David Farrar: "I am afraid it goes deeper and longer than you suppose."

What do you know about what I suppose?

@Admin says:
July 2, 2012 at 5:46 pm

You see...it's as if they don't see what I have written.

Whomever 'Admin' is, the predicate I have established, with altogether more prima facie evidence than you have thus far posted, is that George Romney's parents, although natural born US Citizens, were not US Citizens at the time of George's birth in Mexico.

I say again: George Romney was born in 1907, in Colonia Dublán in Galeana in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, to expatiated parents. Although Gaskel Romney and Anna Pratt were born US citizens; they were not US citizens in 1907. In 1907 both of them were Mexican nationals.

All you have stated thus far is simply code based on the assumption that Gaskell and Anna did not give up their US citizenship or lost it during their 25-year sojourn in Mexico.

What I am saying is all the evidence I have tells me they weren't considered by the Mexican government as US citizens.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Mitt's father, George Romney, under US Law was a US citizen by birth, since his father was a US citizens on the date of his birth and since both parents had resided in US before George's birth. It doesn't affect this decision that George was born in Mexico.

George was born prior to 1934, and the best description of US law prior to 1934 is from the Canadian Law Firm Chang AND Boos. Since George and his wife were US citizens and Mitt was born in the US, Mitt, under Vattel section 212, is a Natural Born Citizen as required under US Constitution.

See the following:

Date of birth of child
Parent’s Residence Requirement to Transmit Citizenship Child’s Residence Requirement to Retain Citizenship
Before 5/24/1934 father is a citizen who resided in the U.S. before the child’s birth None.


see http://www.greencardlawyers.com/citizenship/citizenbybirth.html

Peng and Weber Immigration lawyers



Immigration and Naturalization Act. 8 U.S.C 1401


INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH


Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;


(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899



CHANG AND BOOS'
CANADA - US IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER


U.S. Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad
Written by Henry J. Chang
Introduction The laws regarding the transmission of United States citizenship to children born outside the United States can be very complex. A distinction is made between legitimate and illegitimate childen for the purposes of citizenship eligibility. In addition, the laws that were in effect at the time of the child's birth determine whether citizenship is transmitted in a particular case. Finally, depending upon when the child was born, he or she may have been subject to certain conditions subsequent, which were required for retention of citizenship.
Legitimate Children
Conditions Precedent -- Required Residence of Parent(s)
Prior to May 24, 1934, children born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were United States citizens, acquired U.S. citizenship at birth unless the father had never "resided" in the United States prior to the child's birth. In the absence of a specific definition of "resided", the Immigration and Naturalization Service took the position that even a temporary sojourn by the U.S. citizen parent was sufficient to comply with this requirement.
Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the "1934 Statute") gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.
On or after May 24, 1934, a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother (or both) was a citizen of the United States at the time of the child's birth, would be considered a United States citizen provided that the U.S. citizen parent had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. The previous interpretation of "resided" continued to apply under the 1934 Statute.
The 1940 Statute became effective on January 13, 1941. The 1940 Statute defined the meaning of residence as the general place of abode. Although this did not necessarily require the establishment of a domicile or place of permanent residence, it contemplated the establishment of an actual principal dwelling place.
The 1940 Statute also provided for more stringent requirements for prior residence where, at the time of the child's birth, one of the parents was a U.S. citizen and the other was an alien. On or after January 13, 1941, in the case of a child born to a U.S. citizen parent and an alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent had to have resided in the United States or its outlying possessions for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after attaining the age of 16 years in order to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
In 1946, Congress modified the requirement slightly but only for the benefit of U.S. citizens who had served honorably in the U.S. armed forces during World War II. The U.S. parent's prior residence requirement could be satisfied by residence in the U.S. for 10 years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of 12 years if the U.S. citizen parent had served honorably in the U.S. armed forces after December 7, 1941 but before December 31, 1946.
On December 24, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the "1952 Statute") became effective. As under the previous statute, where both parents were U.S. citizens, one parent would have to have resided in the United States prior to the child's birth in order to transmit U.S. citizenship. The meaning of residence previously applied under the 1940 Statute was essentially the same as under the 1952 Statute.
In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child's birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. "Physical presence" was different from the concept of "residence" which had applied under the previous statute. The physical presence requirement could be satisfied by mere presence in the United States even if the person had not established a legal residence there.
The physical presence requirement was intended to preclude extended absences from the United States during the required period. However, it was found to be too restrictive. In 1966, Congress passed an amendment which, for children born on or after December 24, 1952, permitted the transmitting U.S. citizen parent to count presence abroad in the following capacities towards the physical presence requirement:
1. honorable service in the United States Armed Forces;
2. employment by the United States Government;
3. employment by an international organization with which the United States is associated; or
4. physical presence abroad as a dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person employed in one of the above categories.
The Immigration and Nationality Amendments of November 14, 1986 further liberalized the transmitting U.S. citizen parent's physical presence requirements. For children born on or after November 14, 1986, a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent would acquire U.S. citizenship if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for at least 5 years, at least 2 of which were after attaining the age of 14 years.
Conditions Subsequent -- Required Residence of the Child
Prior to May 24, 1934, there were no requirements imposed on the child born abroad as a condition subsequent to retaining U.S. citizenship. However, the 1934 Statute did impose retention requirements on the child unless both parents were U.S. citizens.
Where only one of the child's parents was a U.S. citizen, the child would have to reside continuously in the United States for at least 5 years immediately before his 18th birthday and take the Oath of Allegiance within 6 months after his or her 21st birthday. The retention requirements contained in the 1934 statute were repealed by the Nationality Act of 1940 (the "1940 Statute"). Therefore, no one actually lost their citizenship before the retention requirements were repealed. However, the 1940 Statute retroactively applied its new retention requirements to any children born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent on or after May 24, 1934.
As stated above, the 1940 Statute retroactively applied more liberal retention requirements to children born abroad with one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent on or after May 24, 1934. Such a child had to have resided in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling at least five years between the ages of 13 and 21 in order to retain U.S. citizenship. The child would also lose U.S. citizenship if he or she did not establish residence by the time he or she reached the age of 16 or the child's continued residence abroad made it impossible to comply with the residence requirements.
The retention requirement was made specifically inapplicable to a child whose U.S. citizen parent, at the time of the child's birth, was employed by the United States Government, certain United States organizations, or an international organization with which the United States was associated. However, the 1946 amendment which permitted relaxed prior residence requirements for a U.S. citizen parent who had served honorably in the United States Armed Forces during World War II specified that citizenship retention requirements would apply to the children of such parents.
The 1952 Statute imposed a revised requirement on any such children to be continuously physically present in the United States for at least 5 years between the ages of 14 and 28 in order to retain citizenship. The retention requirement was retroactively applied to any person born on or after May 24, 1934.
It was not certain whether or not persons who had already lost citizenship under the 1940 Statute's retention requirements would be reinstated even if they were able to comply with the 1952 Statute's retention requirements. However, as persons who have previously lost citizenship for failure to comply with prior retention requirements may now regain their citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance (discussed below), the issue is no longer as significant as it once was.
The physical presence requirement was found to be too restrictive and it was soon modified in a 1957 amendment. The amendment provided that absences from the United States aggregating less than 12 months would not break the continuity of physical presence for retention of citizenship.
Recognizing the hardships resulting from the 1952 Statute's retention requirements, Congress passed an amendment in 1972. The Act of October 27, 1972 (the "1972 Statute") liberalized the retention requirement so that any person who had acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent was now required to be continuously and physically present in the United States for only 2 years between the ages of 14 and 28. In addition, the 1972 Statute provided that absences from the United States for an aggregate of less than 60 days during the required 2 year period would not break the continuity of physical presence for the purpose of satisfying the retention requirements. Finally, the 1972 Statute provided relief from the normal retention requirements for a child whose alien parent was naturalized as a U.S. citizen before the child reached the age of 18 and the child began residing in the United States before attaining that age.
The 1972 Statute left unchanged the language in the 1952 Statute which provided that it was applicable to persons born on of after May 24, 1952. It is at least arguable that the liberal retention requirements of the 1972 Statute should apply even to persons born on or after that May 24, 1952 who had already lost their citizenship for failure to comply with previous retention requirements. However, as persons who have previously lost citizenship for failure to comply with prior retention requirements may now regain their citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance, the issue is no longer as significant as it once was.
Although, taking the Oath of Allegiance reinstates U.S. citizenship only from the date of the oath, unless establishing U.S. citizenship during the period between purported loss of citizenship and the taking of the oath of allegiance is crucial (such as where the individual seeks to transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born during this period), the whether or not the 1972 Statute is retroactively applied will not be relevant.
On October 10, 1978, the retention requirements were completely repealed. However, Congress did not give this statute retroactive effect. Although any persons who had not yet lost citizenship for failure to satisfy the previous retention requirements were relieved of the requirement to do so, those persons who had lost U.S. citizenship prior to October 10, 1978 were not reinstated.
Illegitimate Children
Where the U.S. Citizen is the Mother
As mentioned above, the statutes prior to 1934 did not permit the transmission of citizenship through a U.S. citizen mother. However, the 1934 Statute permitted either the father or mother to transmit U.S. citizenship. This was construed as also authorizing the transmission of citizenship to an illegitimatechild born abroad on or after May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother. However, the 1934 Statute did not apply retroactively to births prior to May 24, 1934.
The 1940 Statute was the first to specifically adopt provisions regulating the status of illegitimate children. It provided that, where paternity had not been established before the child reached the age of 21 through legitimation (normally accomplished by the marriage of the child's parents) or court adjudication, an illegitimate child could acquire U.S. citizenship through its citizen mother as long as the mother had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. .
The 1940 Statute applied to illegitimate children born either before or after the date of its enactment. While it did not confer U.S. citizenship on an illegitimate child of a U.S. citizen mother who had been legitimated by an alien father prior to the child reaching the age of 21, it did not adversely affect the status of anyone who acquired U.S. citizenship prior to such legitimation. Children born on or after January 13, 1941 could acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under the 1940 Statute and did not lose such status, even they were later legitimated by their alien father. Further, children who were born after May 24, 1934 but before January 13, 1941 could acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under the 1934 Statute and did not lose such status as a result of the 1940 Statute, even if they were later legitimated by their alien father. In other words, an illegitimate child born to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father would only be denied citizenship if he or she:
1. was born before May 23, 1934;
2. was legitimated before reaching the age of 21; and
3. was legitimated before January 13, 1941(the effective date of the 1940 Statute).
In light of the 1994 amendment (discussed below) which retroactively authorizes the transmission of U.S. citizenship by U.S. citizen mothers to children (legitimate or illegitimate) born prior to May 23, 1934, the issue of legitimation by an alien father is no longer relevant to the transmission of U.S. citizenship by a U.S. citizen mother to an illegitimate child.
The 1952 Statute provided that an illegitimate child acquired U.S. citizenship from a U.S. citizen mother if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth and had been physicially present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year. This provision did not adversely affect the status of anyone who had previously acquired U.S. citizenship. This provision is still in effect.
Where the U.S. Citizen Parent is the Father
Where the U.S. citizen parent is the father or an illegitimate child, the issue of legitimation becomes important. Prior to the 1940 Statute, there was no statutory provision defining the rights of an illegitimate child born to a U.S. citizen father. However, the prior case law had determined that legitimation of an illegitimate child in accordance with the laws of the father's domicile retroactively conferred U.S. citizenship on the child, provided that the father had resided in the United States prior to the child's birth. According to these cases, there was no time limit for when legitimation had to occur.
The 1940 Statute provided that citizenship rights could be transmitted to such children, under the same conditions as a legitimate child, only if the child's paternity took place while the child was still under the age of 21. Paternity could be established by either legitimation or court adjudication.
A July 31, 1946 amendment provided that, even if no legitimating acts occurred, illegitimate children of U.S. citizen fathers could still obtain U.S. citizenship at birth but only if:
1. the father served in the U.S. armed forces during World War II (after December 7, 1941 and before December 31, 1946); and
2. the father had resided ten years or more in the U.S., at least five years of which were after the age of 12.
The 1952 Statute slightly modified the conditions for the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by illegitimate children born after its effective date. It authorized the transmission of U.S. citizenship from the father if the transmitting father satisfied the prior residence requirements applicable to legitimate children. The provision for adjudication of paternity was omitted from the 1952 Statute. However, the broad definition of legitimation in the 1952 Statute permitted legitimation in accordance with the law of the father's residence or domicile or the child's residence or domicile.
Amendments contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of November 14, 1986 granted citizenship at birth to illegitimate children born abroad to U.S. citizen fathers provided that the following applied:
1. the father has U.S. citizenship at the time of the child's birth;
2. the blood relationship between the child and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
3. the father (unless deceased) agrees in writing to provide financial support for the child until the child reaches 18 years of age;
4. before the child reaches the age of 18, one of the following has occurred:
1. the child is legitimated under the law of the child's residence or domicile;
2. the father acknowledges paternity of the child in writing under oath; or
3. paternity is established by adjudication in a competen court.
The 1986 amendments apply only to persons who had not attained the age of 18 on November 14, 1986. Persons born prior to that date were subject to the previous statutory standard. Persons whose paternity had been established by legitimation before November 14, 1986 were also subject to the previous standard. However, a person who was at least 15 but under 18 on November 14, 1986 could choose either standard to qualify for U.S. citizenship.

Retention Requirements for Illegitimate Children

The retention requirements applicable to legitimate children are inapplicable where U.S. citizenship is transmitted by a U.S. citizen mother to an illegitimate child. Such a child obtains unconditional U.S. citizenship and is not required to establish residence in the U.S. or to take any other action to retain such citizenship. However, where the U.S. citizen parent is the father, statutes before 1986 place an illegitimate child in the same position as a legitimate child once legitimation has occurred. Such a child is therefore required to establish residence in the United States in the same manner as a legitimate child.

Recent Amendments
The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-416, 108 Stat. 4305) ("INTCA") has given rise to several changes in the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") which relate to the transmission, at birth, of U.S. citizenship to children born abroad. The implementation of INTCA has not affected the various residence/physical presence requirements imposed on U.S. citizen parents in previous statutes. In order to determine whether or not the U.S. citizen parent has complied with these requirements, the statute that applied at the time of the child's birth must be considered.

However, INA §301(h) now provides that any person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) on May 24, 1934 outside the U.S. to an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who resided in the U.S. is considered to be a U.S. citizen at birth. The provision is to be retroactively applied as though the amendment had been made at the time of the person's birth, subject to only two exceptions which are outside the scope of this article. Also, any provision of law that provides for a person's loss of citizenship or nationality if a person failed to come to, or reside or be physically present in the United States shall not apply to a person claiming citizenship under §301(h).
Prior to INTCA, a considerable number of children born to one alien parent and one U.S. citizen parent lost their citizenship as a result of their failure to satisfy the various retention requirements which were in effect from May 24, 1934 to October 10, 1978. INA §324(d)(1) now provides that a person who was a U.S. citizen at birth who lost citizenship for failing to meet certain physical presence retention requirements in effect before October 10, 1978 will, upon taking the oath of allegiance, once again be considered be a U.S. citizen and have the status of a U.S. citizen by birth. Persons born prior to May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father and persons born on or after May 24, 1934 but before October 10, 1978 to a U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, who lost U.S. citizenship for failure to comply with the retention requirements may now regain citizenship in light of these amendments.


Copyright (C) Chang and Boos (2011). All rights reserved.

I am afraid it goes deeper and longer than you suppose. Mitt Romney may not be a nbC as well. I lack only the resources to gather the necessary documentary evidence to file against him when I file against Obama after they become their party's nominees later this summer.

George Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico to expatriated US citizen parents who gave up their US citizen (via LDS church officials acting as their agent), along with 70,000 other Mormons, to be allowed by Mexican authorities to colonize in Mexico.

However, under the Third International Conference of American States, held on August 13, 1906, in Rio de Janeiro, a convention between the United States and most of the Latin American countries, including Mexico. It stated that if a naturalized citizen, a native of any of the countries signing the present convention, and naturalized in another, shall again take up his residence in his native country without the intention of returning to the country in which he has been naturalized, he will be considered as having re-assumed his original citizenship, and has having renounced the citizenship acquired by the said naturalization.

The problem is, when George Romney was born, he was a born of parents who were "perteptual inhanitants of Mexico and not US citizens. When the Romneys returned to US jurisdiction, everyone was again US citizens, with the exception of George Romney, who was a Mexican national by birth.

I have presented the evidence that is out there, including Mexican Naturalization documents for members of Mitt direct family; the second Mexican Constitution of 1857 that clearly states foreign nationals were not allowed to own land, build dwellings and towns, own water rights, proselytizing a new religion, et cetera, all activities Mexican nationals would have been allowed to do, but not US citizens.

Although, like Obama, Mitt Romney has reacted to these allegations with complete and utter silence and disdain; but he hasn't said they are untrue.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Jerry: "The only question raised for me is whether an NBC follows ONLY the paternal line, as Vattel clearly states [...]"

Vattel does not clearly state that, he writes in The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law, book 1, chapter 19, § 212: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Jerry: "This is, without question, the most important election [the presidential election of 2012] of our lives and every vote counts."

I am afraid this is not correct because the election fraud perpetrated in presidential elections -- especially since 1988 when the computer voting systems have been important -- is quite obvious. Remember the saying attributed to Josef Stalin: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

They keep bringing up Sen. Rubio and the others because they know the law and you don't.

You are right: they are betraying themselves. But can you blame them for following an unconstitutional law?

They believe Wong says all person born within US borders are Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born Citizens. This is what Obama believes; what Rubio believes and what all the others believe. But they would like to keep this little bit as quiet as possible, so they have their surrogates go out and keep raising the issue.

ex animo
davidfarrar

This is the best documented of any I've read thus far....and, I think, I've read most out there on this topic. The only question raised for me is whether an NBC follows ONLY the paternal line, as Vattel clearly states. or we need to refer to Minor v. Happersett where the judge noted "parents" (meaning both). Either way, BHO is clearly ineligible to sit at the Resolute Desk.

I find it remarkable that seemingly everyone in the DNC, the Congress and the MSM is complicit in this disgrace, either through apathy, ignorance or knowing fraud. Amil seems to blame Obama. I, on the other hand, point to the massive conspiracy which put him in office.

This is a National catastrophe of epic proportions and there is no simple way forward. Simply defeating him in November is grossly unsatisfactory since the horrors he has burdened us with, such as myriad legislation, over regulation from the EPA and other agencies, Czars up the gazoo and two Socialist Justices of the SCOTUS would remain. Impeachment is out since he is not legally our President. The only reasonable answer, though the fallout would be dramatic, is charging him with treason for refusing to uphold the Constitution - his sworn duty. What a mess that would be. The House could charge him, but the trial is the responsibility of the Senate....and that won't happen. So, it appears we'll have to wait until after the election to resolve the issues, when a stronger majority will exist in the House and the balance in the Senate has swung significantly to the right....and, hopefully, with a Republican President.

The 100 or so responses posted are some of the most intellectual blogs I've read anywhere. I hope by November you will all have a greater interest in the electoral process... This is, without question, the most important election of our lives and every vote counts.

Jerry

Vetting Rubio 2: A Waste of Time and Money

Rene Guerra, June 25, 2012



"For the umpteenth time elevated to the googolplex* power, dammit, Rubio is not eligible!"...would Aaron Cantor exclaim this time, upping his exasperation.


Some of you have either written to me or talked with me attempting to rebut the notions and contentions in the column by Cantor Vetting Rubio: A Waste of Time and Money that I sent out a few days ago regarding the subject of "natural-born" citizen as related to Marco Rubio and, logically, to Obama.


Before getting into my counter-rebuttal, a clarification is necessary here first: The rub is not about citizenship in general, but about a particular case of citizenship, that one of "natural-born" citizenship.


Upon the nomination of Obama as candidate to the Presidency** by the DemocRat Party and, more intensively so, after fools --leftists and non-leftists, them all alike-- got him ensconced in the White House, Obama's comrades, sympathizers and naively misguided folks have, all, taken it to making all kinds of claims about what "natural-born" citizen is.


**--The DemocRat Party nominated him as the candidate to becoming the head of only the executive branch of only the federal government, per the enumerated stipulations in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America...and not to become either King of The United States of America or The Dear Leader, as the DemocRats deem him or as what he deems himself: the dictator that he in reality is. A dictator is that government official who arrogates upon himself the power to nullify existing legitimate laws and who, instead of serving as a public servant, rules at will, dictating and emitting edicts as he pleases, making thus the people his subjects. Such characterization fits perfectly Obama; he has morphed to an all-out dictator, and his administration, to an all-out dictatorship, e.g., the amnesty he decreed last week, and the "divorce" he adopted when he decided that ICE will not respond to inquiries from Arizona regarding suspected illegal aliens, despite that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona was entitled to make such inquiries.


They make most of such claims mingling --maliciously the ones, just innocently but utterly mistakenly the others-- Constitution 215 (i.e., Chapter 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States of America), where the "natural-born" requisite is explicitly written (i.e., "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"), with the first sentence in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, where the case of "generic" American citizenship is addressed (i.e., "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.")


Others come up with convoluted explanations citing this and that, when the case is solved easily by simply referring to Constitution 215 --the supreme law in the United States of America-- and The Law of Nations as explained next.


Hence, and to make it easier for you, I am expanding on the "natural-born" citizenship typification in Constitution 215: When it comes to what the meaning of "natural-born citizen" is, the framers of the Constitution --mainly James Madison (i.e., the disputed "Father of the Constitution" and, on his own right, the true author and "Father of the Bill of Rights") and a few other statesmen and theoreticians in the Colonies at that time-- adhered to the principles of The Law of Nations.


The Law of Nations is the jurisprudence codex compiled in 1758 by Emerich de Vattel, "...a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy."


You can find a copy of The Law of Nations at the website whose URL is http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm.


The Law of Nations was --at the time the Constitution was framed and ratified-- THE norm in terms of jurisprudence related to societal and international relations.


James Madison and the rest of drafters of the Constitution were, most of them, erudite individuals and, logically, very familiar with and, as customary at the time, adherents to the tenets, contentions, notions and formulations in The Law of Nations.


In other words, when the framers referred to "natural-born citizen" in the Constitution of the Unites States of America, they referred to it using the juridical acceptation in The Law of Nations, which, at the time, was THE norm.


And what The Law of Nations says about "natural-born citizen" in Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212, Clause 2 is specifically and explicitly the following: "...natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens".


Were Obama's two parents American citizens?


No! Absolutely and undeniably, not.


Of the two, only his mother was an American citizen; his father was a British subject born in what now is Kenya...as everyone knows.


Consequently, the dictator has never been a "natural-born citizen".


He may be a plain American citizen, either by jus sanguinis from his mother and/or by jus soli...that, if he was born on American soil; however he is NOT a "natural-born citizen", because his father was NOT an American citizen at all. That, in addition to the probable fact that he may have been born in Kenya, as many plausibly sustain.


The high hierarchs of the DemocRat Party (i.e., whose ideological marrow is the very incarnation of the hardcore-Left in America) knew it then, and know it now, but they covered --and keep covering-- it up...out of the most heinous sense of anti-Americanism.


The high hierarchs of the Republican Party knew that too, and know it now, but --most likely, out of sheer cowardice, fretting "offending" blacks and afraid of being labeled "racists" by the DemocRats if they raise the issue-- they covered, and keep covering, it up as well.


And the gist of the matter here is that the same yardstick in The Law of Nations applies to Marco Rubio, and to Nikki Haley and to Bobby Jindal as well, one of whom --particularly Rubio-- may result being Romney's VP ticket-mate.


In those three cases --Rubio's, Haley's and Jindal's-- the situation is more accentuated; their parents --the mothers and the fathers-- were NOT American citizens at the time the three were born.


Those three are not "natural-born citizens"; consequently, they can never occupy the Presidency, therefore, neither of the three should be chosen by Romney as candidate to Vice-President.


For the umpteenth-plus-one time elevated to the googolplex power, dammit, Rubio is not eligible!

The high hierarchs of the Republican Party know this as well, but --with the help of pundits such as Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin, Coulter, Gibson and many others -- they are covering it up. (By the way, they are among the conservative pundits who --joining Pelosi, Reed, Schumer, Durbin and the rest of hierarchs in the hardcore-Left, including the "mainstream" media-- call us "kooks", us, we grassroots conservatives who want to exercise our inalienable constitutional right and unavoidable civic duty of demanding from Obama unequivocal and unambiguous proof of complete compliance with Constitution 215).


Why are they doing that?


Most likely, out of fear of being branded directly racists and, obliquely,"birthers", by the DemocRats, who --aided by a "mainstream" media maliciously oblivious to the matter of "natural-born" citizenship in Rubio's case-- would like to, in turn, preempt any attempt by non-leftist Americans adherent to the Constitution to --once Obama is out of the White House past noon, January 21, 2013-- start a thorough, deep and extensive investigation on how a constitutionally-grossly-unqualified individual --i.e., Obama-- came, first, to be nominated by the DemocRats their candidate to the Presidency, and, second, sworn President of the United States of America...by none else than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, John Roberts.


ObamaSwearingInCeremonyWithCommunists01e.jpg

If Romney --who, by the way, must solve his dual (i.e., American and Mexican) citizenship problem-- gets elected President along with a vice-President that is NOT a "natural-born citizen", the DemocRats would be gripping him tightly by those male-body parts dangling between the legs that, ouch, hurt a lot if clasped, in this most critical issue. Then, Romney --along with RINOs and establishment-Republicans-- would block any such investigation on Obama...out of fear of having their own "natural-born citizen" issue exposed.



Such an investigation on Obama could definitely result --much to Romney's glory and, more importantly, to great benefit to America-- in decimating politically the entire DemocRat high hierarchy...for, Pelosi, Reed, Schumer, Durbin, Boxer, Levin, Leahy, Feinstein, and hundreds more have participated as accomplices in the criminal usurpation and impersonation Obama has committed.


Furthermore, such an investigation would probably destroy politically, even, the entire DemocRat Party itself as an institution, and for decades, the same way the collapse of the Soviet Union destroyed politically the Soviet Communist Party, and as, by carom, resulted in destroying as well the Mexican Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI -- acronym in Spanish) --the arch-corrupt and venal, leftistoid political party that wrecked Mexico uninterruptedly for more than 70 years. Neither the Communist Party of Russia nor those of the other members of the defunct Soviet Union and Soviet Satellites have recovered from their collapse, and neither has the Mexican PRI. No one ever thought before the phenomenal collapse of the Soviet Union that all those political parties would in effect disappear. The DemocRat Party could follow that fate.


Thus, Romney would be enormously stupid if he renders himself fangless (more than he already is due to Romneycare) by pairing with someone who is not a "natural-born citizen", e.g., Rubio.


But if Romney decides for a VPthat is not a "natural-born citizen", such as Rubio, Romney will have no alternative but --behaving politically either as a coward or as a consummate weasel-- dodge making such investigation...under the excuse that his VP would fall along with the DemocRat falling-dominoes.

What Romney will do from now to election-day and thereafter will depend on the pressure that grassroots conservatives, particularly through the Tea Party Movement, subject him to.


You all know of the tepid reaction Romney had to the savaging of Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law (and Rubio's expected silence, for, he essentially opposed SB 1070) with his insipid and dull statement.


Beware, by the way, that this ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on Arizona's SB 1070 law could very well be a portentous wraith of what the U.S. Supreme Court will flog us with next Thursday by upholding Obamacare, thus giving the dictator more power to destroy America further.


If you want to help strengthen America, visit and join


www.USASurvival.org


www.RiseUpAmerica.net

So what about Rubio???

Its all spelled out ..... there can not be any more debate about what is and what hasn't been proven scientifically. The question is when do the so-called Representatives of the PEOPLE take the necessary action. There is of course an action of REDRESS !!!!!!! This is an action the public has had since its inception ..... I must say that it doesn't have to come to this but there is certainly a lot of TRASH that needs to go out with the rest of the GARBAGE that has been deceiving the American public for sometime. Who in our LEADERSHIP is qualified to assume this role ..... GOD only KNOWS !!!! Because all we have been given is men of mediocrity .... or WORSE in current case at hand.



I am a loss for words about the current state of affairs in our Congressional branch.....they are either inept or just plain deceptive and liars !!!!!!!