Category Archives: Media Blackout

Beware of Ignorant Lawyers Posing as “Constitutional Experts”

bangheadagainstwall3The internet can be a very useful tool for researchers of any area of the US Constitution, however, it is also a source used by many useful idiots who, because they have gamed some sort of collegiate degree, they believe themselves to be the ultimate authority in textual interpretation of the US Constitution and its subsequent statutes at large. Take the website supremelaw.org for example. The website is owned by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. who’s website was created for the sole purpose of making a living by supposedly teaching constitutional law when in fact, it is nothing but a course in understanding Mr. Mitchell’s uneducated view of the US Constitution.

What lead me to Mr. Mitchell’s website was a search I was doing in regards to the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 as it pertains to the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. What Mr. Mitchell would have us believe is that the 14th Amendment changed the relationship & nature of citizenship in the 50 united States of America in that it transformed the ‘natural born citizens’ residing in any of the 50 states into ‘aliens’ for the purpose of taxation thereby alienating the creators from the creation. Mr. Mitchell would have us believe that the 14th Amendment created a whole new class of citizens, federal citizens of the District of Columbia and its territories, specifically for purposes of taxation all the while ignoring the fact that it was the representatives of the States united at that time under the US Constitution that ratified the 14th Amendment that made sure that the former slaves of any of the several states of the Union would, from thence forward, have the same legal standing as the free men of the Union. It changed nothing in regards to A1, S8, C4 “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, … “.

Also, Mr. Mitchell would have us believe that the term ‘United States’ as it appears in A1, S8, C4 of the US Constitution refers ONLY to the District of Columbia and the territories that the Federal Government has immediate “authority” over. This is an uneducated interpretation as the Congressional records of the Constitutional convention tell us that the term ‘United States’ as it appears in the US Constitution has several meanings and therefore it is the context of any given article or subsection of that article that dictates the proper meaning of the term used therein.

Therefore, it was not the authors of the 14th Amendment that changed the meaning of the term ‘United States’ as it pertains to citizenship, it is Mr. Mitchell’s ignorance of the rules of interpretation of law that enables the ignorant public at large to remain further ignorant and even more susceptible to their wrongful application of the law that leads them down the path of self inflicted harm because of their ignorance of the law, or their reliance on a person with big letters behind their names as if those big letters are a guarantee that that person actually has studied the actual statutes so to know the law such as Mr. Mitchell who admits to NOT reading the laws. From the very onset of his book, The Federal Zone, Mitchell admits that he has not gone to the actual statutes, but simply relied on treatises written by men or women of the same Constitutional ignorance as Mitchell because of course, they are supposed experts.

Well, let’s test Mr. Mitchell’s expertise.

In the book, The Federal Zone, Mitchell begins by touching upon the Supreme court case, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Mr. Mitchell’s contention is that it was not the fact that Brushaber was an investor that held stock in a federally held corporation located in the territory of Utah (Utah had not yet become a state of the union) that was the determining factor of the case. Mitchell would have us believe that it was Brushabers’ claim that he was a citizen of the State of New York and resident of the borough of Brooklyn, NY that gave rise to the reason that Brushaber lost the case. Mitchell would have us believe that by claiming to be a ‘citizen’, regardless of the place of residency, Brushaber was claiming to be a citizen of the federally owned District of Columbia because, according to Mitchell, 14th Amendment citizens are aliens of the ‘States of the Union’ and therefore, it was Brushaber’s use of the term ‘citizen’ in reference to himself that made him subject to taxation rather than his financial activity with the federal government that Brushaber engaged in that caused Brushaber to become subject to taxation under the 16th Amendment. This is legal chicanery at its worst and the cause of many fined and jailed citizens who follow such nonsense.

The whole premise of Mitchell’s website, as far as I can determine, is to create  a following so to have the constitutionally legal 16th Amendment repealed and the constitutionally created IRS abolished. It is also Mitchell’s contention that Congress never passed any legislation creating the  Department of Internal Revenue. As I stated above, Mitchell admits to not having actually read the statutes at large, therefore, how would he know that the statute of July 1, 1862 titled “An Act to provide Internal Revenue to support the Government and to pay Interest on the Public Debt” began by stating:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of super-intending the collection of internal duties, stamp duties, licenses, or taxes imposed by this act, or which may be hereafter imposed, and of assessing the same, and office is hereby created in the Treasury Department to be called the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with an annual salary of four thousand dollars, who shall be charged, and is hereby charged, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, with preparing all the instructions, regulations, directions, forms, blanks, stamps, and licenses, and distributing the same, …”

Now to recap, Mitchell believes that the Department of Internal Revenue and its taxing authority was subsequent to the passing of the 14th Amendment when in fact, the statute that became the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was created by Congress four years after the establishment of the Department of Internal Revenue and a full four years after the Internal Revenue began collecting the constitutional taxes authorized by the US Constitution. What Mitchell has done is to erroneously put the cart before the horse because Mr. Mitchell was too lazy to do his own research, wholly relying on the constitutional ignorance of others like himself, thereby, not being of the educated mind of our founding fathers, many of whom never stepped one foot in a law school, Mr. Mitchell has ignored the fact that in order for the creation to do what the creators created it do, it would need a revenue system that would give it the means by which to do that which it was created to do.

And then there is Mitchell’s utter lack of understanding of exactly what an excise (duty) tax is, a tax on activity regardless of the person’s citizenship status.

Suffice to say, I can now, without a shadow of a doubt, conclude this review of supremelaw.org and its owner Paul Andrew Mitchell, by rendering my official opinion as an educated citizen of the United States of America and resident of one of the 50 States of that Union, that Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell, regardless of the big letters he displays after his name from the empty degrees he holds, Mr. Paul Andrew Mitchell is NOT an expert on the US Constitution or the 14th & 16th Amendments to said Constitution and that no one should, for the purposes of educating themselves, entertain anything that is published at Mitchell’s website as a source of constitutional truth.

For those who are truly interested in  becoming the type of educated citizen that the founding fathers as well as the drafters of the 14th & 16th Amendments were, begin by reading,  The Fascinating Truth About The 16th Amendment followed by Bob’s Bicycles. This will give you the proper factual foundation that every truly educated citizen builds their constitutional education upon so to be able to apply the law as Congress, at the time of the adoption of the law, intended them to apply it.

Shalom

 

Pro 28:4 Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them. 5 Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it completely

America’s Demise…The Rise of the Pharisees & Their Lies!

Just caught a bit of Mark Levin’s rewind and for a supposed constitutional lawyer & one who presumes to know the law, Mark sure has a huge ignorance problem in regards to constitutional citizenship 101.

Just as Obama was not constitutionally qualified, as Rubio is not, Ted Cruz is also not a natural born citizen, he is a citizen at birth as defined by the naturalization laws granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

Summaries for the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994

Library of Congress

Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Title I – Nationality and Naturalization Title II: Technical Corrections of Immigration Laws Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994

Title I – Nationality and Naturalization

Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) to grant U.S. citizenship at birth to a person born before noon of May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States to an alien father and U.S. citizen mother who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. Excludes participants of Nazi persecutions or genocide from such provision.

Waives the physical U.S. presence requirements for a person claiming U.S. citizenship based upon descent from a person described above.

Makes such provisions retroactive.

You see folks, nature has no need of any law to determine that which is born of it naturally. And that principle is best displayed in the Preamble of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our founding fathers were wise men. One of the wisest in my opinion was James Wilson who later went to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. Wilson wrote:

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge.

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction

The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good

The foundational principle that a husband and a wife become one, not just spiritually, but also politically is the very framework by which all families are knit together in both home and community for the safety & well being of both home and community. Wilson, as well as all of our founding fathers, knew this very well. It was the rock upon which our freedom from the tyranny of the British government was laid.

Now stepping back from the legalities of all of this, laws or no laws, there is a much greater work being done here in regards to this usurpation by all political parties of the Article II presidential qualifications and I expect many will object to me pointing this fact out. A fact I myself refused to see until I simply faced the lies & the liars head on, face to face.

The root of the problem our nation faces is not political, it is biblical and why does the problem exist? It exists because of the American pulpits that have bowed down to their enemy, the Pharisees of old. The pulpits that proclaim to represent Christ yet more often than not, they take every occasion possible to give credence to Christ’s enemies of old by supporting both physically & monetarily, the religious system & its leaders that Christ rebuked.

Yes, in the not so distant past I too was blinded by this “Judeo-Christian” mythical theology. But I am blinded no more. I mean really, think about it … “Judeo” first, “Christian” last? Modern Christianity has conceded its rightful place in our nations founding and have returned to being slaves to the Pharisees of Talmudic Judaism (Mt 15, Mk 7) who do not even believe in or teach their congregations about a divine Messiah, but a human messiah born of 2 human parents who will rule the world according to their Talmud which is their most holy book that merely gives lip service to The Word of God. A subject I will delve into much more in the near future as it pertains to the destruction of our nation from within.

Therefore, I no longer have any respect for the Talmudist Mark Levin and his underlying pharisaical theological views that he uses in the continued destruction of our nations most sacred documents and in doing so, the Talmudist Levin feeds the beast that is destroying our nation from within because of the biblical ignorance of modern day Christians who no longer give respect to the teachings of Christ that have been in place before the foundation of this world was even formed.

The Word of God warned us through Paul of what He was going to do because of people & their pulpits who deny His Truth,

2Th 2:11 And for this reason Elohim sends them a working of delusion, for them to believe the falsehood, [See:Eze. 20:25, John 9:39, John 12:40, Acts 7:42, Rom. 1:24-28] 12 in order that all should be judged who did not believe the truth, but have delighted in the unrighteousness.

There was a time folks when it was deemed right in the eyes of God to teach & preach Moses (Acts 15:21-22), however, because of modern revisionist Christianity that is more apostate than it even thought to be at the time of our nation’s founding, God is making good on His Word that He spoke through Paul. The greatest delusion today is this notion that America was ever a “Christian” nation. The 11th Article of the Treaty of Tripoli dispels that myth quite easily. You see, the men who agreed to this treaty knew the importance of religious freedom and they were very well learned in the despotism of the religious laws of the theologies of the varied sects of Christendom that spanned the lands of the states of the Union. For America to be a “Christian” nation, America would have to be ruled by the laws of religion that were made by men (2Kg 17:19). Instead, the founding fathers gave us a Constitution based upon the Laws of Nature & the Creator of all Nature.

It was men who took the Laws of God and twisted them so to make religions by which to rule over the people such as those that Christ rebuked in Mark 7, the same laws of the Pharisees that are now codified in the Talmud of Judaism. Christ came to remove that religious yoke by teaching by example, the right way in which to walk in the Laws of God the Father and the 1st Law He set forth before He even spoke a word to Adam was the setting aside of the 7th day as His Holy Day. Then later, with Moses bowing before Him, He wrote the word “REMEMBER” as He began to write the 4th Commandment upon the tablet of stone with the forefinger of His Right Hand.

Christianity has all but thrown God out of its establishments by their denying week after week, the authority of God the Father that is in the right hand of the One who is the Father’s Right Hand (Ps 118:14-17). In today’s legal terms, this means that the Son carries the Power of Attorney of the Father to Act on the Father’s behalf according to the Laws of the Father. He is given no power to change the Law of the Father, but to simply teach and rule according to the Law of the Father. And this is why The Son is the same yesterday, today and forever, because God changes not and therefore, His Son changes not one thing, but simply puts things back in order as they were in the beginning. (Acts 3:21 the restoration of ALL things)

Until Christians REMEMBER who exactly is in power and whom their obedience is owed to, God the Father and not the pulpits of the religions of men, American’s Christians will remain powerless to bring about any restoration of our nation and its founding documents because they deny the entrance into their hearts of the Son who holds the Power of Attorney of the Father that gives the Son the authority to bring about that restoration.

Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to restore them. (See v. 19-20, Mt 22:40, Acts 7:38)

Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. … 32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

1Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Ecc 12:13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of all mankind.

Shalom

CPAC 2015: Where Constitutional Ignoramuses Unite in Lawlessness

I just listened to a bit of the CPAC convention that began today and Sean monkeysHannity was on the platform with dual citizen at birth (opposite of natural-born citizen) Ted Cruz and Constitutional Ignoramus Sean Hannity asked foreign citizen at birth Ted Cruz, if Cruz were elected president in 2016, what are the first things you would do. Cruz responded that first he would repeal Obamacare & second, he would abolish the IRS. Now I ask, other than changing the Constitution via another amendment that would revert us back to a system under the likes of the original Articles of Confederation that brought division rather than unification, how does Cruz propose to pay for the “INTERNAL” business of the Federal government of the United States that is constitutionally in place at this time? Shouldn’t his answer have been to educate the public and return the IRS back to its jurisdictional confines that were established in 1862 when it was first formed under the Revenue Act of 1862?

“On earth as it is in heaven: establishing jurisdiction”

The 1st order of business when establishing any law is to define the jurisdiction of the law-maker. As YHWH established His jurisdiction in the beginning, so too, our law makers must first determine whether or not the law they are intending to write and eventually pass, whether or not they have jurisdictional authority to enforce the said law. So before they can begin writing the law, they must 1st define who the law will apply to. Therefore, when one is accused of breaking the law, the 1st order of business in determining whether the law was broken or not broken is to determine if the activity of the accused falls under the jurisdiction of accuser according to the definitions within the law itself that the accuser wrote.

And therein lay the beauty of the decision of the Supreme Court and the opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, a God-fearing Constitutional lawyer, who knew & understood the definition of the words that define the jurisdictional authority of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Obamacare) as it is defined in the 16th Amendment that is 100% in compliance with the confines of the authority given to the Federal Government as is defined in Article I of the Constitution of the United States as it applies to “We the People” of these United States.

And so each year people pay undue taxes, fines and penalties, and sometimes even go to jail or prison, all because they failed to 1st establish whether or not the activity they were involved in fell under the jurisdictional authority of said law as defined within the confines of the said law they are accused of breaking. And this breaking of the law (wrongfully applying the law) that brings one under the jurisdictional authority of the said law can be as simple as signing ones name on a government document when there is no jurisdictional authority requiring them to sign the said government document in the 1st place. A document as simple as a W-4 or a 1099 form & all subsequent government documents that those 2 simple forms require the law-breaker (wrongfully applying the law) to file each year. All because one chose to trust man so to himself, remain ignorant of the law.

The 16th Amendment did not create the Federal Internal Revenue, the Internal Revenue was established by the passing of the Revenue Act of 1862. What most do not know is that the Fuller Court (highly corrupt) had overturned certain aspects of the Revenue Act, thereby creating loopholes for their capital cronies. [Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429, and 158 U.S. 601, (both 1895)] And that is where the 16th Amendment came in, to lawfully correct the corrupt opinion of the Fuller court. Well, the cronies were having a fit so they again filed another lawsuit, [Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 240 U.S. 17-18 (1916)], and this time they were not so lucky as to find themselves before another corrupt court they had bought off. The White Court unanimously voted to reverse the Pollock decision and the loopholes were closed up, thereby giving jurisdictional authority back to the Federal Internal Revenue as is originally defined in the Revenue Act of 1862. Chief Justice White wrote:

“In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely, the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises. … “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” … It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense — an authority already possessed and never questioned – or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.”

But you say, see, there it is “income taxes in a generic sense” and so that means my income too. I ask, is that what the definition of the jurisdictional authority of the Internal Revenue Code states as it is written within the IR Code (26 CFR)? I think you better go and read the definitions as they are written in the law because for the 1st 30 yrs after the 16th Amendment became law, less than 10% of all Americans who were employed filed income tax forms with the Federal Internal Revenue Service. But more importantly the Internal Revenue Service was established in 1862 and so if “income” is a generic term applied to all, then the tax that was levied to pay for the Civil War would not have been an equal apportioned tax handed out to the States as defined within the jurisdictional authority codified in the Constitution of the United States, instead they would have issued an indirect excise tax that is not confined to equal apportionment, indirect excise taxes such as those that are reported on every W-2, 1099 & K-1 forms filed with the IRS. Have you never asked yourself why it is called “Internal Revenue”? Think about it!

And so the Internal Revenue law stands today as it was established in 1862 & subsequently ratified as the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in 1913, many a time tried in the courts and from 1916 forward, neigh once was it overruled. Even as recently as the decision of the Roberts Court that was handed down. Oh how I love the law, both His and that of the United States of America where justice is done, where mercy is given, as long as one 1st establishes jurisdictional authority.

On earth as it is in heaven, first order of business, establish jurisdiction and then establish the jurisdictional authority of the source of your income because it is the jurisdiction that the source is under that causes one to come under the jurisdictional authority of the requirements of the law.

Shalom

Rathergate Part Deux: “Certifigate”

I know, I know…we’re all suppose to be putting all our energy into the budget/debt debate but when the man in charge does not have constitutional authority to even be in the game, then we continue to walk & chew gum at the same time. Thus after letting my congress critters know exactly how I feel about their capitulating when they should be standing firm, I decided to listen to what some experts had to say…

Remember Dan Rather & his little problem of putting forward a forged govt docs in his attempt to get GW Bush ousted as a presidential candidate? Forged documents that got him fired from SEE-BS.

Well, welcome to Rathergate Part Deux: “Certifigate”. Yes, the document expert, Joseph M. Newcomer, who exposed the Killian documents Dan Rather put forward as frauds and a not very good ones at that, tells us all about it and exposes the Obama BC posted on the White House website for what it is. A fraud that is worse than the ones proffered by Dan Rather regarding Bush’s TX Air National Guard records. Liberals, they never learn…

New US Doctrine Proclaims: Rinsing the Baby Down the Drain With Dirty Bath Water is Legal

If something is so precious, like say the US Constitution, then by all means necessary, don’t let it be rinsed down the drain with the filthy bath water

That’s the message we thought we had sent in the 2010 elections, but those elected to office, both state & national, seem to have already forgotten this important lesson. And now that things are heating up for the 2012 presidential race, and from what I have heard thus far from those wishing to attain to the highest elected office of this great land, I hold no hope that the lessons of the past that are so vital to our nation’s sovereign survival, will come forth with the light & the passion they so deserve. To say that US & State governments as well as their elected officials are so deeply entrenched in political correctness that the light of their founding is nearly at a full eclipse, is putting it nicely.

Entrenched in covering up for their despicable indiscretions against the US Constitution is putting it in its proper context.

What was done in 2008 by all parties on the ballots (not just the DNC or the RNC) was nothing short of putting the plug on the drain after the US Constitution had already entered the drain pipe. In that one fell historical swoop of hysteria in electing the 1st 1/2 white pResident, the precedent was forever set. From Nov 4, 2008 onward, it is now US doctrine that anyone born with immediate allegiance to any foreign entity will be allowed to lead our nation further into utter moral & economic destruction.

I am so sick & tired of all the political rhetoric I can’t stand it anymore. Especially when it comes from so-called God-fearing constitutional conservatives. Let me tell all you so-calleds something. If there was even an ounce of God-fearing blood in your veins, you would be standing with the truth rather than with obfuscations by claiming the only way to fight the pResident is by going after his policies.

HYPOCRITES!  LIARS! EVERYONE OF YOU!

And that goes for Lt Col Allen West who so freely speaks out against Islamic infiltration but refuses to immediately address the illegitimacy of the Islamic supporter & appeasers in “We the People’s” house. Not one elected official has the God-fearing Constitutional spine, including this brave war hero who went up against the system & won, to boldly & publicly proclaim & use the one Constitutional legal vice that could have kept this unpatriotic British-American-Indonesian from entering before Jan 20, 2009 or thusly removing him since.

I also believe in my God-fearing heart that this is the reason Thune backed out from running. He knows he has many God-fearing faithful constitutional conservatives who are not afraid to speak truth to power that would have made this an issue at every single stop he made in a bid for the presidency. It is also why Thune’s office still refuses to answer the last letter I sent him. They can’t because they know they will be exposed for the liars & obfuscates they are.

So to put it as plainly as one can, the only reason the pResident’s policies came to fruition is by those in state & national office abdicating their duty to their oaths of office. Therefore, the next time one of them needs, say, heart or brain surgery, by all means call in a prostate surgeon.  They shall do a right fine job according to these elected officials standards of qualifications.

AND NO! I will not now or ever retract that last statement until the all the above persons mentioned prove me wrong by standing with every jot & tittle of the US Constitution as it was passed, as it was written by those that authored each part therein! And as it IS STILL written to this day!

Matthew 5:17 ~ 20 “…one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law” (unless done so legally with the approval of 3/4 of the states; then finalized with the signature of a legally sitting president…to do so otherwise is to operate without the law as we now see happening at record speed..to do so without authority of the law is the means by which all societies have been and are destroyed, both morally & economically, and it is the unlawful aligned with the immoral that leads to the final step which is the economic destruction every time)

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/open-letter-to-all-south-dakota-national-media/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/birthright-jus-soli-citizenship-only-applied-to-state-citizenship-prior-to-march-26-1790/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/why-all-states-need-to-adopt-presidential-eligibility-laws/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/14th-amendment-birthright-citizenship-the-law-of-statelessness/

Open Letter to ALL South Dakota & National Media

Shad Olson recently had Sam Kephart on his show discussing Donald Trump and his prospects as a 2012 presidential candidate. When Sam said “the power of candor in the age of deceit“, he couldn’t have spoken more powerful words. Please bear with me while I explain a bit why Sam really hit the nail on the head.

Our country is in a full speed destructive mode because of the lack of  honor & integrity of our leaders & govt representatives, and just as important, their lack of knowledge of the US Constitution and what those Articles in it mean as well as American history.

I have spent the last 3 years doing indepth research & study of the Constitution, especially Article II qualifications, the 14th Amendment & its sister Act, the Expatriation Act. US citizenship is precious and our leaders are giving it away like penny candy. But more importantly, in a this age of deceit & George Soros, the leftist marxist socialist communists need to destroy the definition of “sovereign US citizen” so that their definition of “global, no-borders subjectship”, where the only rights we will have is what the elite are willing to give us, can fully emerge.

They nearly have common citizenship destroyed & now they are going after the White House and they thus far, with the help of the lame stream media”, may have forever set a dangerous precedent for presidential qualifications unless we pull the rudder & reverse course immediately.

“…the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety. ~ Thomas Jefferson December 9, 1805” 

Until just recently when Obama announced his 2012 campaign bid, his FTS (fight the smears) campaign website stated:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.” 

I have the webshot saved.

With that said…why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than citing the United States Constitution & the 14th Amendment? He is after all, a constitutional scholar is he not? How many people know that it is the US Govt & White House policy that dual citizenship is forbidden but especially in the Executive Branch, even for the lowliest file clerk? How many people know that dual citizenship is not law? That dual citizenship is in fact, unconstitutional. Therefore, the US State Dept can not guarantee protection to dual citizens when they are in foreign countries, especially the countries they claim to be also citizens of and this is why the US State Dept has warnings about this in several locations on their website. 

“Matthew 6:24: No man can serve to masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” 

This is the “Law of Nature & of Nature’s God” that is stated in the Declaration of Independence. A child can not be made an alien to their parents lest he be made a slave to man. They are under the tuition of the parents (parens patriae) until they reach the age of consent and choose for themselves what nation/government they will attach their allegiance to. And don’t get me started on the destruction of the family as “One Unit” that began with the marxist feminist movement. 

The US Constitution does not recognize slavery. In fact it does the opposite and refutes it when it refers to representation in Article I. The slave states were constitutionally confined to a smaller representation as those states did not recognize their salves as persons, but rather property. The only way for a state to gain full representation in the US Congress was to free the slaves and recognize them as the free & equal persons they are under the “Laws of Nature & of Nature’s God” as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

We are slaves only to God, not to man. 

In his opening stement, the US House judiciary subcommittee chairman on the US Constitution during hearings on presidential qualifications in 2000, stated for the record:

The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.”

George Washington in his farewell address stated:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter…

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…”

Foreign influence, especially emotional influence that stems from an immediate familial foreign source, in a US president, is to be avoided at all cost and thus the reason for the president to be a “natural born” citizen. Natural born means exclusive allegiance to the United States at birth, the same as it is for immigrants upon taking the oath at the time of naturalization. “Subject to the jurisdiction”, as found in the 14th Amendment, has nothing to do with soil, it has to do with political allegiance; where one holds his political rights. Where one’s permanent domicile is & where he takes part in those political rights. That is why up until the late 70’s, when the Supreme Court legislated from the bench, voting in a foreign country was grounds for immediately losing ones US citizenship.

My research is extensive & grounded with historical evidence dated from our founding era to date. It is not personal supposition as many have been posting all over the internet, especially by those with some sort of law degree. The true law & its rich history must be exposed and I believe it will be at the state levels where it gets it foothold. We owe this to our Posterity, to our fine men & women in uniform & to the preservation of our society that the founding generations shed their blood for.

I encourage you to make use of my research and help spread the word so that we may reverse course & reclaim our sovereignty, our heritage & especially the US Constitution. Our national & economic security depends on it.

God’s Grace & Peace,

Linda Melin

dlmelin@unitelsd.com

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

main starting research article as well as the most recent research articles with the best evidence:

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/birthright-jus-soli-citizenship-only-applied-to-state-citizenship-prior-to-march-26-1790/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/why-all-states-need-to-adopt-presidential-eligibility-laws/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/14th-amendment-birthright-citizenship-the-law-of-statelessness/

14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship & The Law of Statelessness

The definition of “natural born” comes from the common law of nations. Under the law of nations, all treaties and the laws of the foreign nations must be considered if a child is born on foreign soil. Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is “exclusive allegiance to the United States” at birth. According the US Government, to answer the question, is one born without the soil (jus soli) a natural born citizen, we must ask ourselves this question…If the US denied citizenship to a child born abroad, would that act of the US government leave the child stateless?

Take for example, George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US. George’s parents never changed their citizenship. They never renounced their US citizenship & took Mexican citizenship. Under the citizenship laws of Mexico at the time, George Romney was born an alien/foreigner as Mexican law did not recognize him as a citizen by the mere fact that he was born on their soil. It was “jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” (the jurisdiction to make decisions) under the law of nations that governed George Romney’s status at birth. Therefore, if the US had denied citizenship to little George, he literally would have been left stateless because the foreign nation in which he was born never claimed him as a member/citizen of their society. His “exclusive” allegiance at birth was to the United States.

This is the same for children born to 2 citizen parents in the military, no matter where they are born. Vattel, Bk1, sec 217: For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

During the hearings and testimony on S.Res. 511, the revisionists brought in 2 highly respected revisionist constitutional lawyers to obfuscate the truth by using English feudal law. Feudal law is not common law. It is the law of the Sovereign King. It is statute law, not natural law. Had McCain or any of the other spineless GOP establishment known their history, they would have refuted that resolution and stood firm on the law of their birthright. This is especially disturbing to me because of the stress it is causing our men & women in uniform who are temporarily stationed overseas. By saying that they are subject to the citizenship laws of foreign nations is ludicrous and absurd.

Since 1920 & the right of women to vote, our country’s basic foundation, the family as “One” standing under one allegiance, has been usurped by statute law. Women already had citizenship. Voting is not a fundamental right, it is a privilege. I am a woman & I am sick of the feminist movement. There are certain things in nature that are vital to the preservation of a society/nation and that is unified allegiance of all households. When a man & woman get married they become “One” in the eyes of the law and this includes allegiance to the society in which they have their main domicile. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791:

[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good

[T]he most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

Children are a consequence of marriage, therefore they become in the eyes of the law part of that “One” union.

Jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” and the effect of statelessness should children find themselves born without the soil (jus soli) of the parents is the common law of nations.

The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance” to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization. All others are aliens in the eyes of the law of the US Constitution.

Harvard Law agrees with my assessment. The Harvard & Michigan Law Reviews used by SCOTUS are copyrighted and thus I am not able to publish the pdf’s. Those with Hein-online access will be able to access the entire documents:

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

See also the official government notices published nationwide by the Buchanan Administration. These documents were the founding documents for the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later was Constitutionalized as the 14th Amendment, the 1868 Expatriation Act(also still law, it is the authority for the oath of allegiance all naturalized citizens must take) as well as the 1870 Act passed to enforce the 14th Amendment and the basis of all citizenship treaties with all foreign nations since then. Click the link for each pdf file to save a copies of them. The state legislators need these documents to enforce their new election laws pertaining to constitutional eligibility:

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

Mark R. Levin: Dual Citizenship is Citizenship by Statute, Not 14th Amendment Citizenship

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE II

Sec 5  No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Let me be clear, nearly a year ago on August 13, 2010, Mark R. Levin with all his constitutional expertise stated the dual citizenship is not 14th Amendment citizenship. Rather it is citizenship by statute. If so, the how come he is ignoring Article II qualifications and promoting Bobby Jindal for president, knowing that Jindal was born a citizen of India? Would that not make Jindal a citizen by statute, not by nature? Also, he recently has been promoting Marco Rubio. I like Marco, but do we know for a fact that his parents were naturalized citizens at the time of Marco’s birth?

You have 65 seconds, GO!

Caller: Yes, how does dual citizenship work? How can person have dual alliances for example…… let’s say we got into a war with say Israel

Mark: hahahahaha

Caller: You know what I am saying

Mark: yeah, yeah, the jews, we gotta watch out for them

Caller: No, no, it could be that….

Mark: Let me explain something to you. In terms of dual citizenship, that is done statutorily, you understand? In other words, Congress determines, uh, the nature of dual citizenship, what qualifies for dual citizenship and so forth; which is why it is so absurd to argue that the 14th Amendment by itself confers citizenship on illegal aliens

Caller: Well, that’s a good point, that’s a very good point. I understand

Mark: Well, it’s the truth, it’s not even, yeah

Caller: No, no, I understand ya, I’m not arguing with ya, I listen to you to learn

Mark: Alright my friend, thank you, you’re a good man, I think…I’m no fan of dual citizenship either, I’ll be perfectly honest with you

Yello! Yello! Could someone get Mark on the phone & ask him to explain this to us please?

Natural Birthright Citizenship: Birthright of Blood According to English Common Law

My research has finally come full circle with an absolute and irrefutable conclusion and I want to thank all the patriots whom inspired me to research “out of the box”.

As I had already reported in my Congressional “Natural Born Citizen” series, in 1987 Michael Greve of the ‘Reason Magazine’ wrote that Prof. Lawrence Tribe is

[n]otorious for urging judges to go boldly where none have gone before…[T]ribe’s pretenses are a thin cover for their effort to mobilize the Constitution for left-liberal causes

As we already know, Lawrence Tribe was Obama’s law professor at Harvard whom Obama supposedly did extensive research for. What I conclude with, is research from the Harvard Law Review archives. Research that neither Tribe or Obama hoped would become public knowledge. For if this legal information cited by the US courts did become public; it would have immediately crushed Obama’s eligibilty for the presidency. And that is why, when it came to testimony for S.Res. 511, “A Bill Proclaiming John Sidney McCain III a natural born citizen“, Tribe was called in to give obfuscation to the exact meaning and intent of Article II qualifications for the presidency.

As I have said, the key to defining who the citizens are lies within the 14th Amendment phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and more specifically, what “jurisdiction” does it pertain to? Therein lie the question which must be answered. And as I have previously reported, the US Supreme Court has stated that unless otherwise specified in the Constitutional Amendment itself or in subsequent legislation, jurisdiction cannot have conflicting consequences. It cannot have one meaning for persons born and another for persons naturalized. The subsequent legislation, the 1868 Expatriation Act, passed just days after the 14th was ratified defined what the term jurisdiction in the 14th pertained to. It is political jurisdiction, owing exclusive allegiance to the United States, the same as it had been since the revolution. But how do we know this? By researching “out of the box” that’s how.

The legal premise that the founders grounded the revolution on was the “inalienable right of expatriation” that every person is born with.

Declaration of Independence ; July 4, 1776

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Expatriation Act July 27, 1868

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Expatriation is a God-given right that no man can take from another. And while there are plenty of revolutionary era documents supporting this, for the purposes of eschewing todays leftist propagandists like Tribe, the lame stream media & the Obama camp, who see only a revisionist theory based on their interpretation of what the United States future should look like. I will keep my argument within the scope of the 14th Amendment & the 1868 Expatriation Act ,which is still on the books and which gives Congress the legal authority to continue to require that all naturalized citizens must formally swear an oath renouncing & abjuring forever any & all foreign allegiances. This will also include the official US Government documents, with current supporting legal references, that contain the meaning of language of the 14th & the Expatriation Act. These 2 laws cannot be defined exclusively, they must be defined inclusively otherwise they completely cancel each other out leaving both of them wholly unconstitutional & without authoritative legal weight for the Federal or State governments & courts to act upon.

After decades of foreign nations, but especially those under British feudal law, ignoring this right of expatriation, the Buchanan Administration put out two official releases(9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859)) which stated:

 “The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”

These official releases were used by Congress who authored the legislation & later the Courts in defining the words set forth in the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later became the 14th Amendment as well as the 1868 Expatriation Act. The US government declared once and for all that exclusive political allegiance to the United States government is what makes a citizen. A person can be born a native to the soil and yet not be a citizen because upon their birth, they did not owe exclusive allegiance to the US Government. They were considered inhabitants either here permanently or temporarily depending in status of their parents at the time of birth. Only if the parents became naturalized prior to the child turning 21, or upon the child acting on their own accord at or after the age of 21 do they become legally & officially a US citizen.

So what has all this got to do with the 14th & the Expatriation Act? Fast forward to 1922 the US Assist Solicitor General, Richard W. Flournoy, citing ATT’Y General Black.

Attorney-General Black, whose opinion of July 4, 1859, concerning the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen of Hanoverian origin who was arrested upon his return to Hanover, has become a classic on this subject. It seems worth while to quote from this notable opinion:

“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”

Under the oppressive feudal law of perpetual allegiance, subjects had to get permission from the Sovereign, the King, before traveling outside of the limits of the territory. Everywhere they traveled, their allegiance and that of their children whether born in or out of the territorial confines of the Crown, was due first and foremost to the Crown. Likewise, children born to aliens within the territorial limits of the Crown owed fealty first to the Sovereign Crown and could not leave the limits of the territory without express permission from it.

This is not, nor ever has been the rule of law in the United States since the revolution. When independence was declared, the founding fathers declared that, from that moment on, the individual is Sovereign and needs no permission from the government to travel from state to state, or country to country. The fact that passports are required is so that while traveling outside of US territory, one has an official document stating that they are a US citizen and therefore the US Government has the right,  under the law of nations, to step in to protect them legally should the need arise as it did in the Ernst case. This sovereignty was expressed in no uncertain terms within the confines of US Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…

Article IV, Section. 2.The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

Throughout the early 20th century after the WKA decision was handed down by the US Supreme Court, by a Justice whose own appointment was questionable, many changes were made to the US Code. However, one thing that has remained constant is the oath that all foreigners must take before becoming a US citizen. Since WKA relied so heavily on English feudal law for its decision, what was the real original common law of England pertaining to those who were the sovereigns of the nation? For that we go to the Michigan Law Review (50 Mich. L. Rev. 927 1951-1952) that is cited by Harvard law professors.

 The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).

In the 50’s, there was still speculation as to whether a person born in a US territory, but not yet a state, could become president. There were also surmounting concerns over the dual nationality that children born on US soil to parents, either of whom were foreigners, but not diplomats, claimed to have because of the erroneous decision sent down by the Supreme Court in the 1898 WKA case. The one constant that the US had to rely on was not that of the soil, but that of the blood & of the 1868 Expatriation Act. Had WKA removed himself from the US after that decision, the fact that he had formally renounced the allegiance to China that he had at birth, is what gave him his right to his citizenship. At the coming of age, he made a declaration as to which country he wished to attach his allegiance to before the US State Dept. issued him a passport.

These questions would once again be laid to rest by Harvard (66 Harv. L. Rev. 707 1952-1953) and their repeated reference back to the 1859 OP released by the Buchanan Administration and ATT’Y Gen Black.

For most purposes, it is not necessary to determine the method by which citizenship has been acquired. But the problem of whether a citizen is natural born or naturalized is important in such areas as denaturalization, expatriation, and qualification for certain offices such as the presidency. (For a discussion of the distinctions made in expatriation, see pp. 739-42 infra.)

When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen’s qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship. (See 5o Mich. L. REV. 926 (1952).)

Only persons who held an allegiance to a foreign nation either at birth or naturalization are subject to deportation, because that person did not owe exclusive allegiance to the United States at either time. So how did Harvard determine who could & who could not lose their citizenship? For that we go to 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1512 1959-1960.

…later there was considerable controversy whether aliens who became American citizens could effectively cut their original ties. This was a different issue from that discussed in Perez and Trop. The earlier controversy resulted in the celebrated opinion presented by Attorney General Black to President Buchanan, and the Expatriation Act of 1868,” both upholding the individual’s right of expatriation. The vigor of the American point of view had its effect upon Great Britain, where in 1869 a Royal Commission recommended the end of a system of perpetual allegiance. (9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859). Act of July, 27, I868, ch. 249, I5 Stat. 223.)

A person born with conflicting allegiances, and who has never formally renounced & abjured one of those allegiances they claim to have, will not be left stateless. The big claim that the progressive revisionists make in their court arguments today is that somehow a child born on US soil to foreigners will be left stateless. This simply is not true. The revisionists use the argument to inject emotion & fear to further their cause which is to establish global citizenship, where there are no borders between nations. In other words, they are using our republican form of government to establish a “Global Republic” under one government of the United Nations.

So folks, it isn’t the government who forms (births) the citizens, it is the people themselves who’s inalienable right of expatriation gives them the right to choose which government they will attach their allegiance to. And since children at birth or prior to the age of consent (21) are not able to do so legally, they are therefore under their parents governance as well as the governance of the government in which the parents owe allegiance to. Their nationality & allegiance is that of their parents.

Under the laws of nations from time immemorial, their nationality follows that of their fathers.

 Under the laws of nations from time immemorial, a family is a unit comprised of but one allegiance, that of the husband/father. This is necessary for the survival & preservation of all civilized societies, but especially that of a Republic. A doctrine that has been written down from time immemorial.

Sovereign birthright citizenship is the common law “Right of Blood” in which every King of England depended upon to preserve to their posterity, their right to the Sovereign throne & the right to govern the kingdom. Since the July 4, 1776  Declaration of Independence & the ratification of the US Constitution, this birthright citizenship has belonged exclusively to the children, the posterity, of United States citizens.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This right does not, nor ever has it ever belonged to the children of foreigners who by chance are born on US soil, regardless or not that the parents happen to be diplomats . At birth, their primary fealty is to the foreign government of their parents’ allegiance & that allegiance is what establishes their nationality at birth.  Therefore, as Supreme Court Justice Waite, in Minor v Happersett, as well as Justice Grey, in Elk v Wilkins concluded, there are but two paths the citizenship, either by birth or by statute. Children who are born to an alien father/mother on US soil, are citizens by statute, not by birth. Their citizenship is one of election upon renunciation of the foreign allegiance should they so choose to claim it and by this fact alone, a loss of US citizenship could never deem them stateless.

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

Copyright 2011 : This article may not be reprinted for distribution or cross-posted on the internet without the express consent of and attribution to the author.

Why “ALL STATES” Need to Adopt Presidential “Eligibility Credential” Election Laws

Let me set the stage with “Propaganda: A Primer by Mark Levin”  (1 min 8 sec)

While the rest of the lame stream media & blogoshere have been trotting out Donald Trump and his birth certificate, they have failed/purposefully glossed over the immediate Constitutional issue . . . “natural born citizen”. Now don’t get me wrong, I think it is great that Trump has elevated this issue into the lame stream alphabet media, however that media is still pulling one over you.

Rewind to last Saturday night.  Mike Huckabee formally discloses, with a rather flippant attitude, the fact that neither the DNC, GOP, the US Congress or any of the states currently require that a presidential candidate must provide proof of “natural born citizenship”. Or for that matter, any citizenship at all. 

The only aspect of a presidential candidate’s life they are required to disclose is their financial history. WHAT? FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE? WHERE IS THAT REQUIREMENT IN ARTICLE II, SEC I OF THE CONSTITUTION?

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

Arizona has the best legislation thus far  for determing the citizenship of all candidates. It requires everything needed for the AZ SOS to determine the eligibility of the candidate. It also contains protection for each & every registered voting AZ citizen to challenge a candidates eligibility within a reasonable period of time. The pertinent points are as follows:

16-507.01.  Presidential candidates; affidavit of qualifications; enforcement

B.  The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:

1.  A certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the candidate’s mother and father, including information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

D.  A member of the house of representatives, a member of the senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section.”

Today, Leo Donofrio published his latest research. In that research is reference to a 1968 US Supreme Court 14th Amendment case that clarifies what authority the states have in regards to interpreting the US Constitution and passing laws to ensure that the US Constitution is being upheld. The specific part of Justice Black’s concurring opinion of Justice White’s deciding opinion states:

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)

I have read the opinions and it is very clear that the states do have constitutional authority to interpret the term “natural born” as it was defined by Bingham & Trumbull who were the authors who submitted the amendment in their respective chambers of Congress. Bingham in the House & Trumbull in the Senate. According to the US Constitution, it is the states who are the sole protectors of the ballot. Therefore, any laws that are in compliance with the US Constitution are themselves constitutional. Including laws governing eligibility credentials.

How sad is it, that today we live in such a morally corrupt era, one can not trust that any given candidate is going to have the integrity & honor of former generations. The kind of integrity & honor that this great nation was built upon. But not only the candidates, we can not even trust our own state elected officials to do their job to ensure the integrity of our ballots.

click on photo for a larger view

I have already reported how former SOS Chris Nelson accepted & certified the nomination of Obama & Biden without any shred of evidence they were even eligible. Neither the State or National DNC, in which Nelson relied upon by faith not fact, certified that the persons they nominated were eligible under the provisions of Article II, Sec I of the United States Constitution. However in 2000 & in 2004, the DNC certification of nomination did contain the required language.

2000/2004/2008 HI Democratic Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates (funny business going on in Hawaii)

WHY THE CHANGE? WHY THE REMOVAL OF THE QUALIFICATION LANGUAGE? WHY THE SAME LANGUAGE FOR ALL 50 STATES IN 2000 & 2004, BUT NOT IN 2008?

Is this the new kind of integrity level for state elected officials, both public & party?

 2012 is going to be upon us very soon. What are you going to do to protect your state’s ballot from ineligible candidates? In 2008  Roger Calero, a green card holding alien from Nicaragua  and member of the Socialist Workers Party (communist party), was on the Presidential ballots in 5 states where he received 7,209 votes. He originally was on the ballot in 12, however was removed from 7 and replaced by another SWP member James Harris who received 2,424 votes. The states that allowed Calero, a Nicaraguan National, to remain on the ballot despite complaints to the Secretary of State in those states prior to the election were: CT, DE, VT, NJ, NY & Minnesota. 

2008 Governor of Minnesota & 2012 presidential hopeful, Tim Pawlenty, thinks presidential qualifications are a “DISTRACTION”.  And he also thinks that already debunked CNN reports are the almighty gospel truth:

So, just how reliable is Pawlenty’s CNN?

UPI NEWS: CNN Chief: Obama birth story ‘dead’; Published: July 24, 2009 @ 8:02 PM

NEW YORK, July 24 (UPI) — CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” the controversy over President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a “dead story.”

Klein wrote in an e-mail to staffers Thursday that CNN researchers had determined Hawaiian officials discarded paper birth documents in 2001. Thus, he said, Obama’s long-form birth certificate no longer exists, and a shorter certificate that is public is the official record. 

Umm, I thought I just heard Pawlenty say that he heard on CNN that they had actually saw the original long form document? Let me check? Yep, he sure did. Now since Klein wrote his staff in a ‘super secret’ e-mail that the original long form had been destroyed in 2001(how convenient), how could they have actually seen it? Does Jon Klein & the CNN research staff have some ‘futuristic-super-dooper’ telepathy that allows them to see documents that were supposedly destroyed 10 years ago?

The truth is, Hawaii still maintains all the archived documents from 1961. If Obama’s original long form exists, it would take but a 5 minute call to have it released. The truth is, per order from Klein, the CNN staff of “propagandists” have been lying to the American public since the eligibility questions all began in 2007. But it’s not just CNN having all their fun at our expense, NPR has been at it for years now too. I ask you, is this how our tax dollars are suppose to work? NPR”S astonishing admission comes at 1:38 into the video:

 
FYI to NPR: It was “Hillary” supporters who began the investigations into Obama’s birth back in 2007, not conservative commentators & their followers
 
It is now 2011 and Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkah-Obama has yet to prove his eligibility because Secretaries of State across the nation failed to do their job which is to protect the integrity of our ballots.
 
Stop and ask yourself one question: “Are you willing to risk going into 2012 relying purely on political blind faith in an age where each & every day politicians, as well as failing alphabet media “propagandists” prove how morally bankrupt they are?”