Markham Robinson
(State Chairman of the American Independent Party
and plaintiff in the Obama eligibility case), Mark
Seidenberg (State Vice Chairman of the
American
Independent Party and works with Attorney Gary
Kreep), Markham's wife,
Mary, my wife, Pat and I met for dinner yesterday
(Saturday.) We discussed some party business and
then our discussion turned to the Obama
eligibility case that the American Independent
Party filed last year. (Federal District Court
Judge Carter dismissed the case a few days ago) I
had tons of questions.
I had read that there
were two legal theories and these two seemingly
opposing theories were part of the same case.
(Some say there is an insurmountable conflict.) It
pertained to the underlying definition of natural
born citizen.... Taitz:
both parents have to be US citizens.
Kreep: just need to be born on
US
soil. I have been wondering if that was going to
hurt the appeal of the case. So I questioned both
Markham and Mark at great lengths to ascertain
what they thought of the matter. I won’t report
what THEY had to say (I will let them do that
themselves) but I will offer what I believe
myself.
I, for one, believe
that BOTH theories are correct and BOTH need to be
part of the definition. I am convinced that #1.)
To be a natural born citizen both parents have to
be citizens of our country. And, in addition, #2.)
to be a natural born citizen of the United
States, you have
to be born either in the US or
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
I have observed that
the entire LEGAL PROFESSION from the rank and file
attorneys to the Supreme Court Justices are as
ignorant as Congressmen and Senators regarding the
matter of the definition of
what a natural born citizen
is.
Please forgive me if
I don’t listen to the stupid leaders we have
elected and we have selected for Federal Judges
and Magistrates. Not one of them have the common
sense of a grasshopper.
Instead, I put my
trust in the FATHER OF OUR COUNTRY…It is George
Washington I'll listen too. First of all, Mr.
Washington was
one of the founding authors of the US
Constitution. He was the PRESIDENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION CONVENTION. He was the FIRST
signer of the Constitution. He and the Secretary
of the Convention made notations of changes of the
drafts as they were submitted. Below is shown
a typesetted replica of some of the
notations. Please note THERE WERE NO NOTES OR
CHANGES regarding the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
clause.
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/constitution/draft/draft_3.html
Yes, George
Washington had a hand in the ORIGINAL words of the
Constitution. As President of the Constitutional
Convention he and the rest of the delegates went
word by word, sentence by sentence over every line
of the present US
Constitution.
Next comes the matter
of the 1790 Naturalization Act. This Act contained
the words: “And the children
of citizens
of the United States
that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits
of the United
States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens. Provided,
that the right of citizenship shall not descend to
persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United
States:”
And I take this to be
LITERAL! It says “citizens”
in the plural not singular. And you will see there
is a further restriction that to be a natural born
citizen, the citizen father must
reside (at some time) in the United
States.
President George
Washington (our first President) signed this Act
into law. George was willing to agree that BOTH
PARENTS had to be citizens, but there was a
constitutional question that the statement being
born OUT OF LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES
would violate the Constitution’s implied
definition of a Natural Born Citizen. This was
quickly changed (1795).
So the 1790
Naturalization Act was immediately repealed and
the 1795 Naturalization Act was put in it’s place.
The
words “natural born citizen” were dumped and the
Act was repealed altogether… and from then on
there has been NO LEGISLATION allowing US Citizens
to transfer US Citizenship if one was born in a
foreign country unless they were Ambassadors or US
Government agents of some sort. President
Washington signed that bill into law as
well.
It is clear that by
the end of the FATHER OF OUR COUNTRY’S terms of
office as both President of the Constitutional
Convention, and his TWO PRESIDENTIAL TERMS in
office, the definition remains “The parents of a
natural born citizen MUST BE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS.” If President Washington says so…I don’t
need a corrupt, ignorant Supreme Court Judge
to tell me otherwise!
It is also clear that
only terms and definitions of NATURALIZED
CITIZENS have changed
through the years and
no one has the right to state otherwise least they
wish to challenge President Washington’s wisdom on
this matter. And too, no one has the authority to
REDEFINE what President
Washington intended on this matter. So we are
going to have to stay with the DEFINITION
THAT THE FATHER OF OUR COUNTRY LEFT FOR US. Else
we need a Constitutional convention to change that
definition that is clearly stated in our first
documents. (I am opposed to a Constitutional
Convention.)
I have read that
Minor v. Happersett also acknowledges President
Washington’s views as described above. The
Justices state that the 14th Amendment:
“it must be
interpreted in the light of the common law, the
principles and history of which were familiarly
known to the framers of the
constitution."
Of course, the
Justices were jumping around
trying to add data about the 14th
Amendment that was not part of the case before
them. They brought up the NATURAL BORN
CITIZEN clause, (which only applies to candidates
for president) and that wasn't even
revelant.
14th
Amendment says, “Section 1. 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.”
Everyone knows that
the 14th Amendment ONLY applied to
Blacks who had been slaves. Of course their
PARENTS would not have been citizens…so it would
have been unwise to declare that the slave parents
needed to be US
CITIZENS. But then again, could the newly freed
slaves be NATURAL BORN CITIZENS? Their parents
were NOT citizens of this country. President
Washington made it clear in his signing of the
1790 Naturalization Act that BOTH PARENTS had to
be citizens. But in the Minor v. Happersett case,
the appellant was a woman trying to get the right
to "vote" and NOT become the President of
the United States.
Then there is the
case of Wong Kim Ark…Here we have Supreme Court
Horace Gray spouting trash about his OPINION about
a 17 year old Chinese kid (a minor) born in San
Francisco to two foreign national citizens of
the Chinese Emperor.
First of all, Horace
Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur who himself
was a bogus President. Arthur never verified
that he was qualified to hold the office (his
daddy was a Canadian) and Arthur was probably born
in Canada.
So as far as I am concerned Chester had no
authority to appoint Gray as Supreme Court
Justice. Therefore any OPINION that Gray may have
spouted is trash and garbage. Furthermore, the
United
States has been
illegal since that unvetted Presidency and it
is one of the reasons our Constitution has been
dead for nearly a century now. We are merely
pretending we are a Constitutional government and
we live in a dream world imagining that the
Constitution is still alive.
It is my conclusion
that if President George Washington were alive
today, he would still be a birther like me…he
would declare that Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack
Hussein Obama) is a felon, a fake and a fraud.
George Washington, in no uncertain terms, would
proclaim that Soetoro is NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES and I am certain President
Washington would have called for the arrest,
deportation and exile of the traitor called
Soetoro. There is no doubt in my
mind!
