If he treats a so called close friend like this, how will he treat us once he has control of our healthcare?
Oh, for the days of ole’, when a gentleman was truly a gentleman.
Mirrored from www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Yesterday, American journalism reached a new low when James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal published legal propaganda that appears to blatantly lie to readers. In discussing the issues surrounding Obama’s birth to an alien father, Taranto added text to a US statute which does not contain such text. Here is the offensive passage:
“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”
No such law exists.
The words “natural born citizen” do not appear in the statute discussed by Mr. Taranto. In fact, the words “natural born citizen” do not exist in any US statute. Those words only appear in the Constitution – Article 2 Section 1 – and only as a requirement to be President.
The US code Taranto makes reference to is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g):
(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…
The statute does not use the words “natural born citizen”.
Mr. Taranto needs to get back to Hogwarts fast and try a new spell. His magic wand didn’t add new text to the US Code overnight.
Had Mr. Taranto made the focus of his article the issue of whether persons who obtain citizenship at birth by statute are also natural born citizens for purposes of meeting the Presidential requirements of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, such a discussion would have been proper. His legal analysis as stated in the article would be wrong, but stating such a question presented and taking a position thereto is a correct form of editorial.
But that’s not what Taranto has done.
Taranto and The Wall Street Journal have done something far more damaging and nefarious than simply mis-analyzing the law. He’s written – and they’ve published – a piece of propaganda here which makes it appear as if the text of the law contains words which are not there.
Let’s call that what it is – propaganda. They weren’t content to ask a legal question and honestly deal with both sides of the argument from a non-partisan and pure journalistic intent. No. This article is an attempt to trick readers into believing laws exist which do not exist.
The statute does not include the words “natural born citizen”. Regardless, those who read Taranto’s article are left with the impression that the statute includes those words.
And that is journalistic evildoing personified.
Statutes that grant citizenship – at birth or later in life via naturalization – provide rescue to those people whose citizenship is not self evident at birth. If you’re born in the US to parents who are citizens then you are a natural born citizen and you do not need a statute to create your citizenship which is natural and self evident.
Statutory citizenship does not give rise to natural born citizen status – which is not a right but a requirement to be President. All citizens have the same rights, but not all “citizens” can be President. Not even all “natural born citizens” can be President. The Constitution put the requirements for President in the Document to exclude persons from eligibility, not include them.
Taranto’s article is a gauntlet thrown down in your face. The fourth estate has signaled – through this blatant propaganda attack on the law – that it is willing to lie to your face – IN YOUR FACE – Amerika.
Perhaps all other measures to control this issue are failing. And perhaps my constant pessimism that this blog isn’t doing any good to wake people up is misguided. Blatant propaganda tells me somebody somewhere is getting desperate to make this all go away.
The Wall Street Journal via propaganda agent James Taranto has taken a drastic course of action from which the point of no return is clearly mapped.
We aint in Kansas anymore, people.
She was born under Russian communism, her parents sent her to Isreal as a teenager to get her away from communist control, she meet her husband, they married and later immigrated to the the US where she legally worked to gain her citizenship and build up respectable dental and law practices.
Orly has more patriotic blood in her than a lot of ‘natural born US citizens’ ever will and we are:
‘Darn Proud of Her’
Sometimes you find the most interesting leads in the comments section of articles that further enhance the writers article.
Leo Donofrio has some of the most astute and highly motivated contitutionally thinking readers I have ever come across and here is why I recommend his website ‘Natural Born Citizen’ :
This is from Gray’s Wong decision, Leo.
Surely you can read its plain meaning:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
[Ed. Your comment assumes “natural born subjects” are the same as “natural born citizens”. They are not. When read in context with the other passages I quoted, espcially Gray’s reliance on Binney, it becomes clear that those who were deemed natural born subjects under British law would – at best – be deemed basic “citizens” under US law – not natural born citizens.
You must grasp the understanding that we’re not subjects. And as you will see, the attitude at the time of the adoption of the Constitution makes the repulsion with being a subject clear. I will print for you now exactly what that attitude was straight form the mouth of David Ramsay – David Ramsay (congressman) (1749–1815), an American physician, historian, and Continental Congressman for South Carolina:
A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF
ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND
PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE
By David Ramsay, 1789
The United States are a new nation, or political society, formed at first by the declaration of independence, out of those British subjects in America, who were thrown out of royal protection by act of parliament, passed in December, 1775..
A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people who also changed from subjects to citizens.
The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.
Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of nobleman. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.
(Thanks to Kamira for the research on David Ramsay. This is not the first excellent source she’s brought forward. Nice work.)
A natural born subject is an entirely different species of citizen than a natural born citizen. They sound the same – just as “native born” sounds like “natural born” but they too are not the same. ]
I was not at all quiet about my displeasure of Stephanie’s vote for the $787 stimulus aka C.R.A.P. bill. When I questioned her on it, she said that she was able to vote ‘yes’ because, unlike the TARP, the C.R.A.P. had the oversight needed to avoid wasteful spending.
So, read for yourself, the kind of stimulus, or as Michelle Malkin puts it : ‘smut-ulus’, that Stephanie is overseeing:
· $25,000 to the San Francisco Cinematheque in San Francisco, California. The website’s calendar states that next season will be announced in the weeks ahead but the News tab describes recent Co-presentations such as a documentary on “the legendary underground filmmakers Mike & George Kuchar” and thier film “Thundercrack” of which a reviewer raves: “Witness if you dare, the world’s only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla. Ecstasy so great that all heaven and hell becomes just one big old Shangri-La!” First mention on the website’s Archives tab is Treasures IV: American Avant-Garde Film which includes Peyote Queen. Peyote Queen is billed as: “A classic of the psychedelic tendency … An attempt to visually render the wealth of kaleidoscope visions of peyote, the hallucinogenic cactus ritually used by the Indians of New Mexico” … an “… exploration in the colour of ritual, in the colour of thought, a journey in the depths of sensorial disorder, of the inner vision, where mysteries are represented in the theatre of the soul.”
· $25,000 to Jess Curtis/Gravity, Inc. in San Francisco, California. One of their most recent works is the Symmetry Project where nude couples are mounted on each other in various poses. Note in the first pictures nude children are present with nude adults.
We now have ‘Smut–ulus’ we can believe in thanks to Stephanie, however, is this the kind of oversight you want for your health care?
I guess for Stephanie, her view of wasteful spending oversight wasn’t quite the kind she promoted during the 2008 election.
When you lie down with dogs, it doesn’t matter what color you are, especially in partisan politics.
While health care will be the HUGE issue at upcoming town halls, we must not let this opportunity pass by. We must be given a straight answer from our US Congressmen & Senators:
Why are you allowing this president to run amuck and bypass Congress & what are you going to do to overturn the appointment of all these czars?
Dodging the wrath of Pelosi and her cronies to salvage support for future pet projects they may have in the works, the blue dogs have made what they call a deal at our expense.
The bill will still be laden with taxes, fines but especially it will be mandatory and controlled by government appointed bureaucrats.
House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a $700 billion health care plan that would offer tax credits to help people buy insurance, yet unlike Democratic proposals, wouldn’t require either individuals or employers to get coverage.
OK, this is good. The Report goes on:
The plan avoids expanding the federal role in overseeing the health insurance industry. Unlike Democratic proposals, it would not set up new federally regulated purchasing pools for individuals and small businesses.
Cool, tell me more:
It would provide grants to states to help set up high-risk pools for people with medical problems who are denied coverage by commercial insurers.
The GOP bill would take on medical malpractice, limiting jury awards for pain and suffering and creating new health courts in which a specially trained judge would hear and decide cases involving medical negligence.
Now that;s what I call putting those ‘trip & fall’ lawyers in their place.
So far, so good, but as always, we will have to wait for the audit by Heritage to understand the real ‘nuts & bolts’ of it.