Epstien Heart’s this.
Unfortunately money and power are pretty well synonymous. If you have enough of one you’ll have plenty of the other.
I am a subject matter expert on Obama’s eligibility to be President. He is NOT an Article II “Natural Born Citizen”. “There is NO ‘President’ Obama”: http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama. Also see my book “Imposters in the Oval Office” (iUniverse Publishing © 2017) Read a (6) page excerpt here: http://www.thepostemail.com/11/19/2017/imposters-oval-office.
TWR, U.S. Bases in a foreign country are NOT U.S. soil. They are leased, like embassies, from the host nation, remaining sovereign territory of the host nation. John McCain had (2) U.S. citizen parents. However, he was naturalized as was your brother. McCain was born in Colon, Panama. NOT ever part of the Panama Canal Zone, by treaty.
The PCZ, in any event was never an incorporated territory of the U.S. McCain and Obama were/are both ineligible to be President.
1 Like
DMK, The congress has tried no less than (8) times to change the natural born citizen requirement. They have also failed to do so. The official definition of an NBC is “One born IN the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens themselves” -Minor v Happersett, USSCt. (9-0) (1874). Obama was NOT President. He usurped the Presidency by fraud, during time of war. That makes Obama both a traitor and a spy. The BC that Obama proffered has been found by competent forensic documents experts from Italy and Israel to have been forged., as is Obama’s selective service card. This is incontrovertible fact. Mere birth in the U.S. (Jus soli) does NOT suffice to be President or VP. One must be born in the U.S. (Jus soli, of the soil of the U.S.) AND be born of parents who were BOTH U.S. Citizens themselves at the time of birth of said person (100% Jus Sanquinis, of the blood of Americans). As for Obama’s records, see the Atlah v Obama,Columbia Trial. Obama was found never to have attended Columbia at all. Finally, it was not Davis paying $$ to Obama it was Mansour. There is also evidence that Obama attended the Frienship University of the U.S.S.R. aka Lumumba University., and not Columbia. See: Lumumba University Alumni.
2 Likes
I don’t see the requirement of parents both being U.S. Citizens being a Presidential Eligibility requirement.
Minor v Happersett appears to be about voting rights.
Minor v Happersett, USSCt. (9-0) (1874).
The Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1920, prohibited sex-based denial or abridgment of any United States citizen’s right to vote—thus effectively overruling the key holding in Minor v. Happersett .** In some later voting rights cases, however, Minor was cited in opposition to the claim that the federal Constitution conferred a general right to vote, and in support of restrictive election laws involving poll taxes,[16] literacy tests,[17] and the role of political parties in special elections.[18]
In the 1960s, the Supreme Court started to view voting as a fundamental right covered by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2] In a dissenting opinion of a 1964 Supreme Court case involving reapportionment in the Alabama state legislature, Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II included Minor in a list of past decisions about voting and apportionment which were no longer being followed.[19]
Presidential Eligibility:
"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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5
More in depth reading here: https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility
The question is, what are the differences between a “citizen”, a “citizen at birth”, a “born citizen”, a “naturalized citizen” and a “natural born citizen”? Logically these are distinctly different terms of art.
Our “natural rights” are rights not conferred by law but are natural, by virtue of our humanity. All these terms agree with respect to the “citizen” designation, but only “natural born citizen” does not require any legislation to grant citizen status.
Article I and Article II both have the requirement for one to be a “citizen” , but Article II adds the adjective “natural born” to the requirement. Why if there is no difference between the two terms? The men who drafted our constitution haggled over almost every phrase and term to insure they designed a lasting form of governance they expended such great sacrificed to bring forth.
B. Hussein 0bama was ineligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Likewise Mcain, Jindle, Haley, Cruz, Harris, Gabbard and others are not natural born citizens by this historic measure.
I was specifically questioning both born in the United States AND parents who are both citizens.
I don’t disagree that there is debate on what a “natural born” but nothing I have found supports the above.
Under the 14th Amendment’s Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark , 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship.
There is some debate over whether or not one may also be a natural born citizen if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person’s parents.
Today, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 defines naturalization as “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” In contrast, § 1401 lists eight categories of peoples who are “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth,” including those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, as well as children of one or more U.S. citizens abroad as long as the parent(s) meet certain requirements. This means that foreign-born citizens falling under a provision in 1401 are, by statutory definition, not naturalized. The term “natural born” is not used, however. natural born citizen | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
To find your answer look to Vattel’s Law of Nations. His work was used and quoted in the U.S.C. In it is explained the nature of one who is a natural born citizen. Again, it is indubitably a classification of person who holds/held no foreign allegiances.
There inlies the conundrum with the liberal vs. nationalist version of what is required for trade vs. globalisation.
US Bases are considered to be US Soil for purposes of citizenship.
Both McCain and my brother were born off post in civilian hospitals which is what made their situations more complicated than would have been the case had they been born on post or in a US flagged aircraft or on board a US flagged ship.
In each of those other cases they would have been considered NBC’s like anyone born in the US.
You are correct, persons born to US citizen parent(s) on military installations overseas would be considered U.S. citizens at birth, however constitutionally they may not be considered U.S. natural born citizens. For McCain and your brother to be a U.S. citizen in such circumstance requires an act of Congress, thus it is not by natural birth.
Well according to the immigration officials and atty’s, born of US parents on a US post/base abroad is the equivalent of being born on US soil just like if you are born on a US aircraft of ship at sea.
There has been some debate on this. It seems one would be a born citizen but maybe not a natural born citizen.
Hopefully the damage done by Obama can be cleared up in time. Can’t say it was beyond correcting. We are still America.
Obama once stated “I have nothing to hide and I’m hiding it”. Yes. He really said this.
The Court in Minor said that there was no doubt that persons born in the US to Parents who are both US Citizens themselves are Natural Born Citizens. They also said those classes of citizenship that do not take into consideration the citizenship of the parents were IN DOUBT. There are no less then (6) SCOTUS cases that have affirmed the definition of NBC as one born in the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. Two of those cases are mine. Laity v NY & Obama, USSCt. cert denied (2014) and Laity v NY,Ctruz,Rubio and Jindal, USSCt. Cert Denied (2018).
Is there a reason your surname is spelled differently than that named in the cases you are sighting? Not trying to be snarky, just curious. 
The sole reason according to the contemporaneous notes and letters was to deny the position of Commander-in-Chief of the military to any who may have any foreign allegiances such as one born with dual citizenship, e.g. a child born to parents with different citizenship thus having the citizenship status of the parent (jus sanguinis) or born on foreign soil thus gaining citizenship to that foreign nation (jus soli).
If those cases were not taken up by the courts they don’t affirm anything.
This again Jim? Look, it’s irrelevant. He served his two terms and he’s gone, gone Jim…