Archive for July, 2009

Wall Street Journal Caught Spreading False Legal Propaganda Via James Taranto

Posted in Uncategorized on July 31, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

propaganda

Yesterday, American journalism reached a new low when James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal published legal propaganda that appears to blatantly lie to readers.  In discussing the issues surrounding Obama’s birth to an alien father, Taranto added text to a US statute which does not contain such text.  Here is the offensive passage:

“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”

No such law exists.

The words “natural born citizen” do not appear in the statute discussed by Mr. Taranto.  In fact, the words “natural born citizen” do not exist in any US statute.  Those words only appear in the Constitution –  Article 2 Section 1 – and only as a requirement to be President.

The US code Taranto makes reference to is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g):

§ 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 statute does not use the words “natural born citizen”.

Mr. Taranto needs to get back to Hogwarts fast and try a new spell.  His magic wand didn’t add new text to the US Code overnight.

Had Mr. Taranto made the focus of his article the issue of whether persons who obtain citizenship at birth by statute are also natural born citizens for purposes of meeting the Presidential requirements of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, such a discussion would have been proper.  His legal analysis as stated in the article would be wrong, but stating such a question presented and taking a position thereto is a correct form of editorial.

But that’s not what Taranto has done.

Taranto and The Wall Street Journal have done something far more damaging and nefarious than simply mis-analyzing the law.  He’s written – and they’ve published – a piece of propaganda here which makes it appear as if the text of the law contains words which are not there.

Let’s call that what it is – propaganda.  They weren’t content to ask a legal question and honestly deal with both sides of the argument from a non-partisan and pure journalistic intent.  No.  This article is an attempt to trick readers into believing laws exist which do not exist.

The statute does not include the words “natural born citizen”.  Regardless, those who read Taranto’s article are left with the impression that the statute includes those words.

And that is journalistic evildoing personified.

Statutes that grant citizenship – at birth or later in life via naturalization – provide rescue to those people whose citizenship is not self evident at birth.  If you’re born in the US to parents who are citizens then you are a natural born citizen and you do not need a statute to create your citizenship which is natural and self evident.

Statutory citizenship does not give rise to natural born citizen status – which is not a right but a requirement to be President.  All citizens have the same rights, but not all “citizens” can be President.  Not even all “natural born citizens” can be President.  The Constitution put the requirements for President in the Document to exclude persons from eligibility, not include them.

Taranto’s article is a gauntlet thrown down in your face.  The fourth estate has signaled – through this blatant propaganda attack on the law – that it is willing to lie to your face – IN YOUR FACE – Amerika.

Perhaps all other measures to control this issue are failing. And perhaps my constant pessimism that this blog isn’t doing any good to wake people up is misguided.  Blatant propaganda tells me somebody somewhere is getting desperate to make this all go away.

The Wall Street Journal via propaganda agent James Taranto has taken a drastic course of action from which the point of no return is clearly mapped.

We aint in Kansas anymore, people.


Advertisements

Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.

Posted in Uncategorized on July 30, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

[Update in red below 10:25AM]

The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history.  One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.

I can understand such reliance.  The passage below has been confusing for me as well.  Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief.  I just couldn’t find the words to thoroughly distinguish the case.

However, it finally became clear today.  The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent.  Here’s the infamous passage:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.  His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens.  And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters.  But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.

Have another look:

“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

–  he compares two children

– on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

Do you see the difference?

He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

He says that both are citizens.  But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to.  So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:

“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

But that’s not what they said.

– By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.

– But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.

– This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.

Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship.  For example, not all natural born citizens can be President.  Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.

Here’s the final holding of the case:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)

This is the core holding of the case.  It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen.  The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.

If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said.  But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.

I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for another post.

My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President.  His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen.  His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.

This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court.  Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President.  But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer.

I continue to press this issue for fear that it will continue to erode the chain of command.  The brave men and women of our military deserve to know for certain that their Commander is Constitutionally eligible to lead them.

SCOTUS ought to revisit Cort Wrotnowski’s case if they truly care about the future of this nation and the health of our republic… which is being torn apart by this issue as we speak.

I personally don’t care who the President is anymore.  I’ll never care again.  Both McCain and Obama have damaged the office and this nation severely by their willingness to put us through this.  It doesn’t matter who the President is.  We’ll still be at war.  We will still have poverty, hatred, racism, fascism, sarcasm, nukes, etc… the new boss is the same as the old boss.  We do get fooled again.  Everytime.  But if we let this sit and the chain of command erodes…  Goodbye Ms. American Pie.


THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

Posted in Uncategorized on July 29, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

[Ed. UPDATED 2:49 PM – The Google cache is now once again returning the Fight The Smears page with the relevant admission.]

[Ed. UPDATED 9:33 AM – Looks like they missed a spot or returned the document to the web.  Hurry before it vanishes.  The following link is still active:

http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

smears

With all the new media attention swirling around the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, I thought it might be helpful to re-release an important blog post I created back when my law suit was pending before SCOTUS.  I’ve done this for two reasons.

1.  The image that contains Obama’s admission of his birth status having been governed by Great Britain is being scrubbed from the web.  It was highlighted originally at Obama’s own Fight The Smears website which has now vanished.  The relevant admission appeared just below the Certification of Live Birth which he used to declare he was born in the US.

2.  The admission by Obama that his birth status was governed by Great Britian is the one fact which the main stream media has NEVER acknowledged.  In all of the coverage on the web and on radio and TV nobody will talk about it.  Instead of discussing this admission openly, they mock the entire movement.  It’s the new Soviet form of sarcasm.  They’ve found a new way to censor people, just act like a bunch of bullies in a sandbox and pretend you are in kindergarden.  Kick sand in the face of those who won’t do your bidding and threaten anybody else with sand in their face if they don’t laugh along.

Thank God for punk rock.  That music liberated me from all fear.  When The Sex Pistols back in 1976 put it to the Queen they got the snot kicked out of them everywhere they went.  But they started a revolution, a revolution along with The Ramones and The Clash and the world was changed.  They certainly liberated me and taught me to question authority.

I brought my law suit against the NJ Secretary of State to rid the ballots of  McCain, Obama and Calero.  Yet, I have been called a racist more times than I can count.  Furthermore, I have never said that the definition of natural-born citizen has been certainly determined in the courts.  I simply pointed out various historical cases and  comments which support the definition I believe is most on point – that to be President one must be born in the US to parents without foreign allegiance who are US citizens.

It’s hardly a fringe concept to expect and demand that the Commander in Chief was never a citizen of another nation.

It was Obama who originally said his birth status was governed by Great Britain, not me.  He said it.  He proved it.  Now  it’s like the emperor’s new clothes.  Nobody in the main stream media has the guts to discuss it openly.

I originally posted the following on  December 5, 2008 – the date SCOTUS discussed my case in private conference.

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:

“FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ ”

Read that last line again.

“That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr.  He has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

And this leads to the relevant question:

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.

smears1

[Ed. Notice the link to Fight the Smears is now broken.]

Obama is Guilty on at least one count of false swearing.

Posted in Uncategorized on July 27, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

[Ed. This story was edited and updated at 7:38 AM on July 28, 2009 to reflect that only one count of false swearing is documented by the document below.  The original story included two counts based upon two statements allegedly given to the State of Arizona and the State of Virginia.  This was originally posted by The Obama File blog.  That blog was wrong in that the two documents were actually separate pieces of one document forwarded by Obama to the State of Arizona.  The notary was in Virginia and that is where the confusion arose.  Below is a signed sworn statement by Obama forwarded to the State of Arizona and notarized by a notary in Virginia.  The legal analysis remains unchanged and unedited from my original post.]

On Nov. 30, 2007 Obama swore to and signed the document below:

Arizona full version swear

The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US.  The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a  Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.

Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President.  He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue.  But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of  “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?

BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen.  But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”.   Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1.  This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.  But the  Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement.  SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”.  Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

Obama –  the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status.  Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.

Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.

When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true.  If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your  “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are –  in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.

You can’t legally swear to the best of your knowledge that you are eligible to be President when the SCOTUS last word on the issue directly calls such eligibility into doubt.  You can’t even do that with a straight face let alone a sworn oath.

Even if the current SCOTUS were to one day hold that Obama is a natural-born citizen despite his British/Kenyan birth through his father (who was never a US citizen) that would not have been a holding available to Obama at the time he swore he was eligible.

The state of Arizona accepted as true the false sworn statements by Obama and thereafter placed his name on the ballots.  He was then elected President.  The voters in Arizona were directly defrauded by Obama’s false affirmations.

When Obama  swore he was eligible, he lied.  He didn’t swear that he might be eligible or that there was a good chance he would be found eligible.  He swore that he was – in fact – eligible. Obama’s certain affirmations under oath and penalty of perjury are false.  He could not have been certain and he should not have sworn that he was.   He’s guilty of false swearing despite whatever definition of natural-born citizen comes down the pike.

On December 13, 2007, Obama could not have been certain he was eligible to be POTUS.  He may have believed he could be held eligible according to his own hopes and his own analysis of what the current SCOTUS might say.  But such an analysis could be nothing more than an intellectual guess.  The affirmation demanded that he swear he was –  in fact – eligible to be POTUS.

A statesman puts the safety and legal sanity of the nation  ahead of himself.  Obama reversed that call to honor and placed himself ahead of the law.  The law questioned his eligibility but he swore under oath no such question existed.

The proper thing for Obama to have done was raise the issue before the American people prior to the election.  Perhaps he could have accomplished this by bringing a law suit to determine whether he could satisfy these affirmations without perjuring himself.  He did no such thing.  He swore something was true when he  knew the truth was in doubt.   Regardless of what SCOTUS might say about this issue in the future, no future holding can change the facts as they existed on December 13, 2007.

Obama has now been intellectually convicted of false swearing.

[Thanks to reader “Lawyer” for the affirmation scans and the legal tip on this issue.]


Ginsberg Espousing Master Race Eugenics?

Posted in Uncategorized on July 17, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

Ruth Bader Ginsburg cheerleader beauty queen Little Miss Sunshine

Pardon my leaving the NBC issue aside for now.  Too much strange stuff flying around and I don’t really know what to make of it.  I feel like a scene is being set – a dinner table if you will – and the meal is going to be a “long form” BC for your culinary delight.  It just feels like a set up – all this long form – long form – long form — blah blah blah.  That’s the standard being established for absolute eligibility.

It’s being allowed people.  Just my opinion.  But you have to be a complete lemming if you think Gibbs is now regularly calling on Les Kinsolving of WND in White House pressers just to be a fair dude.  The administration appears to be controlling this game and leading it to an endgame where they give you EXACTLY what you’re all asking for.  Notice the standard wording Major Cooke stated to the press – “All he has to do is show the long form BC…” etc.  If that’s all he has to do to drive a stake through the heart of the eligibility issue… then that’s what you can expect.  But I digress from my topic today.

I tell you… nothing felt more intellectually dirty or reeked of pure filth to me than my experience with the United States Supreme Court.  I know the law.  I know procedure.  I knew the SCOTUS court rules.   Yet, I had to be deloused after that experience.  God knows what crawls in those chambers.   Go back through SCOTUS history and see the vile possession by evil of those once hallowed chambers by eugenic skank like Oliver Wendell Holmes and his modern successors.

Eugenics is basically what Hitler’s Nazi regime worshipped via their final solution.  It’s a concept of population control where the Government decides who can live and who can breed… and who cannot be allowed to breed.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Jewish and one would think that she might find such a concept repulsive.  But the abortion rights movement heralded by the BS decision in Roe v. Wade is more about eugenics then it is about a woman’s right to choose.  And on July 7, 2009 Ginsburg confirmed what many suspected of her – that she’s a eugenic proliferating skank.

Check her comment given to the New York Times:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

What populations are you speaking of you horn rimmed freak show?  There’s not much else I can say about this crap except that the New York Times journalist – Emily Bazelon – failed to do her damn job and follow up on the alarming answer given by Ginsburg.

[Ed. Edited by author on July 25, 2009…]

Do we really want SCOTUS deciding what populations are allowed to breed?  What the hell is she talking about?  Do we have even one single journalist who will force her to clarify these disgusting and dangerous remarks?