Feeds:
Posts
Comments

William H. Taft

William H. Taft

With the passing of TAX DAY 2015, I decided to delve into some background of how & why the 16th Amendment, and the creation of the IRS, came to pass. I started my search by seeing what was available on the arguments, and the development of the Senate Joint Resolution 40 — S.J.R. 40 is what was sent to the states for ratification. We already know that only 4 states properly ratified S.J.R. 40.

S.J.R. 40 Click to enlarge the image.

S.J.R. 40
Click to enlarge the image.

Below, I will go into some detail on what President W.H. Taft had asked of the congress and the meanings and intent of the 16th Amendment.

Source

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – SENATE – JUNE 16, 1909

[From Pages 3344 – 3345]

The Secretary read as follows:

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

It is the constitutional duty of the President from time to time to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures, as he shall judge necessary and expedient. In my inaugural address, immediately preceding this present extraordinary session of Congress, I invited attention to the necessity for a revision of the tariff at this session, and stated the principles upon which I thought the revision should be affected. I referred to the then rapidly increasing deficit and pointed out the obligation on the part of the framers of the tariff bill to arrange the duty so as to secure an adequate income, and suggested that if it was not possible to do so by import duties, new kinds of taxation must be adopted, and among them I recommended a graduated inheritance tax as correct in principle and as certain and easy of collection.

The House of Representatives has adopted the suggestion, and has provided in the bill it passed for the collection of such a tax. In the Senate the action of its Finance Committee and the course of the debate indicate that it may not agree to this provision, and it is now proposed to make up the deficit by the imposition of a general income tax, in form and substance of almost exactly the same character as, that which in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (157 U.S., 429) was held by the Supreme Court to be a direct tax, and therefore not within the power of the Federal Government to Impose unless apportioned among the several States according to population. [Emphasis added] This new proposal, which I did not discuss in my inaugural address or in my message at the opening of the present session, makes it appropriate for me to submit to the Congress certain additional recommendations.

Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present deficiency. The decision of the Supreme Court in the income-tax cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that government had. It is undoubtedly a power the National Government ought to have. It might be indispensable to the Nation’s life in great crises. Although I have not considered a constitutional amendment as necessary to the exercise of certain phases of this power, a mature consideration has satisfied me that an amendment is the only proper course for its establishment to its full extent.

I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.

This course is much to be preferred to the one proposed of reenacting a law once judicially declared to be unconstitutional. For the Congress to assume that the court will reverse itself, and to enact legislation on such an assumption, will not strengthen popular confidence in the stability of judicial construction of the Constitution. It is much wiser policy to accept the decision and remedy the defect by amendment in due and regular course.

Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present deficiency, but by putting on the statute book a law already there and never repealed will simply be suggesting to the executive officers of the Government their possible duty to invoke litigation.

If the court should maintain its former view, no tax would be collected at all. If it should ultimately reverse itself, still no taxes would have been collected until after protracted delay.

It is said the difficulty and delay in securing the approval of three-fourths of the States will destroy all chance of adopting the amendment. Of course, no one can speak with certainty upon this point, but I have become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of investing the National Government with power to levy an income tax, and that they will secure the adoption of the amendment in the States, if proposed to them.

Second, the decision in the Pollock case left power in the National Government to levy an excise tax, which accomplishes the same purpose as a corporation income tax and is free from certain objections urged to the proposed income tax measure.

I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock. [Emphasis added] I am informed that a 2 per cent tax of this character would bring into the Treasury of the United States not less than $25,000,000.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar Refining Company against McClain (192 U.S., 397), seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power without apportionment according to population. The tax on net income is preferable to one proportionate to a percentage of the gross receipts, because it is a tax upon success and not failure. It imposes a burden at the source of the income at a time when the corporation is well able to pay and when collection is easy.

Another merit of this tax is the federal supervision, which must be exercised in order to make the law effective over the annual accounts and business transactions of all corporations. While the faculty of assuming a corporate form has been of the utmost utility in the business world, it is also true that substantially all of the abuses and all of the evils which have aroused the public to the necessity of reform were made possible by the use of this very faculty. If now, by a perfectly legitimate and effective system of taxation, we are incidentally able to possess the Government and the stockholders and the public of the knowledge of the real business transactions and the gains and profits of every corporation in the country, we have made a long step toward that supervisory control of corporations which may prevent a further abuse of power.

I recommend, then, first, the adoption of a joint resolution by two-thirds of both Houses, proposing to the States an amendment to the Constitution granting to the Federal Government the right to levy and collect an income tax without apportionment among the several States according to population; and, second, the enactment, as part of the pending revenue measure, either as a substitute for, or in addition to, the inheritance tax, of an excise tax upon all corporations, measured by 2 percent of their net income.

Wm. H. Taft

Some more info from the above linked source

After we look at what our President proposed, the next thing we must look at to discern legislative intent are the Congressional debates on the Sixteenth Amendment in 1909. Three different written versions of the Sixteenth Amendment were proposed before the one we have now was approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Below is a summary of each in written form:

Table 3-2: Versions of Proposed Sixteenth Amendment prior to approval.

2 SJR's Rejected and SJR 40 passed. Click to enlarge the image

2 SJR’s Rejected and SJR 40 passed. Click to enlarge the image

It can’t be any more clear. The 16th Amendment does not provide authority for a direct tax on incomes, but only authority for an indirect tax on incomes. A direct tax on incomes is a tax that diminishes the source of the income. An indirect tax on income is a tax on unearned income or profit; such a tax leaves the source of the income undiminished. Twice during the debates on the 16th Amendment (S.J.R. No. 25 and S.J.R. No. 39), Congress rejected the idea of bringing direct taxes within the authority of the 16th Amendment. Then twice more, on July 5, 1909, Congress rejected the idea by direct vote of the Senate. Despite this congressional hostility to the idea, the IRS and the lower courts admit they are collecting a direct tax. At a minimum this is scandalous. In reality it is probably criminal.

“Acts of Congress are to be construed and applied in Harmony with and not to thwart the purpose of the Constitution.” [Phelps v. U.S., 274 U.S. 341, 344 (1927)]

“Courts should construe laws in Harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose. With respect to the tax provisions under consideration, there is no uncertainty as to the legislative purpose to tax post-1913 corporate earnings. We must not give effect to any contrivance which would defeat a tax Congress plainly intended to impose.” [Foster v. U.S., 303 U.S. 118, 120-1 (1938)]

Just as the intent of the Congress should be followed when constructing a statute, so must the intent of the People, in their sovereign capacity, be followed when construing an amendment to the Constitution.

The construction of the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution absolutely proves our argument. It was necessary for the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th Amendment before the 21st Amendment could have any effect. Both Amendments related to “intoxicating liquors.” The 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation or importation and use of them. Section 1 of the 21st Amendment reads “The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.” The 21st Amendment would not have been in Harmony with the totality of the Constitution unless the 18th Amendment was first repealed. Similarly, had it been the intention of Congress to offer to the people an income tax amendment which would give Congress the power to impose a direct tax on the source of income without apportionment, the 16th Amendment would have provided for such power only by modifying the direct taxing clauses of the Constitution found at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4. The 16th Amendment did not do this.

Section 2 of the 18th Amendment included an enforcement clause which read “The Congress and the several States shall have the concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” The 21st Amendment did not include such an enforcement clause as the 21st Amendment was not conveying a new power to Congress, but in fact was adding a limitation on the power of Congress. Nor does the 16th Amendment have an enforcement clause, as it does not convey a new power to Congress, but only clarifies a theory of taxation. That theory was the basis for the Pollock Decision. The Pollock Decision was overturned by the 16th Amendment.

Congress did not modify the direct taxation clauses of the Constitution by the construction of the 16th Amendment. Therefore, the 16th Amendment does not provide authority for a direct tax on sources of income which enjoy constitutional protection. (Some sources of income do not enjoy constitutional protection, like income derived from sources without (outside) the several States of the Union.) Therefore, there is no authority for Congress to tax one of the several States of the Union, unless that tax is apportioned.

Here is a link to a 200 plus page PDF file that contains the actual Congressional Record — The arguments and debate on this issue. Below I’ve pulled out, and created a couple of screengrabs, for your reading enjoyment.

The images below came from PAGE 36 of the PDF file linked above:

         

Click to enlarge the image.

This image is from the SCOTUS (Justice Edward D. White’s Dissent) of the Pollock Case heard in 1895. In 1909, this was cited in the Senate during debate on the 16th Amendment.  Click to enlarge the image.

Click to enlarge the image.

Click to enlarge the image.

sdjkfh
sdhfjksd

sdfjhasdfh
If you want some MORE great info on Income Taxes, the 16th Amendment, Might I suggest you check out this video.
shkjs
sdkjfh

sdjkfha

sdkjfhdf

Misc. Links  

sadjfha

sdkkfjh

More info on Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

sdkjkfhdsf

sdjfla

From Wiki, the case results — “The unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the rule that direct taxes be apportioned.”

sdkjfh

sdkjfh
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/157/429/case.html

              

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Sixteenth Day of April in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen.


 

 

The following story is FICTION. All Photos are for illustration purposes only and were just downloaded off of Google Images. 

 

 

 

 

 

Omar the Tent Maker

Omar the Tent Maker

 

Omar Abdulah is a bright young tent maker in Pakistan in 1970. People heard of his quality tents from kilometers around and bartered for his goods. Soon, Omar had lots of trouble getting raw materials, and government thugs taxing him to pieces. So Omar had one of his poppy growing friends get him some fake documents (passports & such) and Omar immigrated to the USA illegally.

Omar, once here in the USA, found a nice community in the Dearborn, Michigan area. It was slowly becoming a Sharia haven and the Muslim Community was rapidly growing. Omar set up his tent making business in the back room of another mosque members store.

Things were going real well for Omar, his tents were of the same high quality as in Pakistan, and he had little to no trouble getting raw materials, and the local democrat government pretty much left him alone. He claimed only 10% of his total revenue when filing & paying his taxes each year. Omar was one happy camper…. Pun inTENTed!

Young Aaida

Young Aaida

 

 

 

This went on for about 3 years, then Omar met a lovely 8 year old American Born Girl, Aaida, & they were married. They moved to Canada to expand Omar’s tent business. In 1982 while in Canada, at 13 years old, Aaida had their 1st child — A Boy who they named Aladdin. They called him Al for short and thought this “American Name” would help him fit in with his rearing and Western Society.

Omar, Aaida & Al moved back to Michigan in the late 1980’s because they wanted Al to attend the fine American Schools.

 

 

Young Al 'Aladdin' Abdulah

Young Al ‘Aladdin’ Abdulah

 

 

 

Al was a fine boy by all measures; He studied the Quran & the Sunnah very hard. He also learned of the American customs and spoke like a typical Michigan native. Al worked hard after school to help Omar in the family tent business, which had expanded drastically. LL Bean was now one of Omar’s Primary Customers for his quality products. Al became very skilled in the practice of Taqiyya & Kitman, a Muslim tradition of deceit & untruths towards Infidels. This also helped Al, being one of Omar’s TOP Salesmen, promising deadlines that the company could never ever keep. Things were GOOD in the Abdulah household.

As the years passed, Al grew restless and as he became a teenager, he thirsted for more education. Al then went on to attend a prestigious law school in Boston Massachusetts at the age of 17. They had to pull some strings but CAIR, & the Local Muslim Brotherhood all supported the young Abdulah. Al was one sharp cookie alright. All of his teachers & college professors sang his praises.

After graduation from law school, with honors I might add, and after doing some legal wranglings for the muslim community in & around Dearborn & Chicago, Al landed a job in Washinton DC — The Nations Capital! Seeing his success, and after intense discussion with Al, Omar decided he needed to become a Naturalized US Citizen. Omar gained his US citizenship in 2010.

As the years passed, Al became a junior partner at the ‘Law Firm of Stoneher and Rapeher’ there in DC. He even argued several high profile cases before the US Supreme Court concerning Sharia Law.

He fought against the discrimination of pedophiles, and harsh sentences against them, which is nowadays defined as an ailment — not a crime. He fought to get ‘Sharia Compliant Zones’ set up all throughout the USA. He represented several of the ISIS detainees that we were holding in Guantanamo Bay and got them sent back home to Pakistan, Syria, & Iran. Al has done some great things for the Progressive Agenda over his lifetime.

Fast forward to the year 2036 – at 54 years old, Al decides to Run for the Democratic Nomination to the office of President of the United States.

 

 

 

 

Is Al ‘Aladdin’ Abdulah eligible for this high office?

Discuss…

    

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Thirty First Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen.


 

Again, let me start by saying that I like Ted Cruz. He’s a warrior for Liberty & a True Statesman.

Again, he is NOT ‘Constitutionally Eligible’ to hold the office of President of the United States. I’ll provide you with some additional information.

1st off — I hear lots of folks going on Mark Levin’s opinion. Mark is incorrect on this topic. Mark is using statements and quotes from the INA, Immigration & Naturalization Act. Don’t get me wrong here, I like Levin. I like him a lot. He’s a sharp guy…. but he is mistaken on this topic. Let’s focus on that to begin with…

 

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

 

The INA of 1952 is what was law when Ted Cruz  was born in 1970. It had been amended several times since it was originally drafted in 1795. The 1795 INA repealed the 1790 INA. Therefore the 1790 version is no longer applicable — Period. REPEALED.

Lets focus on the 1952 act and some of the debate about it —

 

 

It came into being despite heavy controversies between President Harry Truman and the House and the Senate. Truman vetoed the so-called McCarran-Walter Act (named after sponsors Senator Pat McCarran(D-Nevada) and Congressman Francis Walter (D-Pennsylvania)) because he regarded the bill as “un-American” and discriminatory. The two chambers neglected the president’s veto but applied some
changes to the bill.

Racial restrictions which previously existed were abolished in the INA, but a quota system was retained and the policy of restricting the numbers of immigrants from certain countries was continued. Eventually, the INA established a preference system which selected which ethnic groups were desirable immigrants and placed great importance on labor qualifications.

The INA defined three types of immigrants: 1. relatives of US citizens who were exempt from quotas and who were to be admitted without restrictions; 2. average immigrants whose numbers was not supposed to exceed 270,000 per year; 3. refugees.

The Act allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also allowed the barring of suspected subversives from entering the country. It was used over the years to bar members and former members and “fellow travellers” of the Communist Party from entry into the United States, even those who had not been associated with the party for decades.

“I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which we call the American way. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into theAmerican way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States…. I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.” (Senator Pat McCarran, Cong. Rec., March 2, 1953, p. 1518.)

 

 

Now, lets look at the 1790 & 1795 acts.

 

1st the 1790 version:

 

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

 

The above is the 1790 version created by the 1st Congress. The Repealed Act. Now, lets look at the 1795 version…

 

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: —

First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.

Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

 

I want you to read CAREFULLY the purpose of the act! The very 1st statement made.

 

 

 

“For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:”

 

 

 

Read that again. Read it once more.
Three times is the charm.

 

~~~~~

2nd item — If the Natural Born Citizen Clause, of the Constitution, meant a single parent, or anyone just spit out within our borders, then why would THIS PIECE of legislation have been introduced in 2005? There were also several other similar bills introduced in years previous to 2005.

 

 

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

 

~~~~~

3rd item — Let us review the CRBA. It appears that Ted’s mother did NOT follow thru with these requirements or else he would have a 2nd Birth Certificate… one that was issued by the US State Department. Also to be noted, this falls once again under the INA. Not to be confused with the term “Natural Born Citizen” as stated in the US Constitution.

It appears that this reporting of births has been in use since at least 1910… According to Ancestry dot com.

 

Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA)

A Consular Report of Birth (CRBA) is evidence of United States citizenship, issued to a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the requirements for transmitting citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

CRBA applications must be made before the child’s 18th birthday, and we recommend that parents apply for the CRBA as soon as possible after the child’s birth. For applicants older than age 18 who have never been issued a CRBA, please refer to Possible Derivative Claim to U.S. Citizenship. Anyone who has a claim to U.S. citizenship must be in possession of a valid U.S. passport to enter and exit the United States, even if they have citizenship of another country, as well.

Eligibility for a CRBA

In order to determine whether or not the U.S. citizen parent(s) is/are able to transmit citizenship, please refer to the transmission requirements.

If the transmission requirements have been met, please submit the following in person at the Consulate General serving your area. For applicants living in areas where there is no consular presence, you may be eligible to submit your application during an ACS outreach program.:

The applicant (child) and at least one parent, preferably the U.S. citizen parent;
Completed (but not signed) CRBA application (Form DS-2029) — all questions must be answered. To assist, please see information to the right of this page regarding Listing times of Physical Presence in the U.S.;
If the U.S. Citizen parent is not able to attend the appointment, they must complete the Affidavit of Parentage, Physical Presence and Support, have it notarized by a Public Notary (in the U.S.) or Justice of the Peace (in Australia), which must be submitted in their absence;
Child’s Birth Certificate;
Parents’ registered marriage certificate (if applicable);
Evidence of termination of any previous marriages (if applicable);
American Citizen Parent(s)’ evidence of U.S. Citizenship (U.S. passport or naturalization certificate);
American Citizen Parent’s documentary evidence of physical presence in the United States prior to the child’s birth;
Self-addressed Express Post Platinum for the return of the passport and/or Consular Report of Birth Abroad – minimum A4 size. Please note: we are not able to accept Registered Post envelop to return documents;
Applicable Fee (All fees are subject to change without notice).

Parents are encouraged to apply for their child’s Social Security Number and first U.S. Passport at the same time as applying for their CRBA. Once you have completed all appropriate application forms and gathered all required supporting documentation, make an appointment to lodge the application. Please make sure you print your appointment confirmation to show to the Consulate Security.

If the U.S. citizen parent does not meet the transmission requirements and the child is under 18 years of age, the child may be eligible for expeditious naturalization under the Child Citizenship Act 2000.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Seventh Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen.


 

TedCruzBothSidesScared

 

 

First off, let me start by saying that I respect Senator Ted Cruz, and I think he is a true statesman & warrior for liberty. I honestly do. However, as much I like him, I still have the knowledge that he is not eligible to be the President of the United States under the Constitution’s eligibility clause. This post will go into great detail to educate my readers on the facts and the intent of the founders when they wrote the constitution.

Lets start with a short prayer & spiritual verse —

 

“Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.” ~ 2 Tim 2:23   

 
Since Monday, March 23, 2015, when Senator Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for the POTUS, there are folks who are all on board with him and believe that he is eligible because they like him. There are also the liberal lefties that are yelling that he’s not eligible because they hate him. The republican establishment hates him too. Remember John McCain & the “Wacko Bird” comment last year? Planned Parenthood hates him. Whoopie Goldberg hates him.

All of these are GREAT REASONS to support him.

 

 

 

~~~~~

The Constitution and its meaning — “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Now lets delve, in depth, on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

1st – The founders used a reference book called the ‘Law of Nations’ by Vattel.

“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 indigenes, 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. . .”

 

Read more here.
Now I’ve seen several articles recently posted that argue that the word ‘indigenes’ was changed in Vattel’s english translation AFTER the constitution was written. “Indigenes” was changed to “natural born citizen” in 1797. Here’s one of those articles;

 

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/

 

 

Click any image to enlarge it.    

LegalInsurrection01

 

LegalInsurrection02

 

LegalInsurrectionBothParents01

 

“In 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote a gracious note to Charles Dumas, for “the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.” Franklin also stated that Vattel’s treatise was, “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress.” (From a letter, Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas, Dec. 19, 1775.) …”

     

[It is unknown whether or not the edition sent to Franklin was in English or French. Franklin could read both languages as could many of the founders.]

 

Vattel’s treatise was first published in 1758, in French. The first edition contains the exact same passage as the 1775 edition give to Franklin by Dumas. In 1759, the first English edition was published in London, translated as follows:

“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 indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature”, E. de Vattell, (London, 1759), § 212, pg. 92. (App. Pg. 159.)

“Les naturels, ou indigenes”, was not accurately translated. The proper translation of “indigenes” is “natives”. The 1759 London edition makes the mistake of repeating the same word twice, once in English and once in French; “natives or indigenes” means “natives or natives”.

The influence of the U.S. Constitution may have played a part in correcting the error, since, in the 1797 London edition, and thereafter, the French passage was correctly translated as follows:

“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.” (Emphasis added.) “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature”, E. de Vattell, (London, 1797), § 212, pg. 101.
(App. Pg. 161.)

 

Now let us look at the author

 

Jacobson is a 1981 graduate of Hamilton College and a 1984 graduate of Harvard Law School.

 

Jacobson goes on to say  —

 

Additionally, Vattel did not purport to explain the meaning of the term in the context of British law or the common understanding in the British American colonies or newly formed United States. It is, at best, highly speculative to assert that the Framers looked to Vattel for the definition of “natural born Citizen.”

 

Sorry if I don’t put ANY FAITH in what a Harvard Law Graduate has to say.

 

~~~~~
2nd item – People are claiming this is factual because of the “Legal Scholars” that wrote it.

Notice at the TOP it says — “Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement written March 11, 2015.”

Remember, Lawyers say things like, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

Yep, This is not liberal at all <sarcasm>
Let’s look at Neal Katyal for a moment — He’s Part of the Clinton & Obama Cabal.

And Paul Clement — He’s just another Indoctrinated Lawyer

 

~~~~~

 

 

3rd item – The founders while writing the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, were well aware of the term “Natural Born Subjects” used in many historic documents.

As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.
The rule of jus soli goes back to at least 508 BC in Athens, when it was used to establish citizenship in districts called demes. The Romans mainly used jus sanguinis to organize the empire into national groups each with its own legal system (although they had to introduce the office of praetor peregrinus to adjudicate disputes between members of different groups). However, the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD made jus soli the rule for the entire Empire. The rule was carried to France and England under Roman domination, and the Normans adopted it and spread it to Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.

However, jus sanguinis prevailed in many Eastern and Central European countries at the time Vattel wrote, and spread to other countries on the European continent. It displaced jus soli in Britain in 1983 and in France in 1993, mainly in response to immigration of persons of different ethnicity.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz

Born December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, of a father who was a citizen of Cuba, and a mother who was a citizen of the U.S.

Sen. Cruz is not eligible to be president…

 

 

Jon Roland Bio

 

~~~~~

 

4th item – Those arguing the Naturalization ACT, or the 14th Amendment, are completely irrelevant. Those items are refering to citizenship and NOT the Natural Born Citizen clause of the US Constitution.

~~~~~

 

5th item – Go dig up your OWN Birth certificate. Look at it. Who was it issued by? It is issued by either the STATE in which you were born, or maybe the ‘County’ within the STATE that you were born. We are not citizens of the USA, we are citizens of a Sovereign State, that is a PART of the United States of America.

Senator Ted Cruz can not be eligible as a natural born citizen because he was not born in any of the sovereign states that make up the USA. He is considered a US Citizen, due to his mothers citizenship but he does not meet the requirement of being a natural born citizen. Plus his father was a Cuban Citizen at the time of his birth. As we’ve established above, citizenship follows the Father. As does a last name. Only in the Liberal world of misfits here in the USA can a child take a mothers last name or a hyphenated name — Those dang Wacko Birds!

 

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

 

 

~~~~~

 

6th item – Here is a link to every president and what made them eligible or not.

 

 

~~~~~

Misc. Links

 

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm

 

 
http://www.redstate.com/2012/05/21/on-this-natural-born-citizen-issue-part-i-from-alexander-hamilton-to-lynch-v-clarke/

     

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Fifth Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen.


 

yeoldschoolhouse1

 

 

My previous post was focused on Virginia’s Schools and then this morning, I stumbled across THIS GEM  from our own back yards — NC Department of Public Instruction headed up by none other than June Atkinson of the Democratic Party! She is SOoooo proud of these numbers! They are showing ‘Improvements’ over the last few years. You however, should be APPALLED!

 

JuneAtkinson

Here’s the Full Report — 164 pages in a nice PDF file. I spent about 1.5 hours this morning going over it. Read it they said. It’ll be FUN they said! Nope!

Below is just a FEW of the graphs & charts I pulled out of the report. I’ll let YOU decide what sort of trends you notice.

 

Are you happy with these numbers? Click to enlarge the image.

Are you happy with these numbers? Click to enlarge the image.

 

 

Let’s START with the 32 schools, then move to the 26, then the 40, etc. etc. It’s TIME to use some RID-X and pump these Septic Tanks Clean before they spread MORE Disease & Mayhem.

Click to enlarge the image.

Click to enlarge the image.

 

Click to enlarge any of the images.

NCSchoolCrime2015Reportpg37RacialSuspensions NCSchoolCrime2015Reportpg44RacialSuspensionsLongTerm NCSchoolCrime2015Reportpg70DurhamSuspensionsLongVsShortTerm

I’ll  urge you contact your local Board of Education. Here’s the Contact Info for Durham’s Board.

Click to enlarge the image.

Click to enlarge the image.

 

Daily Haymaker also has a good write-up on this issue.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Eighteenth Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen.

It is also SD2010’s 5th birthday. This site was born on March 18th, 2010 Anno Domini.


Update March 20, 2015 @ 8:00am – The parents were on Fox & Friends on Thursday morning.

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATE: March 17, 2015 @ 10:ooam – It has been brought to my attention that the Orange County School board has issued a statement.

 

            

 

Page 1 - Click to enlarge

Page 1 – Click to enlarge

 

 

Page 2 - Click to enlarge

Page 2 – Click to enlarge


SilenceDogood2010 OP ED #2 — I have noticed that the comments supporting this atrocity are few and far between. And just this morning, I’ve had another commenter that claims her child attends this school. Yet the IP Address, from where the comment was made, is out of Georgia. That’s gotta be one hellava of a bus ride to & from school.

I have also been asked to edit and change contents of this post. Respectfully I refuse to do so. This issue came to light a few days ago & as facts present themselves, I shall make amendments to keep my readers informed. I will NOT Re-write History(even though it’s recent History) to appease a handful of whiners.

A wise man once said —- It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ~ Mark Twain

These folks have been fooled into believing that their actions have no consequences. They do. If your name is anywhere on that program, you own part of it. In criminal terms, you are an “Accessory Before the fact“. 

 

 

Accessory Before The Fact –
Definition– A person who aids, abets, or encourages another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. An accessory before the fact, like an accomplice, may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice.

 

UPDATE: March 16, 2015 @ 9:ooam —– From one of the comments below it seems that a better number to use is 540-672-4550. It has also been brought to my attention that Ms. Scott, the music teacher, wasn’t involved in the organizing of this program.

It has also been brought to my attention that this event took place either last Thursday or Friday (12th or 13th of March). It had been postponed due to local weather issues.

      

Allow me to address this issue of Ms. Scott, the music teacher:

 

 

SilenceDogood2010’s OP EDThe comments  give the impression that Ms. Scott is innocent and should NOT be held accountable for this program. I disagree. Ms. Scott was asked to provide music for this nightmare. Ms. Scott SHOULD be a responsible adult and inquired about the program & its contents. Instead, she appears to have followed her commanders and marched ‘Goose-Step’ in line with the others. This is what is WRONG in our society today. No one takes responsibility for their involvement in the crime.

As  they say, hindsight is 20-20, but Ms. Scott  should have looked at the program before just ‘Going with the flow’ and providing the ‘Motown Sound’.

However, since this a developing story, I have chosen to REMOVE Ms. Scott’s Phone & email address from this posting.

          

~~~ End of Updates ~~~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Screengrab from David Webb's Facebook page. Click to enlarge

Edited Screengrab from David Webb’s Facebook page. Click to enlarge

 

 

 

 

I stumbled across this group of photos on Facebook. It was 1st posted, or shared by Holly — of Hobby Lobby Fame — and then, as I was vetting the story further, I saw that David Webb had also reported on it. I’m not sure exactly WHEN this program took place but I am guessing sometime in late February.

Here’s the actual text posted to the Facebook photos;

 

 

READ IT ALL… In our schools?

This story is sickening from a Police Officer’s perspective. If you’re a Police Officer supporter, this should make you want to throw up.

Notice the words in the first picture of the young lady’s hair. (“I can’t breathe, Stop shooting, etc.)

Of course this is our opinion. Numbers will be provide for you to either “applaud” the school’s efforts or for you to voice your concerns.

Sent in by a supporter/ Deputy who at this time wishes to remain anonymous.

————-

In his own words:

Hello, my name is XXXXX XXXXXXX.
I am looking for your help to get this story out there.

Last night my 8 year old daughter attended Orange County Schools annual Black History Month event (Orange County Virginia). We had assumed the program would highlight all the great accomplishments of people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Or Rosa Parks. Instead, as my wife, 5 year old son and daughter found out, it was very little about them.

As my wife walked into the auditorium, she noticed the students working the event were wearing black t-shirts that stated “I Can’t Breath” and “‪#‎blacklivesmatter‬”. My wife tried to overlook it and settled in to enjoy the program. My daughter had been selected to participate in the program and sing a “Motown Medley” as part of one of the elementary choirs. My wife looked at the program that she was handed as she took her seat and found disturbing and, what I would argue, anti-police propaganda all over it.

At this point my wife had an uneasy feeling about what this program was actually about and quickly realized those black t-shirts were not just some of the students “protesting” but that it was part of the nights theme! One by one students began reciting “last words”. To include

“I’m from Ferguson Missouri…. I was told to put my hands up. I did, and I was shot 7 times. My name is Michael Brown.”

“I was sitting on the couch and the police came in my house and shot me in the head. I was seven years old”.

” I was falsely harassed for selling cigarettes and I was put into a choke hold that eventually lead to my death. I can’t breath my name is Eric Garner”

My wife was shocked and, at first, unable to move. She quickly grabbed her phone and recorded the last two students talking. Our daughter went up on stage as she debated removing her from the program knowing it would break her heart because she had practiced so hard for this and was so excited to perform.

She contacted me and told me what was going on. I told her as soon as xxxxx was done to leave. My wife did so and went to the staff member in charge of the students, with several other parents also unhappy about the program, and asked for our daughter. She was initially told they would not release her until intermission. My wife pressed a little harder and they released the students.

The program list readings that we’re going to be done the second half of the program. The titles included

“Voices: The Exhausting Task of Being Black in America”

“Don’t Shoot”

“Not an Elegy for Mike Brown”

“I Can’t Breathe”

“Does my Black Life Matter”

“They Don’t Really Care About Us”

We are upset about this for many reasons. We were excited to allow our daughter to participate in a Black History event. But why were we not told our daughter would be participating in a political event. Or I’d go as far as saying a protest based off of anti-police sentiment. Why would the school allow this type of rhetoric and, according to Eric Holder, lies. How dare they expose my young children to this type of propaganda.

The worst part about this entire event, was the conversation we had to have with our 8 year old girl well into the night about all of this, why they were saying this and why it was a lie. Things we shouldn’t have had to discuss in the detail we did.

I work very hard to serve my community. I don’t make a lot of money and I don’t ask for recognition for doing my job. But to hear my baby girl ask us why do cops shoot good people? Are they bad cops? Does that make you (me) bad?? It was heart breaking and infuriating all at the same time.

I have contacted the School Board and Lightfoot Elementary Principle. So far I have only heard back from my daughters principle.

Superintendent – Dr. Tanner
540-661-4550

Director of Student Services –
Mr. Jean Kotolka 540-661-4550

Director of Elementary Instruction –
Mr. Bill Berry 540-661-4550

Lightfoot Elementary School Principle – Ms. Williams 540-661-4520

Music Teacher – Ms. Scott
XXX-XXX-XXXX

Emails:

Dr. Tanner — btanner@ocss-va.org
Mr. Kotulka — ekotulka@ocss-va.org
Mr. Berry — bberry@ocss-va.org
Ms. Williams — jwilliams@ocss-va.org
Ms. Scott — XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Any help you can give me to tell our story would be greatly appreciated. I feel this is an outrage to the LEO community and the general public.

 

 

 

Here are the photos. Click on any image to enlarge it.

 

 

 

VirginiaSchool02VirginiaSchool01 VirginiaSchool03 VirginiaSchool04 VirginiaSchool05

         

Is this what you want taught to your kids in the public schools that YOU pay for?

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Fifteenth Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen. Beware the Ides of March. 


An African Tribal Village

An African Tribal Village

 

 

 

As I was reading some of our local news yesterday, I ran across this comment on a Durham Herald Sun news story. To me, it appeared as though it was a copy/paste style comment. A little search and Wah-Laa… I had found the actual author.

 

Ten Percent Is Not Enough

By Anthony Bryan – September 23, 2014

For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites.

The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedman’s Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

Their new laws intruded into people’s lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless handwringing to close the “achievement gap.” To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to “Celebrate Diversity!” and “Say No to Racism.” Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.

Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of. There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing.

Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And blacks never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.

Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn’t mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.

But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue it’s a problem of “culture,” as if culture creates people’s behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame “white privilege.”

But since 1965, when the elites opened America’s doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India–people who are not white, not rich, and not “connected”–have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black “youths” are committing half the country’s violent crime–crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.

The experiment has failed. Not because of culture, or white privilege, or racism. The fundamental problem is that white people and black people are different. They differ intellectually and temperamentally. These differences result in permanent social incompatibility.

Our rulers don’t seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. They don’t understand that white people aren’t out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity.

The elites explain everything with “racism,” and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point.

 

 

London circa 1870

London circa 1870

 

 

Scotland circa 1870

Scotland circa 1870

 

 

 

Italy circa 1870

Italy circa 1870

 

 

Matsuyama Castle in Japan. This one was built between 1820 - 1854

Matsuyama Castle in Japan. This one was built between 1820 – 1854

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twelfth Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 64 other followers