1) Fogbow – Here is more fodder for your insulting commentary. You attack my character and curriculum vitae but cannot touch my citation of history and law. Hmmm. I admit, I failed to enter law school; that was due to succumbing to Guillain-Barre’, which 8 years later I am still recovering from. What is your excuse?
2) On a recent radio broadcast, attorney Mark Levin lambasted so-called ‘birthers’ in his analysis of why Ted Cruz was eligible to the presidency. The broadcast was particularly disturbing because of the tone of voice Levin took, and his acquittal of the subject admitting no discussion or debate, “Case Closed,” so to speak.
The following is my formal response to conservative pundit and activist, Mark Levin:
Re: Mark Levin’s mistaken citation of the 1940 Aliens and Nationality Act
Thomas Jefferson advised reading the constitution as originally constructed. Therefore, Mr. Levin’s reliance on the 1940 Act was fatally flawed; as one must go back to nationality law as the framers knew it.
There were two controlling statutes at the time of the writing of Article II, i.e., jurisdiction over a child born of a British father on U.S. soil. According to both the 1772 British Nationality Act and the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790, et seq 1855, if Obama was born in the United States in the time of the framers, he would not be a U.S. citizen, let alone a natural born one.
There was no conflict between the two laws; Obama would be a British subject, just as he admitted in his biographies.
Place of birth citizenship has roots in an obscure 1608 common law case, but had no place in law governing who was a U.S. citizen at birth, let alone a natural born citizen. There is only one Supreme Court case providing insight into natural born citizenship as judicial notice, Minor vs. Happersett.
Therefore, Obama, regardless of the marital status of his U.S. citizen mother, required a U.S. citizen father to be a natural born citizen.
True, the abandonment of the father triggered provisions in modern nationality law making Obama a ‘citizen at birth,’ however; the maiden nationality of the wife or mother had no contribution to the nationality of the child until the 1920s and 1930s.
The Cause of Our National Cognitive Dissonance
During one of Mr. Levin’s radio shows, he disagreed that congress has plenary power over naturalization law. Yet, that is what Art I, Sec 8 assigns.
Courts have assumed, unconstitutionally, jurisdiction over naturalization cases. The most tragic was Wong Kim Ark in which the 1898 court ignored 108-years of existing nationality law and wrote new law, in direct conflict with existing law and a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Wong Kim Ark created, by legislation from the bench, a new, unstatutory standard of ‘born in the United States’ citizenship, regardless of the nationality, alienage, or immigration status of the parents. It ignored the legislative history of the 14th Amendment and its preamble more accurately defining the ‘under the jurisdiction’ clause as “born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,’ e.g., freed negro slaves had no nationality. Their children had no nationality through either jus solis or sanquinis. (See, the 1866 Civil Rights Act.)
Another case was Schneiderman (1944) in which the court ignored a challenge to a communist activist’s naturalization that was in direct violation of 8 U.S.C. 1424. The court continued asserting its jurisdiction over naturalization and nationality law through ‘cases and controversies,’ electing to ignore the congress. This continues today in such cases as Plyler vs Doe which ignored Texas law.
How to Stop Obama
Just before the release of Dr. Jerome Corsi’s book, ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate,’ whitehouse.gov published a forged PDF birth certificate. That the document was altered, in itself, was a violation of federal law. The evidence has been made public by law enforcement investigators. As a photographer, my Adobe software instantly revealed ‘histories’ of manipulation of the PDF, carelessly left in the file by the White House. A mere ‘flattening’ of the image would have erased the art histories of manipulation.
Nevertheless, the originalist perception of ‘natural born citizen’ was not merely ‘born on U.S. soil.’ Records from that period reveal the framers discriminating between Alexander Hamilton’s ‘born a citizen’ versus John Jay’s term of art, ‘natural born citizen’ as used in Article II.
I have this debated with U.S. congressmen, and my conclusion is that because they are trained as lawyers, they kowtow to judicial precedent over legislative history. The ‘birther’ issue is powerful, nonetheless. It was the way to stop Obama in the first place, and it has the added benefit of repairing our broken immigration system. All congress has to do is revise 8 U.S.C. 1401 with the legislative history of the 14th Amendment and Obama’s presidency is erased, and our borders re-established.
 “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
 See ‘The Case of Mr. Smith,’ in which Madison prevailed on the principle of place of birth, but Dr. Ramsey’s treatise on citizenship at birth was the basis for the 1790 First Uniform Naturalization Act. 22 May 1789, Madison’s Papers 12:179–82
 “This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
While the Paraleaglenm blog is mostly legal research on current events (Nationality Law viz. Obama’s citizenship, George Zimmerman, Islam, Human Rights) I also have another blog, ‘Taxi-Journals.’
This is to announce a new website, www.taxiabq.com, or ‘Call-A-Cab.’ With Call-A-Cab you can easily locate taxis near your location and call or text them directly.
There is also visitor information for transportation, maps, restaurant reviews, and points-of-interest.
Please visit Call-A-Cab next time you are in Albuquerque, NM.
Thank you, Leonard A. Daneman
There are only two political conditions in which the national allegiance of a father has no bearing on the allegiance or citizenship of the child at birth:
- Feudal Monarchy
- Slaveholder’s property rights over the issue of his slaves
I want you to think about this as you read further, because the condition of property and subjection is clearly apparent in the above. One would think rights of the father predominate in free societies, especially a constitutional republic in which the government is crafted to be ‘subject’ to the citizens, not the other way around.
As I’ve posted previously, the ratio of illegal to legal immigrants is approximately 10-to-1. For some reason, lawless behavior is the status quo and the result is a broken INS.
Therefore, the so-called Immigration Reform Act is not so much reform but utter ‘liberalization,’ including sections hidden within its one-thousand pages pledging millions in ’pork’ to activist organizations such as La Raza. Indeed, the cowardice of our congress to control the borders and deport illegal aliens is the cause for ‘liberalization,’ i.e., reform, which in reality is the abrogation of existing law to avoid its constitutional obligations.
Here is an interesting quote from an excellent Wikipedia article, cited by the Boston Bar in their article on Jus Soli (‘right of soil’). http://www.bostonbar.org/sections/international-law/news-archive/2011/11/22/jus-soli
In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S.649 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” restriction applied only to two additional categories: children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory. The Court also rejected the government’s attempt to limit Section 1 of the 14th Amendment by arguing it was intended solely to allow former slaves and their descendants to become citizens.
Actually, the latter part of the quote rejecting ‘the government’s attempt to limit’ is the key to understanding our current immigration crisis. The ‘government’ this article refers to was the U.S. Attorney in his brief [http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA] before the Wong Kim Ark. Unfortunately, only two out of nine justices of that court, including the Chief Justice, dissented, and vigorously. (Search ‘Chief Justice Fuller Wong Kim Ark Dissent’)
Indeed, the law as it stood from our nation’s beginnings, from the first Naturalization Act to its last intact revision in 1855 required a U.S. citizen Father for a child, as a minor or at birth, to be a U.S. citizen. There was no ‘right’ of soil, i.e., jus soli.
Therefore, the ’government’ in Wong Kim Ark was correct; the 7:2 SCOTUS majority was wrong. However, many congressmen and jurists are stuck with the idea that Calvin’s Case (1608) is a common law principle adopted by the states, which just isn’t true! In fact, the English law most valuable as controlling law is the 1772 British Nationality Act, which is jus sanguinis, not jus soli.
Indeed, the 14th Amendment, a summary of the Reconstruction Acts after the Civil War, specifically the 1866 Civil Rights Act, was to protect the rights of slaves, and to remove their ‘stateless’ condition.
In fact, that stateless condition as property resulted in no nationality passed on to their children, revealing that jus sanguinis (blood of the father) was the law of the land (pun intended) and jus soli had to be conjured up, resurrected so to speak, from Gothic laws from two centuries previous, from a case called Calvin’s Case (1608). How awkward and inappropriate to cite ancient law, and foreign law too.
Some jurists say that jus soli is part of our common law tradition, inherited from English common law. Two things bely that judicial notice: 1) The 1772 British Nationality Act invoked jus sanguinis as its primary principle toward the recognition of natural born subjects, and 2) English common law was, in our earliest case law, denied stare decisis status, unless that cited law was specifically approved in the state’s highest court. [citations omitted]
As you may see now, the ‘birthright’ soil citizenship conjured up by the Wong Kim Ark majority is what created our out of control immigration problem, and must be ended. The Boston Bar suggests that Wong Kim Ark, even if in error, has been on the books so long only a constitutional amendment can change it. However, Art 1, Sec 8 gives congress plenary power over Naturalization law, and it can correct the Ark court’s misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment’s ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ as being derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s similar preamble, ‘born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.’
Of course, activists will take that revision/addition/clarification to 8 USC 1401 to the Supreme Court, but I feel the legislature would prevail.
I am a legal analyst who studied this topic almost exclusively over the course of three years. The law discussed below was debated heatedly on-line and discussed at length with two congressmen, Thaddeus McCotter (MI) and Michael Burgess (TX). As a paralegal I’ve done litigation and critical research for a few attorneys, as well as bestselling author Jerome Corsi.
So, prior to exposing you to my research, let me acknowledge that most Americans are biased cognitively that being born on U.S. soil makes any child a citizen, with a few traditional exceptions. I will prove that this is a misconception created by a flawed Supreme Court case in 1898, Wong Kim Ark.
From the first common law cases, British law was denied as having precedential value unless the high court of the state recognized that law. There are numerous court holdings to this effect, however I will only cite from a January 11, 1800 notice from the Virginia General Assembly to its Senators:
“Deeply impressed with these opinions, the general assembly of Virginia instruct the senators, and request the representatives from this State, in Congress, to use their best efforts — To oppose the passing of any law, founded on, or recognizing the, principle lately advanced, “that the common law of England is in force under the government of the United States, excepting from such opposition such particular parts of the common law as may have a sanction from the Constitution, so far as they are necessarily comprehended in the technical phrases which express the powers delegated to the government; …. and excepting, also, such other parts thereof as may be adopted by Congress as necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers expressly delegated.” Tucker’s Blackstone, Appendix, page 438
I will add more citations showing the topic was one of opinion, but the debate over the power of foreign law influencing Supreme Court decisions is also a modern one, a recent justice explaining that foreign law may not be ‘followed, but is instructive nonetheless.’
Pa. 1897. The omission of a statute from the list of English statutes reported by the judges of the Supreme Court as in force in Pennsylvania, 3 Binn. 595, raises a strong presumption that such statute is not in force there. Gardner v. Keihl, 37 A. 829, 182 Pa. 194.
The above holding insists that because the English statute was not included in a ‘list of statutes’ reported, i.e., codified/approved by the Supreme Court, it had no power of stare decisis.
Pa. 1818. The construction of English statutes before the revolution will be given great weight in construing Pennsylvania statutes in pari material. Seidenbender v. Charles, 4 S. & R. 151, 8 Am.Dec. 682.
Again, those English statutes were given weight and were persuasive, but only in analog in construing existing Pennsylvania statutes.
The statutes passed in England before the emigration of our ancestors, which are in amendment of the law, and applicable to our situation, constitute a part of our common law. Pa. 1782. Morris’ Lessee v. Vanderen, 1 Dall. 64, 1 L.Ed. 38. O. & T. 1783. Republica v. Mesca, 1 U.S. 73, 1 Dall. 73. 1 L.Ed. 42.
This final citation is from 1782, prior to the first ratification of the constitution.
While British law is what lawyers studied, American law being in its infancy, the creation of precedent in cases and controversies not subject entirely to police or statutory enforcement was, obviously, the role of the courts. That is common law by definition.
However, when error in the courts, e.g., considering Calvin’s Case (1608) law is absurd. Yet, some jurists were so Anglo-centric that such was the case:
The opinion of the most celebrated jurist of our country, is, expressly in favour of my position. Judge Tucker, in his notes on Blackstone, not only considers the rule in Calvin’s case to be law, but applies it to the antenati Americans, who he says may hold lands in both countries McIlvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 6 US 280, 311 (1804)
2010 Code of Laws of South Carolina:
SECTION 14-1-50. Common law of England shall continue in effect. [SC ST SEC 14-1-50] All, and every part, of the common law of England, where it is not altered by the Code or inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of this State, is hereby continued in full force and effect in the same manner as before the adoption of this section.
How about Virginia?
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly. Code 1919, §2, §1-10; 2005, c.839
§ 1-201. Acts of Parliament. The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill Of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly. Code 1919, §3, §1-11; 2005, c.839
Note that the British law cited is respected, but cannot be in conflict with state statute.
This is the core of the debate over Natural Born Citizen viz. Jus Sanguinis vs. Jus Soli. Jus Sanguinis is statutory from 1790 to 1855, changed only by Wong Kim Ark in 1898. However, the constitution gave congress plenary power over naturalization law, not the judiciary. The judiciary cannot create, only enforce naturalization law. Indeed, Wong Kim Ark in even mentioning Calvin’s Case and feudal English common law (indeed, British statute was to the contrary) imposes the conflict warned against in the state codes I cited supra.
Wong Kim Ark was not only an error in its reasoning, but in direct violation of existing statute and constitutional law.
Why is this topic important?
The failure of the Wong Kim Ark court started a chain of events creating our serious immigration problems, the violation of our southern border, and loss of sovereignty in several Southwestern states, especially in their border regions. (Cf. Arizona’s HB 1070.)
Indeed, the clamor for Comprehensive Immigration Reform by McCain/Kennedy (supported by President Bush) cost the Republicans congress in 2006 which lead to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a non-immigrant alien who was a Muslim and a radical Marxist. In fact, this is not only Obama’s heritage, history will show it to be his legacy as well.
If the Republicans do not recognize this issue as vital and overcome their own cognitive dissonance and bias, comprehensive reform (i.e., abandoning existing laws because of the lack of will to enforce them) will be the death knell not just of the Republican Party, but our Constitutional Republic. How? If a nation allows massive influx of aliens who do not fully assimilate, it creates schism and chaos. Elections and the Welfare State will overwhelm the will of traditional citizens. In fact, the granting of drivers licenses in New Mexico is of such a number that they comprise 10% of the electorate. While they are technically not allowed to vote, nobody stops them.
While biblical prophesy is a sensitive subject, the Dream of Nebuchadnezzar interpreted by Daniel, continued in the Revelation of John, described a series of World Powers starting with Egypt and ending with Rome in Daniel, and a final World Power described by the angel to John in direct reference to the ‘feet of clay’ of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of a statue made of many materials.
The ‘feet of clay’ was explained as the final World Power made of potter’s clay and iron, with the appearance initially of strength, but in the end an ineffective foundation. The iron parts represented ‘princes’ from all the nations who comprised the final nation’s citizenry, i.e., immigrants. In fact, the Chinese to this day call Chinese U.S. citizens ‘princes.’
Why I started studying the Aliens and Nationality Act
Starting with the 2008 Phil Berg lawsuit challenging Obama’s citizenship I began a reading of all things related to nationality law, i.e., naturalization, aliens, and nationality.
Phil Berg did not file a frivolous suit, but he did make one error in fact and the law which resulted in a false conclusion: he didn’t realize that because Obama, Sr. was a Muslim polygamist, already married in Kenya, that the marriage to Dunham was void ab initio, therefore Obama, Jr. was a ‘bastard’ (note: the terms of art bastard or illegitimate are not used in modern law). Berg posited in court that Obama was not a U.S. citizen; I pointed out to Berg (much to his chagrin) that statutes provided conferring of citizenship through the mother.
Sstarting with the 1922 Cable Act (Assoc. Justice Ginsberg is quoted noting these statutory provisions for abandoned or unmarried wives married to aliens being from the 1930’s) laws were created to give American women who married aliens the right to confer their ‘maiden’ citizenship to children if abandoned by the alien husband.
The $64,000 Question
Therefore, was Obama a citizen at birth (admitted in his own autobiography a dual national at birth) because of these statutory provisions, or being born in Hawaii?
Granted, being born on U.S. soil was a condition of the statute, but so were Dunham’s age and years of U.S. residency post age fourteen. Conversely, if the father was a U.S. citizen those provisions would not be necessary for citizenship at birth determination. That is a clue how vital the father’s nationality is in determining citizenship.
Place of Birth, or the Father’s Nationality?
The law as interpreted and adjudicated now puts an emphasis on Place of Birth. However, this is from an error in a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision in Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Briefly, Ark was born in the United States to Chinese nationals who were barred from citizenship by the Burlingame Treaty and the Chinese Exclusionary Act. Ark’s parents had no intention to become citizens. In fact, they left the United States to live out the remainder of their lives in China. Their son traveled to China too, but one time on his return he had reached the age of majority and was denied re-entry.
The majority opinion in Ark was written by Assoc. Justice Gray. It was flawed for two major reasons: 1) The court had no jurisdiction over legislated act unless the act was unconstitutional; and, 2) The court did have jurisdiction over Treaty, but did not have the courage to break it. The court, however, did have the courage to impose its power unlawfully over congress’ Article 1, Sec 8 plenary power over Naturalization Law.
The First One Hundred Years of U.S. Nationality and Naturalization Law
From the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 through its revisions through 1855, the nationality of the father was the sole determination of a child’s nationality.
However, this would require Wong Kim Ark to apply for his own citizenship, but that was barred by both the Burlingame Treaty and the Chinese Exclusionary Act. So, the court relied on a feudal law, a British law even Blackstone called ‘Gothic,’ and ruled that because the Ark family had legal domicile in the United States, their son was a citizen because he was born on U.S. soil. In other words, the court claimed the U.S. had sole ‘jurisdiction’ over Ark, not the nationality of the father. This raised the principle of ‘jus soli’ (soil) over ‘jus sanguinis’ (blood).
This ruling was even a fallacious application of the ancient principle of king’s rights of dominion and the jus soli, because even in feudal times the alien with domicile, called a ‘habitant, ‘sojourner,’ or ‘denizen’ had a right to declare his allegiance to his native country and deny the king the birth allegiance of his son.
In addition, it was a standard practice in well-established and recorded U.S. law, from the very beginnings of our judicial system, that British common law had no precedent value unless the high courts of the states specifically codified them. Indeed, Chief Justice Taft in the Weedin vs Chin Bow case, 274 US 657 (1927) observed:
The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, — that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute,..
Please note that the truth was just the opposite; U.S. statute for the first one-hundred years of our Constitutional Republic relied solely on jus sanguinis! His reasoning was not based on fact, or law. It was a massive assumption in direct violation of existing law, which then had to be revised as Title 3, 8 U.S.C. 1401 after the fact!
The 1790 First Naturalization Act and the 1722 British Nationality Act
Further proof the judges were way off base in both Ark and Bow are in the British and U.S. statutes determining citizenship from the very beginnings of our nation and the first congress. In the 1790 Act et seq, a minor child was only a U.S. citizen upon naturalization of the alien father. Conversely, a child born on U.S. soil to a British subject was a natural born British subject.
That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose Fathers were or shall be, . . . intitled to all the Rights and Privileges of natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom. 1772 British Nationality Act
In other words, in the eyes and understanding and statute, an Obama born on U.S. soil, even to an unmarried or married U.S. citizen mother, would be the nationality of the father. Indeed, there was no such concept as dual nationality until modern liberal interpretations of the law, and various provisions of treaty.
Therefore, not only would not see Obama, Jr. as a U.S. citizen, but certainly not an Article II ‘natural born’ citizen, required if he was to run for president.
The 14th Amendment
The 1866 Civil Rights Act was one of the post-Civil War reconstruction acts, guaranteeing citizenship to children of freed slaves. Its preamble defined black children of slaves to be citizens, thusly: ‘children born in the United States to fathers not subject to any foreign power.’
Why? Because as property (re: the Dredd Scott decision) slaves had no nationality and therefore their children were stateless, thus proving the historic primacy of the jus sanguinis principle. Following that logic, if jus soli was always the principle of citizenship at birth, then the 14th Amendment and its precursor act would not have been necessary.
In order to prevent Southern states from revising this Act in future congresses, the 14th Amendment was immediately proposed and passed in 1869, its preamble reading, ‘children born in the United State and under the jurisdiction thereof.’ The debate over the 14th Amendment concentrates on the meaning of ‘jurisdiction,’ however it is nationality jurisdiction (as opposed to local jurisdiction), proven by the precursor preamble in the 1866 Act.
The 1855 Act was revised to reflect the 14th Amendment, following the preamble which you can read in Title 3, 8 U.S.C. 1401.
Does the Law as it now stands make Obama a ‘natural born citizen’?
While the law, as misinterpreted in Ark, makes children of aliens legally domiciled, or now even if not legal (a liberal corruption of Ark itself), citizens at birth, ignoring the national jurisdiction over the father, i.e., native allegiance, scholars agree that Ark did not revise Article II’s natural born citizen.
Some judges conflate ‘citizen at birth’ with ‘natural born citizen,’ reasoning there are only two types of citizens, born or naturalized, but they are in error. “There are only two types of citizens: those who are native born and those who are naturalized.” Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States 45 F.Supp. 61,66 (D. MD 1942)
A child born of alien parents on U.S. soil, even if the mother is a citizen, is a citizen at birth by force of statute, i.e., naturalization law, that statute artificially removing foreign jurisdiction through ‘de-alienage.’ A natural born citizen requires a U.S. citizen father, as that was the law from 1790 to 1855; a misinterpretation of statute by the courts cannot ‘revise’ Article II of the U.S. Constitution, only congress can amend or revise the constitution.
Two Vital statutes from the Aliens and Nationality Act
8 U.S.C. 1424 — denies issuing of visas to anarchists and Marxists. Those politically or religiously opposed to our constitution are ineligible not only for citizenship, but entry and temporary residency in the United States. This was violated by the Schneiderman case, Schneiderman vs. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943), forcing the Secretary State to accept an avowed communist activist’s entry into the United States and his recently acquired citizenship.
If one studies the Koran and Hadiths, and 1300 years of Muslim history, this bar on visas should also apply to all of the Muslim faith (Cf. Obama’s father).
8 U.S.C. 1135 – bars allocation of visas in times of high unemployment.
Obviously, these statutes are not being enforced. Indeed, the proposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act must address these two issues, or a conflict of law will exist.
Before you dismiss the above legal position, I suggest you access Chief Justice Fuller’s Dissent in the Wong Kim Ark case. It is cogent and brilliantly written. The Appellant’s Brief in Ark is also available on-line.
The United States has allowed its borders to be violated. Indeed, the Immigration Service expends 30X the effort in dealing with illegal aliens than its true purpose of processing desirable legal aliens.
Furthermore, a misinterpretation of law and multiple violations of jurisprudence created an unconstitutional holding in Wong Kim Ark, a holding that has lead to a complete and radical revision of one-hundred years of statutes controlling immigration and naturalization.
That resulted in the election of an ineligible president, the son not only of an alien father, but a father who was an ideological enemy of the United States viz. his both Muslim religion and as an avowed, radical Marxist.
Finally, if the Republicans co-operate (are bamboozled) in this immigration reform nonsense instead of first ordering control of our Southern border, the party of Lincoln and our constitutional republic will be over. The tyranny, if not fascism, of the current administration will become a permanent fixture in the American politic.
Important links to documents referenced supra:
After fighting Allstate for four years, I wrote a small ‘law review’ memorandum (3000-words plus citations of news and case law) on why Health Insurance premiums doubled. It was posted March 5, 2009 on WordPress.
The first comment was posted by a ‘sound of reason’ on September 9, 2009. It is worth reading as it suggests the writer had inside information that Obamacare would make my legal analysis irrelevant, because private health insurance companies would be put out of business, and I quote:
“this is the most ridiculous xxxx i’ve ever read. an hmo is better protection than an attorney? it is obvious you’ve never dealt with an hmo – or an attorney! hmo’s will only represent their own best interests; based on how they screw their own customers just to increase their own profits, it is beyond comprehension how anyone would envision hmos protecting their customers against liability companies.”
Now, how did ‘sound of reason’ know ‘hmos’ were going to ‘soon be out of business’?
I followed the comment IP address trail back to an e-mail address, which was ‘email@example.com.’ Now, ‘fishy’ created the whitehouse.gov site for people to report anti-Obama blogs on the Internet. Negative publicity forced it to be taken down, as it was described by some as an ‘enemies list.’
Further research revealed ‘fishy’ was, indeed, a major White House operative (gaining notoriety because of his effective use of the Internet) . . . his name is Macon Phillips.
Note the posting date! Prior to forced passage of an unread 2700-page bill in congress the following year.
Therefore, the Democrats forcing (w/o proper reconciliation) to a vote without the 2700-word bill being read was an TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE between doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and patients.
sound of reason
Look how ‘fishy’ wants to control profits. Dummy. State PRCs already control insurance rates based on profit:loss.
Submitted on 2009/09/09 at 12:08 am
this is the most ridiculous xxxx i’ve ever read. an hmo is better protection than an attorney? it is obvious you’ve never dealt with an hmo – or an attorney! hmo’s will only represent their own best interests; based on how they screw their own customers just to increase their own profits, it is beyond comprehension how anyone would envision hmos protecting their customers against liability companies.
if you want to reduce health insurance costs, link the amount of profit that a hmo or insurance company can make (a ceiling, if you will) to the satisfaction rate of its insured – the higher the satisfaction rate, the more % the hmo can have in profit. if the insurance company tries to screw its customers by giving bad service, then their satisfaction rate will go down and their % of max profit will likewise go down. this will reward hmos and insurance companies by doing right by their own customers – which is how it should work regardless.
the author of this article is so far up the insurance company and hmo’s xxxx that he’s coming out their nose. the easiest way to correct the author’s errors is to simply tell the reader that we should do the exact OPPOSITE of what is written here. oh well – if obama gets his way, this article will be moot soon enough, since hmos and insurance companies are going to soon be out of business.
sound of reason
Up-date Jan 8, 2013 — There was the story of the disgraced Ohio Dem politician, bragging about teaching people how to defraud the vote through gas bills and fake ID. Here is the latest — http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
Jerome Corsi’s upcoming book will describe vote fraud in the 2012 election. My theory, and ‘napkin/post-it’ calculations showed that by picking key districts, powerful poll officials, especially in Ohio (where Obama’s 2008 election organization never shut its doors) could have undermined the Romney vote and vote count, changing the election.
Up-date Nov 27: Two articles that are a must read. http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/fbi-asked-to-probe-obama-vote-changing-machines/ and http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/the-big-list-of-vote-fraud-reports/
Up-date Nov 16, 2012: Salon.com Nov. 5, 2012. http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/ohio_republicans_sneak_risky_software_onto_voting_machines/
This article concludes that even ‘de minimus’ (minute) changes to the tabulation software can affect the entire system. Who benefitted? Was it used to control the outcome of the critical Ohio vote? See the Boxer/Tubb Jones Title 3 Sec 15 challenge to the 2000 Ohio tabulation at the end of Section II.
CONSPIRACY THEORY? YES.
BUT IF TRUE, FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS ARE OVER. YOUR VOTE, YOUR VOICE AS A CITIZEN IS NULLIFIED BY THOSE COUNTING THE VOTES . . . ESPECIALLY THOSE COUNTING BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSE.
I. Chick-fil-A issues did not need Get Out the Vote marketing.
II. Title 3 USC § 15 Challenge Necessary
I. Chick-fil-A did NOT need any ‘get out the vote’ marketing.
Nor did the two key 2012 HOT BUTTON issues, 1) Obamacare, and 2) Unemployment vis-à-vis taxes.
Two-thirds of the public are polled as being against Obamacare for its effect on healthcare and jobs. Unemployment is over 9%, and upcoming taxes and the socialist policies of Obama will trigger more layoffs.
THESE ARE HOT BUTTON ISSUES THAT GOT US OUT TO VOTE IN 2012, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR BUSING OR ADVERTISING, ROBOCALLS OR KNOCKS ON OUR DOORS.
Secretaries of State in key markets had a computer patch installed that allowed ‘real-time’ tabulation from disparate voting machines. Why? WHY! Answer: So they could determine where and how many Romney votes needed deletion.
Obama had 9 million less votes than in 2008. Yet, turnout was up both in early voting and at the polls. Why then were Romney’s numbers 3 million LESS than McCain’s back in 2008 when there was NO HOT BUTTON?
Dismiss my theory, but it is pure deduction based on an indelible fact about the tabulation patch. And if true, it means the election process is permanently corrupted . . . over.
Why file fraudulent voter registrations and work to send in bogus absentee ballots when all you have to do is lose, ‘in vivo machina,’ just enough of your opponents votes.
The theory can be tested. The Ohio machines (and similar setups) must be analyzed to see if the tabulations can be altered, i.e., votes deleted.
In lieu of paper ballots, we need two counts: One at the door taken mechanically by two poll workers, and the other from the machine tabulation tallies. They must match up within a margin of error.
For a detailed record of the Complaint and Expert Opinion Affidavit describing the ‘patch’ by a computer engineer, see http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/Fitrakis.v.Husted.1.php
II. Title 3 USC § 15
The electoral votes must now be counted and certified, and under Title 3 U.S.C. § 15 a simple letter signed by one Senator and one House Member can halt the proceedings to examine the following:
The 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act et seq 1855 denied a U.S. born son of a British subject U.S. citizenship. This law stood for 99 years, until Wong Kim Ark.
- Conversely, a son of a British subject born on U.S. soil was a natural born British subject, under the 1772 British Nationality Act.
- The 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship at birth to children of ‘stateless’ freed slaves, i.e., who had no nationality jurisdiction through the father. ‘Under the Jurisdiction Thereof’ is the analog of its antecedent Act, the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s ‘Not subject to any foreign power.’ It referred to the nationality of the father, not place of birth.
- Article 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution gave plenary power to congress, NOT the Judiciary, for the LEGISLATION of Uniform Naturalization law . . ..
- Minor vs. Happersett (U.S. Supreme Court, 1875) defined in judicial notice, i.e., stare decisis still valid to this day, that a ‘natural born citizen’ was of two U.S. citizen parents.
- Wong Kim Ark violated Art 1, Sec 8 by ignoring existing statutes, acts, and treaty and misinterpreted the 14th Amendment to apply to children born of aliens. Regardless, Wong Kim Ark did not, nor could not, redefine ‘natural born citizen.’
- Fact: Obama’s April 27, 2011 birth certificate is an altered, fake, and forged document.
- Fact: Obama’s SS# does not pass E-Verify.
- Fact: Obama has admitted, in his own writing and voice, that he was born a British citizen.
Can we not find one senator and one house member willing to fight for the constitution?
McCain was booed when he tried to sooth the crowd, defending Mr Obama as ‘a decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.’ Minnesota, 2008
“Obama is a radical Communist. And I think it is becoming clear; that’s what I told everyone in Illinois. I think everybody knows its true. He is going to destroy this country. We’re either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.” Ambassador Alan Keyes,February 19, 2009
“Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors . . . and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer . . . Upon such reading of [the electoral votes], the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received . . . No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.” 3 U.S.C. § 15 Counting electoral votes in Congress
New York Times WASHINGTON, Jan. 6  – “Congress officially ratified President Bush’s election victory on Thursday, but not before Democrats lodged a formal challenge to the electoral votes from Ohio, forcing an extraordinary two-hour debate that began the 109th Congress on a sharp note of partisan acrimony . . . a single senator – Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who was sworn in Tuesday for a third term – joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Democrat of Ohio, in objecting to Ohio’s 20 electoral votes for Mr. Bush, citing voting irregularities in the state.”
Martin versus Zimmerman 101, or How to Become an Expert on the Sandford, Florida Killing of Traynor MartinApril 1, 2012
On Thursday, March 22nd, a former governor of New Mexico got into my taxi. I recognized him from a State Bar speech he gave about ten years ago. Over the course of the thirty-minute ride we discussed many legal issues, but my position on the Martin-Zimmerman case had him nonplussed.
I told him that just considering the police releasing Zimmerman without an arrest indicated there was particularized evidence supporting self-defense; therefore, no grand jury would be able to indict him.
The governor reminded me he started out as a district attorney and state attorneys general, but conceded that the parents of Martin would sue Zimmerman civilly. ‘What good would that do” I asked. ‘Zimmerman is collection proof.’ (In addition, Florida law bars civil complaints if criminal charges failed.)
As the week’s reporting provided more information, it seemed I was correct. Zimmerman had physical evidence of being beaten, and while on his back . . . which even later in the week was supported by an eye-witness. WE HAVE NATURAL RIGHTS, MERELY BY BEING LIVING BREATHING SENTIENT CREATURES, SPECIFICALLY THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE . . . PROTECTED BY LAW IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT.
At the end of this article, I am going to provide links to information on the Martin-Zimmerman case so you can make your own informed decision. However, this case may affect you more than you think, so don’t dismiss this as a ‘race’ issue or a problem limited to Florida.
I do dangerous work on the weekends. Until I win in court money the law says I’m due for a landlord forfeiting my place of business because of his code violations, I am struggling each week while rebuilding in a new location. My business has been closed for a year . . . something for which I will not be compensated.
Anyway, that dangerous work requires me to pack a pistol when the night starts getting crazy. Having that pistol saved my life once. It was good to have it many other times, but I was only put in an imminent life-threatening situation once; the other times I was able to cool off the situation with bravado and my physical size.
What I am saying is that if you keep a gun in your home, or you decide to keep one close in your car during business or on long trips, please research your state laws governing self-defense. Another good idea is to seek out an attorney familiar with those laws and who has represented clients who have exercised their 2nd Amendment Right in self-defense. Bring him your questions and get the ‘street’ view, and keep his contact information . . . just in case. For half the price of that new gun, or seven boxes of ammunition, you can add tremendously to your confidence in situations requiring deadly response.
Neighborhood Watches are the ‘eyes and ears’ of the police. Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, a stranger on foot in that gated community, until he was satisfied he was a legitimate visitor or the police arrived. Think of a retailer when a kid in a ‘hoodie’ enters the store. The best defense the retailer has against shoplifting is to let the kid know that the shopkeeper is aware of him. A simple greeting at the door, or a ‘may I help you’ on the floor goes a long way.
Racial Profiling is the only case the Justice Department may have against Zimmerman. However, if the community has had a rash of break-ins by local black youths, Zimmerman was not profiling by race but influenced by a recent fact pattern.
Now, it is unlawful for police to stop a vehicle based on an anonymous tip, e.g., that a crime was committed by a black man with dreadlocks accompanied by a white woman in a green SUV. However, Zimmerman was representing all residents and property owners in Twin Lakes Retreat and had a natural right and official sanction to approach anyone on the property whom he did not recognize or was behaving suspiciously.
Suspicious Behavior is not ‘walking while black in a gated community.’ Walking with a gangsta-style strut and wearing a ‘hoodie’ at night during a rash of break-ins may trigger suspicion. Is that black profiling? Not when so many white youths emulate the rapper, hip-hop dress and ‘attitude.’
A middle-aged lady walking her dog is not suspicious. If Martin had smiled and said ‘Good Evening’ to Zimmerman, that would allay suspicion. However, pulling the hood up and walking away is ‘articulable suspicious behavior.’
‘Hoodies’ are sinister and appear criminal if not having an aura of a ‘monkish’ eeriness as portrayed in many films in the horror film genre,’ suggestive of the hiding of one’s identity while performing acts in the service of Satan. Please, a hooded-cloak or robe in the setting of a church or monastery communicates purity and peacefulness, but at night on the street the covering of one’s face be it the hoodie or Islamic coverings is just downright sinister.
So, can the Justice Department meet the burden of proof Martin was profiled as a black? Martin was black but, as required in a Terry Stop, Zimmerman had articulable suspicion which he communicated to the 911 operator; that Martin seemed stoned and was a stranger.
Did Zimmerman violate civil rights by approaching Martin? No. Zimmerman was in the common area of his home and community and was in a quasi-official position as a watchman. In fact, Neighborhood Watch persons are protect from ‘harrassment, threats, and physical abuse’ by Florida state law.
The police report (linked below) records an investigation listing conditions of Zimmerman’s shirt and injuries to his head consistent with his story, that Martin knocked him down with a sucker punch to the nose and battered his head against the pavement.
There was no avenue of escape, so the Stand Your Ground statutory provision is less applicable as a legal defense than pure terror of imminent great bodily harm, e.g., head trauma.
Martin had complete control over the outcome of his interaction with Zimmerman. As opposed to Al Sharpton’s baseless accusation that Zimmerman ‘hunted’ Martin down to kill an innocent black boy, Martin attacked visciously and with malevolence.
Zimmerman will be justified and free from prosecution, but first the authorities must bolster their courage and position against the race-baiting media and media whores.
A wealth of legal citations and analysis is well-presented by Dave Kopel at http://volokh.com/author/davek/ . Dave Kopel is the Director of the Independence Institute and, along with other members of his family, a highly-dependable legal consultant. Scroll down to March 27, 2012.
Here is one statute Dave Kopel missed, protecting Neighborhood Watch volunteers: http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/onr/resources/publications/2011/NWIntrobookletrev610.pdf.pdf See bottom of page 12.
I have downloaded the Police Report created by the Sandford Police Department in the course of their investigation clearing George Zimmerman of manslaughter or any other criminal violation. As you all may know, or have experienced, anytime there is a death the police engage in enhanced investigation procedures including the coroner and CSI. Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report
The city manager issued a timely press release explaining why the Police Department did not charge George Zimmerman. It includes an explanation of the police findings and cites several pertinent laws. Zimmerman_Martin_shooting
An opposing opinion
The chief author feels Zimmerman approaching Martin voids any application of self-defense law. I disagree. Every free man has that right by Natural Law. If it can be proven that Zimmerman had criminal intent, e.g., to stalk and shoot Martin, that would vitiate the self-defense. However, Zimmerman was reporting every step of his actions to 911, as required by Neighborhood Watch. That precludes any mental state of criminal intent, thus leading to a criminal act:
In 2008 I challenged attorney Phil Berg’s claim that candidate Obama was not a U.S. citizen. Berg responded in vigorous defense. That challenge is detailed in my first blog of Feb-2009.
I went on to research the concept of Article II’s Natural Born Citizen.
The arguments over ‘What is a Natural Born Citizen’ are extensive and sometimes complex. There are questions of dual nationality, jurisdiction, two schools of case law precedent, dicta versus judicial notice, conflicting definitions of ‘naturalization,’ the role of British common law, the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, Minor vs. Happerset, and the Jus Soli – Jus Sanguinis debate.
I have engaged Obama supporters in argument, but my final goal was to take all of that complexity and emotionally-charged bias and distill it into one pure drop of truth, or compress it into a perfect small diamond with clarity in all its facets.
Jefferson’s advice on reading constitutional law suggests we take the use of ‘natural born citizen’ in John Jay’s letter to George Washington, in a clause following the admonission not to allow “Foreigners” into the new government. The ‘natural born citizen’ clause extends the ban on ‘Foreigners’ to anyone having ‘alienage’ from birth; therefore the Natural Born Citizen is perfectly defined by comparing the two clauses.
The intent of the framers in Article II was to bar anyone with alienage from birth to the commander-in-chief. Obama admits he was born with British nationality through his father; his U.S. citizenship at birth was determined by his mother’s legal capacity to confer, not merely birth on U.S. soil. Neither qualify him as a natural born citizen.
In the proverbial nutshell, a Natural Born Citizen is Born Without Alienage.
Alienage at birth today is the result of a alien parent. Wong Kim Ark and the 1922 Cable Act inadvertently created the Dual National at birth, i.e., a conflict of nationality jurisdictions. That conflict must be resolved statutorily when the child reaches the age of decision, but it allows ‘nationality of convenience.’
English common law does not define Natural Born Citizen. While the jurists claim their interpretation through common law is superior to Parliamentary Act, jurisprudence states that statute must be followed by the courts and the 1722 British Nationality Act favored Jus Sanguinis citizenship of children of British subjects born outside the King’s dominion.
The American colonies followed Jus Soli as they were completely subject to the crown. However, once the United States was incorporated and the First Uniform Naturalization law passed in 1790, Jus Sanguinis was the sole manner of acquiring citizenship; it was through the free citizen father, not the domination of the King.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo has written briefs that are as complete a legal analysis as can be found out there. My blogs are pretty good too, but my intent was to simplify the complex and conflicting laws into the pure intent of the framers so that anyone could understand quickly, and without doubt.
I hope they help.
One must consider the brilliance and fortitude of our founding ‘grand’fathers; those men who by force of religious conviction were exiled to the American colonies.
William Penn was one. Miles Standish and the Pilgrims were the first. However, Roger Williams is the subject of the ‘Separation of Church and State’ issue, recently brought to the fore by presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s criticism of John F. Kennedy’s promise of a ‘wall of separation’ between his Catholic heritage and his presidency.
Roger William’s ‘wall’ sermon came out of his controversies with Cotton Mather, specifically his response to Mather in ‘The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Conscience Sake’ and ‘Mr. Cotton’s Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered’ in 1644.
In it, we can see the perfect response to Barack Hussein Obama’s attempt to FORCE free contraception, ‘day after’ birth control, and abortion services on a Christian insurance company providing healthcare policies to employees of a non-profit Catholic organization. Roger Williams wanted the church to be kept Holy and untainted by the government. His language suggests that in its best form, a refuge from religious persecution, the American colonies are an attempt to create a ‘paradise’ on earth taking the good from the ‘wilderness’ into the protection of a righteous self-government.
Indeed, the framers noted that the Republican form of government could only succeed if managed and populated by a righteous and religious people.
“Mr. Cotton’s Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered” in 1644.
In it, Roger Williams first mentioned his now famous phrase, “WALL OF SEPARATION”:
Mr. Cotton…hath not duly considered these following particulars.
First, the faithful labors of many witnesses of Jesus Christ, existing in the world, abundantly proving, that the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament in the anti-type, were both SEPARATE from the world; and that when they have opened a gap in the HEDGE, or WALL OF SEPARATION, between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the WALL itself, removed the candlestick, &c. and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day.
And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be WALLED in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and that all that shall be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the world and added unto His Church or garden…a SEPARATION of Holy from unHoly, penitent from impenitent, Godly from unGodly.
Rev. Roger Williams was alluding to the Scriptural pattern that when God’s people sin, He judges them by allowing the church to be trampled by an ungodly government:
Isaiah 5:1-7 ‘My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine…and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard…When I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?…I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I WILL TAKE AWAY THE HEDGE thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and BREAK DOWN THE WALL thereof, and it shall be trodden down…For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but found oppression.’
The understanding was that if God’s people repent “He will restore His garden” by having it “WALLED in peculiarly unto Himself from the world.”
The spiritual descendents of Roger Williams were Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, a State which had the Congregational Protestant Christian denomination established as the official State Church from 1639 to 1818.
With religion under each individual States’ jurisdiction until 1947, the Danbury Baptists complained about their discriminated status in the Congregationalist controlled State of Connecticut in letter to Jefferson, October 7, 1801:
‘Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty – That religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals – That no man ought to suffer in name, person or effects on account of his religious opinions – That the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.’
Agreeing with the Baptists in his personal reply, Jefferson wrote, January 1, 1802:
‘Gentlemen…Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a WALL OF SEPARATION between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man.’