The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part IV

Some new facts have come to my attention concerning the Obama Birth Certificate controversy. These facts stem from the meaning of the phrase "natural-born citizen" as understood by our Founding Fathers at the time of the writing of our United States Constitution. They used as their guide Vattel's Law of Nations (1758).

Quoting from that source on the subject of "Citizens and natives":


VATTEL: THE LAW OF NATIONS

BOOK I.
OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.

CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
________________________________________________

So, the question must be asked: Is the original intent of the Framers of our Constitution still in effect? The Naturalization Act is not a formal Constitutional Amendment, though it is the law of record concerning the subject of citizenship.

The Founders would not have considered Obama a "natural-born citizen", therefore, today should we, or should we not? This seems like a conundrum only the Supreme Court can finally decide... and they have not, to date, ruled on it.


Oh, and as a further point, why is Obama's father's race listed as "African" on Obama's Birth Certificate? According to Vital Statistics Of The United States  1961  Volume I--Natality, Page 231:

Race and color

Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and "other nonwhite." The category "white" includes, in addition to persons reported as "white," those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian. In most tables a less detailed classification of "white" and "nonwhite" is used.

The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part III

Part III -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?

The section of the 1940 Naturalization Act quoted in Part II is what is referenced to prove the argument that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. However, the 1940 Naturalization Act was revised by the 1952 Naturalization Act, page 285, (g) to its present form as found in the current United States Code:

              

     (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
________________________________________________

So there it is. The intriguing argument that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and his birth certificate will prove it has struck out. The assertion that both of his parents must be United States citizens is incorrect all the way around, according to any version of the Naturalization Act (strike one). The argument that he was actually born in Kenya doesn't matter, as it wouldn't necessarily prevent Obama from being a valid natural-born citizen of the United States (strike two). Finally, the more convoluted argument that his mother who, although a United States citizen, was not old enough to qualify her son as also being a citizen, is taken from an out-dated version of the Naturalization Act (from 1940) that is no longer valid (strike three).

According to the Naturalization Act as it has existed from 1952 until current, even if he was born in Kenya, his mother fulfilled the requirements to grant natural-born citizenship to her son. Only if she renounced her American citizenship before Obama was born would he not be a legal citizen of the United States.

The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy -- Part II

Part II -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?

The text from Part I is from the Naturalization Act, codified in the United States Code, and in effect as of this writing.

Now here is where the controversy starts to get very muddled, people seem to have glommed onto the text of the 1940 Naturalization Act, Chapter II--Nationality At Birth, which read differently:

     (g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That, in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years' residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.
________________________________________________

The final blow to the Birth Certificate controversy is covered in Part III.

The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part I

Part I -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

[www.gpoaccess.gov]

[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]

[CITE: 8USC1401]

[Page 396-398]

TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

SUBCHAPTER III--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

Part I--Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization

Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

[...]

     (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:[...]

________________________________________________

The above is from the Naturalization Act, codified in the United States Code, and in effect as of this writing.

This is too long for my blog-site to handle all at once, so read the other two parts. Parts II and III will show additional research that clears up any doubt...

"We will bury you!"

I remember a lot of presidents, the first one I truly paid attention to was Eisenhower, he convinced me I was a Republican at the ripe old age of 11. I've seen a lot of lousy governing, but I've seen how well it can be done, too. Reagan proved that firm but reasonable is what works.

We are a nation of different ideologies, and all should have their place. What's wrong today is that somewhere along the line a tiny minority of radicals usurped our universities and entertainment industry, and then our government, and convinced the people that the government should do it for them, rather than that they should do it for themselves.

Do you remember Kruschev pounding his shoe on a podium and yelling "We will bury you!"? Even as a kid, that sight made a lasting impression. It was evident I was looking at a mortal enemy.

The USSR's plan was to destroy us from within. From former KGB officers who worked in covert operations who defected, we've learned that one of their tactics was to infiltrate the faculties of institutions of higher learning, and subvert personalities from the entertainment and news media. They called such people in influential positions "useful idiots". They wined-and-dined those useful idiots, preening their egos, telling them how "special" and "enlightened" they were.

Of course, after they'd served their purpose, those same useful idiots were the first to be imprisoned or killed, after the Communists had taken over their country and things started going very bad for the people... as they always did. In fact, it was imperative they remove them, because of the very fact those useful idiots *were* influential, and could as easily stir the people to rebellion when they discovered Communism was very much *not* the utopia they had been convinced it was.

The first thing they would attack was God, since religion, especially Christianity, is the antithesis of Communism, then they would break down the family, then they would destroy the moral backbone of the society.

Look around. Does any of that seem chillingly familiar?
__________________________________________

Watch the following YouTube video of an in-depth interview with a former Soviet agent, Yuri Bezmenov, who defected to the U.S... this could keep you up at night worrying:

Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press
(Run-time: 1:21:29)

.

PC Is Killing America and The World

Let's hope Trump has the clout to at last kill, or at least critically wound, the PC monster that's destroying America and the world. Every time those who own the talking heads of the media don't want something to become an issue that topic suddenly becomes taboo for "intelligent" people to even casually discuss. I feel like I'm living in George Orwell's "1984", and it creeps me out. The minute any such touchy issue is broached, the propaganda machine grinds into gear, chewing up any person "stupid" enough to even mention it.

Though I'm a devoted Fox News follower, that's the major complaint I have against them, they're just as bad at pushing the PC line as any of the other main-stream media outlets on some critical issues. They may not want to legitimize the topic, but they have no true reason to paint anyone who has a question concerning that topic as some sort of loon. The very fact they're so quick to do that makes them as highly suspect as any other news source as far as actually giving us the truth on certain issues.

Only people who are truly unafraid of the truth, whatever it might be and wherever it might lead, can look at a topic in what really is an intelligent manner. The problem with so many areas encompassed by the PC machine today is that the facts hidden in those forbidden areas could very well destroy us all.

If you have questions concerning Obama's birth certificate, you're suddenly stuck with the label "Birther". If you have questions concerning the events of 9/11 what are you? A "9/11 Truther" of course. If you think abortion is wrong, everybody knows you're a "Lifer". If you're a member of the Tea Party, you're a "Tea Bagger" in an "Astro-Turf" movement. If you want to restore our government to its Constitutional foundations, you're a "Right-Wing Nut". If you stand up for Christian values, you're a "Religious Bigot".

Every time I hear a new label, my ears prick up and I start to pay attention. I've learned a new dismissive name probably means there's something that's at the very least important... (and perhaps even critical)... to either the welfare of our government or the welfare of our society as a whole hidden under that cutesy-sounding PC pejorative.

Supreme Court Justices

It's been done so seldom most people don't even know it can be done. What? Debenching (impeaching) a Supreme Court Justice. Yes, just as with impeaching a President, the Legislature has the power to debench an unsatisfactory Justice, and it's been done.

It seems that the Court usurping the duties sovereign to the Legislature should be good and sufficient grounds for debenching the entire lot of Justices who continue to vote their personal ideologies rather than stick to the strict letter of Constitutional law.

Why is there anything?

We argue about the trivialities of existence while overlooking the absolute absurdity of the fact there even is existence. Each of us must admit we believe in the impossible, because there's no way... drudged up from the depths of our limited cognitive abilities... anything could just have always been. So we live inside the impossible and wonder about the improbable... when we actually take the time to wonder about anything at all outside the humdrum.

Richard Dawkins, burned-out bulb that he is, is proof of that. He's got such a thing against God (and for himself) he hasn't taken the time to ask a non-God question that could answer his truly lame one, "Who created God?" Why not ask, "How did anything begin?"

When man is "smart" enough to finally answer that question, then the God-thing that so flummoxes Dawkins will clear right up.

The proof that everything has always existed is that anything exists now. Personally, I believe an ever-existing God is the reason for it all. The only reason anything is possible is because God chose that it be so. The only logical possibility within the otherwise total impossibility of this existence is God.

So, let's go a bit further with that. If we admit we live inside an impossibility, implausibility becomes more plausible. If the only reason anything can exist is because of God, then why is it so hard to think that perhaps He cares about His creation? Wouldn't you, if you were Him? How big a step from the absurdity of actually existing in the first place is it to the possibility of God writing His creation a letter? You know, an instruction manual with the rules to safely navigate His creation. That would seem logical, since He chose to lock existence in this universe into time.

However, He doesn't seem too concerned about the care and maintenance of orchards, animal husbandry, etc., rather, He's interested in what's on the inside of us, how to care for something a lot of us don't seem to worry about much at all. But, according to the manual, that's the only part of us that will last, and, according to His manual, it takes constant upkeep or it goes all to Hell. Not pleasant. Hard work, too.

Well, the not going to Hell part isn't hard, since it's a gift, it's the keeping the dirt out of the temple that will wear you out.

Me and Thee

Is it just human that if you choose to hate, you have a good reason and so it's justified, but if someone else chooses to hate, they're a nut-job who's probably a danger to themselves or others?

The Key To Happiness

I had a strange dream, in it I was searching for the Key To Happiness. I was told that in order to find it I must be guided by an animal who was usually evil, except when the weather was cold. If I could befriend one of these animals during a period of cold weather, it would guide me to the key.

It took a while, but finally I found one of the animals. It looked like a large black dog, but it hid among the branches of trees and other places high up. It was a scary thing, so I hesitated to get too close to it, and just followed, watching it. While it was on the eve of a barn, just above my head, I mustered the courage to speak to it. It stopped and waited, listening, as it watched me with intent eyes.

To my surprise, I befriended it by simply telling it I needed it to be my friend. With a fluid motion, it jumped down beside me and looked patiently up at me. Deciding I was prepared enough for a pretty long journey, I asked it to guide me to The Key To Happiness. It repled, "The key is not at a place, it is something you make. Only you can make the key to your happiness."

Then the scene changed, we were inside a large room similar in style to a Middle-Eastern hall, with rows of seating filled with all sorts of people. I was standing beside the black dog as it spoke to the audience. It was telling a Hindu man dressed in fine brocade clothing and a gold turban, "God is with all those who seek Him." With that, the man smiled peacefully.

It then spoke to the audience in general, saying, "Happiness is a road we must each choose to walk again each day, but it is a road we can only reach by using the key we have chosen to make for ourselves and then choosing to use that key. We can share our happiness with others, but we cannot give happiness to others. Personal happiness cannot be taken or given, it can only be chosen and made."

___________________________________________

Not taken or given? But it's common to try to give happiness to someone else, to "make someone happy," that doesn't work? It can only be chosen and made? Shouldn't that be the other way around, "made and chosen"? I see! In order to make it, I must first *choose* to make it.

Going back to the first, why cold weather? Could it be an allusion to needing a "cool head of reason" not muddled with the "hot" tumultuous emotions of anger, discord or displeasure? Also, why was the animal usually evil, except in cold weather? "Hot" emotions are evil, as a general rule, could that be it? The fact the animal was usually evil might mean it's more common to be in turmoil (evil) than at peace. That's sad to realize.

I'm not sure I understand it all, but some dreams are worth remembering anyway.