RESTORING AMERICA

FREEDOM RINGS 1776 is a conservative voice, defending the views of those who still believe in the constitution and opposing any and all who would lead us from our tried and true beliefs. We who still believe in the spirit of 1776 must oppose anyone who would set this nation on a course that will fundamentally transform America.
Danny Jeffrey

SHOW ME THE 'NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' LAW


Perhaps I watched the original Superman series of the fifties too much and got brainwashed by the term "Truth, justice, and the American way." but I did adopt that as a personal principle and have long lived with it, and shall undoubtedly die believing in it. Later in the ninth grade I was fortunate enough to have a wonderful civics teacher who added to that love of country. A few years later I donned the uniform of an American warrior and the deed was done. Now if is not the truth I reject it. If it is not just, I oppose it. If it is not the American way then it is not my way, and it is wrong. Unfortunately not all Americans are so inclined and they are not above the use of propaganda on fellow Americans.

Allow me if you will. to make a quantum leap from the topic of truth to the words of Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for Adolph Hitler, as I quote three of his thoughts:

  • "To attract people, to win over people to that which I have realized as being true, that is called propaganda." Americans also use propaganda, and believing it can become so deeply ingrained that it is followed with a religious fervor.
  • "Today there seems to be only one absolute thing: relativism." Goebbels was a very intelligent, albeit evil, man that knew how to mislead people with an altered interpretation of reality. He was quite at home with relativism and lies.
  • "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." This is one quote, always attributed to Goebbels that he never really said, but it fits the occasion.
I have no doubt that Joseph Goebbels would have had me shot, because when I encounter a lie I must endeavor to find the truth at all costs. I did just that in my last essay and to be perfectly honest, I did not like what I found. Like it or not, I published it anyway. I began that essay, convinced that a 'natural born citizen' was the offspring of two American citizens, therefore making Marco Rubio ineligible to run for the office of the Presidency. The idea was to prove it and the research proved my premise to be mistaken.

Mister Rubio believes in half truths, selective justice, and the Progressive way. He is unfit and undeserving of the right to hold high office, but that is for the American electorate to decide. My findings lead me to believe that he is indeed legally qualified to hold that office as a 'natural born citizen'. Needless to say my writing such an idea stepped on some toes of another with a different belief, and so was born the title of this essay. Show me the law that states unequivocally that the definition of a natural born citizen has to be the offspring of two citizens of the U.S.A..

Hussein Obama is a piece of slime, a shyster from the back alleys of Chicago and a usurper to the America Presidency. We all believe that to be true. 

One weakness of mankind is a lack of focus. Had all dissenting Americans focused on truth, justice, and the American way, there would have been a unified pursuit of one reality: Where was Obama born? If he was indeed born in Kenya, as we suspect, then he most certainly would not be eligible to be President of this nation. Had both parents been American citizens, on vacation or working in Kenya for the U.S. government at the time of his birth he would still be qualified to be President. I do not believe that anyone would challenge that. Beyond that the waters get murky.

Obama is a grave danger to this nation and should be dragged kicking and screaming from the Oval Office by a squad of Marines. Few patriots would be troubled were this to happen but the lack of focus that I mentioned sent my fellow Americans running helter skelter for a way to enact the fall of Obama. The most obvious way to attack was on Constitutional grounds. Their great mistake was they enacted the Goebbels agenda.

  • Propaganda...I, and most everyone else has read the claim that the 14th Amendment disallows a person to serve as President unless he is a 'natural born citizen', offspring of two American citizens. Admittedly I am not a Constitutional scholar and saw this stated from so many different sources that I accepted it as a fact without reservation. I made a mistake.
  • Relativism...When many want a man out of office because he was probably born in Kenya and endorse the election of a man that we are certain was born in Canada I see relativism at its finest. I firmly believe that Obama was born in Kenya and fabricated that so called birth certificate, but let's assume for the moment that he was born in Kenya and everyone knows it to be a fact. Putting the two cases side by side: Obama and Ted Cruz were both born of an American citizen mother and an alien father and in a country other than the United States. This is what Goebbels meant by relativism. We want Obama out and Cruz in, and many are willing to overlook a few mere technicalities. Is that truth, justice, or the American way?
  • Telling lies until they are believed...This fabricated nonsense of the 14th Amendment's definition of a natural born citizen is just that. Nonsense, and a lie. However that lie has been repeated so often for so long that most everyone accepts it as gospel. As this essay's title states, "Show me the law" because what they are saying that the 14th states is a blatant LIE. The following is Section One of the 14th Amendment that so many claim validates their convictions. Read it closely and try to leave behind any preconceived notions and wishful thinking...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.(1)

Notice that it speaks of two kinds of citizens: Born and naturalized. That is the only two kinds of citizens there are. You are either born here as a citizen or immigrate here and become a naturalized citizen. However, pursuing relativism, the progenitors of the 14th Amendment hoax have subdivided 'citizen' into 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen', the latter term requiring that the natural born variety have two citizen parents. Not being a relativist I must get to the truth, and to that end I seek the thoughts of the author of said amendment. The next few paragraphs are a direct quote from my previous essay, beginning and ending with ..........

For the record, John Bingham was the primary person responsible for the drafting of the 14th Amendment.
..........

The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens.[17]
..........
After the above statement a question arose, that being the status of a child born to foreign delegates serving within this nation, such as at a foreign embassy. Mister Bingham later addressed that problem. Again quoting from my previous essay:
..........
In 1866 Mister Bingham clarified his views:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[18]

And a misinterpretation of this is what gave birth to the two citizen parents concept. Note the phrasing: of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.
A man and woman immigrating to the U.S. with the intent to make a home here and become citizens owed no allegiance to any foreign nation they chose to leave behind. Foreign diplomats and their staff at embassies within this nation do owe allegiance elsewhere, and a birth among such people does not constitute the birth of an American citizen.
..........

One other point can be made about Mister Bingham's 1866 statement is something that he did not say. Immigration to this nation was a continuing reality. Irish, Scots, English, French, Germans and Swedes were a constant influx of new immigrants.  Not all babies being born were to old school American citizens. Had he meant to exclude their offspring from citizenship he would have done so along with foreign dignitaries but as he put it "Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen".

One of the great talents of relativists pointed out so well by George Orwell and practiced by Joseph Goebbels was showing people a truth and then convincing them that it meant just the opposite of what was before them. Please bear with me as I lead you through a maze of the deceptions put before America and accepted by most. Remember, words have meaning, unless of course you are a relativist intent on flip flopping the meaning of those words. Then nothing is real. Case in point: The following is excerpted from   
http://birthers.org/USC/14.html

A common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship.

Now it all starts to make sense because after an in depth reading of the 14th I could not find the proof that a there was any difference in what that amendment says about citizens and 'natural born citizens'. Now peering through the goggles of relativism I can see the proof. The man who wrote that amendment did not really mean what he wrote when he said "born or naturalized", what he really meant was "born AND naturalized'. Silly Mister Bingham. He really should have asked birthers.com what he meant, because he did not mean that a person born here was a citizen. What he really meant was that baby was 'naturalized' at birth. What a terrible oversight to write into the Constitution. Thankfully we have modern day analysts who can better understand it than those who wrote those erroneous words. Shame Shame Bingham.

This is relativism that Joseph Goebbels would drooled over. Change the meaning, redefine the words. Fool the masses! Plus...It brings a lot of traffic to your blogsite. Propaganda at its very best, and most profitable.

Let us move further down the page of birthers.com where they hail legal cases and again juxtapose the meaning of words. They have such a talent for that! Try #4  Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Birthers.com tells us that the Wong Kim Ark Case... Affirms that “natural born citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. 
They then add an excerpt from the case:
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

Note birthers.com's up front interpretation: Affirms that “natural born citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. Well that says it all. Case closed! That is unless you read a little more.

Notice that they tell you what the Supreme Court ruling means and then shows you part of the ruling. Notice also the green highlight, that Chinese citizenship did not descend from the parent and that no naturalization is involved. That baby was born a 'natural born America'. Stick around. I shall show you more. As they say; "The truth shall set you free."

Birthers.com's explanation is as far as most people get. However, if you read just a bit more you will see that the Court stated The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

Let us take their 'proof' one step further ... to the Supreme Court ruling syllabus. It says: 
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
"All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

There is that pesky "or" word again. The court should have taken the time to consult birthers.com about what the Constitution really meant before passing such a judgement.

This is a very interesting case so please stay with me a bit longer. The citizen in question was born to Chinese immigrants. Later they returned to China taking the child. He chose to return to his homeland, America, and the powers that be tried to prevent him from getting off the boat. A brief part of their case:
"Because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the State of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China." 

Think back to what I wrote earlier about the children born to foreign diplomats in our nation not being citizens and Binghams comments about the same issue.

This was part of the finding of the court:
The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. 

I can say it many times but the Supreme Court says it better; at least more more authority. Any child born in this nation is a 'natural born citizen' unless born to foreign diplomats or 'sojourners' as Mister Bingham mentioned.

Final thought: You can rest assured that Obama has the very finest Constitutional lawyers at his disposal and they have never had any concern about his father having been born in Kenya. Why? Because they know the Constitution much better than do the propagandists at birthers.com. They know that having an alien father is totally irrelevant to Obama's qualification to be President. Thus there is only one area of concern: His place of birth. To that end Obama called on less than the best of counterfeiters, who bungled the effort. The issue that Americans and our courts need to focus on is his place of birth. This 'natural born citizen' effort works to Obama's benefit at it is a meaningless distraction and buys him yet more time.

Suggested Reading...
Oh, What A Tangled Web We Weave

2 comments:

smrstrauss said...

Re: "the latter term requiring that the natural born variety have two citizen parents."

There is nothing in the Constitution about parents, and the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.


“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

smrstrauss said...

Re: "If he was indeed born in Kenya, as we suspect, "

The “born in Kenya” story is the height of the loony side of the birther movement. It is based on forgeries like that of Lucas D. Smith, and falsifications–such as the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when she actually said right on the same tape that he was born IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

Lucas D. Smith, a convicted felon, claimed that he went to Kenya and got Obama’s birth certificate at a hospital in Mombasa. But Lucas D. Smith has constantly refused to show proof that he, Smith, had ever gone to Kenya. All that he would have to do would be to show a Kenya stamp on a page of a passport, but Lucas D. Smith has refused to do that, constantly, and he has also constantly refused to say why he will not show that proof. (Moreover, his “birth certificate” uses US date formats [month/day/year] and not the day/month/year format used in Kenya.)

Laying aside for a moment the overwhelming proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, the evidence that Obama was NOT born in Kenya is also very strong. There were a grand total of 21 people who came to the USA from Kenya in 1961. Of these only seven were US citizens. And the birther myth has always been that Obama’s parents went there and returned by plane, but only one person came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 by plane and that person was, wait for it, NOT a US citizen. And Obama’s father did not go to Kenya in 1961 either (making it unlikely that his mother did, since travel late in pregnancy was rare, and even more rare without the husband going along). WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961.

And the Kenyan government investigated the “born in Kenya” story, and found that it was not true.

“Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

“It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.””

http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged …

Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed that fact. It is also confirmed by the birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, which were sent to the papers only by the DOH of Hawaii.

Obama’s birth announcement appeared in a section of the newspapers called Health Bureau Statistics. As the name indicates, and as the papers and the DOH also say, ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the paper. And the DOH only sent out those notices for children that it had issued birth certificates for, and in 1961 the DOH was not allowed to register the births of children who were not born in Hawaii.

Oh, and there is this:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiol …