This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Third person “verification” of Barack H. Obama’s eligibility, is the kind where the one being verified claims nothing, while a third party supposedly vouches for him, and is bathed in platitudes of “non partisan” or “full faith and credit”. We are supposed to believe in the reliability and truthfulness of the verifier, by the designation of “forthrightness”, by the one being verified. Such is the lie in the Obama world, where the lie is separated from the liar by 3 degrees. My research has found that the love of illegal immigrants by this government goes back to at least 2002, when the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the quasi government entity that issued a supposed “non- partisan” report on the meaning of natural born Citizen, for all of Congress to hide behind, explicitly lied in its analysis of the 14th Amendment. This report is published by the government itself, at the Library of Congress (LOC), by the Government Printing Office (GPO). It is unassailable documented proof that Congress, through a surrogate CRS, seeks and has sought for a long time, to devalue American Citizenship, and American borders. This proof is in undeniable black and white, printed and disseminated by the government of the U.S. itself. It is an Orwellian attempt to change history, by those keeping the history. Just as “Justia-gate”, discovered by Leo Donofrio, was an attempt to re-write history, by mangling citations to Minor v. Happersett in SCOTUS cases, CRS- gate attempts to insulate the government from the re-writing being done, as a third party. However this time it is not spread and cataloged by a private entity, in cahoots with the government, but by the government itself, as you shall see. Here is the description of the Congressional Research Service from the Library of Congress: ‘The Congressional Research Service (CRS) serves as shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. CRS experts assist at every stage of the legislative process — from the early considerations that precede bill drafting, through committee hearings and floor debate, to the oversight of enacted laws and various agency activities.
CRS approaches complex topics from a variety of perspectives and examines all sides of an issue. Staff members analyze current policies and present the impact of proposed policy alternatives.” And from the “American Law” division of the CRS: “The division also focuses on the intricacies of legal precedent and statutory construction as they relate to business, crime, the environment, civil rights, international law and other issues. CRS is an arm of Congress. Its reports and memoranda, while not legally binding, are used by Members and Committees of Congress in their legislative deliberations and decision-making.” So Congress supposedly relies on this fine and upstanding organization to do research, so Congress doesn’t have to. Notice it says that its research is “not legally binding”, and put that into context with the present Congress hiding behind the CRS “analysis” by Jack Maskell (whoever that is), that fraudulently determines that Barack H. Obama is eligible for the Presidency as a natural born Citizen. The analysis in question, published by the GPO at the LOC is located here on page 1672, where, in 2002, the CRS is “analyzing” the first section of the 14th Amendment: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-108sdoc17/pdf/CDOC-108sdoc17.pdf “Even a free man descended from a Negro residing as a free man in one of the States at the date of ratification of the Constitution was held ineligible for citizenship. (2) Congress subsequently repudiated this concept of citizenship, first in section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ( 3) and then in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.( 4)” The footnotes referred to in this passage are where the lies are: “ (2) Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 404–06, 417–18, 419–20 (1857). (3) ‘‘That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous
condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right*s+ . . ..’’ Ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27. (4) The proposed amendment as it passed the House contained no such provision, and it was decided in the Senate to include language like that finally adopted. CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2560, 2768–69, 2869 (1866). The sponsor of the language said: ‘‘This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United States.’’ Id. at 2890. The legislative history is discussed at some length in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 282–86 (1967) (Justice Harlan dissenting).” Judging by the flurry of the lies in the footnotes of just this one 2 sentence passage, it must be assumed that these “Constitutional analysis’” by the CRS contain a number of these lies. The CRS attempts to whitewash the “not subject to any foreign power” provision of the Civil Rights Act 1866, by saying that the 14th Amendment “contained no such provision”, as if “subject to the jurisdiction” and “not subject to any foreign power” meant different things. However Revised Statutes 1873, published by the 43rd Congress, 9 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, DEFINES citizenship as one “not subject to any foreign power”, just like the CRA 1866. On page 350 of the Revised Statutes of the 43rd Congress, published by the Library of Congress in 1873, under the header of “Citizenship”, Section 1992 Rev. Statutes, defines US Citizens as: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States. Obviously the 43rd Congress thought more about that pesky “not subject to any foreign power” provision than the 2002 CRS! Of course that language is very inconvenient for the apologists of the Usurper Obama, and for the proponents of “birthright citizenship”. “Birthright citizenship” a concept never imagined by the 39th Congress, as we shall see, is a problem that plagues the United States to this day, serving as an incentive for illegal aliens, as well as intrepid “birth tourists,” to come to this territory with the express purpose of birthing a child in the United States, and gaining “presumed” US Citizenship. Before we get to the REALLY big
lie—that is outright and brazen, we will also note the next passage that attempts to cite Wong Kim Ark as the authority of “birthright citizenship”: “Based on the first sentence of section 1, (6) the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.” (7) Footnote (7): “(7) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)” Here the CRS is stating a half truth. Wong Kim ark was decided, not on the British Common Law concept of jus soli, and perpetual allegiance, but on the right of election, law of nations, principle of “inhabitance”. It is true that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were not allowed to naturalize because of the Burlingame (Chinese Exclusion) Treaty, but that treaty allowed them to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States by establishing permanent residence and commerce. By the natural law concept of “inhabitance”, the United States would establish jurisdiction over an alien permanently domiciled in the territory of the U.S., and determined only by continued residence therein, as explained by the case of The Venus, 12 US 253, (1814). “1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93.” Id., 278
In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray decides the case exactly on this principle, that the jurisdiction had over the Chinese resident alien parents of Wong Kim Ark, by their permanent habitation and domicile, extends to their child, who was considered a Citizen at birth, but SPECIFICALLY NOT a natural born Citizen.: “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides.” US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 693 Sure, the Chinese parents were not allowed to naturalize, but they were also permanently domiciled within US territory, and by law of nations (A1S8C10), jurisdiction was established over the parents and over the child of those parents born in America. The decision of the case was not that ANYONE born in America,
regardless of parentage, is a Citizen. “Birthright Citizenship” is a huge lie that has persisted for 124 years, to the detriment of the sovereign citizens of the United States. Gray quotes Binney while speaking of Wong Kim Ark, as “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a Citizen”, specifically stating that Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born Citizen, eligible for President. Now to the BIG LIE at footnote (4) on page 1672. This is an explicit lie, not just a lie of omission, or of interpretation. The quote referred to is by Senator Howard, on page 2890 of the Congressional Globe, 1st session 39th Congress, 1866. There the debates before the ratification of the 14th Amendment are chronicled. “(4) The sponsor of the language said: ‘‘This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United States.’’ Id. at 2890.” This is what it actually says: “The sponsor of the language said: ‘‘This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or ministers accredited to the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Id., @ 2890 The entire meaning of the quote is changed, is it not? The CRS changed history, and replaced “is by natural law and national law”, with “…”, and left out the inconvenient next sentence. Was the CRS paving the way for Obama? I don’t know, but their denial of natural law as the basis of our National Law still goes on today. Senator Howard said specifically that the children of aliens are not included in US citizenship, contrary to what the CRS said here. Natural law certainly would not say that the child of an alien father is a citizen, and neither did the proviso of the 4th Section of the Naturalization Act 1802.
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Declaration of Independence. “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past”. George Orwell
Criminals are rewriting history in order to be a means to an end. The CRS will tell us that what we see before our eyes is not true, and the useful idiots in the media are helping them. I cry for my country and my children today, as plain words are disregarded, and history is remade to be more convenient for the New World Order, and the destruction of US Citizen sovereignty. My case in Florida pertaining to Obama’s eligibility as a natural born Citizen was dismissed today. The apologists, useful idiots and the stupid will all chime in with “I told you so”, while having no regard for the actual points of the law that were run over like an inconsequential cat in the middle of the road, loved by someone, but treated with abject indifference. It lies there, picked at by vultures. I have produced PROOF that the CRS is a propaganda arm of the criminals in our government. There is no law when the President is not eligible, and only we the people are subject to that defunct law. Criminals in Congress, on both sides, and their Central Banker benefactors, do whatever they please. John Corzine, campaign bundler of the Usurper, walks free after stealing Billions from customer accounts at MF Global. No budget, constant surveillance, TSA screening, in violation of 4th Amendment rights, Trillions given away to criminal bankers, Billions given to Usurper cronies, who then go bankrupt. When does it end? How much will you endure? I will appeal, getting the treasonous black robes all on record selling out the republic. History will spit on them. Rise up!
“In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act”. George Orwell
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.