Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Patriotic’ 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 »


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 »

Omar the Tent Maker


 

 

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.

Read Full Post »


 

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.

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 »


 

 

 

GOP_LOGO

 

                      

Resolution to close Republican primaries in North Carolina.

 

 

Whereas, the current North Carolina practice of holding open primaries, could allow non-Republicans to pick the North Carolina GOP candidates for the general election.

Whereas, the North Carolina GOP can close the primaries as per ;§ 163 119. Voting by unaffiliated voter in party primary. If a political party has, by action of its State Executive Committee reported to the State Board of Elections by resolution delivered no later than the first day of December preceding a primary, provided that unaffiliated voters may vote in the primary of that party, an unaffiliated voter may vote in the primary of that party by announcing that intention under G.S. 163 166.7(a). For a party to withdraw its permission, it must do so by action of its State Executive Committee, similarly reported to the State Board of Elections no later than the first day of December preceding the primary where the withdrawal is to become effective. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 762, s. 7; 2002 159, s. 21(a).)

Whereas, Republicans are most likely to pick the candidates that most closely adhere to and advance the platform of the NC GOP.

Whereas, the significant number of Republicans who have recently left the GOP may well be encouraged to re-register as Republicans if that were the only way they could influence the party slate.

Whereas, open primaries make it possible for non-Republicans to skew the primary vote so that the candidate that most reflects the values of the Republican Party does not receive enough votes to avoid an expensive run-off election.

Whereas, hijinks such as Sen. Thad Cochran’s controversial tactic of recruiting Democrats to secure his nomination in Mississippi’s most recent Republican primary result in a lack of trust in the electoral process by the voting public.

Whereas, trust in the party is essential if our GOP candidates are to win elections.

Therefore be it resolved that the NC State GOP close its primaries and allow only registered Republicans to vote in them and that this resolution shall become effective upon adoption.

 

 

Written by Fremont V Brown III

          

         

 

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

Read Full Post »


A disabled Veteran kneels in Prayer at the location of a removed Monument. His Grandsons flank his sides. Click to enlarge.

A disabled Veteran kneels in Prayer at the location of a removed Monument. His Grandsons flank his sides. Click to enlarge.

        

       

The following came to me via a comment on the 1st Battle of King blog. I chose not to publish it in its entirety as a comment, but felt it deserved its OWN separate posting.      

 

 

In August of 2003, the Mayor of King, two city staff members, and five American Legion members commissioned a committee to create a process by which King could have a memorial to recognize members of our community who have served in the armed forces. The Veterans Memorial Committee distributed information about the project to businesses, the chamber of commerce, and local churches as well as placing ads in local newspapers; banners were created and used in parades, festivals and fairs; and a scale model of the project, which included miniature reproductions of 11 flags—along with applications for the purchase of memorial pavers—was placed in various settings throughout King for the public to see.

The presence of a Christian flag in the mock-up of the Memorial offended no one.

While the original estimate on the Memorial’s construction was $100,000, once bids came in, Magnolia Construction won the bid with a price of $278,000. Work began about 2 months after the bid was finalized and was completed in 4 months and within budget.

At the Memorial’s dedication, on November 11, 2004, the Christian flag offended no one.

As of June 30, 2008, per the City of King, total expenditures for the project totaled roughly $390,000.

Of that total, $226,941 in revenues and services had been DONATED by this community for the construction of THEIR Veterans Memorial.

The Stokes County Arts Council, whose programs for Stokes County citizens create shared and lasting experiences that connect participants to their heritage, commissioned Calloway’s Welding to create a statue of a soldier kneeling before a cross, mourning a fallen brother-in-arms; once completed, it too was placed at the Memorial.

The Christian flag flew and the fallen soldier statue stood at the Veterans Memorial where they offended no one for YEARS, until an anonymous person, in July of 2010, claimed Constitutional offense and demanded they be removed, or else…

The Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Article I, Section 13 of the North Carolina Constitution recognizes that ‘All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and that no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.’

Our Constitution is a legal document. It is 237 years old. And the ‘promise’ of that document to us hasn’t changed. Not once.

There HAVE been efforts to crush the words and the will of We the people. When it happened here in King, it began with an anonymous phone call to the city manager in July of 2010. The caller objected to the Christian Flag Display at the Veterans Memorial because he believed that the City’s display of the banner excluded and demeaned his religious beliefs and those of other veterans. On August 2nd, the City Council voted unanimously to allow the flag to remain, and the anonymous complainant took his offensive the next step by contacting the ALCU, who in turn, sent their August 16th cease and desist letter to the City of King.

In a September 15th split-vote, the City Council decided to remove the flag upon the advice of the City attorney, “citing the enormous cost associated with fighting a potential law suit on the issue.” The September 16, 2010 removal of the Christian flag from the Veterans Memorial occurred—not because one person no longer wanted it there—but because he had known precisely who to contact in order to bully the city government of a small town into submission. The ACLU’s demand for the Christian flag’s removal from the Memorial, or have the City face a lawsuit that could financially cripple the small township, is tried-and-true ACLU harassment.

On September 17, the still-anonymous complainant sent a statement to FOX News stating he had anonymously filed complaints with the ACLU and AU because, “…regardless the form of government, it has no right to impose any type of religious belief upon its population.” He noted, “I did so anonymously to avoid ridicule from both the public and the type presented by our City Council members.”

And what was the ridicule the anonymous person believed he had been subjected to? Prayer. The City Council members had prayed for him, and the citizens of King and Stokes County had prayed for him because, as Christians, we are taught to pray for everyone, even those who would be our enemy. Our prayers for another American, especially a veteran—whether he shares our spiritual beliefs or NOT—is hardly a method of ridicule: it is doing the right thing even when it isn’t expected… it’s called common decency.

During his statement to FOX News, the anonymous man became “Steve” and stated that he ALSO planned to file a complaint with the ACLU about a statue at the memorial which depicted a soldier kneeling next to a cross. In that instant, “Steve’s” assault upon how this community chose to honor its veterans and beloved war-dead, became an attack upon all who bravely and selflessly serve to protect this Republic–past, present and future.

Within hours of “Steve’s” September 17th declaration, this community stood up, as one people, and pledged to defend both their Veterans Memorial AND their God-given right to freedom OF religious expression. The first of 3 Facebook pages, “Return the Christian Flag to King,” began on September 19th; the first call for community members to assemble in prayer at the Memorial occurred on the 20th; and by the 21st, a legal and peaceful protest by area Veterans and the Stokes County Militia had begun. Local protesters embraced all-comers… Veterans, citizens, clergy and bikers… Rolling Thunder, the Patriot Guard and American Legion riders… Christians, Jews, Agnostics and Atheists… Black, White, the very old, the very fragile, the very poorest and the very wealthiest among us. They all came. And on October 23rd, 5000 of these same people marched and rode in support of religious freedom at our Veterans Memorial.

The peoples’ peaceful protest that began because of an anonymous claim of Constitutional injury, lasted, uninterrupted, for 103 days and nights… until the Christian flag was returned to its pole at the Memorial on January 3rd, 2011. The Limited Public Forum– a lottery, of sorts – established in an effort to appease “Steve’s” claim that only Christians in the community had a voice at the Memorial, allowed persons living in King, or who had a family member memorialized on a quarry tile at the Memorial, to submit an application for their emblem of belief to be flown for 1 week in honor of their Veteran. Over 70 applications were received, and “Steve” submitted 5 applications himself, one each on behalf of several family members who had served in the military. On each submission, he chose the Christian flag, despite the fact that ‘approved’ flags for the lottery included all that are recognized by the US Dept of Veterans Affairs—and there’s 58 of them. For “Steve” to claim unconstitutionality of Christian symbols at a Veterans Memorial, then, request that a Christian symbol fly in honor of Veterans in his own family, simply made no sense. He later claimed that he only listed the Christian flag for each application because he feared that City officials would reject his applications if he sought to fly anything else.

“Steve” feared that City officials, those same people who had dared to pray for him, would sabotage him… and him a Veteran, one of the hundreds of Veterans the Memorial in King was meant to honor!

Despite an eventual claim from him that the Limited Public Forum process was also unconstitutional, “Steve” continued his yearly participation in the lottery. Regular complaints to the media continued, as well, until we learned in November of 2012 that a lawsuit had been filed by Americans United on his behalf against the City of King. On February 20, 2013, The American Legion and American Legion Post 290 in King petitioned for permissive intervention in the civil case. As members of the Veterans Memorial Committee, they had an obligation to stand with the City of King; but, more importantly, they had the right to have THEIR voices heard. Just as each of US has the right to have OUR voices heard.

Christian faith in the lives of the majority of King and Stokes County residents is absolute; it is NOT a sometimes-faith, nor is it a faith-of-convenience. In this county, there are more than 80 churches spread across 452 square miles of a mostly-rural landscape. That equates to a place of worship every 5.2 miles for approximately 47,400 people [per the 2010 United States Census.] In the same way “Steve’s” complaint was not going to change the physical landscape or the religious demographics of this county, The Limited Public Forum, no matter how well intended, was never going to satisfy the ACLU or the AU. These organizations, for whom no religious tolerance exists, want anything that even appears to infer some relation to Christianity, on public land, completely removed.

Which brings us back to the fallen soldier statue.

Since 1775, millions of Americans have served in this nation’s military. The cross is a universally recognized grave marker. It indicates the burial place of fallen brothers in arms and thus, is a sacred marker upon thousands of our servicemen and women’s graves. Laid out in perfect symmetry across acres and acres of the earth, in this nation and abroad, honoring the sacrifice of Americans who fought oppression at the hands of dictators, these FIELDS of crosses remain sacred ground…for all persons of conscience, regardless their religious beliefs.

The metal statue we’re missing today was of a cross upon a grave, with a soldier kneeling on one knee, a cold rifle in his hand and his head bowed in grief with a welder’s permanence. THAT image represented THIS community’s recognition, appreciation and reverence for the sacrifices of those who gave all for the preservation of this Republic. Its removal in January undermined our ancestors’ AND OUR fight for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; its removal denied us and our children the assurance that all men are still created equal; and its removal taunts us with the PROMISE that, unless we take a stand now and say no more, those unalienable rights we were endowed with by our Creator WILL continue to be set aside—town by town– by the same deep-pocketed, special interest groups who demanded we in King must do what one person demands or else! The agnosticizing of our great Republic must stop now.

 

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

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »