United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Why Not Admit the Obvious: The President Won't Blame Them because He Agrees with Them
Source:
American Thinker
URL Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti ... cause_he_agrees_with_them.html
Published: Jun 17, 2016
Author: Jeffrey T. Brown
Post Date: 2016-06-17 16:39:16 by Stoner
Keywords: None
Views: 1338
Comments: 32
We all know that Barack Obama was nominally a lawyer at some point in his past – not a good one, by anyone's account, but he was one. Assume for the moment that Barack Obama had as his client The Muslim Brotherhood, or CAIR, or Hamas, or any one of dozens of organizations dedicated to taking down the United States. Could he possibly have done a more effective job of hiding his client's actions or intentions while they went about conducting criminal operations unmolested as he has for seven years? Could he have been more successful at misdirecting and obfuscating and lying about their intentions and deeds than he has already been? Though not every lawyer shares a client's philosophy, the zeal with which an attorney does his job can sometimes be proportionate to his identity with the client's goals and objectives. The president certainly is a zealous fellow when it comes to radical Islam. We know he won't call it "radical Islam," claiming that that is a distraction or a talking point. Perhaps the real reason is that he doesn't believe that what the Islamists he supports are doing is radical at all. Maybe the actual issue is that he believes in and supports their efforts to infiltrate and subvert the United States. That would explain an awful lot, wouldn't it? For seven years, we have heard how the president "doesn't get it" and is in over his head, is naive, and countless other excuses. None of this has ever been the problem. He gets it. He simply gets it with regard to his own agenda, his own end game. It's the American people who continue not to get it. The president is in bed with the enemy. It is ironic that so many of those who are angry that the president won't say "radical Islam" themselves won't openly say that he is and always has been the patron of radical Islamists, and he protects them for that reason. Until we admit this, and see him for what he is and what he has been doing consistently and with determination, we enable him to succeed. The president points to his limited efforts to eradicate certain violent Muslims through drone strikes and minimal military operations, as if this proves he is "one of us" and is working to protect the United States. Muslims attack other Muslims all the time, but they are all still Muslims. If the president chooses to assist certain factions he favors against certain others, this is hardly being done to protect the United States. If that were his objective, he wouldn't be freeing a significant number of homicidal Muslims as well, who are back on the job killing Americans. He is barely lifting a finger militarily or internationally, regardless of what he says. However, he is moving heaven and earth domestically, where the actual invasion and conquest is actively going on. People who recognize that we have seen increasing levels of terroristic violence across the country committed in the name of Islam by its perpetrators want the president to name the threat for the simple reason that his failure to do so, when viewed with all the other things he has done to protect and promote Islamists to weaken our military, our national government, and our security, tells them that he is in league with them and that he will not betray them while he repeatedly betrays us. He refuses to identify them because he is their strongest supporter and their most steadfast protector. His unwillingness to admit that there is any Islamic component at all to the terror, even when the terrorists say it happily, tells us that he is willfully misdirecting us from the truth, even when that ensures that more Americans will die. Throughout this week, we have seen news reports of FBI analysts, whose work was to connect the dots, having their files erased of all Muslim suspects who were actively plotting against us. We have heard of how the FBI's hands were tied, and the new rules required that they drop their surveillance of Muslim suspects against whom concrete evidence had not yet been found and how those suspects went on to commit mass murder, including this week in Orlando. We have heard how employers and neighbors of Muslims who engaged in terrorism here were afraid of saying anything against the terrorists because they were Muslim, including both Orlando and San Bernardino. Our government has vowed to punish those who express legitimate fears about Muslims behaving suspiciously, which the government deems Islamophobia rather than domestic or national security. That is, our government has vowed to punish Americans who have the audacity to object to their own destruction. How would any of this be different if we had an openly Muslim president and a pro-Muslim, pro-sharia government? None of this is new, and it continues to be the policy of this administration right up to the last couple of days, when the Department of Homeland Security has come out with new prohibitions on words that might offend those who most want to destroy this country. Words like "jihad" and "sharia" are banned by government fascists who control speech and thought. There was a simultaneous story this week about a 25-year-old Syrian immigrant, Laila Alawa, who is one of 15 members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism and who is rabidly anti-American and an anti-white racist. She seems fine with Islamic violent extremism, declaring that 9/11 changed the world for good. It is the committee on which she serves that advocated censoring those words that might offend Muslims. Those who work within this administration to harm the United States in the name of Islam have been serving at the president's pleasure, or with his blessing. If that were not true, he would purge the government of all such anti-American and pro-Islamist enemies of the country. He doesn't. Their numbers grow steadily. This is his administration. These are his surrogates. They are the vehicle by which his policies, his goals, and his beliefs are being put into effect. He is one of them. There is no other explanation for them populating our government at every level, but particularly the highest ones. Those who most vehemently represent the president's views are rewarded with the opportunity to destroy this country from within, along with complete immunity from punishment or retribution for expressing their desire to do just that. Naturally, an armed citizenry is a substantial obstacle to our overthrow. It is for this president and his party members a rather happy coincidence, therefore, that we have just experienced both an Islamic victory on our soil, about which the president has vowed to do absolutely nothing, and the use of a gun, about which the president has vowed to do everything in his power. It is at times like this that his priorities and goals converge and are laid open to be seen unmistakably. Americans must pay the price for what was done to them. It is our rights, but not those of the invaders and traitors, that must be slashed. It's time we admit the obvious. Radical Islam isn't radical to this president. It's simply a means to an end. Our end.
There should be no doubt in anyones mind, we have a TURD in our White House, and needs to be flushed ! OK there might be a couple here that would disagree. And they need to be flushed also !
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
(Edited)
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=129995&stc=1&d=1466173692 Sorry, can not get the image to post. Don't know what I am doing wrong. Could someone please do so? Very good image. Thanks Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Could someone please do so? "Sorry, registration has been disabled by the administrator." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Thanks for trying! It was a picture of Obunghole, and said: " Once you accept that he isn't on our side, Everything he does makes perfect sense " Wish we could have posted it. Really good, and accurate ! Thanks again ! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Is this it? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Yes, that is it. Thank you, thank you !! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
You don't get elected dogcatcher in america without israeli backing. Obama's following the orders of his bolshevik masters to carve out a Greater Israel. The jews should be shitting bricks over ISIS, but they're not. Pretty telling, imo.
yes hoax chains ... genocide love ps make If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Excellent article. But, it's sad that even it's author apparently doesn't get the fact that Obama is NOT "the president." All he is now and all he can ever be is an usurper to the office of president.
Yeah. And the Repukes pissed in our faces, they did not even try to get rid of him. But you know what, I'll just be glad when the SOB is gone. I'm just pissed that the taxpayers will be taking care of him, and paying him for the rest of his stinking life. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
I completely agree regarding the GOPe. I quit considering myself as a Republican when I learned John McCain was no more Constitutionally eligible to be president than is Obama. BOTH parties had to know they were each fielding a candidate who was not a natural born citizen. They were both bad enough before and things have only gotten worse since then.
Ridiculous. McCain is eligible. Why would you disenfranchise the sons of military men who serve their country?
How is it disenfranchising someone to require them to conform to the same rules that apply to everyone else?
A man born to american parents is still an american. That would be the natural order of things. Common sense. For example ia some americans had a child in Africa. The child would still naturally be the kin of Americams not Africans. That would be the natural order of things, as he is the offspring of Americans. If some foreigners come here and hace a french child in America? He is still the offspring of frenchmen and would be french. That would be his natural born state. A jew born in Egypt was still a natural born Jew and not an Egyptian.
Such a man (or woman) is absolutely an American citizen. But, all American citizens are not natural born citizens of the USA. In order to be a natural born citizen of the USA, one must be born on US soil of two American citizen parents. McCain was born of two American citizen parents; so, there is no question that he's also an American citizen. But, he is not a natural born citizen of the USA because he was not born on US soil.
Are you stating your personal opinion since the U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen?"
You are naturallý the kin of your parents. Hence natural born. It would be unnatural for a mexican couple to have a child in America or anywhere else and that kid to not be Mexican. You are quite naturally the same as your parents. Can't get more natural than that. The framers were smart and if they wanted what you suggest they would have said born on U.S. soil.
Because "Natural Born US Citizen" means more than just that. It means, born on US soil AND born of US parents. McCain is a Panamanian born, naturalized by legislation, undocumented. Without papers. ISIS leader. He's obviously a globalist citizen of the world, whose allegiance is to whomever pays him the most. A real mainstream Republican globalist, POS. You're wrong as usual fag johnson groupie.
Gatlin: Are you stating your personal opinion since the U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen?" The fact that a word, term, or phrase is not defined in the Constitution is moot. I'm not trying to be a smarta$$; but, after all, the Constitution is not a dictionary. How many definitions CAN be found therein? The Framers wrote in language they believed the average person could understand; i.e., it was not their intent that one must be a lawyer or otherwise exceptionally educated to understand what they wrote. In fact, it has been mostly lawyers who have bastardized both the meaning and the intent of the Constitution's Framers. The words, terms, and phrases they used were well known at the time they were written. Indeed, not even the various authors of the Federalist Papers spent time on definitions; even though, clarifying the Constitution for the purpose of making it acceptable to certain groups was the very reason those papers were written. If definitions HAD been deemed necessary by anyone affiliated with writing that document, the Federalist Papers would have been the perfect opportunity to fix that. As for the origin and definition of natural born citizen, it comes from Natural Law; which, is the basis for the centuries old laws of nations that were accumulated and put into book form by Emmerich de Vattel in his book titled The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law some 30 years before the Constitution was written. To be clear, Vattel didn't "invent" the laws of nations. He simply gathered together and put into book form legal concepts that had developed over a period of centuries. In modern terminology, those concepts would be called "International Law." Click the following link for a discussion on Natural Law: faculty.cua.edu/pennington/canon%20law/naturallaw.htm Both the centuries old laws of nations and Vattel's book by that name were well known to the Constitution's Framers; and, those are the Framer's sources for the term, natural born citizen. The definition of natural born citizen cited by Vattel is "those born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens." See the second sentence under "§ 212. Citizens and natives;" which, is in Chapter 19 of Vattel's book, here:. http://lonang.com/library/refere...-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Over the years, the US Supreme Court has felt the need to determine the definition of natural born citizen in the process of deciding a number of cases. For some examples, see http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html#Supreme%20Court In EVERY instance, SCOTUS has cited a definition of natural born citizen that is very similarly worded as the one cited by Vattel; and, always EXACTLY the same in meaning. Just as important, the high court has never once cited any OTHER definition of that term for ANY reason. For example, in Minor v Happersett; which, is the case in which SCOTUS cited that term's definition in a way that made it THE legal definition, it was defined as "children born in a country of parents [plural] who were its citizens." See https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/ Paraphrased specific to the USA, the definition is "one born on US soil of two US citizen parents [plural]." Some other sources you may find interesting and informative can be found here... https://www.facebook.com/notes/jesse-t-mims/the-legal-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-is-one-born-on-us-soil-to-two-ameri/825320674182818 Re: McCain's presidential eligibility... The http://fam.state.gov found at the above link pertains to him. For more, see: https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/john-mccain-citizen-of-panama-at-birth/
The children you're referring to are citizens, not natural born citizens. The Constitution distinctly distinguishes between the two. The Constitution says that in order to be eligible for the Senate or House of Representatives, one is merely required to be a "citizen." But in order to be eligible to be president, one must be a "natural born citizen." If the Framers had intended for presidents to be mere citizens, there would be no need for the extra qualifier "natural born" preceding the word citizens in the presidential requirements. Furthermore, if the Constitution allowed mere citizens, rather than REQUIRING that one be a natural born citizen to be president, there would have been absolutely no reason for the following 7 attempts to add amendments to the Constitution which would have either totally eliminated the natural born requirement or changed its meaning so mere citizens COULD become president. 1. H.J.RES.59 2. H.J.RES.67 3. February 25, 2004 This Act may be cited as the `Natural Born Citizen Act'. SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'. (a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen' in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means-- (1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and (2) any person born outside the United States-- (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress... 4. H.J.RES.104 5. H.J.RES.2 6. H.J.RES.15 7. H.J.RES.42 It's duly noted that the above proposed amendments ALSO distinctly distinguish between mere citizens and natural born citizens. If McCain and other children of members of the military were already Constitutionally eligible to be president; EVEN THOUGH, they were NOT born on US soil, there would have been absolutely no reason for the following attempt to add an amendment to that effect on February 28, 2008: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act'. SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'. Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen' in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: `Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces'.
That's exactly 100% correct! I agree with your first two points there; but, I'm not understanding why you're calling him "undocumented."
I believe that when he turned 18 or 21, he was supposed to chose citizenship, US or Panamanian and renounce allegiance to the other. Don't recall the details, but the regs may have changed with the '65 Immigration and Nationality Act. Regardless, one is either natural born or not. Legislation can't change that. I believe when you “don’t” recall details … you don’t know what you are talking about. Then you should STFU and listen to someone who does. The details I “do” recall are: Now, Johnson pimp, run along like a good little doobie and perform the requited research to either confirm or dispute that information.
You're full of shit. The Jews born in Egypt were still Jews. You are naturally the same citizenship of your parents. None of them went through naturalization process. You're sounding kind of dumb.
Yet you can't or will not. They believed in the laws of nature and natures god. No further definition needed. You are naturally the same citizen ship as your parents.
hondo68: Because "Natural Born US Citizen" means more than just that. It means, born on US soil AND born of US parents. Packrat1145: That's exactly 100% correct! Barry Goldwater was born on January 2, 1909, in the Arizona Territory. The Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” Was Barry Goldwater “a natural born Citizen?”
Define "born on uS soil."
What about people who buy American dirt. What if they are born on it? There are a lot of canadians and Mexicans who buy American dirt.. Heck some of the stuff even blows over there. If they are born on it.....
Good one!!! So every US citizen couple who travels abroad when the wife is pregnant or expects to become pregnant and deliver the baby out of the country should take a pound of “good old American soil” with them and spread it under the delivery area at the time of the baby’s birth. That is just as ridiculous as some of the justifications they are making. Another thing that hondo, the pimp for Johnson, said was that the person must be “born of US parents.” With all the wild promiscuity going on in this day and age, how is it to be proven that the wife did not screw the gardener and the father of the child is an illegal alien. Just a comment to add to the ridiculousness of their positions.
A response to the thread, not a particular post. The McCain status re natural born citizen or alien born is complicated. No birth certificate has ever been publicly produced by McCain. My 2009 article explored McCain's autobiography claim of birth in the Naval Hospital at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, Canal Zone. In short, the hospital there was not built until a few years after McCain was born. At the end of the article, I have appended the aplicable laws. Congress screwed up when it wrote the applicable law, the citizenship and naturalization act of May 24, 1934. To ameud the law relative to citizenship and naturalization, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1993 of the Revised Statutes is amended to read as follows: SEC. 1903. Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization. [...] Note that the 14th Amendment applies to those born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. This was a botched attempt to cover all not so born. However, the Canal Zone was under the jurisdiction of the United States pursuant to treaty, but was still the sovereign territory of Panama. People born there were in a legal no man's land, inside the jurisdiction but outside the territory of the United States. Birth on a military base overseas is irrelevant to citizenship status. This caused the Congress to pass of August 4, 1937 to fix their mess. Relating to the citizenship of certain classes of persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States. SEC. 2. Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed b;y the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, is declared to be a citizen of the United States. Approved, August 4, 1937. If McCain were to have been born in the Canal Zone, on a military base or elsewhere in the zone, his claim to having been born a U.S. citizen is shaky at best. Surely, he would have been declared a citizen by the Act of August 4, 1937, and retroactive to his date of birth, but it is questionable, at best, that Congress could retroactively make one a natural born citizen after his having existed as an alien for some time. If McCain were to have been born just outside the Canal Zone in the American run hospital of the Panama Canal Company, the only hospital around in 1936, then McCain would have been born outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States and fall within the criteria for citizenship stated in the Act of May 24, 1934, and he would have been a natural born citizen. https://www.scribd.com/doc/317033842/John-McCain-and-His-Mythical-Birth-Certificate The Law of Nations, aka International Law, has no application to the internal domestic citizenship determinations of the United States or any other nation. It is only referred to in the Constitution relative to crimes on the high seas. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, on the power of Congress: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." American citizenship decisions are not referred to The Hague. There is no holding in Minor v. Happersett regarding U.S. citizenship. Virginia Minor's citizenship was not at issue. The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. Statement of Facts in the court below: The question is thus broadly presented as a conflict between the Constitution of the State of Missouri and that of the United States, as contemplated by the 25th section of the Judiciary act of 1789 and 5th February 1867. The portion of Minor v. Happersett which has been endlessly taken out of context to claim a dictum is a holding saying something the Court did not hold, is at 88 U.S. 167-68: And, having observed that certain doubts existed, and having established that it was not necessary to solve such doubts, the Court proceeded to not solve them. Dictum. "a statement, remark, or observation in a judicial opinion not necessary for the decision of the case. Dictum differs from the holding in that it is not binding on the courts in subsequent cases." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. At 88 U.S. 170, the Court proceeded to state the known fact, established at the court below, that Virginia Minor had been a citizen since birth. The definition of a natural born citizen in the United States is not, and never has been, "one born in a country of parents [plural] who were its citizens." U.S. citizenship has always been defined by U.S. law, not birther blather. As for: That one is by Leo Donofrio, former birther attorney. Donofrio is no longer eligible to practice law. https://njcourts.judiciary.state.nj.us/web15z/AttyPAWeb/pages/home.faces There are only two classifications of citizen, natural born and naturalized. The first is created by birth pursuant to the 14th Amendment or Federal law applicable at the moment of birth; the second takes an alien, lawfully present in the United States, and transforms that alien into a citizen pursuant to Federal law applicable at the time of naturalization.
If you're trying to confess that your real father is a Panamanian illegal alien, gardener, I believe you! That explains why you so dearly love, the Banana Republicans.
#2. To: Stoner (#1)
Sorry, can not get the image to post. Don't know what I am doing wrong.
#3. To: ConservingFreedom (#2)
"Sorry, registration has been disabled by the administrator."
#4. To: Stoner (#3)
#5. To: ConservingFreedom (#4)
#6. To: Stoner (#0)
#7. To: Stoner (#0)
Why Not Admit the Obvious: The President Won't Blame Them because He Agrees with Them
BINGO!
#8. To: ConservingFreedom (#4)
we
con
boris
America
safe
sane
great
again
#9. To: Stoner (#0)
#10. To: packrat1145 (#9)
#11. To: Stoner (#10)
#12. To: packrat1145 (#11)
when I learned John McCain was no more Constitutionally eligible to be president
#13. To: A K A Stone (#12)
#14. To: packrat1145 (#13)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
A man born to american parents is still an american.
#16. To: packrat1145 (#15)
In order to be a natural born citizen of the USA, one must be born on US soil of two American citizen parents.
#17. To: packrat1145 (#15)
#18. To: A K A Stone, packrat1145, Panamanian ISIS Republicans (#17)
The framers were smart and if they wanted what you suggest they would have said born on U.S. soil.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#19. To: hondo68 (#18)
#20. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone (#16)
packrat1145: In order to be a natural born citizen of the USA, one must be born on US soil of two American citizen parents.
#21. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#17)
(Edited)
A K A Stone: You are naturallý the kin of your parents. Hence natural born. It would be unnatural for a mexican couple to have a child in America or anywhere else and that kid to not be Mexican. You are quite naturally the same as your parents. Can't get more natural than that. The framers were smart and if they wanted what you suggest they would have said born on U.S. soil.
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.
Sponsor: Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] (introduced 6/11/2003)
See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res59:
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 9/3/2003)
See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res67:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2128:
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.
Sponsor: Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] (introduced 9/15/2004)
See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res104:
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 1/4/2005)
See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.RES.2:
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.
Sponsor: Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] (introduced 2/1/2005)
See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res15:
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.
Sponsor: Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] (introduced 4/14/2005)
See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res42:
#22. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#18)
hondo68: Because "Natural Born US Citizen" means more than just that. It means, born on US soil AND born of US parents.
McCain is a Panamanian born, naturalized by legislation, undocumented.
#23. To: packrat1145 (#22)
I'm not understanding why you're calling him "undocumented."
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#24. To: hondo68 (#23)
(Edited)
I believe that when he turned 18 or 21, he was supposed to chose citizenship, US or Panamanian and renounce allegiance to the other. Don't recall the details, but the regs may have changed with the '65 Immigration and Nationality Act.
A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents in the Panama Canal Zone before October 1, 1979, acquires U.S. citizenship at birth and “is not considered to have been born abroad.” The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate at the time of the child’s birth to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen at birth and is not considered to have been born abroad. A consular officer will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.
#25. To: packrat1145 (#21)
The children you're referring to are citizens, not natural born citizens.
#26. To: packrat1145 (#20)
The Framers wrote in language they believed the average person could understand;
#27. To: packrat1145, hondo68, A K A Stone (#22)
The Arizona Territory was a territory of the United States from 1863 until1912.
#28. To: hondo68, Packrat1145, A K A Stone (#22)
... born on US soil ...
#29. To: Gatlin (#28)
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
What about people who buy American dirt. What if they are born on it? There are a lot of canadians and Mexicans who buy American dirt.. Heck some of the stuff even blows over there. If they are born on it.....
#31. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone, hondo68, packrat1145 (#30)
AN ACT
AN ACT
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
It is admitted, by the pleadings, that the plaintiff is a native-born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, that the defendant is a Registrar, qualified and acting as such—that the plaintiff, in proper time, and in properr form, made application to him to be registered, and that the defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the reason that she is a female ;—(and that she possesses the qualifications of an elector, in all respects, except as to the matter of sex, as before stated.)
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 [168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.
#32. To: Gatlin (#30)
how is it to be proven that the wife did not screw the gardener and the father of the child is an illegal alien.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]