<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA: Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madison&#8217;s Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/</link>
	<description>Respecting the Constitution?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:19:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: naturalborncitizen</title>
		<link>http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/#comment-20452</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[naturalborncitizen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?p=4590#comment-20452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Everything you&#039;ve been force fed about the early citizenship standards in the fledgling United States which insists that the British Common law jus soli rule had been adopted by our new federal government is wrong.  Justice Horace Gray should have recused himself in Wong Kim Ark because he was directly determining whether or not the President who had appointed him was eligible.  Therefore, Gray was determining his own fate and how history would view his appointment.  His opinion in Wong Kim Ark is built on a foundation of lies and half truths.  This case of James McClure was not even mentioned by Gray, yet it destroys his false assumptions.  

There was no general rule in this country for Jus Soli citizenship.   Gray was full of crap, but he was really smart at dishing out crap.  He was a genius at obfuscating the truth of the law, but history will now correct the lie.

Don&#039;t forget, it was the US Government which denied Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen.  But I guess the Executive Branch was occupied by a bunch of birthers in 1898.  The Attorney General just didn&#039;t like Obama, who he must have seen in a prophetic vision.  Damn birthers.  

Damn facts.  James McClure was not a US citizen by birth on the soil.  The Madison administration required his father to be naturalized before he was born for him to have been considered a citizen at birth.  James McClure was NOT eligible to be POTUS.  The article makes clear that months after McClure was born, he might have been entitled to citizenship via derivative naturalization, but he certainly was not a citizen at the time of his birth, and therefore was not natural born.  His birth in the US did not make him a US citizen at all, let alone natural-born.  The case of James McClure speaks volumes to the original meaning of Article 2 Section 1.

More to come on James McClure et al.

Leo]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Everything you&#8217;ve been force fed about the early citizenship standards in the fledgling United States which insists that the British Common law jus soli rule had been adopted by our new federal government is wrong.  Justice Horace Gray should have recused himself in Wong Kim Ark because he was directly determining whether or not the President who had appointed him was eligible.  Therefore, Gray was determining his own fate and how history would view his appointment.  His opinion in Wong Kim Ark is built on a foundation of lies and half truths.  This case of James McClure was not even mentioned by Gray, yet it destroys his false assumptions.  </p>
<p>There was no general rule in this country for Jus Soli citizenship.   Gray was full of crap, but he was really smart at dishing out crap.  He was a genius at obfuscating the truth of the law, but history will now correct the lie.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t forget, it was the US Government which denied Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen.  But I guess the Executive Branch was occupied by a bunch of birthers in 1898.  The Attorney General just didn&#8217;t like Obama, who he must have seen in a prophetic vision.  Damn birthers.  </p>
<p>Damn facts.  James McClure was not a US citizen by birth on the soil.  The Madison administration required his father to be naturalized before he was born for him to have been considered a citizen at birth.  James McClure was NOT eligible to be POTUS.  The article makes clear that months after McClure was born, he might have been entitled to citizenship via derivative naturalization, but he certainly was not a citizen at the time of his birth, and therefore was not natural born.  His birth in the US did not make him a US citizen at all, let alone natural-born.  The case of James McClure speaks volumes to the original meaning of Article 2 Section 1.</p>
<p>More to come on James McClure et al.</p>
<p>Leo</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: naturalborncitizen</title>
		<link>http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/#comment-20447</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[naturalborncitizen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:01:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?p=4590#comment-20447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When Publius states, &quot;The case of James McClure is clearly a nice one -&quot;, the word &quot;nice&quot; is used to indicate &quot;requiring accuracy&quot;.

&lt;b&gt;nice&lt;/b&gt;   [nahys]  Show IPA
adjective, nic·er, nic·est.
1.
pleasing; agreeable; delightful: a nice visit.
2.
amiably pleasant; kind: They are always nice to strangers.
&lt;strong&gt;3.
characterized by, showing, or requiring great accuracy, precision, skill, tact, care, or delicacy: nice workmanship; a nice shot; a nice handling of a crisis.&lt;/strong&gt;
4.
showing or indicating very small differences; minutely accurate, as instruments: a job that requires nice measurements.
5.
minute, fine, or subtle: a nice distinction.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nice]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When Publius states, &#8220;The case of James McClure is clearly a nice one -&#8221;, the word &#8220;nice&#8221; is used to indicate &#8220;requiring accuracy&#8221;.</p>
<p><b>nice</b>   [nahys]  Show IPA<br />
adjective, nic·er, nic·est.<br />
1.<br />
pleasing; agreeable; delightful: a nice visit.<br />
2.<br />
amiably pleasant; kind: They are always nice to strangers.<br />
<strong>3.<br />
characterized by, showing, or requiring great accuracy, precision, skill, tact, care, or delicacy: nice workmanship; a nice shot; a nice handling of a crisis.</strong><br />
4.<br />
showing or indicating very small differences; minutely accurate, as instruments: a job that requires nice measurements.<br />
5.<br />
minute, fine, or subtle: a nice distinction.</p>
<p><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nice" rel="nofollow">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nice</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
