Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Corruption in Government’ Category


Tyranny — by Definition

tyrannytj

 

 

Definition of tyranny (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

    1 :  oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially :  oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

 

Please help if you can. Share this info. A financial contribution will help too. $5 – $10 – whatever you can afford. It is amazing how a bunch of folks, with small contributions, can help restore the rule of law.

 

 

 

https://www.gofundme.com/judge-denies-veteran-his-rights

 

 

Does the U.S. Constitution define certain ‘RIGHTS’ held by all citizens of these United States?

              

Does our N.C. State Constitution confirm some these rights?

                      

                                   

The “REAL” answer to the above two questions is actually NO!

                 

                                   

At least that is how it is applied in the Durham County Court system here in North Carolina.

                          

                       

Former assistant district attorney, recently elected local district judge, completely discards her oath to uphold the Constitutions and places the boot of ‘TYRANNY’ on a local veteran.

 

What was his crime? He asked some questions! OMG, The HORROR!

       

 

Other links to the ‘Rest Of The Story’ – These are very detailed & long reads.

 

 

https://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/korea-era-veteran-is-under-attack/

 

https://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/korean-vet-under-attack-part-ii/

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twentieth Day of February in the Year of Lord, Two Thousand and Seventeen. Our former Presidents are rolling over in their graves at what has been done to our beloved Constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


 

Representative Paul Luebke passed away on Saturday, October 29, 2016. My sincere condolences & prayers go out to his family.

Now, this leaves a vacancy in Durham’s Representation in the North Carolina General Assembly. According to our General Statutes, the Durham County Democratic Party can make a recommendation to the Governor to appoint a replacement for the remaining term that Luebke was elected to. That terms ends on January 1, 2017. See NCGS § 163-11.

Now, we are encountering an UNUSUAL situation here; We are 8 days away from the General Election. The ballots have been printed and we’ve already started ‘Early Voting’, so I’m sure there are many that have already cast a ballot for Mr. Luebke. After all, he was the heavy favorite in ‘The Democrat controlled Utopia of Durham’.

Here’s the dilemma:  As of his DEATH on Saturday, Mr. Luebke is no longer eligible to run for the NC House.

NC State Constitution, Article II – Section 7

Sec. 7.  Qualifications for Representative.

 

Each Representative, at the time of his election, shall be a qualified voter of the State, and shall have resided in the district for which he is chosen for one year immediately preceding his election.

 

 

Since Mr. Luebke is disqualified from THIS Particular Election, the other candidate on the ballot, Elissa Fuchs, will be the ONLY QUALIFIED Candidate to receive votes. She SHOULD BE declared the winner of this particular race. However, from my early chats with our officials, it appears the democrats will pick his replacement. And our GOP will stand by & allow it.

 

I personally have scoured through the majority of Chapter 163 of our elections statutes and I can NOT find anything to address this particular situation. Now, there are statutes on ‘Deaths Before & After a Primary Election’, and as stated above, filling a vacancy  while in office, but nothing on how to handle a candidates death, this close to a General Election. If I’ve missed the statute in Chapter 163, you legal scholars please correct me & point me to it.

Now, for a full disclaimer, I’m NOT a fan of Mr. Luebke. He was a socialist. I’ve questioned for years whether or not he even resided within the district that he represents. His other job is a ‘Professor of Sociology’ at UNC-G in Greensboro NC. That’s a heck of a commute on a daily basis … 60 plus miles one way. And he UNLAWFULLY uses his NC Legislative Email account for correspondence with his students & other faculty there at UNC-G. Listed on his UNC-G Profile.

paulluebkeuncgpage

Screengrab from the UNC-G faculty page. Notice the ncleg.net email address

On his NC Legislative page, he lists his address as a P.O. Box. Upon further investigation, this SAME P.O. Box is assigned to a company named Denson Printing here in Durham. Did Luebke RESIDE at Denson Printing or maybe just got his mail there?   Who knows?

 

paulluebkepaulluebkedensonprintingsameaddress

If we look up Mr. Luebke on the State Voter database, he lists an address of 311 S. LaSalle St. This is the address of Duke Manor Apartments. Over the last 20 plus years, Duke Manor has been a haven for thugs & illegals. I just can’t imagine a NC Representative actually living in a place like this. I’ve got a sneaky suspicion that this was a ‘Phantom Address’ to allow him to file for election.

paulluebkeresidencedukemanor

Board of Elections Filing Data

                                

A simple Google Search will turn up THOUSANDS of hits for ‘Duke Manor Crime’ over the last several years.

 paulluebkedukemanor01paulluebkedukemanor02

I hope and pray that our GOP leaders won’t cave in, as usual, & allow the Democrats keep control of this seat in the NC General Assembly. The legal team needs to RE-READ the actual LAWS and not just ‘Go With The FLOW’ like they have done in the past.

                                     

And, if the legal team wants to investigate our Durham State Senator, Mike Woodard, I did a write-up on him years past. He TOO uses a non-residential address.

https://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/nc-state-senator-has-a-strange-personal-address/

                                  

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

Read Full Post »


 

 

North Carolina’s Voter ID Law has some MORE support that I, SilenceDogood2010, have stumbled across.

 

 

 

Most recently, it was brought to my attention that in August of 2016, those nutty & wacky court justices of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals printed the following in one of their opinions;

 

 

9thcircuitopinion_nojurisdiction_2016

9th Circuit opinion, August 2016

 

 

 

 

Now, upon further research, I find that the US Supreme Court issued basically the same statement in 2013.

 

 

 

 

gunnvsminton02

February 2013, supreme Court opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

That statement IS:

 

 

“Federal courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by the Constitution and by Congress.”  

 

 

 

OK legal scholars, please tell me again how the lower district courts, and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, has jurisdiction over a case involving the State of North Carolina & its Voter ID Legislation? What about over ‘Election Districts’ & how they were drawn? And lastly, let us revisit N.C.’s Amendment 1, Same Sex Marriage — A Constitutional Amendment passed by the voters of the State of N.C. . . . How does a Federal District Court have any say in how a State modifies its ‘Constitution’? Or the authority to overrule it?

 

28usc1344electiondisputes

 

 

 

Misc. Links.

          

Gunn Vs Minton – A SCOTUS Opinion

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1118_b97c.pdf

 

 

Election Disputes – 28 USC 1344 – This states what the federal district courts have control over . . . aka jurisdiction concerning election issues.

 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title28/html/USCODE-2010-title28-partIV-chap85-sec1344.htm

 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/16/15-10117.pdf

 

https://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/nc-can-enforce-its-voter-id-law/

 

Full list of district courts jurisdiction — the Federal Code 28 USC, Chapter 85.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title28/part4/chapter85&edition=prelim

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Sixteenth day of September in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen.

Read Full Post »


 

 

 

 

Refugees and the LAW

 

With all the news of the ‘Widows & Orphans’ being denied access to come here, I thought I would delve into what the actual law states. For your convenience, I have taken a few screen grabs from the law itself. This might help you with your ‘Low Info Friends’ too — since they can’t seem to comprehend what they read.

,,
Please review the embedded links thoroughly — Don’t just take ‘MY WORD’ for it.

,,
1st – Allow me to DEFINE what a refugee IS — According to the Actual LAW;

 

,,

RefugeeDefinitionSec42

 

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-101/0-0-0-195.html

 

(42) The term “refugee” means:

(A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or

(B) in such circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 207(e) of this Act) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this Act, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

 

,,

So we’ve defined the term ‘REFUGEE’ — Now we will look at what the law says about INELIGIBLE Individuals.

 

 

INA1952NoSharia

 

 

 

INA2011NoShariaHeaderPage

 

 

INASec212SecurityIneligible

 

 

,,

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html

 

(3) Security and related grounds.-

(A) In general.-Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-

(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other unlawful activity, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is inadmissible.

 

,,

The ‘Center for Security Policy’ states, in this press release from June 2015 — A majority of muslims living the U.S.A. think Sharia Law should be enforced throughout the country.

 

 

 

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/

According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.

The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. “

 

SD2010 Summary:

 

The law says that anyone who is in ‘Opposition’ to the Constitution (the LAW of the Government of the United States) – Is INELIGIBLE to be admitted to the United States.

,,

I think it is safe to say, and the law is on our side on this one — That we must deport and remove ALL Muslims from the United States of America. It is against the LAW for them to be here to begin with. And that law has been on the books since at least 1952 — It states this in the INA Act of 1952.

,,
And lest we forget ‘Taqiyya & Kitman’ that is practiced by all muslims.

,,
https://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/adhan-the-muslim-call-to-meeting-prayer/

,,

Nor should we forget the LAW that prohibits ‘Aiding & Abetting’ and ‘Encouraging’ those who are here Illegally. It prohibits ANYONE, including the President, an Adviser, a Cabinet Member, a Mayor and even a DOG Catcher from engaging in these actions.

 ,,

 

Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324

,,

 

https://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/alien-invasion-and-the-law/

,,

 

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

 

Read Full Post »


There is a lot of banter back & forth concerning the 14th Amendment and it’s intent. I will now share with you folks the TRUTH about it.

>>>
1st off, the 14th Amendment was not legally ratified.WHAT???? I hear you say. What do you mean Silence?
OK follow me now — The 14th was ‘Allegedly Ratified’ on July 9, 1868. In July of 1868, there were 37 states in the union. 3/4ths of the states were required to LEGALLY RATIFY any amendment. That means 28 States must pass the resolution. Only 21 did so legally.

Click to enlarge the image.

Click to enlarge the image.

http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

Ten of the Southern States REFUSED to ratify it. Six of the Northern, and other States failed to ratify it via their legislatures. 37 minus 16 gives us 21 — Twenty One states that ratified the 14th Amendment. Therefore the Amendment FAILED Ratification!

>>>

OK, so we’ve determined that the 14th doesn’t hold any LEGAL Water. But, for sake of argument, let us pretend that it DOES.

>>>
Now, I want you to forget all that you’ve heard from the Lawyers, & the Talking Heads, & Pundits, and whatnot. I want you to read for yourself and THINK — Comprehend what you’re reading.

“Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Alrighty then — you got that?…And subject to the jurisdiction thereof…
Now I want to focus on WHO EXACTLY is Subject to the Jurisdiction of the US.

>>>

Citizens and LEGAL RESIDENTS of the US are Subject to the US’s jurisdiction.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The ONLY place that you will find where an Official Document states otherwise, is the Code of Federal Regulations, part 31 section 515. And that section is referring to CUBA and our sanctions against it.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/31cfr515.pdf

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

>>>

Even the IRS Website states the definition of Illegal Aliens — They are ‘Nonresident Aliens’.
>>>

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Determining-Alien-Tax-Status

>>>

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

>>>

       

Then there is THIS from the discussion in 1866 via Senator Edgar Cowan:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

          

      

And finally, I want you to notice what the US Constitution has to say about WHERE the US has Jurisdiction.

 

>>>   

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

>>>                   

           

So, even if you want to consider the 14th Amendment still in place & ‘ACTIVE’ — It does NOT confer US Citizenship to someone who is here Illegally. ONLY to Citizens AND LEGAL Residents.

 >>>

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

Read Full Post »


G. Edward Griffin

G. Edward Griffin

G. Edward Griffin    

The Youtube Description

 

Published Nov 19 2012 — This address by G. Edward Griffin, given in 1969, is as current as today’s headlines. Mr. Griffin shows that the Leninist strategy for conquest involves two kinds of revolution. One is violent. The other is non-violent. While most people think only of violent revolution, the non-violent phase is where most of the action has been in the United States.

G Edward Griffin

GEdwardGriffin02

G Edward Griffin

G Edward Griffin

A.S. Herlong's note from his speech to the HOUSE on January 10, 1963 -- The Communist Goals. This is Page 7.  Click to enlarge the image.

A.S. Herlong’s notes from his speech to the HOUSE on January 10, 1963 — The Communist Goals. This is Page 7.
Click to enlarge the image.

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 . 

Read the entire text here at this link:

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

In case  the link gets scrubbed, I am posted the 45 Communist goals below.

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

*** Note: The Congressional Record back this far has not be digitized and posted on the Internet. ***

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

Read Full Post »


 

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.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »