Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SWALLOW their "legal" BS, BUY their DVDs

Expand Messages
  • windandthestone
    ... woman ... her baby ... Birth ... though ... This is exactly why they keep trying to give Obama s citizenship issue bigger legs! The louder this voice
    Message 1 of 18 , Jul 16, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Email41@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > And that is precisely why we have "anchor babies" - such as when a woman
      > from Mexico, South America, etc. makes it across the border to have her baby
      > in a Texas hospital, a Cuban woman makes it across to Florida, etc. Birth
      > in the U.S. means the child is automatically a "U.S. citizen" even though
      > the mother is not.
      >


      This is exactly why they keep trying to give Obama's citizenship issue bigger legs! The louder this voice becomes, the more people may begin to scream about removing all the "anchor babies" and their families.  Many may be influential agent provocateur with agendas that will be the end of all we hold dear.  They all are joined by the power of hatred — it's a familiar, visceral aroma that has fueled our history for centuries.  

    • BOB GREGORY
      *The issue is a bit more complicated than most people realize. To be a natural born citizen of the U.S. one must be born in the United States of two U.S.
      Message 2 of 18 , Jul 16, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        The issue is a bit more complicated than most people realize.  To be a "natural born" citizen of the U.S. one must be born in the United States of two U.S. citizens (not necessarily married).  McCain was not born in the U.S. but a law was passed in the 1930's (after he was born but retroactive) making children born of American parents in the Canal Zone "natural born citizens," and that is why he was eligible for the office of president, not just that his parents were citizens. (Actually there is still a bit of a question about McCain because he was born in a hospital in northern Panama that was not in the Canal Zone.  Then, for some weird reason, in 2008 Congress decided to pass a resolution stating that he was eligible for the presidency.  The resolution is not real law, however.  It was probably pushed by some of McCain's cronies.) 

        In Obama's case, if he was born in Hawaii he would ordinarily be considered  "natural born,"  but his father was a British subject, and British law at that time provided that a child born to a male British subject anywhere in the world would be a British citizen.  Moreover, when a child is born in the U.S. of one American citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent, he does not technically meet the requirements for being a "natural born" citizen.

        There is no actual evidence of marriage between Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr., though it is alleged that they were married on February 2, 1961, six months before Barack H. Obama, Jr. was born.  There is a record of divorce from January 1964.

        If Obama was born anywhere outside the United States, he could not even technically qualify to be a U.S, citizen because his mother had not, herself, lived in the United States after she was 16 years old for the time required by the law then in effect, since she was only 19 years old.

        There is no solid, definitive evidence of where Obama was born. but he is almost certainly not truly a "natural born" citizen as called for in the Constitution.  The matter is further complicated by the 14th Amendment and its "born in the jurisdiction thereof" clause, which raises the question of exactly what is the area of jurisdiction of the United States and the difference in the "United States": and the "United States of America."



        On 7/16/2010 7:16 PM, E Junker wrote:
         
        Sen. John McCain was not born in the United States either.  But his parents were citizens.  Obama's mother was a citizen and that seems to not be in dispute.  So, if his mother was a citizen, why is he not?


        From: "Email41@aol. com" <Email41@aol. com>
        To: tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 8:18:26 PM
        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] SWALLOW their "legal" BS, BUY their DVDs


         
        True, however, the distracters claim that this event did not occur in the US, it's territories, its STATES, nor in any of the several states in union. I have recently heard a radio broadcast from someone claiming to be the Elections clerk for the city of Honolulu at the time of the placement of his name on the ballot. He specifically claims that there is no other document other than the one disseminated over the net. He claims to have access to the records and that there were none.
         
        I wasn't in Hawaii at the time, so I am at a loss to verify the claim.
        _

      • Jake
           Sen. John McCain was not born in the United States either.   Yes he was.  One of those situations where the term United States includes territories
        Message 3 of 18 , Jul 17, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
             > Sen. John McCain was not born in the United States either.
           
          Yes he was.  One of those situations where the term "United States 'includes' territories & possessions of the U.S." because @ the time, the Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. possession.  And, he was born on a U.S. military base, which is U.S. soil anywhere, even if the Panama Canal Zone hadn't been under U.S. flag. 
           
          A similar situation would be if you were born in a U.S. Embassy in another country - the embassy itself is to "soil" of the country who's flag flies over the embassy.  Or if a Russian was born in the Russian embassy in the U.S., that child would be a citizen under Russian laws, not a U.S. citizen. 
           
          U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark covers those situations too - in other words, if his parents had been diplomats, whatever, from China, living in the U.S. while on official business for the Chinese gov't., rather than just ordinary Chinese people legally living / working in the U.S., Wong Kim would not have been declared a U.S. citizen.  "Anchor baby" doesn't apply to such situations, but the "law of the flag" does.
           
          ~ ~ ~
           


          --- On Fri, 7/16/10, E Junker <westernwit@...> wrote:

          From: E Junker <westernwit@...>
          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] SWALLOW their "legal" BS, BUY their DVDs
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Friday, July 16, 2010, 8:16 PM

           
          Sen. John McCain was not born in the United States either.  But his parents were citizens.  Obama's mother was a citizen and that seems to not be in dispute.  So, if his mother was a citizen, why is he not?


          From: "Email41@aol. com" <Email41@aol. com>
          To: tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com
          Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 8:18:26 PM
          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] SWALLOW their "legal" BS, BUY their DVDs

           
          And that is precisely why we have "anchor babies" - such as when a woman from Mexico, South America, etc. makes it across the border to have her baby in a Texas hospital, a Cuban woman makes it across to Florida, etc.  Birth in the U.S. means the child is automatically a "U.S. citizen" even though the mother is not.
           
          True, however, the distracters claim that this event did not occur in the US, it's territories, its STATES, nor in any of the several states in union. I have recently heard a radio broadcast from someone claiming to be the Elections clerk for the city of Honolulu at the time of the placement of his name on the ballot. He specifically claims that there is no other document other than the one disseminated over the net. He claims to have access to the records and that there were none.
           
          I wasn't in Hawaii at the time, so I am at a loss to verify the claim.

        • dave
          Re: The power of hatred visceral aroma. Someone has wisdom!! I urge people NOT to fall for the hatred over anchor babies and citizenship. By getting you to
          Message 4 of 18 , Jul 17, 2010
          • 0 Attachment

             

            Re: The power of hatred visceral aroma.

             

            Someone has wisdom!! I urge people NOT to fall for the hatred over anchor babies and citizenship. By getting you to focus on whether another human is allegedly “getting something for nothing”, your usurper’s goal is to make you THINK the “something” has value. The “something” in this case is a whole group of “services” tied to government for which you voluntarily-comply to give it over 50% of your paycheck. All of those services are viewed by same government as the privileges of being either a STATE OF XYZ citizen and/or “US CITIZEN”—in reality both dubious titles are granted automatically to this select few group of people: (a) Those born on a territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America—said territory includes places administered under authority such as “The State of XYZ”. (b) Those people who “electively franchise” by either direct declaration or participation in voting for the various administrative officers.

             

            Folks, there is very little to distinguish a supposed STATE OF XYZ from the FEDERAL government…so a citizen of one becomes a citizen of the other: Think of the STATE OF XYZ—officers and employees—as delegated property administrators for the feds. Notice how close the STATE OF XYZ constitution is to the Constitution of September 17, 1787??? Realize states were allowed to join in the ratification process of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 in the “more perfect union.”

             

            The usurpers fuel this “illegal alien fire”—or simply allow others to fuel it--without revelation of their real goals. In that general class of usurpers is what some call government. That group’s goal is “to sit back and wait until people cry so loudly over their own imagined injustice that they demand their own enslavement.” What tools do these usurpers use:

            ·         Jealousy

            ·         Envy

            ·         Hatred

            And where is the hatred fueled and seeded most? Why of course—ironically into what calls itself the “Christian Nation”.  

             

             

             

             


            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: SWALLOW their "legal" BS, BUY their DVDs

             

             
            This is exactly why they keep trying to give Obama's citizenship issue bigger legs! The louder this voice becomes, the more people may begin to scream about removing all the "anchor babies" and their families.  Many may be influential agent provocateur with agendas that will be the end of all we hold dear.  They all are joined by the power of hatred — it's a familiar, visceral aroma that has fueled our history for centuries.  



            __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5286 (20100717) __________

            The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

            http://www.eset.com
          • BOB GREGORY
            * No, the Panama Canal Zone was NOT a U.S. possession at the time. under the Hay-Buneau-Varilla Treaty, the canal zone remained under Panamanian sovereignty.
            Message 5 of 18 , Jul 17, 2010
            • 0 Attachment

              No, the Panama Canal Zone was NOT a U.S. possession at the time.  under the Hay-Buneau-Varilla Treaty, the canal zone remained under Panamanian sovereignty.  That is why a special law was passed by Congress in the 1930's to confer "natural born" status to children born in the Canal Zone to parents who were U.S. citizens.

              And NO, a U.S. military base is not U.S. soil anywhere.  Children born to American parents there must have their births registered with the nearest Amerian Consulate as a person "born abroad"  they then become U.S. citizens automatically but are not "natural born" citizens.  My older son was born in France, and we went through that process. 

              Children born to credentialed diplomats retain the citizenship of their parents, and while it is true that the embassy itself is the soil of the country whose flag flies over it, it is the law and longstanding convention which establish the citizenship.  So a Russian baby can be born in a U.S. hospital miles from the Russian embassy and still be a Russian citizen.




              On 7/17/2010 5:22 AM, Jake wrote:
               

                 > Sen. John McCain was not born in the United States either.
               
              Yes he was.  One of those situations where the term "United States 'includes' territories & possessions of the U.S." because @ the time, the Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. possession.  And, he was born on a U.S. military base, which is U.S. soil anywhere, even if the Panama Canal Zone hadn't been under U.S. flag. 
               
              A similar situation would be if you were born in a U.S. Embassy in another country - the embassy itself is to "soil" of the country who's flag flies over the embassy.  Or if a Russian was born in the Russian embassy in the U.S., that child would be a citizen under Russian laws, not a U.S. citizen. 
               
              U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark covers those situations too - in other words, if his parents had been diplomats, whatever, from China, living in the U.S. while on official business for the Chinese gov't., rather than just ordinary Chinese people legally living / working in the U.S., Wong Kim would not have been declared a U.S. citizen.  "Anchor baby" doesn't apply to such situations, but the "law of the flag" does.
               
              ~ ~ ~
               


              --- On Fri, 7/16/10, E Junker <westernwit@yahoo. com> wrote:

              From: E Junker <westernwit@yahoo. com>
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] SWALLOW their "legal" BS, BUY their DVDs
              To: tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com
              Date: Friday, July 16, 2010, 8:16 PM

               
              Sen. John McCain was not born in the United States either.  But his parents were citizens.  Obama's mother was a citizen and that seems to not be in dispute.  So, if his mother was a citizen, why is he not?


            • Fussy Food Eater
              So why lock up the the birth documents in Kenya or the Big island from public inquiry? Your parents can resolve your citizenship as a child. He attended a
              Message 6 of 18 , Jul 17, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                So why lock up the the birth documents in Kenya or the Big island from public inquiry?
                Your parents can resolve your citizenship as a child. He attended a Malaysian school you must be Malay citizen or attend a private school for expat's as I did, which he did NOT. I was born in Miri but attended a private school for expat's, only local citizens could attend public school as he did. Malaysian gov does not allow dual citizenship. As an Aussie gov staff member I deeply question what you USA people are doing about your rules for who can be the leader of your country!!!
                Its does not matter what party you are connected with, the facts should be the facts. Politics's in the USA is so corrupted that the public can not see straight.
              • BOB GREGORY
                *I fully agree with you, FussyFoodEater. But the people at the top of the food chain in American politics have (for a very long time) taken the position that
                Message 7 of 18 , Jul 18, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I fully agree with you, FussyFoodEater.  But the people at the top of the food chain in American politics have (for a very long time) taken the position that they are above the law and can do anything they wish so long as the people are too ignorant and dumbed down to either realize or care.  The government is operated for the benefit of very high level bankeres and business corporations, and sending a few hundred thousands or millions of the "little people" out to subdue a bunch of foreigners on foreign soil (usually with different colored skin) is just necessary business to achieve the purposes of profits and power.  And if a few thousand or a few hundred thousand of OUR  little people kill a few hundred thousand or a few million of THEIR little people, oh, well, it is all in the cause of FREEDOM.

                  Until the U.S. dollar and possibly the U.S. government collapses and the people have had enough of a belly full to get off their duffs and do something about it, things will continue as they are.


                  On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Fussy Food Eater <pauljbridges@...> wrote:
                   

                  So why lock up the the birth documents in Kenya or the Big island from public inquiry?
                  Your parents can resolve your citizenship as a child. He attended a Malaysian school you must be Malay citizen or attend a private school for expat's as I did, which he did NOT. I was born in Miri but attended a private school for expat's, only local citizens could attend public school as he did. Malaysian gov does not allow dual citizenship. As an Aussie gov staff member I deeply question what you USA people are doing about your rules for who can be the leader of your country!!!
                  Its does not matter what party you are connected with, the facts should be the facts. Politics's in the USA is so corrupted that the public can not see straight.

                  __.

                • Patrick McKEE
                  CONTRARY to what people have been LED to “believe”, the ONLY REASON that McCain was found to be a “natural born citizen” was because he was born under
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jul 19, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment

                    CONTRARY to what people have been LED to “believe”, the ONLY REASON that McCain was found to be a “natural born citizen” was because he was born under a place SUBJECT to the JURISDICTION of the UNITED STATES since “the United States held sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the time” & because of the FACTS of his parentage, he also fell under an EXEMPTION under the first NATURALIZATION Act.

                     

                    McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate

                    His Eligibility for Presidency Is Questioned

                    ...

                    Jurists on both sides of the political divide, consulted by the McCain campaign, insist that the issue is clear-cut. They argue that McCain is a natural-born citizen because the United States held sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth, on Aug. 29, 1936; because he was born on a U.S. military base; and because his parents were U.S. citizens.

                    ...

                    Curiously enough, there is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone Health Department's bound birth registers, which are publicly available at the National Archives in College Park . A search of the "Child Born Abroad" records of the U.S. consular service for August 1936 included many U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone but did not turn up any mention of John McCain.

                     

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html

                     

                    CONTRARY to what people “believe”, U.S. MILITARY BASES & DIPLOMATIC facilities are considered to be on FOREIGN SOIL, are NOT considered as part of the United States & children born there would NOT be considered as “natural born citizens”.

                     

                    7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF "IN THE UNITED STATES"

                    ...

                    c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on

                    U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:

                    (1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

                    (2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America .

                    (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran , 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

                    U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs

                    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

                     

                    Patrick in California

                     

                    Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

                     

                    "You must go after your wish. As soon as you start to pursue a dream, your life wakes up and everything has meaning."--Barbara Sher

                     

                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com , Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:

                    >  

                    >    > Sen. John McCain was not born in the United States either.

                    > Â

                    > Yes he was.  One of those situations where the term "United States 'includes' territories & possessions of the U.S." because @ the time, the Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. possession.  And, he was born on a U.S. military base, which is U.S. soil anywhere, even if the Panama Canal Zone hadn't been under U.S. flag. 

                    > Â

                    > A similar situation would be if you were born in a U.S. Embassy in another country - the embassy itself is to "soil" of the country who's flag flies over the embassy.  Or if a Russian was born in the Russian embassy in the U.S., that child would be a citizen under Russian laws, not a U.S. citizen. 

                    > Â

                    > U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark covers those situations too - in other words, if his parents had been diplomats, whatever, from China, living in the U.S. while on official business for the Chinese gov't., rather than just ordinary Chinese people legally living / working in the U.S., Wong Kim would not have been declared a U.S. citizen.  "Anchor baby" doesn't apply to such situations, but the "law of the flag" does.

                  • BOB GREGORY
                    *There is a lot of good research in the previous message. But most of it deals with U.S. law. Think about this for a minute. We all seem to easily accept the
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jul 19, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      *There is a lot of good research in the previous message. But most of it
                      deals with U.S. law.

                      Think about this for a minute. We all seem to easily accept the idea that a
                      child born of two American parents in a foreign country is an American. We
                      understand that a child born of one American parent and one foreign parent
                      is an American if the American parent meets certain requirements about
                      having actually lived in the United States. SO WHAT IS SO HARD about
                      believing than other countries can have similar laws? Great Britain DID
                      have such a law at the time of Obama's birth and DOES have such a law now.
                      In British law it is called BRITISH CITIZENSHIP BY DESCENT. This follows
                      the Roman principle of "jus sanguinis." So just as my son, though born in
                      France, did not acquire French citizenship, a child of a Briton born in the
                      U.S. can automatically be a British Citizen and NOT automatically be an
                      American citizen.

                      The British law in effect in 1961 was the British Nationality Act of 1948.
                      Under it, married male citizens of the United Kingdom and British colonies
                      automatically passed British citizenship to their children. So, at the very
                      best, we have two laws butting heads. As an American, if you had a child
                      born in England, France, Germany or wherever and you were a U.S. citizen,
                      you would probably not take kindly to the foreign nation unilaterally
                      deciding that your child was not American because you would know that jus
                      sanguinis applied. It can't work one way for Americans and another way for
                      the British.*
                    • Patrick McKEE
                      Bob is MISSING the simple FACT that BRITISH law would have had NO AFFECT on Obama’s American CITIZENSHIP, which is based on AMERICAN law. 7 FAM 081 SUMMARY
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jul 19, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment

                        Bob is MISSING the simple FACT that BRITISH law would have had NO AFFECT on Obama’s American CITIZENSHIP, which is based on AMERICAN law.

                         

                        7 FAM 081 SUMMARY

                        (CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)

                        a. Dual nationality is the simultaneous possession of two citizenships.

                        b. Dual nationality results from the fact that there is no uniform rule of international law relating to the acquisition of nationality. Each country has its own laws on the subject and confers its nationality on individuals on the basis of its national policy and law. For example, the laws of some countries provide for automatic acquisition of citizenship at birth or through marriage. Some persons born in the United States may be surprised to learn that they also possess derivative nationality of another country through a grandparent. Today, it is not uncommon for individuals to possess not just dual nationality, but multiple nationalities. While dual nationality can provide the individual with many benefits, such as the ability to work freely in the other country, it can also impose burdens, including military service, taxes, etc.

                        c. If you receive inquiries about dual nationality, you may refer the inquirer to our brochures on this subject, Dual Nationality and Advice About Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality, which are available on the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet page.

                        d. International law recognizes that each country determines who is a national of that country.

                        …[rest omitted]

                         

                        U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs

                         

                        http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

                         

                        The SUPPOSED “parentage” requirement of the SUPPOSED “natural born citizen” argument was MANUFACTURED BS that has NO basis in law.

                         

                        “Leading up to the 2008 Presidential Election and in the ensuing months after, a number of lawsuits were filed nationwide challenging both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCains10 status as “natural born Citizens” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008), affd by 2009 WL 2870668 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 8, 2009); Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709 ( Conn. 2008). As to President Obamas status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the Presidents alleged refusal to disclose publicly an “official birth certificate that is satisfactory to [the birthers].” Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 4:09-CV-106, 2009 WL 2997605, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009), reconsideration denied by 2009 WL 3111834 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 18, 2009).

                         

                        The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, theres a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States and a natural born Citizen, and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom , President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

                        Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark , we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”15

                         

                        The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs' arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs case. 16 See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., 860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs arguments had been sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983).

                         

                        For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's grant of the Governor's motion to dismiss.

                         

                        STEVE ANKENY AND BILL KRUSE V. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA , No. 49A02-0904-CV-353, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA , November 12, 2009

                         

                        http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

                         

                        Anyone born in the United States is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even the children of ILLEGAL ALIENS.

                         

                        "Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. The Immigration and Naturalization Service moved to deport him in September of 1980, and at an October hearing he was granted voluntary deportation within 90 days. Diaz-Salazar appealed the decision to deport him to the Board of Immigration Appeals and requested a joint hearing with the woman whom he considered to be his common-law wife.

                        ...

                        The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago ; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States ."

                         

                        Diaz-Salazar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 700 F2d 1156 (1983)

                         

                        http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156/diaz-salazar-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service

                         

                         

                        "The United States is one of the few industrialized countries in the world that grants automatic citizenship to nearly every child bom in the country, even the children of illegal immigrants. For instance, England , the originator of this practice, reversed course 14 years ago. Canada is currently considering doing the same. Is it time for us to reconsider our policy of granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? That is the question we will address today.

                         

                        I know this is a sensitive issue. Afterall, our birthright citizenship policy is anchored in the first section of the 14th amendment to the Constitution which states, "All persons bom in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ." It was written after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to those formerly held in bondage and to their descendants."

                         

                        SOCIETAL AND LEGAL ISSUES SURROUNDING CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES TO ILLEGAL ALIEN PARENTS, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1995, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration AND Claims, Jointly with the Subcommittee ON THE Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington , DC .

                         

                        http://www.archive.org/download/societallegaliss00unit/societallegaliss00unit.pdf

                         

                        Patrick in California

                         

                        Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

                         

                        "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus

                         

                        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com , BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@...> wrote:

                        >  

                        > *There is a lot of good research in the previous message.  But most of it

                        > deals with U.S. law.

                        >

                        > Think about this for a minute.  We all seem to easily accept the idea that a

                        > child born of two American parents in a foreign country is an American.  We

                        > understand that a child born of one American parent and one foreign  parent

                        > is an American if the American parent meets certain requirements about

                        > having actually lived in the United States .  SO WHAT IS SO HARD about

                        > believing than other countries can have similar laws?  Great Britain DID

                        > have such a law at the time of Obama's birth and DOES have such a law now.

                        > In British law it is called BRITISH CITIZENSHIP BY DESCENT.  This follows

                        > the Roman principle of "jus sanguinis."  So just as my son, though born in

                        > France , did not acquire French citizenship, a child of a Briton born in the

                        > U.S. can automatically be a British Citizen and NOT automatically be an

                        > American citizen.

                        >

                        > The British law in effect in 1961 was the British Nationality Act of 1948.

                        > Under it, married male citizens of the United Kingdom and British colonies

                        > automatically passed British citizenship to their children.  So, at the very

                        > best, we have two laws butting heads.  As an American, if you had a child

                        > born in England , France , Germany or wherever and you were a U.S. citizen,

                        > you would probably not take kindly to the foreign nation unilaterally

                        > deciding that your child was not American because you would know that jus

                        > sanguinis applied.  It can't work one way for Americans and another way for

                        > the British.*

                        >  

                      • vivus_spartacus
                        It seems that some are mighty proud of, and quite generous with, their ignorance. FACT: The United States concluded the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty in 1903 under
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jul 19, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          It seems that some are mighty proud of, and quite generous with, their ignorance.

                          FACT: The United States concluded the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty in 1903 under Theodore Roosevelt's administration, whereby the new Republic of Panama (Clue) conveyed to the United States "in perpetuity" the ten mile wide strip across the isthmus of Panama for construction of a canal.

                          FACT: James Earl "Jimmy" Carter is a Traitor by way of committing fraud upon the People of the United States while holding Office, and violated the U.S. Constitution, and his Oath to Support same.

                          FACT: The Carter-Torrijos Treaty in Null & Void regardless of whatever Marxist propaganda some may have been duped into swallowing.

                          If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of
                          civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
                          Thomas Jefferson


                          Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be
                          their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which
                          knowledge gives.
                          James Madison, U.S. President and primary Author of the Federalist
                          Papers. Letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822.



                          We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
                          Benjamin Franklin


                          Leviticus 19:36; Deuteronomy 25:15-16
                          I John 4:6


                          Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
                          getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7



                          "vivus spartacus"
                          All Rights Reserved


                          It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a
                          prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty
                          to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude
                          is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his
                          guilt. John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)


                          Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
                          found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be
                          imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
                          with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are
                          prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
                          Frederick Douglass, "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress"





                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > *
                          No, the Panama Canal Zone was NOT a U.S. possession at the time. under the Hay-Buneau-Varilla Treaty, the canal zone remained under Panamanian sovereignty.
                        • vze4bqdp@optonline.net
                          ... Article 3 of the treaty grants all the (described) rights, power, and authority ... which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jul 20, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 10-0720 02:17 am, you wrote:
                            FACT: The United States concluded the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty in 1903 under Theodore Roosevelt's administration, whereby the new Republic of Panama (Clue) conveyed to the United States "in perpetuity" the ten mile wide strip across the isthmus of Panama for construction of a canal.

                            Article 3 of the treaty grants all the "(described) rights, power, and authority ... which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory ...."

                            Actual ownership of the Zone's land area appears to have remained with Panama.

                            VZE
                          • Email41@aol.com
                            It was rumored early in the announcement of his candidacy that McCain was born off base in the local hospital at the time his father was stationed in Panama.
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jul 20, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              It was rumored early in the announcement of his candidacy that McCain was born off base in the local hospital at the time his father was stationed in Panama.
                            • vivus_spartacus
                              Re: Article 3 of the treaty grants all the (described) rights, power, and authority ... which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jul 21, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Re: "Article 3 of the treaty grants all the "(described) rights, power, and authority ... which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory ...."

                                Actual ownership of the Zone's land area appears to have remained with Panama."

                                VZE

                                Newsflash: That dog don't hunt!

                                Apparently some will go to any length, or in this case shortcut, in an attempt to bend reality to match their preconceived / ill conceived notions.

                                FACT: Article III is a whopping ONE WHOLE PARAGRAPH !

                                (FYI: It is a grossly popular and simple technique whereby those who disseminate propaganda and/or disinformation take a snippet OUT OF CONTEXT to support their assertions, whereas to leave such intact and show such its entirety, the truth of the matter would become self evident!)

                                Since apparently no expertise in either U.S. Geopolitical History (ala Monroe Doctrine), Treaty or Contract Law, Context, or perhaps even Commonsense 101 could manifest in such a brief response, so as to remove any doubts, or subsequent lame a**ed assertions, let's simply get everyone herein up to speed.

                                First the Back Story:

                                FACT: Since 1821 the Territory known as the isthmus was Part of Columbia;

                                FACT: The People of the isthmus made several failed attempts to secede from Columbia, the last attempt was the Thousand Days War (1899-1902)



                                FACT: When the Senate of Columbia rejected the Hay-Herran Treaty in 1902, the U.S. Congress (as is later stated in the Hay-Banau-Varrilla Treaty)

                                passed an act approved on June 28, 1902, by which the President of the United States is authorized to acquire control of (ie SIEZE) the necessary territory (i.e. the ENTIRE area of the isthmus which would thus become the Republic of Panama) of the Republic of Colombia, and the sovereignty of such territory (i.e. isthmus/Republic of Panama) being actually vested in the Republic of Panama,
                                FACT: It WAS the Military POWER of the United States ALONE, which was chiefly responsible for enabling / creating the hatchling Republic of Panama to break away/secede from what was previously sovereign territory of Columbia in November 1903

                                Does everybody Get That Now?

                                FACT: The Republic of Panama ITSELF WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST TODAY, if not because of the effort and expense of the United States of America to bring the Republic of Panama into existence.

                                ERGO, when the newly formed Republic of Panama proclaimed its "independence" from the backbone of the U.S.A. in November 1903, Panama's FIRST Official Act, Right Then & There was the Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty with the U.S. and explains the necessity, and LOGIC, behind the very FIRST Article of Same. To Wit:

                                (EMPHASIS ADDED, MINE)

                                ARTICLE I

                                "The United States GUARANTEES AND WILL MAINTAIN THE INDEPENDENCE of the Republic of Panama."

                                (i.e. Commonsense 101, as otherwise Columbia would otherwise have laughed at such proclamation of independence, and would have once again merely sent their troops to suppress the insurrection/rebellion)

                                The newly formed Republic of Panama's gratitude or "consideration" to the U.S. for bringing about their very existence, becomes patently apparent under Art. II specifically @:

                                ARTICLE II

                                "The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed;…"
                                Such is further CLARIFIED and explicitly expressed under Article III, To Wit: (In its Entirety with EMPHASIS ADDED, MINE)

                                ARTICLE III

                                "The Republic of Panama GRANTS TO THE UNITED STATES ALL THE RIGHTS, POWER AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE ZONR MENTIONED AND DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II OF THIS AGREEMENT and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II WHICH THE UNITED STATES WOULD POSSESS AND EXERCISE IF IT WERE THE SOVEREIGN OF THE TERRITORY within which said lands and waters are located TO THE ENTIRE EXCLUSION OF THE EXERCISE BY THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA OF ANY SUCH SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, POWER OR AUTHORITY."

                                i.e. Again, Commonsense 101 - The fledgling Republic of Panama, being 100% dependent on the military might of the U.S. for its very existence and survival, and the Fact that this (U.S.) Canal Zone ran right through the middle if Panama, dissecting it in half, therefore Panama gave to the U.S., and SOLELY to the U.S. alone, the Non-Transferable Sovereignty of this Canal Zone, "to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority."

                                i.e. 1) If the U.S. did not follow through with its plans and actually build the Canal, then NO DEAL (Keep in mind that previously both Great Britain as well as France began to construct a canal across the isthmus, only to eventually abandon their efforts)

                                2) Just as Our own Constitution does not grant any power to either of Our three branches of federal gov't, to re-delegate any of the powers and/or authorities specifically granted to such by same, (Separation of Powers doctrine) Article III of the Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty made it expressly clear that the U.S. could NOT Sell, Assign. or otherwise Re-Delegate its exclusive Sovereign Right, Powers & Authority Interests over the Canal Zone to ANY OTHER Nation, or Private Party/Parties in the World, who could subsequently use such to "divide and conquer" the Republic of Panama! (DUH!)

                                (Entire Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty @ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/pan001.asp )

                                Now, to bring everyone up to Present Day,

                                FACTS: The Carter-Torrijos Treaty which purportedly returns the U.S. Canal Zone (Much to the delight of the World's Marxist Central Banksters) to the Republic of Panama is TOTALLY NULL & VOID!

                                1) First off, the DeConcini Reservation contained therein which was approved by the U.S. Senate, was unacceptable to General Torrijos. So being the Globalist / Marxist Puppet in Chief that he actually was and still is, "Jimmy the Weasel" Carter allowed Gen. Torrijos to have a secret counter-reservation that was never submitted to the U.S. Senate, therefore the Treaty signed by Torrijos is radically different from the one ratified by the U.S. Senate, ergo making such Treaty/Treaties automatically Null & Void.

                                2) However, even if the EXACT Same Treaty were to have been signed by Mr. Peanut and Gen Torrijos, nevertheless STILL the Treaty would be Null & Void!

                                Now, are there any U.S. Constitution scholars herein who can state WHY such would be, and IS the FACT of the Matter?

                                Here is your Clue: U.S. Constitution Article IV Sec 3 Clause 2

                                Oh, and just FYI:

                                May the warm and fuzzy, Clueless Ignorance permit the American Sheople to sleep comfortably every night, in spite of the Fact that the Communist Chinese Army's front companies and corporations ( Panama Ports Company; Hutchinson-Whampoa; COSCO; etc.,) have already established a beachhead, a mere nine hundred miles from Our southern Border, and have acquired Control of the ports of Cristobal on the Atlantic end, and Balboa on the Pacific end, of the Canal Zone, which coincidentally just happens to be the most strategic waterway in this hemisphere, as well as acquiring Control of the U.S. built Rodman Naval Base, giving the Communist Chinese a virtual monopoly on the Pacific side.

                                And even if the Traitors in D.C. cannot get their Super (Easy To Divide & Conquer America) Highway built on Schedule, no matter, that OTHER Marxist Puppet in Chief, Slick Willie Clinton sealed Our Fate in Chinagate by illegally transferring Military Secrets via GM Hughes and Loral Space thus allowing the Communist Chinese to equip all of their intermediate range Nuclear Missiles sitting in those Container Ports in the Canal Zone which are now under their exclusive Control, with Multiple Warhead MIRV Technology and PIN POINT ACCURACY!

                                And Gee, with all of the fuss over the Mexicans illegally invading Our Country, Our Lame Stream Media apparently does not have the Time, or perhaps the desire, to cause Us further Stress by reporting on all of those Cases of illegal entry by the Communist Chinese! Too Bad.

                                Ignorance is BLISS, until it Kills You!

                                Do have a Great Day! It could very easily be your last!


                                If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of
                                civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
                                Thomas Jefferson



                                Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be
                                their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which
                                knowledge gives.
                                James Madison, U.S. President and primary Author of the Federalist
                                Papers. Letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822.


                                We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
                                Benjamin Franklin


                                Leviticus 19:36; Deuteronomy 25:15-16
                                I John 4:6


                                Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
                                getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7


                                "vivus spartacus"
                                All Rights Reserved


                                It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a
                                prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty
                                to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude
                                is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his
                                guilt. John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)


                                Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
                                found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be
                                imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
                                with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are
                                prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
                                Frederick Douglass, "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress"





                                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, vze4bqdp@... wrote:
                                <Non gradus anus rodentum deleted>
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.