Thank You WND for helping to keep the fight for our National Security and our Constitution ALIVE by reporting my plight to get constitutional questions answered from South Dakota’s elected officials in DC.
Click on the photo for the full exclusive
Monthly Archives: October 2009
Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof
Earlier in the week, I brought back an article by Leo to refresh the readers memories and to also educate new readers as to the importance that there shall be “NO” foreign influence on the office of the Executive. Today I do the same.
Let’s talk ‘subject to the jusrisdiction thereof’ and its relevance to US citizenship & naturalization/immigration laws and…
In 1895, after answering Hinman’s letterregarding the ineligibility of Chester Arthur, Thomas F. Bayard who was then Sec. of State under Grover Cleveland, finally made a formal ruling on the subject of children born in the US to foreigners:
In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ “.
It’s important we note Bayard’s concern that the German subject was, “on his birth subject to a foreign power“. That’s the key. “On his birth”, Chester Arthur was born subject to a foreign power. “On his birth”, Barack Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Also, this official ruling concerned only the issue of whether the person was a “citizen” of the US, never mind “natural born”.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires that the President be a natural borncitizen. The word “born” refers to the status of the President at the time of his birth, not any other time. Barack Obama and Chester Arthur were born to fathers who were not US citizens at the time each was born. Therefore, neither Obama nor Arthur should legally be President under the Constitution.
Here is the full “The ‘Nation” article regarding Hinman’s original request of clarification as it was originally printed in 1894, “A question of Citizenship” begins on page 134 of “The Nation” (pg 3 of the scribd doc)
Obamas Say: “Christ” Not Welcome To Be Displayed On This Years Capital Christmas Tree in DC
Why am I ‘NOT’ surprised to read this.
PHOENIX, Arizona, September 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) called on Arizona state and federal officials on Monday to stop enforcing a requirement prohibiting the state’s schoolchildren from expressing religious viewpoints through Christmas themes while decorating ornaments for the 2009 Capitol Christmas Tree.
Arizona was chosen this year to present 4,000 handcrafted ornaments made by elementary, middle-school, and high-school students to decorate Washington, D.C.’s annual Christmas tree.
Guidelines for the ornaments include specifications for their size, weight, composition, and the directive that “Ornaments cannot reflect a religious or political theme… Instead share your interpretation of our theme ‘Arizona’s Gift, from the Grand Canyon State.'”
In a letter to federal and state officials, including Arizona Governor Janice Brewer, ADF attorneys demanded that they abandon the discrimination against religious viewpoints.
“Banning Christmas from the Capitol Christmas tree is just absurd. Christian students shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their religious beliefs,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Jonathan Scruggs.
“The First Amendment does not allow government officials to exclude schoolchildren’s ornaments for the capitol’s Christmas tree merely because they communicate a religious viewpoint.”
The request was issued on behalf of a mother whose son expressed a strong desire to submit three religious ornaments for the tree: One reading “Merry Christmas,” another “Happy Birthday, Jesus,” and the third portraying a manger scene with the Christ child.
Each of these ornaments will also honor Arizona, using as a theme the state’s history, geography, or motto, “Ditat Deus,” which means “God Enriches.”
ADF attorneys indicate in the letter that they will take legal action if officials do not comply by October 4, the day before the deadline to submit ornaments for consideration.
“It is well established that expression of religious beliefs is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” the letter reads. “Religious expression is speech and is entitled to the same level of protection as other kinds of speech … even expression that comes through symbols, such as ornaments.”
Constitutionally Speaking 