glad he and Romney are friends and that Romney would restore Israel's trust in us. Now go beat up on a bigger country A-hole.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Death Angel

    Death Angel - please provide a citation from the Constitution where "Native Born" citizenship is recognized.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Andy

    And Death Angel is our resident circle-jerker. Stick around - he'll get you all aroused, but always fails in the end.

    Fail, again, dunce. Now go fetch your shine box.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Death Angel

    Nice, Death Angel use a source that tells you that you're wrong:

    "There are only two types of natural born citizen:

    Native-born is being born within the territory of the state or commonwealth under the principle of jus soli,
    Attaining citizenship through the parents’ citizenship status under the principle of jus sanguinis."

    Notice that being born here is enough for one of your sources. Good work proving our point.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Anonymous
    Judge Waite...in which case? Minor surely didn't limit it.

    Nice try, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you. (It also found Obamacare to be constitutional :-) )

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Anonymous

    A person who is a citizen at the time of his or her birth is a NBC.

    Government law makers can't make natural law or to make a person into a natural born citizen.

    It is very simple logic OBot. You don't make a law like the 14th Amendment to make non-citizens before the 14th Amendment was created natural born citizens. It defies the definition of being natural born. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with natural law, however, being natural born has everything to do with natural law

    Is this too much to understand for the feeble OBot brain? A rhetorical question since the answer to the question is obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Death Angel

    I don't recall "anchor babies" being a concern to BRITISH COLONISTS. That's a ridiculous argument, you nitwit.

    ReplyDelete
  32. RS and deathangel, since you guys are legal geniuses, kindly explain why the SC has consistently used native born and natural born citizens interchangeably. Plus, why are you calling Andy and I names? I thought teabirthers were above that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @RS

    Please do cite a source on Natural Law written before the Constitution that uses the phrase "natural born citizen."

    (Good luck!)

    ReplyDelete
  34. @C.A. Holly

    You say Zionist like that's a bad thing. Would that we had a president with the intellect, insight, sheer metal and integrity of Benjamin Netanyahu. I am glad he and Romney are friends and that Romney would restore Israel's trust in us. Now go beat up on a bigger country A-hole.

    That's how you know it's a Ron Paul sycophant. They like to toss in "BANKSTER" too.

    All they care about are legal drugs and Israel's destruction.

    These are some truly sick fucks.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yo Andy....

    It is better people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

    Keep denying facts... NBC is a citizen of TWO CITIZEN PARENTS.... not just two parents... Your public education has failed you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Andy

    Death Angel - please provide a citation from the Constitution where "Native Born" citizenship is recognized.

    I've done that repeatedly, and just because you can't comprehend the last few times I have doesn't mean I'll post it again.

    I don't jump when you say jump, dolt.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Andy


    Hey you little pansy Andy, I don't have to make it up. All you have to do is read the reams of "citations," solid evidence, and proof from over 3 plus years right here at Obama Release Your Records, and that can be found all over in Internet. You would rather be a DUmb OBot who likes to be in denial.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Andy

    @Death Angel

    Nice, Death Angel use a source that tells you that you're wrong:

    "There are only two types of natural born citizen:

    Native-born is being born within the territory of the state or commonwealth under the principle of jus soli,
    Attaining citizenship through the parents’ citizenship status under the principle of jus sanguinis."


    This is what Obama claims and says his father was born in Kenyan.

    Damn you're stupid. You admit Obama is a Native Born with his fraudulent birth certificate and not a Natural Born Citizen.

    Check and MATE.

    Everyone can now ignore Anus, he's been thoroughly dispatched and disintegrated.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Anonymous

    RS and deathangel, since you guys are legal geniuses, kindly explain why the SC has consistently used native born and natural born citizens interchangeably. Plus, why are you calling Andy and I names? I thought teabirthers were above that.

    No, do your own research.

    When you post idiocy you get called names, twit.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Anonymous

    Plus, why are you calling Andy and I names? I thought teabirthers were above that.

    If you are as DUmb and as ignorant as OBot Andy as observed over the many months, he deserves the names as he has rightfully earned the monikers.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Death Angel

    Really? I can assure you the words "Native born" don't appear in the Constitution. But nice job failing all over yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @RS

    I read everything here (just for the entertainment value!), but there haven't been any citations that meet what I asked of you.

    So, if you can find some, that would be most helpful to your cause. Otherwise, it, and you, are jus big losers.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Death Angel

    Nice checkmate, except for the checkmate. A natural born citizen who is born here would be a native citizen.

    (I'm still waiting for that citation in the Constitution that somehow created this "native citizen" term you keep using.)

    And when did a court declare the birth certificate a fraud? I must have missed that.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Anonymous

    Thats insane,if a French married couple had a child in the US would you call that a NBC?No!

    Hey, you sound just like the minority that wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark!

    Catch that? "Minority". "Dissent".

    As opposed to: "Majority". "Law of the Land".

    ReplyDelete
  45. So deathangel, you can't answer the question. Good to know that you are simply ignorant of the issue and instead of addressing my question you resort to name calling. Here is the reality. According to the SC, native born and natural born are the same thing. You lose, twit.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @J. Madsen

    Gosh, it's ironic for you to say that, isn't it? Now, can you show me ANYWHERE that it's required to have two citizen parents?

    ReplyDelete
  47. What will it take for you idiots from both sides to get it?

    Everyone knows that Natural Born Citizen, is one born by VAGINAL birth. End of discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @Andy

    Please do cite a source on Natural Law written before the Constitution that uses the phrase "natural born citizen."

    More stupid OBot denials and Dumb spin. Who are natural born is found in deVattel's work 'The Law of Nations' and that was the obvious meaning and intent behind the NBC Constitutional clause.

    The stupid OBot argument is that the 1797 English translation of The Law of Nations is incorrect, which is totally absurd.

    The particular passage in question written in French has the the same meaning as the accurate American/ English translation of The Law of Nations.

    Only an idiot or an OBot would argue otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @Andy

    No Obot, you're the big loser in life working for bad people.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Anonymous

    So deathangel, you can't answer the question. Good to know that you are simply ignorant of the issue and instead of addressing my question you resort to name calling. Here is the reality. According to the SC, native born and natural born are the same thing. You lose, twit.

    Two terms that mean the same thing, huh?

    Why not just call them both an NBC and make no distinction? That's where Obot logic always goes off the rails.

    Good job there, you're now an official idiot for all to see.

    Someday you'll be able to work yourself up to Andy's assclown.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jack Cashill and Mark Steyn on
    Rick Wiles TRUNEWS 10-3-12:

    http://www.trunews.com/listen_now.htm

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Andy, "And when did a court declare the birth certificate a fraud? I must have missed that."

    If you're going to point out American law to these people, you have to take their lies by way of retort.

    I suggest that you couch all your arguments in terms of the War of 1968.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The NBC definition within the Constitution itself has actually been reinforced by the ruling "parents" plural, as Americans at time of birth! Nothing since has overruled that. That's pretty basic to understand....for MOST people....but Obots have something to hide so they like to make up things that don't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Anonymous

    There has been no ruling concerning "parents" "plural."

    ReplyDelete
  55. @RS

    No, it isn't incorrect. The word you think means natural born citizenship was translated to "native." There is another french word there, but "natural born citizen" didn't appear until AFTER the Constitution.

    Unless you care to actually prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I take notice that the so called idiots seem to have a winning record as opposed to they who claim to be constitutionalists.

    Odd that.

    ReplyDelete
  57. California Birther/Dualer/DoubterOctober 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM

    Boom! RS hit the nail right on the head with this comment: It is very simple logic OBot. You don't make a law like the 14th Amendment to make non-citizens before the 14th Amendment was created natural born citizens. It defies the definition of being natural born. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with natural law, however, being natural born has everything to do with natural law.

    Indeed, if just being born here makes one a natural-born citizen and equates such with a native-born citizen, then why the need for the 14th Amendment, may I ask? Could it be that the Americans didn't take kindly to the idea that a British bastard, I mean subject, like Obama is, could become president and betray the country unless they did something about it?

    ReplyDelete
  58. @Andy

    There has been no ruling concerning "parents" "plural."

    Now that was just stupid, even by your lowly standards.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @rikker

    Hey rikker, I got a song just for you for the night of November 6th.


    "Tarrance Group/Battleground Poll - Toss-up States Romney 50% Stinky OButt 46% September 24-27, 2012"

    ReplyDelete
  60. deathangel, if you have an issue with native and natural born being interchangeable, take it up with the Supreme Court and not me. I see you don't dispute anything I said, you just disagree with the Supreme Court and somehow that makes me wrong and stupid. Typical birther "logic", lol.

    ReplyDelete
  61. anon at 4:38 said -

    "@anonymous. Yes, that is the law. Anchor babies ARE NBC. And NO court has ever ruled that there is a citizenship requirement of the parents in order to create a NBC. If you think Minor v. Happersett does you would mistaken."

    SCOTUS obviously doesn't agree with your delusional reality re M v H.

    By their denying GA's sound, extremely sound case on nbC, it didn't get anymore simple than this case, Constitutionalists had a major victory today! You betcha, MAJOR!!!

    Through their denial M v H stands.

    Own it you miserable commie obots, OWN IT!

    M v H as precedent stands AND today became settled law.

    And don't waste our time anymore on your stupid, ridiculous and empty headed trivial blah blah blah of the 14th amd and Wong.

    You lost today! Big Time...M v H stands!

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Anonymous

    if you have an issue with native and natural born being interchangeable

    There are not interchangable, dum dum.

    Natural Born - of two US citizens born on US soil or a US territory or war zone.

    Native Born - of ONE US citizen born ON US soil. This is what Obama claims he is, even though it's all entirely in doubt due to Obama's own words.

    It's really that simply and why there are two distinctive terms.

    Now go fuck yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @Andy

    Unless you care to actually prove me wrong.

    That's easy.

    "De Vattel wrote in French, not in English. In French, the words he used instead of the English "natural born citizens" were "les naturels, ou indigenes." Literally, "les naturels, ou indigenes" translates as "the naturals, or citizens." Note that "les naturels" does not translate as "natives." For “naturel” to mean native the word would need to be used as an adjective. In the quoted section, it is used as a noun. In fact, when de Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212"


    We notice how you can't show us any real proof that Obama is a natural born US citizen because he is not.

    ReplyDelete
  64. death angel you need to tell that the SC which says the are the same thing. And a dum dum is a lollipop, you idiot.

    And Minor DOES NOT SAY that A NBC requires two citizen parents.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Anonymous

    Um, by denying the Georgia cases, the Supreme Court just upheld the OPPOSITE of what you believe about Minor.

    The Georgia Cases said Minor requires two citizen parents. They lost all the way to the Supreme Court. Now the Supreme Court won't hear the case, meaning their loss is the correct interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  66. M v H... settled law...today... i just shit me a death angel laughing so hard.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Andy lives in fear that the issue never addressed in the aftermath of Wong Kim Ark by the SCt - what is the status of a child born to two illegal aliens - is resolved against citizenship based on the fact that the illegal alien parents are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

    That is why he is obfuscating. Only since the advent of red diaper bolshevik cultural marxist Frankfurt school fifth columnists in this country bent on dispossession/slow genocide of whites would the idea that border jumpers could confer citizenship on their offspring born in this country by the act of their coming here illegally ever be seriously considered. The reason that Wong Kim Ark came out the way it did was because Wong Kim Ark's parents were here legally as registered aliens and as such were subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Andy is ignoring that part of the 14th amendment ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and is reading it out of the constitution.

    Wong Kim Ark did not conclude that the 14th amendment conferred citizenship (natural born) on Ark merely because he was born in the US - he was a citizen only because he was born in the US to parents who were here legally and thus subject to the US. But if your real goal is to cast future generations of whites as second class citizens dispossessed of their birthright in the land of their ancestors, you tell any lie and subvert any legal proceeding to achieve your ends.

    So assuming only for the sake of argument that O was born in the US he is not a natural born citizen and only became a citizen under the 14 amendment because his purported dad was here legally under a student visa and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the US, fulfilling the conditions set forth in the 14th amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hey a$$hat deathangel, please explain this quote:

    "Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency." Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 231 U. S. 22. It is from US v. Baumgartner. Native citizens are the same as natural born citizens jackhole.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @RS

    And yet, according to the 1787 translation, the word "naturels" is translated to "native" and "indigenes" isn't translated. In later editions the words are translated as "natives" and "natural born citizen."

    So "naturels" = "natives"

    and

    "indigenes" is somehow construed to be "natural born citizen," but only after the term first appeared in the Constitution.

    So again, you are wrong, RS. You're so good at that!

    ReplyDelete
  70. @Anonymous

    So if an illegal alien isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, how can they be illegal? (Wong defeats your argument, but pointing out that by being here, they ARE subject to the jurisdiction. Otherwise, they couldn't be held liable for breaking any laws.)

    Nice try, though!

    ReplyDelete
  71. @Anonymous

    "Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency." Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 231 U. S. 22. It is from US v. Baumgartner. Native citizens are the same as natural born citizens jackhole.

    Can you even read, cluster cunt?

    You just might be the dumbest fuck on this board.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @Death Angel

    Which means "except." Naturalized citizens can't be the president, but native citizens can.

    (Good reading, Death Angel. Now look up the words to see their meaning. Or use context, but I'm not sure you're ready for that!)

    ReplyDelete
  73. Naturalized versus native/natural. Your standing is safe death turd.

    ReplyDelete
  74. deathangel, you don't know what the word "save" means do you? Lol and you have the balls to call someone else dumb. Too funny

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anus -

    Indigenes - Indigents - Natives.

    Le Naturels - The Naturals.

    How damn stupid are you, oh wait, you already answered that, repeatedly.

    You O-Holes really can't read and have no shot at comprehension. Pitiful.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @Andy

    "indigenes" is somehow construed to be "natural born citizen," but only after the term first appeared in the Constitution.

    I got to hand it to you OBot, you got to be the biggest moron going.

    Delusional OBot: every English translated publication of The Law of Nations are wrong since 1797!! It has been wrong for the past 215 years! Yeah, that's the ticket! LoL.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Andy and rikker, the IDIOT Obots know what the law is but to admit it would mean that they would have to admit to supporting a law-breaking, criminal, faux POTUS and they will never admit to that. Doing so would show their lack of intelligence and respect for the law of the land (the Constitution). Ain't gonna happen so let it go. We know what the law and the Constitution say so just know that the truth always prevails & good will win over evil.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @Death Angel

    Death Angel,

    See my previous post. Your translations don't line up with the 1787 edition. I'm pretty sure it's more correct than you are.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @RS

    No, the translations are made up of more modern terminology. There was no such thing as a "natural born citizen" before the Constitution.

    And as you can see in the 1787 translation, "naturels" is natives, while "indigenes" is translated LATER to be "natural born citizen."

    So either you are wrong, or Vattel is wrong. Which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Death Angel,

    According to the quote Andy posted a naturalized citizen has all the same rights as a native born one except a naturalized citizen can't be President. This is what I was taught in my civics class. I have not seen anyone argue that a naturalized citizen = natural born citizen. The argument is whether native born and natural born are two separate things. I think they are not and the quote would suggest that the terms were used interchangeably.

    ReplyDelete
  81. @Death Angel

    Death Angel,

    You do realize that "indigent" doesn't mean native, but means "poor" or "lacking," right?

    ReplyDelete
  82. @AR925

    Um, the Supreme Court would disagree with you (as they did recently by denying the Georgia cases a hearing).

    ReplyDelete
  83. WWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOAHHH the dumbots are freaking out!!!

    LOL FLAK OVER TARGET

    By the way Cali guy is correct:

    Andy and Anon at 4:11 p.m.: You're full of shit. A person who is born here of parents who are not U.S. citizens themselves may be a native-born citizen but is definitely not a natural-born citizen. The native born is in essence a naturalized-at-birth or statutory citizen because he/she needs the 14th Amendment to be a U.S. citizen. In contrast, a natural-born citizen needs no statute to be such, since he/she was born here without any divided allegiances resulting from parent(s) not being American citizens themselves. Got it?

    ReplyDelete
  84. @Andy

    "The law is clear: those that are born here are natural born citizens, those that are made citizens later are naturalized."

    Actually the law says that even if a person is born in the U.S., if they belong to an aborignal tribe (lowercase) – for example, the Luo were the first inhabitants in Uganda and Kenya – and whose inheritance or right to tribal property might be affected by U.S. law - for example, the Luo brother of a Luo man inherits his bride upon death - THEN the person in question is NOT automatically granted citizenship at birth.

    BTW, isn't Barrack Obama a member of the Luo tribe?

    Just saying. It's not so cut and dry.

    ReplyDelete
  85. All of the presidents born before ratification were born in-country yet they were only CITIZENS , not natural born citizens

    that's why the grandfather clause of Article II proves Obama is ineligible

    ReplyDelete
  86. Andy must be the resident hair-splitting throw-everyting-onto-the-wall and-see-what-sticks shyster. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" essentially means a person is here legally through some act of law and thus in a legal, bilateral relationship with the government of the US.

    Wong Kim Ark "was subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because his parents at the time of his birth were legal alien residents whose status came about both through an affirmative act on their part where they applied for the status and a decision by the US government during which the government granted them residency status. Through this bilateral interaction they became "subject to the jurisdiction of the US".

    You are arguing that non-citizen border jumpers by the unilateral act of coming here illegally can force the government to assume jurisdiction over them. The government does not agree with you regarding the assumption of jurisdiction in these situations because the government during sane times ACTUALLY AFFIRMATIVELY DECLINES JURISDICTION BY DEPORTING THE BORDER JUMPERS. DEPORTATION IS EFFECTIVELY A DENIAL BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION OVER NON-CITIZENS BECAUSE IT RETURNS THE NOT-CITIZENS TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN WHICH DOES HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THEM.

    You are a bad-willed liar.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Everyone, especially Obama, knows he's ineligible, FBI, CIA, GOP, DEM...this is well-known and obvious.

    What's so funny is that we got away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  88. @Andy

    Now you're being an obtuse idiot.

    "§ 212. Of the 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.” "


    This English translation is correct and this is the same meaning and intent behind the US Const. NBC clause that our Founding Fathers understood at the time the US Constitution was written.

    ReplyDelete
  89. anon at 4:38 said -

    "@anonymous. Yes, that is the law. Anchor babies ARE NBC. And NO court has ever ruled that there is a citizenship requirement of the parents in order to create a NBC. If you think Minor v. Happersett does you would mistaken."

    SCOTUS obviously doesn't agree with your delusional reality re M v H.

    By their denying GA's sound, extremely sound case on nbC, it didn't get anymore simple than this case, Constitutionalists had a major victory today! You betcha, MAJOR!!!

    Through their denial M v H stands.

    Own it you miserable commie obots, OWN IT!

    M v H as precedent stands AND today became settled law.

    And don't waste our time anymore on your stupid, ridiculous and empty headed trivial blah blah blah of the 14th amd and Wong.

    You lost today! Big Time...M v H stands!

    Then COMMIE OBOT anon said at 6:19 PM -

    M v H... settled law...today... i just shit me a death angel laughing so hard.

    Laugh you COMMIE OBOT! B/c YOU AND YOUR COMMIE FELLOW TRAVELERS lost today. SCOTUS isn't touching M v H b/c as precedent it IS, you're familiar with the word "IS" aren't you, SETTLED LAW.

    OWN IT COMMIE OBOTS! OWN IT!!!

    Constitutionalists WON today!!!

    ReplyDelete
  90. @Death Angel

    I think you meant "indigenous," not "indigent."

    ReplyDelete
  91. ALL CITIZENS are naturalized by statute, some are naturalized by oath, some are naturalized at birth, but ALL are naturalized by statute...

    EXCEPT

    Natural Born Citizens...which is why it's the only permutation omitted from US Code 1401/14th amendment.

    And since there's no redundancy in 14th, "born jus soli subject to jurisdiction" does NOT cover "born incountry with one US Citizen parent", for if it did, the latter would not be included.

    In actuality part A is intended for FORMER SLAVES but has been perverted to include anyone born here (can be naturalized at birth)...but still, they are only naturalized by statute, they are NOT natural born citizens.


    The judge is correct, for indeed, as much as dumbots may whine, the term "natural born citizen" is not in the 14th amendment. Anywhere.

    Hey dumbots, why don't you amend the Constitution? It just takes 3/4 of the states.

    In the meantime, Obama is a USURPENT and everything he signed will be overturned...because he's illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  92. anon @ 7:17 pm - SCOTUS denied the GA cases b/c M v H is precedent and today became settled law. Twist, turn, tie your panties up into a knot but their decision not to hear the case means M v H remains precedent and now, settled. You lost COMMIE OBOT. YOU LOST. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Loser!

    ReplyDelete
  93. These are the same dumbots who think Obama is also not gay, and that he doesn't get his pud pulled (when he says he's playing golf). After 110 rounds, that's also about his score, 110...because he doesn't play golf.

    Here's one of his regular golfing steamroom buddies. Watch out, your gaydar meter will break!

    http://hillbuzz.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/3592319575_0c580268f2.jpg?cda6c1

    ReplyDelete
  94. Andy, if the President of Iran comes to the USA and has sex with a hooker who proceeds to give birth to his child in a US state, is that baby eligible to be President of the USA according to the Constitution?

    Answer yes or no.

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  95. Wow, Andy, you're really stupid. It's hornbook law that the Supreme Court's denial of certiori has no precedential value whatsoever. ALL it means is that the Supreme Court declined to hear the petition, and considering the number of petitions they receive, the percentage accepted never reaches 2% and is sometimes as low as 1%. But being an Obot means, in your own mind, that you can be wrong without consequence.

    ReplyDelete
  96. @Andy

    You do know superficial and DUmb OBot, the usage of the word 'native' v. 'natural' has a divergence, especially in modern times.

    Not all natives born are natural born citizens. In other words, all natural born are also all native born, but not all natives are natural born. Your airhead may have heard this at sometime before.

    ReplyDelete
  97. This is hilarious.

    We've been out working hard - we control enough of the count in swing states to assure a victory. We've worked with pollsters to put out polls weighted heavily Democratic so that the false count victories will not look suspicious. And our friends in the media are telling the story of our polls and of Romney's imminent defeat. All along, the Courts (and media) keep the birther issue on the fringe and out of the news.

    Meanwhile you argue with yourselves and a couple of basement dwellers whose job is to spread dissent and frustration on websites.

    Six months ago I thought we had a pretty good plan and a more than fair chance at success.

    Now I know we have already won this election. Time to move on to the plans for our second term and the consolidation of even more power. Your side is so befuddled, we'll even steal a couple of Senate and House races. There's nothing you can do - we are way more than two steps ahead of you.

    Calamity Jane.

    (miss me?)

    ReplyDelete
  98. @Andy,

    "You do realize that "indigent" doesn't mean native, but means "poor" or "lacking," right?"

    I have a cousin who, while in jail, told a story of an inmate who wanted to declare his indigence, but instead declared his indignance.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I have often wondered about that myself. WKA's parents were both legal residents. What if they weren't residents at all, but tourists? Or what if they were "residing" illegally in the country? The case has certainly been given the broadest possible interpretation. Another issue is that, in looking at the legislative history of the fourteenth amendment, it's quite possible that it was NOT the intent of those involved in adopting that amendment to adopt the common law as laid down by Lord Coke in Calvin's Case?
    Furthermore, the WKA Court correctly pointed out that the children of citizens born abroad have citizenship conferred upon them by congressional statutes enacted under the naturalisation clause. Hence, there is both (1) statutory naturalisation, and (2) naturalisation at birth. This means that John McCain was 100,000% ineligible. Oh, wait. The statute that conferred citizenship upon McCain was enacted in 1937. He was born in 1936. Oops.
    Oh, well. At least that's one thing McKenedy and Hussein have in common: neither is eligible!

    ReplyDelete
  100. @AR925: "Andy and rikker, the IDIOT Obots know what the law is but to admit it would mean that they would have to admit to supporting a law-breaking, criminal, faux POTUS and they will never admit to that."


    Well, we certainly know what the law is. I don't know whether the rest of your idiot analogy applies, though. The law concerning NBC is certainly clear, though.

    ReplyDelete
  101. @RS: "@rikker

    Hey rikker, I got a song just for you for the night of November 6th. "


    And I have a canned reply, RS. Here it comes now...

    Nyuck, Nyuck, NYUCK!!

    ReplyDelete
  102. I'll answer for Andy:

    Of course that baby (born of a foreigner and US Citizen prostitute) is not a natural born citizen, they are a US Code 1401 statutory citizen.

    Anyone who is a statutory naturalized citizen by oath or US Code 1401 is not a natural born citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  103. @7:41 - "Andy, if the President of Iran comes to the USA and has sex with a hooker who proceeds to give birth to his child in a US state, is that baby eligible to be President of the USA according to the Constitution?"


    Yes.

    Why? Has Achmedinijob cleaved unto a prostitute not his own? Because there's a bunch of those in and around the U.N.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Oh, good grief, Wayne Madsen, former NSA intelligence, broke the Man Country story where the COMMIE OBOTS usurper Obama and COMMIE Ballerina "Rahmie baby" were outed as lifetime members of the very Gay 'Man's Country" on May 24, 2010 - http://www.t-room.us/2010/05/cpw-permission-may-24-2010-special-report-obama-and-emanuel-members-of-same-gay-bath-house-club-in-chicago/

    ReplyDelete
  105. Dumbots:
    See, this is why US Code 1401 omits "born incountry of citizen parents"

    just like we told you

    ReplyDelete
  106. rikker, then why is a person born abroad of 2 US Citizens under the same US Code 1401 category of "citizen"?

    LOL, loser, FAIL.
    No statutory citizen, like Ach-loin-spawn would ever be NBC. See, Rikker, that's why both the term "natural born citizen" is omitted from the 14th, as is its permutation "born incountry of citizen parents"

    ReplyDelete
  107. @ 8:27 "LOL, loser, FAIL.
    No statutory citizen, like Ach-loin-spawn would ever be NBC. "


    LOL!!! I'm 152-0 in these rhetorical legal contests. YOU are on the zero end of those losses. I'll take my chances with my original answer, dumbass!!

    Jus soli is the law in America.

    ReplyDelete
  108. You see, this is the mental defect with all COMMIE OBOTS, that is they truly believe the world revolves around them and their nonsensical retorts such as calamity janes posted above -

    "Now I know we have already won this election. Time to move on to the plans for our second term and the consolidation of even more power. Your side is so befuddled, we'll even steal a couple of Senate and House races. There's nothing you can do - we are way more than two steps ahead of you."

    We read "I" as though this COMMIE OBOT is a soothsayer, can see into the future and predict outcomes. RUBBISH!

    Then, in this one thought this COMMIE OBOT says "we" three times which suggests "I" is on some sort of team. You know the "collective eutopia" that defines all of COMMIE OBOTS and their MESSIAH.

    Calamity is on a team - it tells us. The calamity janes of the internet world are called sock puppets, COMMIE OBOTS, trolls who sweep into sites such as ORYR to post provocative nonsense.

    Everything this sock puppet says is the exact opposite so let's take this thought and turn it around to mean what it is really stating -

    "Now I [COMMIE OBOT SOCK PUPPET] know we [COMMIE OBOT CAMPAIGN TEAM WHO HIRED A BUNCH OF UNEMPLOYED COMMIE OBOTS TO POST DRIBBLE FOR CHITS AND GIGGLES] have already won this election[THEY'VE LOST]. Time to move on to the plans for our second term and the consolidation of even more power. Your side is so befuddled, we'll [COMMIE OBOTS BELIEVE PEOPLE WHO THINK FOR THEMSELVES WILL BUY INTO THEIR PATHETIC DRIBBLE] even steal a couple of Senate and House races [HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA - UTTERLY LAUGHABLE AND TOTALLY UNTRUE]. There's nothing you can do - we are way more than two steps ahead of you [OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHH A THREAT...SHAKING IN OUR BOOTS CALAMITY JANE COMMIE OBOT...SHAKIN...PPPFFFFTTTT!!!! WHAT A COMPLETE JOKE YOU ARE].

    Review the structure of this COMMIE OBOTS statement. This is a classic Alinsky statement. Study it. This is the only 'stilt' the COMMIE OBOTS have.

    They start off w/the "I" alluding to an individual then quickly move to the "we" while puffing up some meme bullshit "collective" crappola and then threaten. 1, 2 and 3...learn how these COMMIE OBOTS disrupt, distract and send you off on a wild goose chase.

    What these COMMIE OBOTS don't get is that Alinsky is a one trick pony and those of us who have had it up to our eyeballs with their shallow dribble after four years of reading it are more than happy to help you, the individual who wishes to think for themselves, know how they like to work and calamity is well, an old, tired, used up schtick.

    ReplyDelete
  109. In order for one to be a naturalized citizen he/she must reach a certain age and then go through a naturalization process. There is no mechanism to for someone to be naturalized at birth. A citizen at birth is NBC. There is no escaping that conclusion. You can call me all the names you want to, you can curse me out, you scream your stupid heads off, but that is the law in the Country.

    Birthers always make the mistake of confusing eligibility with electibility. Just because the bastard child of the Iranian President is eligible, does not mean he can be elected. Charles Manson's kids would be eligible too.

    There have probably been about a billion American citizens since the Country's birth, 43 have become President.

    ReplyDelete
  110. @rikker

    "Jus soli is the law in America."

    Not if you are a member of certain aboriginal tribes. And Obama is Luo -- the first inhabitants of Uganda and Kenya.

    ReplyDelete
  111. California Birther/Dualer/DoubterOctober 1, 2012 at 9:25 PM

    Let me try another stab at common sense and logic and see if that clears up the Kool Aid-influenced brains of the Obots.

    My wife came from Indonesia and went through a lot of hurdles to become a U.S. citizen, which included taking tests in civics and language to make sure her sole allegiance is to this nation. This is just to become a naturalized citizen. And you would have me believe that an anchor baby is a natural-born citizen by a simple birth on U.S. soil?

    In Obama's case, his daddy (assuming the Kenyan polygamist really is his father) was here on a non-immigrant student visa. Hell, Obama himself admitted that he was a dual citizen at birth.

    Oh, did you know that the United States is but one of a handful of countries in the world that grants birthright citizenship? And the funny thing is that it didn't become that way by design: http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship

    ReplyDelete
  112. @Anonymous

    There is no mechanism to for someone to be naturalized at birth. A citizen at birth is NBC. There is no escaping that conclusion.

    Really OBot LoL. Do you guys suffer from acute amnesia or something?

    Lets take a look again now:

    "Plaintiff Abdul Karim Hassan brings this action against the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) seeking a declaratory judgment that (1) the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act,26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013, which provides public funding to Presidential nominees of major or minor political parties, is unconstitutional and invalid,

    and (2) the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution is irreconcilable with, and has been “trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "

    Judge Emmett Sullivan-

    "Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail."

    The Federal Judge from DC has just told you silly Obots that the 14th Amendment did not repeal or did it replaced or did it change the NBC Constitutional clause that Plaintiff Abdul Karim Hassan says it does.


    You can call me all the names you want to, you can curse me out, you scream your stupid heads off, but that is the law in the Country.

    As we see, you don't know what you are talking about. Par for the course for OBots.

    ReplyDelete
  113. If not mistaken, the earliest use of the term natural born citizen, like so many western principles, dates back to ancient Greece. Aristotle (384 – 322 BC)in his Politics wrote that those born to Greek parents were natural born citizens. The city-state of Athens, however, made an exception for children born of women who were taken in war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought Karl Rove allready said Obama was eligible. Isn't he the brain behind Romney? "the ones who try to hide the truth are the ones with something to hide"

      Delete
    2. I can't figure out who's trying harder to hide the truth. Obama and the Ds or Karl Rove and the Rs (FoxNews) the ones who try and hide the truth are the ones with something to hide. Problem is we don't have any judges with the balls to uphold the constitution.

      Delete
  114. > The Federal Judge from DC has just told you silly Obots that the 14th Amendment did not repeal or did it replaced or did it change the NBC Constitutional clause that Plaintiff Abdul Karim Hassan says it does.

    I still don't get what you're trying to glean from that verdict.

    Hassan tried to claim the 14th did away with NBC and allowed naturalized citizens to become President.
    The judge rejected that.

    But that's a far cry from claiming the Vattelists are correct.

    Hassan was stating a third position here.

    1. (Hassan) Naturalized citizens can become President.

    2. (Vattelists) Only native-born people with two citizen parents can become President.

    3. (Everyone else) Only native-born (see below) people can become President.

    The court ruled #1 was incorrect, that doesn't mean #2 was correct. Got that?

    > Not all natives born are natural born citizens.

    Correct; the exceptions are children born to foreign diplomats and invading armies (and, back in the Founders' days, Indians not taxed).

    > if the President of Iran comes to the USA and has sex with a hooker who proceeds to give birth to his child in a US state, is that baby eligible to be President of the USA according to the Constitution?

    Yes, and why not? Is there an "Iranian terror gene" that would automatically make the child un-American?

    Charles Manson would've satisfied the Vattelist definition of NBC, do you think he should've been able to run for President?

    You cannot "retcon" the Founders' will by making up contrived scenarios about people who would never be elected anyway.
    As I just said, the Charles Manson scenario would even make the Vattelist definition insufficient to protect the US from a mad and evil President.

    Therefore I ask, what are the Vattelists real goals? Undermine the presidency by making up contrived arguments as to who cannot be President?

    I don't think this argument has anything to do with "Obama" (except that it seems to appeal to some people because they would like it to be true).

    ReplyDelete
  115. @california birther: "And you would have me believe that an anchor baby is a natural-born citizen by a simple birth on U.S. soil?"


    yep.

    ReplyDelete
  116. @Anonymous

    You have no idea how the law works.

    ReplyDelete
  117. @Anonymous

    All the Presidents born before the ratification were born in country- but a different country. They were English.

    Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  118. @Anonymous

    If the Government denies jurisdiction, you'll have to tell that to the judges who hear deportation hearings. Since they don't have jurisdiction they can't rule on deportation.

    You're a moron.

    ReplyDelete
  119. @RS

    The 1787 translation, the one available to our founders, did not translate the word "indigenes." It only translated the word "naturels." (It used the word "natives" for "naturels.")

    It was only later that indigenes was translated to natural born citizen. That only occurred AFTER the Constitution.

    So native = naturels.

    ReplyDelete
  120. @Anonymous

    The argument in Georgia was that Minor defined natural born citizenship. That case lost. The appeal lost. Supreme Court denied cert.

    That means that Minor doesn't define citizenship.

    ReplyDelete
  121. @Anonymous

    Yes. Just as your mother, another hooker, could give birth to you.

    ReplyDelete
  122. @Anonymous

    I never said it was precedential, but it did affirm that the previous rulings were correct in the state of Georgia.

    If denying the case would have caused a split between the jurisdictions, they would have probably taken the case. Since Minor doesn't say what birthers think it does, they had no reason to hear the case.

    ReplyDelete
  123. @RS

    You say that all native born citizens are not natural born citizens, but you have nothing to back you up.

    You wanting something badly doesn't make it law.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Obama has been President of the United States of America for how many years?

    birFers are such fools and bigots

    ReplyDelete
  125. @RS

    Good job not understanding the judges ruling.

    Hassan never argued that he was a natural born citizen under any part of the Constitution. He argued that his equal protection was violated by being a naturalized citizen.

    You ask if he has amnesia, but you can't even read the arguments.

    Did you practice to get this dumb, RS?

    ReplyDelete
  126. @C.A. Holly

    Unfortunately for your argument, the Greeks didn't speak English.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Rikker, it's a miracle the FEMA Camps allow internet access...FOR YOU AND ALL THE NWO LOVING IDIOTS!

    ReplyDelete
  128. `Own it you miserable commie obots, OWN IT!

    M v H as precedent stands AND today became settled law.´

    you do realise that the precedent in M v H was on womens sufferage, don´t you?

    the dicta concerning NBC status (which it should be noted was not resolved) was not the precedent.

    but keep taking it to court, we love a good laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  129. The importance of the statements by Judge Sullivan is that they are another rebuttal to those arguing that the 14th Amendment somehow equates the meaning of the terms natural born citizen and naturalized citizen. It would have been nice (courageous) had the judge expressed his views on the necessity of citizen parents. However, it was not necessary to the facts of this case. Given the common knowledge that Obama could have a little problem regarding this aspect of natural born citizen definition, one could suspect that if the judge was completely sure there was no 2-citizen parent requirement he would have said so.

    ReplyDelete
  130. rikker at 809..your answer proves that you simply do not know the Constitution. There is no way a foreign national can father a baby born on US soil who can be eligible for President.

    Relying on 152 Kangaroo courts is like saying those who went to trial in Nazi Germany courts were guilty because the court said so.

    If Obama is eligible then why have so many efforts been made to redefine nbc.

    You are simply a supporter of a corrupt system and more importantly a non american. I dont care what anyones politics are, if they are so against what makes our country the best and would rather see conservatives get angry then have an eligible President of their own country, then you truly are a traitor to your nation if you are actually american.

    Why we even respond to you is what we should be asking ourselves. Its like trying to convince Hitler the Holocaust was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Can you birthers say "inapposite"? Sure you can. Just give it a try.

    ReplyDelete
  132. I guess pointing out that "This Constitution" has never been adopted by a single person in the federal government (yes, it was "ratified" by the States which is why they are ALWAYS held to it) and no one has ever filled the "Office President" therein (yes, there is a President of the United States of America elected by electors and an Office of President of the United States, a legislative office created in Article I but with no eligibility requirements such as the Office of President has)) wouldn't matter.

    Note that the oath taken for the "Office of President of the United States" is in Article II section 1 before it states anything the "President" must do, etc. (note the duties of the President of the United States are defined in Article I) which means he has no responsibility beyond that point. If you signed a contract in the middle (which I also note this oath is never written but only spoken orally which has it's on implications in law) would you be responsible for anything after that? Also note said oath is totally different than the oath required of all in Article VI which requires them to "support this Constitution" i.e., the written one not "the Constitution" (this and the have very different meanings). When you adopt something it requires support, just like adopting a child or a pet.

    This secret convention created a magnificent way for a few men to fool an entire populace for hundreds of years. Of course it requires that men in their arrogance (ignorance) believe that imaginary, written abstractions have standing over them. Have you ever wondered why all judges ask "do you understand (stand under)...".

    We have all been deceived and conditioned to believe in things that are not "natural born" and it always works in the favor of those at the top of the chain no matter the party.

    May the Almighty remove the blinders and bless us with eyes to see and ears to hear.

    Best Regards to all

    ReplyDelete
  133. @Cantone: "Problem is we don't have any judges with the balls to uphold the constitution."

    The problem is that you don't have the intelligence to discern what the real problem is. THAT'S the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  134. these left wing scum dont like America or being Americans maybe its about time we give these people of the world a trip out into the real world so they can see how good they have had it. we just dont need to let them back in.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Andy doesn't understand that "jurisdiction" can vary in meaning depending upon the situation, and that several governmental actors can have simultaneous jurisdictions over a person in a given situation, where the scopes of the simultaneous jurisdictions may radically differ.

    A judge in a deportation is exercising very limited jurisdiction over a person. The judge assumes only so much jurisdiction over the person that allows the judge to determine if that person can remain in the country.

    If the person is deported as a result of the proceeding, the person is removed from a country that does not have jurisdiction over the person to the country that does. The judge in the deportation proceeding assumed temporary narrow jurisdiction over the person simply to make that determination. The country from which the person is deported relinquishes this temporary jurisdiction over the person as soon as the deportation is complete.

    Further, illegal aliens typically flout laws that are generally applicable to citizens. Their actions in flouting the laws are admissions that they do not consider themselves subject to the laws of the nation that they are illegally occupying. They thereby deny that the nation has jurisdiction over them.

    ReplyDelete
  136. @6:41 ' "rikker at 809..your answer proves that you simply do not know the Constitution. There is no way a foreign national can father a baby born on US soil who can be eligible for President."


    No way, huh? Who's the president right NOW? And who was his father?

    Apparently, there IS a way.

    ReplyDelete
  137. @Anonymous

    I still don't get what you're trying to glean from that verdict.

    Millions of OBots over the last 4 years have said that the 14th Amendment made Wong Kim Ark (WKA) a natural born citizen. Of course that is not true.


    Hassan tried to claim the 14th did away with NBC and allowed naturalized citizens to become President. The judge rejected that.

    Right, but as I said above, that OBots jumped the shark by saying that the 14th Amendment changed the NBC clause, or it double downed on original intent to include double allegiance citizens like WKA as natural born citizens and therefore WKA could have legally became president. And that's not true. Judge Sullivan did not go there to support OBots or your fantasies.

    >> Not all natives born are natural born citizens.

    Right.

    Correct; the exceptions are children born to foreign diplomats and invading armies (and, back in the Founders' days, Indians not taxed).

    Not totally correct OBot. The 14th Amendment authors' intent and meaning was to prevent all foreigner from automatic US citizenship. Justice Gray ignored their intent behind the Amendment, but that's another story. The intent of double allegiances or double citizenship was eschewed by the Founding Father, and only that the intent and meaning of the Constitution was for 2 citizen parents born in country could be US presidents.

    >>if the President of Iran comes to the USA and has sex with a hooker who proceeds to give birth to his child in a US state, is that baby eligible to be President of the USA according to the Constitution?

    That's a big no even under your definition. Amnesia again? LoL.

    An Iranian head-of-state who has a child born in America would be Iranian. That is a double whammy for the child of a foreign diplomat. But even if the father was not a foreign head-of-state, his child would not be legal to becoming a president under Constitutional law because the NBC clause is a check on split allegiance that the child inherited.

    Charles Manson would've satisfied the Vattelist definition of NBC, do you think he should've been able to run for President?

    He does? LoL. And would have? Old Charley is still alive as I recall. Maybe he can run on the next Dim ticket from prison as he would qualify for being a criminal. That is a Dem resume enhancer you know. LoL.

    ReplyDelete
  138. @Andy

    You say that all native born citizens are not natural born citizens, but you have nothing to back you up.

    Sure I do, and have done so more than a few times in the past, but you are too stupid to understand and you drink too much OBot kool aid troll. I'll show you again but not just for you but for all who read here.

    "Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952) Argued April 2-3, 1952. Decided June 2, 1952."

    -snip-

    "At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States;"

    So we see Kawikita had a double or split allegiances or citizenships.

    -snip-

    "MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

    First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97."

    We see the 1952 Supreme Court cite the 14th Amendment as to why Kawikita was a US citizen. If there was never a 14th Amendment, there would be no US citizenship for Kawikita, if things had stayed the same over time.

    We also see that Kawikita inherited his Japanese citizenship from his parents.

    Moreover from the 1952 Supreme Court:

    "The difficulty with petitioner's position is that the implications from the acts, which he admittedly performed, are ambiguous. He had a dual nationality, a status long recognized in the law.[Footnote 2] Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 344-349. The concept of dual citizenship recognizes that a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. "

    He had double allegiance and being the subject of both has responsibilities to both.

    So trolling Andy and moron, you and your clowns actually think that the intent and meaning behind the NBC clause is to have "natives" who inherit foreign citizenships at birth were Constitutionally qualified to become president?

    So OBama has or had a legal responsibility to all nations that he is/was a citizen of Kenya, England, and Indonesia? Is That the intent and meaning behind the NBC clause? And just after fighting a war with Great Britain to win our independence? Get real DUmb OBots.


    So what ever happened after Kawikita after he was convicted and imprisoned? After a few years in jail, Kawikita was stripped of his US citizenship and sent back to Japan with the understanding that he never come back to the United States.

    Lets repeat that OBots. Kawikita, the guy you dullards think he is a natural born US citizen was stripped of his natural born citizenship? How could that be you say?

    How could the US deny Kawikita of his "NBC status" since he was a natural US citizen??

    Well dingbats, it is very apparent that Kawikita was not a natural. He had another foreign citizenship.

    ReplyDelete
  139. "So if an illegal alien isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, how can they be illegal?"

    They do so by violatng our immigration laws.

    ReplyDelete
  140. @Anonymous

    But if they aren't under the jurisdiction of our laws, how can they violate them?

    ReplyDelete
  141. @RS

    "We see the 1952 Supreme Court cite the 14th Amendment as to why Kawikita was a US citizen. If there was never a 14th Amendment, there would be no US citizenship for Kawikita, if things had stayed the same over time. "

    Except there is no reason to assume he wouldn't be a citizen if the 14th Amendment hadn't been passed. It is just a convenient and declaratory statement of what was before (See Wong Kim Ark).

    ReplyDelete
  142. @Anonymous
    "Further, illegal aliens typically flout laws that are generally applicable to citizens. Their actions in flouting the laws are admissions that they do not consider themselves subject to the laws of the nation that they are illegally occupying. They thereby deny that the nation has jurisdiction over them."

    So murderers, since they commit a crime, aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, either? That's where your argument leads.

    ReplyDelete
  143. "Anonymous said...[Reply]

    "So if an illegal alien isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, how can they be illegal?"

    They do so by violatng our immigration laws."

    If they were not subject to our jurisdiction when they illegally gain entry into the country, they could not be prosecuted for crimes or deported.

    As soon as someone sets foot on our soil, with minor exceptions as spelled out in the Constitution, they are subject to our jurisdiction.

    ReplyDelete
  144. @RS... "Well dingbats, it is very apparent that Kawikita was not a natural. He had another foreign citizenship"

    I see you ability to read and interpret case law and the Constitution is still as lacking as ever. I'm still surprised you've not hurt yourself attempting to play lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  145. "But even if the father was not a foreign head-of-state, his child would not be legal to becoming a president under Constitutional law because the NBC clause is a check on split allegiance that the child inherited. "

    Nope... wrong again.

    Amazing you keep playing. No court has ever agreed with you except for the possibility of Dred Scott which was abrogated by the 14th Amendment.. with did nothing except declaratory of what had always previously existed in the Constitution... something which is repeated over and over by scholars and SCOTUS.

    ReplyDelete
  146. @Anonymous

    I see you ability to read and interpret case law and the Constitution is still as lacking as ever. I'm still surprised you've not hurt yourself attempting to play lawyer.

    And we all see OBots constantly lying.

    ReplyDelete
  147. @Andy


    OBot, we see that you really don't know what positive legal steps that a foreigner had do to become a US citizen before the time of the Wong Kim Ark decision.

    ReplyDelete
  148. @Andy

    So murderers, since they commit a crime, aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, either? That's where your argument leads.

    Hello again dullard. Charles Manson is the type of guy that Dems love to recruit. Dems love criminals and criminals love Dems. Dems love criminals voting. Just making an astute observation for you dullard.

    ReplyDelete
  149. @Anonymous

    Nope... wrong again

    No right and right again.

    And oh, another OBot non sequitur and red herring! LoL.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Andy is playing stupid - it was explained to him that jurisdiction can have several meanings, and that several authorities can have jurisdiction of differing scopes and durations simultaneously over a person.

    The jurisdiction intended in the 14th amendment has to do with citizenship and legal residency matters. A country does not have jurisdiction for citizenship and legal residency purposes, for example, over a person that is merely visiting the country, because the country of origin of that person has jurisdiction for these issues. The country being visited, for example, cannot make an alien a citizen merely because he visits the country.

    The fact that the country asserts jurisdiction over person in a criminal matter has nothing to do with jurisdiction for purposes of citizenship and legal residency. Andy, does the fact that the country asserts jurisdiction over an illegal alien in a criminal proceeding change the citizenship status of that illegal alien? Of course not.

    This is the situation that Andy is effectively arguing for:

    Couple A are here illegally and have a child. They commit no crimes while here and are deported. The child is not a citizen because the country did not exercise jurisdiction over his parents in any way other than by the narrow jurisdiction exercised to deport them. Surely Andy would not argue that the mere fact that the country had to temporarily exercise jurisdiction to deport the couple makes the child a citizen, or does he?

    Couple B are here illegally and have a child. Before the child is born, though, the husband commits a violent felony, is prosecuted and incarcerated for a period of time. The child of couple B is a citizen because the country exercised criminal jurisdiction over the father.

    Is that the nonsensical result you are arguing for, that the criminal act of the illegal alien father can force the country to confer citizenship on his child?

    Further, for criminal purposes the jurisdiction being exercised is usually that of a state, not the US. Andy is misleadingly and dishonestly imputing the jurisdiction exercised by a state in criminal proceedings to the US government for citizenship purposes. Andy won't tell you that the post civil war amendments made citizenship a federal matter, when prior to the war it was a state matter. So the fact that a state exercises criminal jurisdiction over its residents is irrelevant to the jurisdiction exercised by the US government for citizenship and legal residency determinations.

    ReplyDelete
  151. @Anonymous

    Andy is playing stupid

    He's not "playing". That's why he is affectionately known as Anus.

    He's the resident idiot savant, minus the savant.

    ReplyDelete
  152. "And we all see OBots constantly lying."

    We're 152 - 0. We've never lied to you about how America perceives you.

    ReplyDelete
  153. @Anonymous

    And you're not playing stupid, you're being stupid. If Couple B isn't in the jurisdiction of the United States, as you argue, then they cannot violate a crime, as the criminal court system would lack...jurisdiction.

    And that right there defeats your idiocy!

    ReplyDelete
  154. @Death Angel

    And yet somehow, I've defeated each and every point you've made.

    That's sad if an idiot can do it. Just think what a judge would do.

    ReplyDelete
  155. @RS

    And you don't seem to get the concept that citizenship by birth in the country was recognized before the 14th Amendment.

    Which is sad, because the WKA court laid it out pretty clearly.

    I guess being dumb doesn't hurt as much as I imagined. So you're not in pain?

    ReplyDelete
  156. @Andy

    I guess being dumb doesn't hurt as much as I imagined. So you're not in pain?

    I wouldn't know. You have so much more experience in that area.

    ReplyDelete
  157. @Andy

    Man, you are dense.

    "Born in the USA" and "natural born" are not the same.

    BTW, there is nothing about Bozo that is natural to this country. You would have to import the ingredients to make another Bozo.

    ReplyDelete
  158. @RS

    Or so you insist, and yet you keep making the point that those born here are natural born citizens.

    You aren't very good at arguing your point. Maybe you'll one day get a trophy for participation?

    ReplyDelete
  159. Gentlemen,

    The citation of Schneider v. Rusk is HUGE.

    "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, � 1. " 377 US 163, 165


    That is not stating that "native born" and "natural born" is the same. it is saying that "native born" and "naturalized" are the same, and that "natural born" is different, or else it would say that "only the native born is eligible for President". REMEMBER that Minor v. Happersett said that Virginia Minor's rights DID NOT DERIVE from the 14A, since she was a natural born Citizen, and ALWAYS had them since the constitution was ratified--- she didn't need the 14A to guarentee those rights. The second part CLINCHES the thought that "native born" is NOT natural born.

    "While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from � 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted,
    "becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native." 377 US 163, 166

    REMEMBER it is saying that "native born" and naturalized are the same. "The rights of the native born derive from s. 1 of the 14A". Right, because they are naturalized by the operation of the 14A. The natural born Citizen does not need the 14A to derive rights. Upon naturalization, whether native born or naturalized, ALL citizens stand in view of the Constitution on the footing of a NATIVE (Native is not native born---- NATIVE is a NOUN, native born is an ADJECTIVE--- Remember "the Natives or natural born Citizens..."

    Also the Nauer citation of Lauria in Hassan cites Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 165. On page 165 it says:

    "There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." But in our opinion it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several states, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people."


    Judge Waite said that V. Minor DID NOT NEED the 14A to derive rights--- she already had them because she was a natural born Citizen. Native born citizens attain their rights from S. 1 of the 14A. natural born Citizens derive their rights from A2S1C4. There was no other naturalization law then, except "or a citizen, at the time..."

    ReplyDelete
  160. @Andy

    You must be the biggest idiot in the delusional, OBot, AfterBirther world. You always throw up untrue BS and straw man arguments.

    Here you are not so long ago being swatted away for your stupidity by Mario Apuzzo:

    - - - - -

    "Andy said...

    Proceeding forward? It doesn't seem like you've even gotten cert, let alone actually getting to proceed.

    Good luck with that!

    August 9, 2012 8:48 AM"

    [Apuzzo's response to you]

    "Puzo1 said...

    Andy,

    It is quite evident that you are reading challenged.

    August 9, 2012 10:11 AM"

    "Barack Obama Ballot Challenge Proceeding Forward in the NJ Supreme Court"

    - - - - -

    Not very many people can spread idiocy across the Internet like you can.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Excuse me, but I can't for some reason find the term "natural born citizen" anywhere in the 14th amendment. Can someone point out where it is?

    ReplyDelete
  162. If the Fraud wins the election then the republic is dead.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Romney is demolishing Obama!

    Obama is way out of his league debating a real businessman!

    ReplyDelete
  164. > Native born citizens attain their rights from S. 1 of the 14A. natural born Citizens derive their rights from A2S1C4.

    So by your argument, before the adoption of the 14th, the only way to be a citizen was to be NBC (regardless of how we define it).

    Now assume Vattelism is correct and NBC means "two citizen parents".

    What about all those born between 1776 and the adoption of the 14th to just one citizen parent? By Vattelism, they would not be citizens.
    Also, I can find no documentation all these people naturalized when naturalization laws came into effect.
    So by Vattelism, they remained non-citizens, aliens.
    Do you have any proof they were treated as such? What about those who were elected into office, are all their actions null and void? And what actions exactly does that involve?

    ReplyDelete
  165. > “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986: If only one parent (Stanley Ann Dunham) was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.

    Only if you were born ABROAD.

    We are still lacking court-acceptable proof "Obama" was born in Kenya. While a possibly forged BC and other irregularities point to some kind of identity theft, it's still not proof. The best we have is "birthplace unknown".

    (I never understood the fixation on Mombasa anyway. He may have been born in Nairobi, Kenya, or Uganda, or Indonesia, who knows? I've always considered Mombasa another smokescreen to keep us from looking elsewhere.)

    ReplyDelete
  166. "You may want to move on to another topic...you didn't build that...I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.