House Vote Done: Boehner / Ryan “Yea” – Cantor / McCarthy “Nay” 257-167 Bill Passes…

Screen Shot 2013-01-01 at 10.59.46 PM

Final Vote Tally 257 – 167

Here is THE ROLL CALL (to find your Rep)

https://twitter.com/jimantle/statuses/286318191930646529

Unusual for House Speaker to vote:

sheeple crop

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

137 Responses to House Vote Done: Boehner / Ryan “Yea” – Cantor / McCarthy “Nay” 257-167 Bill Passes…

  1. howie says:

    Maybe Ryan is the GOP designated loser for 2016. If we get that far.

  2. sundance says:
  3. justfactsplz says:

    Potus to speak at 11.20 P.M. I am sure he is happy, happy, happy. Ugh!

  4. czarowniczy says:

    Well, local news is reporting that the House caved just as the Senate did, start digging in the couch cushions, we’re gonna need some $4+-trillion in spare change. Anyone betting if we’ll see Congresspersons out on the Pennsylvania Avenue with Windex and squeegees?

  5. canadacan says:

    I am just sick about what Ryan did I need to know his rationale. Nightwing what were you thinking

    • howie says:

      Ryan showed his colors. That is all. That election was a happy loss for them. We done been snookered.

    • sundance says:
      • canadacan says:

        And that is why Romney chose Ryan as his running mate when So many conservatives like Levin We’re pushing for Ruby oh I was pushing for Rubio. Senator Rubio is too much his own man Ryan was willing to be expedient., Paul Ryan you sold out you stupid Bastard. You need to come to Jesus meeting and get some redemption pal. You go Marco I would love to see you as the first Latino President of the United States.

        • goodkathie says:

          Rubio is NOT eligible to be potus. Please stop this.

          • Chip Bennett says:

            Rubio is NOT eligible to be potus.

            Yes, he is. He was born an American citizen, and thus meets the constitutional citizenship requirement for being natural-born.

            (I’m ready for this one, with plenty of case law, English common law, and Founders’ own statements to cite for the definition of “natural-born citizen”. Please be likewise prepared, if you really want to go there.)

            • goodkathie says:

              ROMNEY, RUBIO, McCAIN AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

              By J.B. Williams
              June 11, 2012
              NewsWithViews.com

              The recent release of my previous column titled Rubio Can Lock the Election for Obama resulted in numerous reader emails that demonstrate a continuing confusion over the indisputable definition and application of the term Natural Born Citizen. This follow up column is written to remove all confusion from the topic, once and for all.

              Sadly, most of the people concerned with this topic believe they each know the truth, even though they do not agree on what the truth is. Most opinions are based upon second source or third hand information, most of it motivated by political agenda.

              My objective is to establish through first source evidence the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen as used by our Founders in Article II of the Constitution, and spread the truth, no matter who it helps or harms in the political arena. I have written on this subject extensively and my only loyalty here is to the truth, no matter who it serves.

              The true definition of Natural Born Citizen

              Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a second (or more) generation citizen by birth right. None of the Founding Fathers were Natural Born Citizen as they all became first generation citizens the moment they created our nation. As a result, they had to exclude themselves from the NBC requirement, even though most of them were born on soil (aka Native Citizen), or none of them could have held the office of President.

              The term Natural Born Citizen was borrowed from Vattel’s treaties The Law of Nations, based upon the unalienable rules of Natural Law. Most people understand and agree on this. Then, they begin cherry-picking their facts from there, in all cases, based upon their individual political agendas rather than a careful and complete study of the facts.

              I direct you to four sections in particular…

              The Law of Nations – Book 1 – Chapter 19 – Sections 212, 213, 214 and 215 – The true definition of NBC is given in these sections.

              § 212. Citizens and natives (the section most people are familiar with) READ IN ENTIRETY PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO SECTIONS I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED.

              “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
              212 – Defines Natural Born Citizen as the natural offspring of a Citizen Father. Vattel explains this three times in this section. Just as all birthrights follow the blood of the father, so does natural rights of citizenship. This debunks the theory that “both parents” must be legal citizens at the time of birth of any offspring. Only the Father confers Natural Born Citizenship.

              § 213. Inhabitants (Refers to situations like Rubio’s)

              “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.”
              213 addresses “citizen” and “inhabitants” – not Natural Born Citizens defined in 212. Rubio falls into this category as he was born in the U.S. – however, his parents (specifically his father) were legal citizens of Cuba at the time of Marco’s birth. Due to our 14th Amendment based upon this section from Vattel, Marco became an inhabitant at birth, and an “anchor baby citizen” via our current immigration and naturalization laws. But because his Father was a legal citizen of Cuba, his father conferred natural citizenship rights to Cuba upon Marco’s birth. It is on this basis that Marco Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

              § 214. Naturalization (58) (confirms everything I just told you about Rubio)

              “A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
              215 answers the question of soil, or Native Born versus Natural Born

              § 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country (NO born on soil requirement)

              “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.”
              This pertains to John McCain, who was born in Panama due to his father’s military deployment. As Vattel explains in section 215, where a person is born cannot take away the Natural Born Birthright that passes via Natural Law from Father to Son. Because John McCain’s Father was indeed a well-known legal citizen of the United States at the time of John’s birth, no matter where the birth took place, Natural Born Citizenship passed from John’s Father to John at birth. John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, no matter what else people think about John McCain.

              In this regard, the United States Senate got it exactly right in their 99-0 Sen. Res. 511 clearing John McCain to pursue the office of President in 2008. Using the exact same definition used to clear John McCain, Barack Hussein Obama and Marco Rubio would fail the test. The fact that the U.S. Senate is on record getting it right demonstrates that the entire U.S. Senate is complicit in the fraudulent seating of Barack Hussein Obama in the people’s White House. It also proves it was a premeditated crime…

              NOTE: This also relates to Mitt Romney – “I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.” – Mitt Romney’s Father may have held dual citizenship as a result of being born in Mexico, the natural son of a U.S. Citizen Father. This could disqualify Mitt’s Father from holding the offices of President and Vice President. However, Mitt was born in the USA the natural son of the legal citizen Father, with no direct divided loyalties. While Mitt’s Father may have been disqualified, Mitt does not appear to be.
              Just in case there is any doubt concerning McCain, Vattel goes further on the subject of the McCain circumstance in section 217

              § 217. Children born in the armies of the state (John McCain)

              “For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.”
              One does not quit citizenship rights when deployed abroad by our government. In fact, even if a soldier deployed abroad sires a child, with a foreign mother, that child is still a Natural Born Citizen of the USA as those rights pass from Father to child at birth.

              Are you with me so far? Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA, John McCain is…..right? Barack Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen no matter whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya…. right?

              Now for Romney….

              According to all available records on Romney, his Grandfather was a legal citizen of the United States who became an “inhabitant” of Mexico long before Mitt’s birth. Mitt’s father was born in Mexico, the natural offspring of a legal US citizen living in Mexico. Remember from above that soil changes nothing. According to all evidence available at present, Mitt’s father was born a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, even though his parents were “inhabitants” of Mexico at the time.

              Mitt’s Father later returned to the United States and became Governor of Michigan, something a non-citizen could not do. Mitt was born in Michigan, the natural offspring of a legal citizen Father, making Mitt a Natural Born Citizen of the United States at birth.

              So, McCain and Romney both pass the NBC test according to Vattel and The Law of Nations. Rubio, Obama and others like Jindal DO NOT pass the test. Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court knows the truth presented in this column, as do every member of the U.S. Senate, most members of the House and almost every judge in the country.

              This is why there is a concentrated effort to redefine the term to mean any citizen, protecting all who remain involved in the greatest electoral fraud ever perpetrated on any democratic society. The reason the Natural Born requirement must be eliminated is it is not possible to stand up a Global Government in the United States so long as only Natural Born Citizens can lead our government. That’s why our Founders placed the requirement there – and that’s why people are hell-bent to remove it.

              Before you spread any more false information regarding the subject, I welcome any challenge you want to raise to any of the information provided here. If it is truth you seek, you now have the truth. If you seek something else, the truth will not serve that agenda.

              Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

              Enter Your E-Mail Address:

              One final time – If the natural birth Father is a legal U.S. Citizen at the time of the child’s birth, the child is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. If the natural birth Father is not a legal U.S. Citizen at the time of the child’s birth, the child is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. End of story!

              Last, if Marco Rubio truly wants to earn the title of An American Son, he should immediately pronounce himself “ineligible” for the offices of President and Vice President and explain why, which would immediately turn all focus upon the current Fraud-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, and secure the defeat of Obama’s international assault on the United States of America. If Rubio does not do this immediately, he is not what many Tea Party supporters had hoped…

              © 2012 JB Williams

              • Chip Bennett says:

                The Law of Nations – Book 1 – Chapter 19 – Sections 212, 213, 214 and 215 does not have legal precedence in the US. Just because “natural born citizen” is defined in a given manner in The Law of Nations does not mandate that said definition is what the founders intended, or dictate that said definition is binding on what the founders wrote into law via the Constitution.

                If you wish to argue in favor of common law taking legal precedence or describing founders’ intent, look not to The Law of Nations, but rather to English Common Law.

                Let’s compare the writings of three men.

                Vattel, in The Law of Nations:

                The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

                William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, in 1765:

                Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

                James Madison (author of the Constitution), Federalist Papers 12:179–82:

                It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

                Which of these is not like the other?

                This should put to rest the notion that Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” applies to the term as used in the Constitution. (More reading here.)

                You may also find instructive the opinions of Alexander Hamilton, Zephaniah Swift, Justice St. George Tucker, James Kent, William Rawle, and Justice Joseph Story; as well as SCOTUS decision Inglis v. The Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, and NY State decision Lynch v. Clarke, as summarized here. Salient quotes:
                Hamilton

                No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.

                Swift:

                The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

                Justice Tucker:

                A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.

                Kent:

                Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.

                Rawle:

                Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution…the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

                Justice Story:

                It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted [sic] with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people.

                SCOTUS (Inglis):

                That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before the 4th of July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after the 4th of July, 1776, and before the 15th of September, 1776 [when the British again occupied New York, where Inglis was born], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

                NY State (Lynch v. Clarke):
                (Relevant back story: [The parents of Julia Lynch] were British subjects, domicilled [sic] in Ireland. They came to this country in 1815, remained till the summer of 1819, and then returned to Ireland. Julia was born in the city of New-York, in the spring of 1819.)

                First. It is insisted by the defendants that the rule of the common law is to govern this case on the point of alienage.

                It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States.

                And the money quote from the decision:

                The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written], of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

                And for good measure, the decision also completely demolishes Vattel:

                To find an authority in Vattel, we must be sure to find the proposition which is intended by the author to meet the case. Hence the error of the complainant’s counsel. They cite Sec. 212, which is a definition in the limited and strictest sense of ” natives and citizens,” the smallest possible circle of that class. He does not define all who compose the citizens of a country, but when we read Sec. 215, we have the identical authority for the question at issue in this discussion ; which is, in the language of the author, ” whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens.” ” The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.” ” By the law of nature, children follow the condition of the father; the place of birth produces no change in this particalar.” “But civil and political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.” Now this is the authority, and the civil and political laws of England and the United States have decided that such children are citizens, and owe allegiance to the government. ” These regulations must be followed,” says Mr. Vattel; for that is the public law in those countries, and that is his reason. The Supreme Court of the U. S. held the doctrine as thus laid down by Vattel in Dawson’s Lessees v. Godfrey,(4 Cranch, 321.) And see Rutherforth’s Institutes, ch. 2, p. 41.

                Mr. Vattel says it is by the law of nature that ” children follow the condition of their father;” but he decides this question by positive law, such as any particular country may ordain.

                And if that still isn’t enough proof, we can move on to even more, including Secretary of State William Learned Mercy, Attorney General Edward Bates, President Andrew Johnson, several congressmen during the 1866 Civil Rights act debate (which I won’t quote here, for brevity), United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and Smith v. Alabama.

                Secretary Mercy:

                I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship.

                Attorney General Bates:

                And our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

                If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the ” natural born’‘ right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.

                And again:

                I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship.

                President Andrew Johnson, on the implication of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, his veto of which Congress overrode:

                I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship.

                SCOTUS, United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

                In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.

                In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

                “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

                SCOTUS, Smith v. Alabama:

                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.”

                Conveniently, Smith v. Alabama also takes Vattel head-on:

                It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

                But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and “mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;”

                While I do not take credit for assembling the above quotes (see links for original sources), I do rest my case.

                • goodkathie says:

                  so Barack Obama is also a natural born citizen? even tho his father was a Kenyan, born under British rule?

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    so Barack Obama is also a natural born citizen? even tho his father was a Kenyan, born under British rule?

                    Doesn’t the above make patently clear that unless the parent is acting as an agent of a sovereign foreign state, the citizenship of the parents is entirely irrelevant to the question of natural citizenship of a person?

                    Go read Lynch v. Clarke again. Then read how SCOTUS references it as precedent case law in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

                    Under the US Constitution and relevant US case law, natural citizen and natural-born citizen are interchangeable, and depend solely on the place of birth of the person in question.

            • goodkathie says:

              and this:
              The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

              By Publius Huldah.

              We have been visited recently with several very silly articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1789), and hence is qualified to be President:

              Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress may define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.

              Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.

              Human Events claims that anyone born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.

              Jake Walker at Red State purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present. After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House, Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”:

              “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…” [emphasis mine]

              “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” [emphasis mine]

              But “subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to Citizens of a Republic!

              The four writers don’t know what they are talking about. But I will tell you the Truth and prove it. We first address Word Definitions.

              Word Definitions:

              Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.

              Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.

              So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.

              So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?

              What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?

              Article II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution, requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen”.

              The meaning of this term is not set forth in The Constitution or in The Federalist Papers; and I found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention or in Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.

              What does this tell us? That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around defining “pizza”, because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is.

              Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles1 already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.

              And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work. I’ll prove it.

              How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:

              During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

              “… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]

              Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”

              Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:

              “From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]

              In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:

              “… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.” This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]

              So! Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3

              Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:

              From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1 [READ this footnote!] We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

              § 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

              § 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

              § 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

              §§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

              Do you see? The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”. But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.

              How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:

              The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787. John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:

              “…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”4

              According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:

              “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.” [boldface added]

              In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.5

              Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States – not merely born here (as were our Founders), but born as citizens.

              And do not forget that the children born here of slaves did not become “citizens” by virtue of being born here. Their parents were slaves; hence (succeeding to the condition of their parents) they were born as slaves. Black people born here did not become citizens until 1868 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

              So! Do you see? If Our Framers understood that merely being born here were sufficient to confer status as a “natural born citizen”; it would not have been necessary to grandfather in our first generation of Presidents; and all the slaves born here would have been “natural born citizens”. But they were born as non-citizen slaves, because their parents were non-citizen slaves.

              David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship:

              David Ramsay was an historian, Founding Father, and member of the Continental Congress [REMEMBER: This is where they “pounced” on Vattel], whose Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring The Character And Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States was published in 1789, just after ratification of our Constitution and the Year the new Government began.

              It is an interesting dissertation and only 8 pages long. At the bottom of his page 6, Ramsay states:

              “The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” [modernized spelling & emphasis are mine]

              Do you see? Ramsay’s Dissertation sets forth the understanding of the Time, formally stated by Vattel and incorporated by our Framers, that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of citizens. And we had no “citizens” until July 4, 1776.

              Now, let us look at the First Congress.

              How the First Congress followed Vattel and our Framers:

              Article I, §8, cl. 4 delegates to Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.6 Pursuant to that power, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790. Here is the text, which you can find at 1 Stat. at Large, 103:

              “SECTION1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 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 … APPROVED, March 26, 1790.” 7

              So! This Act of the First Congress implements the Principles set forth in Vattel, embraced by our Framers, and enshrined in Art. II, §1, cl. 5, that:
              •A “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of parents who are citizens.
              •Minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized. Thus, they are not “natural born” citizens.

              Our Framers rejected the anti-republican and feudal notion that mere location of birth within a Country naturalizes the children of a foreigner. 8

              The distinction written into Our Constitution and implemented by the Naturalization Act of 1790 is between someone who is born a citizen, by being born of parents who are already Citizens, and someone who becomes a citizen after birth by naturalization. Only the former are eligible to be President.

              So! Original Intent? Or Whatever the People with the Power want it to Mean?

              I have proved the original intent of “natural born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 – it is one who is born of parents who are citizens. We may not lawfully change that definition except by Amendment to the Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment does not change the definition because the 14th Amendment defines “citizens” of the United States (which includes naturalized citizens) and not “natural born Citizen”.

              Some Democrats no longer pretend that the glib, handsome & black Obama (who, following the condition of his putative father, was born a subject of the British Crown) is “a natural born Citizen”. They now assert that the Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever they choose to run for president, including someone who is not qualified for the office. [See pages 3 & 4 of the linked Court Order.]

              The school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy our sovereignity. Once we accept that our President need not be a “natural born Citizen”, we will have made a major step towards submission to global government. Because then, anybody can be President. PH.

              Endnotes:

              1 Monarchies have subjects. Republics are formed by citizens. We broke from a monarchy under which we were subjects; and with our War for Independence, were transformed into citizens!

              The common law of England recognizes only subjects of the Crown. England has never had citizens. Her feudal doctrine of “natural born subjects” is set forth in Book I, Ch. 10, of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (I modernized the spelling):

              “THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the … allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie … which binds the subject to the king …” [emphasis mine]

              Under feudalism, people are possessions who belong to the Land in which they were born. So they are “naturally” subject to whoever owns the Land. They were born as subjects to the owner of the land [ultimately, the King] on which they were born.

              With our War for Independence, We repudiated the notion of natural born subjects. As Citizens, We ordained and established Our Constitution wherein We created a federal government which was subject to us!

              Jake Walker doesn’t seem to know the difference between being “a subject of a King” and “a citizen of a Republic”, as he equates the feudal concept of “natural born subject” with the Republican concept of “natural born Citizen”.

              Chet Arthur and Human Events tell us the “original intent” of “natural born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 is given by an Amendment defining “citizen” [not “natural born citizen”] ratified 80 years later!

              And Bret Baier seems unaware that the methods for amending the Constitution are set forth in Article V; and that Congress may not amend the Constitution by making a law which redefines terms set forth in the Constitution!

              These four amateurs would do well to study Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny, by Professor Edward J. Erler. Erler addresses the distinctions between “citizenship” and “subjectship”; and the concept of “citizenship” at §1 of the 14th Amendment. He proves that not everyone born here is a “citizen”: Only those whose parents are “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” are citizens. Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” – they are invaders whose allegiance is to the Country they left. Foreign diplomats stationed here are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. Thus, children born here of these aliens are not citizens!

            • goodkathie says:

              and this:

              The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

              By Publius Huldah.

              We have been visited recently with several very silly articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1789), and hence is qualified to be President:

              Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress may define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.

              Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.

              Human Events claims that anyone born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.

              Jake Walker at Red State purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present. After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House, Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”:

              “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…” [emphasis mine]

              “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” [emphasis mine]

              But “subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to Citizens of a Republic!

              The four writers don’t know what they are talking about. But I will tell you the Truth and prove it. We first address Word Definitions.

              Word Definitions:

              Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.

              Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.

              So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.

              So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?

              What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?

              Article II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution, requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen”.

              The meaning of this term is not set forth in The Constitution or in The Federalist Papers; and I found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention or in Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.

              What does this tell us? That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around defining “pizza”, because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is.

              Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles1 already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.

              And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work. I’ll prove it.

              How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:

              During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

              “… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]

              Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”

              Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:

              “From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]

              In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:

              “… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.” This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]

              So! Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3

              Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:

              From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1 [READ this footnote!] We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

              § 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

              § 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

              § 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

              §§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

              Do you see? The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”. But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.

              How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:

              The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787. John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:

              “…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”4

              According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:

              “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.” [boldface added]

              In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.5

              Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States – not merely born here (as were our Founders), but born as citizens.

              And do not forget that the children born here of slaves did not become “citizens” by virtue of being born here. Their parents were slaves; hence (succeeding to the condition of their parents) they were born as slaves. Black people born here did not become citizens until 1868 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

              So! Do you see? If Our Framers understood that merely being born here were sufficient to confer status as a “natural born citizen”; it would not have been necessary to grandfather in our first generation of Presidents; and all the slaves born here would have been “natural born citizens”. But they were born as non-citizen slaves, because their parents were non-citizen slaves.

              David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship:

              David Ramsay was an historian, Founding Father, and member of the Continental Congress [REMEMBER: This is where they “pounced” on Vattel], whose Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring The Character And Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States was published in 1789, just after ratification of our Constitution and the Year the new Government began.

              It is an interesting dissertation and only 8 pages long. At the bottom of his page 6, Ramsay states:

              “The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” [modernized spelling & emphasis are mine]

              Do you see? Ramsay’s Dissertation sets forth the understanding of the Time, formally stated by Vattel and incorporated by our Framers, that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of citizens. And we had no “citizens” until July 4, 1776.

              Now, let us look at the First Congress.

              How the First Congress followed Vattel and our Framers:

              Article I, §8, cl. 4 delegates to Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.6 Pursuant to that power, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790. Here is the text, which you can find at 1 Stat. at Large, 103:

              “SECTION1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 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 … APPROVED, March 26, 1790.” 7

              So! This Act of the First Congress implements the Principles set forth in Vattel, embraced by our Framers, and enshrined in Art. II, §1, cl. 5, that:
              •A “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of parents who are citizens.
              •Minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized. Thus, they are not “natural born” citizens.

              Our Framers rejected the anti-republican and feudal notion that mere location of birth within a Country naturalizes the children of a foreigner. 8

              The distinction written into Our Constitution and implemented by the Naturalization Act of 1790 is between someone who is born a citizen, by being born of parents who are already Citizens, and someone who becomes a citizen after birth by naturalization. Only the former are eligible to be President.

              So! Original Intent? Or Whatever the People with the Power want it to Mean?

              I have proved the original intent of “natural born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 – it is one who is born of parents who are citizens. We may not lawfully change that definition except by Amendment to the Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment does not change the definition because the 14th Amendment defines “citizens” of the United States (which includes naturalized citizens) and not “natural born Citizen”.

              Some Democrats no longer pretend that the glib, handsome & black Obama (who, following the condition of his putative father, was born a subject of the British Crown) is “a natural born Citizen”. They now assert that the Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever they choose to run for president, including someone who is not qualified for the office. [See pages 3 & 4 of the linked Court Order.]

              The school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy our sovereignity. Once we accept that our President need not be a “natural born Citizen”, we will have made a major step towards submission to global government. Because then, anybody can be President. PH.

              Endnotes:

              1 Monarchies have subjects. Republics are formed by citizens. We broke from a monarchy under which we were subjects; and with our War for Independence, were transformed into citizens!

              The common law of England recognizes only subjects of the Crown. England has never had citizens. Her feudal doctrine of “natural born subjects” is set forth in Book I, Ch. 10, of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (I modernized the spelling):

              “THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the … allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie … which binds the subject to the king …” [emphasis mine]

              Under feudalism, people are possessions who belong to the Land in which they were born. So they are “naturally” subject to whoever owns the Land. They were born as subjects to the owner of the land [ultimately, the King] on which they were born.

              With our War for Independence, We repudiated the notion of natural born subjects. As Citizens, We ordained and established Our Constitution wherein We created a federal government which was subject to us!

              Jake Walker doesn’t seem to know the difference between being “a subject of a King” and “a citizen of a Republic”, as he equates the feudal concept of “natural born subject” with the Republican concept of “natural born Citizen”.

              Chet Arthur and Human Events tell us the “original intent” of “natural born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 is given by an Amendment defining “citizen” [not “natural born citizen”] ratified 80 years later!

              And Bret Baier seems unaware that the methods for amending the Constitution are set forth in Article V; and that Congress may not amend the Constitution by making a law which redefines terms set forth in the Constitution!

              These four amateurs would do well to study Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny, by Professor Edward J. Erler. Erler addresses the distinctions between “citizenship” and “subjectship”; and the concept of “citizenship” at §1 of the 14th Amendment. He proves that not everyone born here is a “citizen”: Only those whose parents are “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” are citizens. Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” – they are invaders whose allegiance is to the Country they left. Foreign diplomats stationed here are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. Thus, children born here of these aliens are not citizens!

              2 The 1916 ed. of Law of Nations with Lapradelle’s introduction is a Google digitized book. If you download it, you get an easily readable text.

              3 Many thanks to my friend, David J. Edwards, who provided me with Evidence of Vattel’s profound influence on our Founders & Framers.

              4 The hyperlink contains another link where you can see Jay’s handwritten letter!

              5 Note that Art. I, §2, cl. 2, permits naturalized citizens to serve as Representatives; and Art. I, §3, cl. 3, permits them to serve as Senators.

              6 “Naturalization” is the process, established by law, by which foreigners become citizens.

              7 Note that in §§ 215, 216 & 217, Vattel says that children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. He goes on to say that by the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular. But he doesn’t expressly say they are “natural born citizens”. The italicized words at the end of the 1790 Act correct that and make it clear that children of citizens of the United States are “natural born citizens” wherever they are born.

              8 The 14th Amendment doesn’t change this one whit! READ Prof. Erler’s paper, linked above.

              NOTICE! To all who strain to find something I “failed to mention”: I didn’t quote Minor v. Happersett because Minor merely paraphrases, in dicta, a portion of the Naturalization Act of 1790, the text of which is set forth above.

              And I didn’t show why John McCain & Mitt Romney ARE natural born Citizens; and why Marco Rubio & Obama are NOT natural born Citizens. J.B. Williams has already done an excellent job in applying the Republican Principles set forth by Vattel, and which were embraced by our Founders, Framers, and the First Congress, in his recent paper, Romney, Rubio, McCain And Natural Born Citizen. PH

              July 19, 2012

              POST SCRIPT added July 25, 2012:

              The following valuable comment was posted by Political Junkie Too at:

              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2908140/posts?page=18

              From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791:

              If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.

              In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.

              But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.

              The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.

              Yes, Paine did use the term “native of the country.” Does this mean “native born” instead of “natural born?” We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites “foreigner” and “half a foreigner” as the oppposite to “full natural” connection to the country. So, what is “half a foreigner?”

              It seems to me that “half a foreigner” is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a “full natural… connection with the country.”

              Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want “half-foreigners” to be president, and why only people with a “full natural… connection with the country” were allowed to become President.

              Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.

              Paine’s description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.

              -PJ

              • Chip Bennett says:

                You keep quoting at me things that are directly contradicted and refuted by the actual case law that I cited. Why are you doing that?

                The three SCOTUS cases I cited directly refuted Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”, and clearly establish the English Common-Law meaning of the term.

                I quoted the author of the Constitution, James Madison, agreeing with the English Common-Law definition of “natural born citizen”.

                The following colonies (and several states thereafter) made reference to English Common Law: Virginia, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, California, Missouri: in fact, every state but Louisiana asserts English Common Law as its basis.

                English Common Law was the basis for the US Constitution and for the Constitutions of the several States. Not Vattel’s law of nations; English Common Law.

                And according to Vattel himself, nations have the right to define their own laws, and laws thus defined supercede his law of nations:

                The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed…I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.

                So even according to Vattel, his own definition of “natural born citizen” is superseded by the law of the land – which we have already proven to be English Common Law.

                As for Paine:

                Paine’s description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time.

                First, whomever you quoted infers what Paine meant by “native of the country”, in a clear example of begging the question.

                Second, I already quoted more than enough of his contemporaries (Monroe, Hamilton, Swift, et al) who unequivocally understood “natural born citizen” to refer only to citizenship according to place of birth and nothing more. Thus, the claim that Paine’s supposed Vattel meaning of “natural born citizen” is somehow indicative of the framers is absurd.

                You can quote all the contemporary pundits you want. If you want to debate, quote founders, and cite relevant, precedent case law that refutes the case law I have cited.

                Also: please stop copying and pasting other people’s work wholesale. It’s lazy, and it’s copyright infringement. Quote, cite, and link anything relevant. If I want to read the whole work, I can always follow the link.

                Just to reiterate: if your entire argument is based on the premise that US law is derived from Vattel’s law of nations, rather than English Common Law, then we’re done here. That premise is demonstrably untrue.

                • goodkathie says:

                  I am simply not as computer savvy as you, hence the copy/paste stuff. But thank you for your “enlightenment”….I am not convinced.

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    am not convinced.

                    About what, exactly, are you not convinced? That English Common Law, and not Vattel’s Law of Nations, provided the basis for the US Constitution, and the constitutions of the several States?

  6. sundance says:
  7. gretchenone says:

    It’s all a big show. Smoke and mirrors. They’re all playing the game. May their names go down in infamy.

  8. sundance says:
    • howie says:

      Laughing now. He is past delusional. Way out there is the Twilite Zone. Bizarre.

    • tnwahm says:

      I had this conversation on FB yesterday. He thought this deal was better than nothing. He still believes that this POTUS will produce policies that will encourage growth. He could not/would not answer my question about what evidence he has that this POTUS would do anything to promote economic growth. His answer wast that we lost, so “partisan” rhetoric wasn’t going to get us anywhere.

      Last night I was wishing I could go back to being an innocent low-information voter.

  9. sundance says:
  10. sundance says:
  11. sundance says:
  12. Auntie Lib says:

    I still don’t understand why the R’s didn’t vote “present” – a difference WITH a distinction. We could lay the blame on the D’s when the economy tanks.

  13. sundance says:

    How did your rep vote? Here’s the roll call:

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll659.xml

    • I’m Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick. And I’d just like to say fuck you very much for your support.

    • WeeWeed says:

      Mine voted “nay” – which is a very damgood thing, Mike Conaway.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      My representative as of a month and a half ago, Jean Schmidt (OH-2) voted NO. I’ll be calling her office to thank her.

    • ctdar says:

      No suprises with CT :(

    • tnwahm says:

      My current Rep voted no; but because of redistricting, I will be in Cohen’s district who was praising Boehner last night. We tried to get rid of him, but the local Republicans did to my candidate during the primary what Boehner did to us last night. We also had a Paulbot thrown into the mix in the primary. Not to mention that there was fraud on the part of the Election Commission to even get the Establishment Repub into the primary and the Republican party just went into CYA mode.

      Did I mention how pissed off I am at the Republican Party right now?

  14. sundance says:
  15. howie says:

    Breaking….First thing Obama says…I want more revenue. HAHAHAHAHAH! I thought this was gonna switch the debate to less spending HAHAHAHA. Take me to the funny farm.

  16. yadent says:

    And some of y’all think the R’s are going to protect your 2nd Amendment rights? Be afraid, very afraid……

  17. sundance says:
  18. sundance says:
  19. 22tula says:

    The Market Ticker – Karl Denninger
    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker

    “Here It Comes”
    Karl Denninger – November 14, 2012

    • texan59 says:

      While I was out of pocket for a few days, I don’t want to duplicate efforts, but what about the $60B relief package. $20B for the hurricane and another $40B pissed down the black hole. This is about 40 years past the point of absurdity and I’m sick and tired of my head finding something each and every day to explode over. What is it going to take for more than 175 people in DC to listen to any of the great unwashed. If Mrs. Tex wasn’t so concerned about eating and paying bills I would prepare the rant of rants and pay the price. It may be getting to that point. :evil:

      • ctdar says:

        Congress closed term last night and didn’t vote on Sandy Relief.
        :(

        • WeeWeed says:

          I would venture to guess that they don’t want the same scroo-ups that they made for Katrina – OR, are trying to stuff even more crap in this one than Katrina had. Blanco and Nagin, among others, left office very wealthy after that……. and still, nothing’s fixed.

      • thefirstab says:

        Apparently an armed takeover.

  20. howie says:

    According to the GOP game plan the media will now turn on Obama. They will go after Obama on spending cuts….To….school lunches, medicare for old folks, food for the poor, health care for the poor and so forth. Altogether now hold your breath. Yes the GOP is that stupid.

    • yadent says:

      Exponential math is telling me that alot of folks are either stupid or evil…..or both.

      • howie says:

        Well I think it has gone from…it can happen here….to it is happening here.

        • michellc says:

          That whole seceding thing sounds a lot better, Sullivan, Boren, Lucas, Cole, Inhoffe and Coburn can permanently move to D.C.
          I have a feeling they’re going to be cutting the red states off from everything anyway unless they agree to their demands.

        • Joke & Dagger says:

          The scary part…the Chosen One hasn’t even started his second term.

  21. michellc says:

    Hey Sundance, I’m a woman and have the right to change my mind, right? I change my mind that this GOP led house will not vote for the Feinstein bill. I’m only now sure of a few things, John Sullivan will not vote for it because he was defeated and won’t be going back to Washington, Dan Boren won’t be voting for it because he retired, both of them left with a bang though and voted for this and the plumber we just sent to Washington won’t vote for it, his Dad would literally turn him over his knee and set his butt on fire. Not to mention he’s not real pleased he will have to be disarmed just going to Washington.
    Inhoffe, Coburn, Lucas and Cole I can make no promises. The spin they’re all leaking out according to some locals about voting for this bs is that they voted for tax cuts and they didn’t want the blame for going over the cliff. SO I could see their spin being they didn’t want the blame for the dead children.

    I think our plans we made after Obama was re-elected are going to have to be tweaked because it’s not going to be enough to save our family, it doesn’t look like.

    I’m really starting to question my own judgment anymore, I once was a better judge of character, but Ryan showed me I kind of have poor judgment anymore.

    • howie says:

      Well wake up. Don’t let em fool ya again. You will feel better. When the Republicans vote to raise taxes and increase spending it should be a clue.

      • michellc says:

        Sorry it doesn’t make me feel better. Just like my lack of trust in the fellow man doesn’t make me feel better. I thought the math guru was a conservative and I was WRONG. I thought my fellow citizens cared about the country and I was WRONG. I thought we had a chance to salvage this country and even that is looking like I was WRONG.

        I’m just about ready to take the Ann Barnhardt route and not sending them another dime, that’s looking like about the only weapon we have left to fight with.

        To be honest I wish it would all come crashing down this year. So just maybe this sped the bus up and severed the brake lines.

    • sundance says:

      Michelle, firstly the primary rule to stopping co-dependency is to accept “it is not your fault”. Secondly, once you stop the process of co-dependency then let them have it with both barrells, so-to-speak.

      Each of us, individually, has to reach the place where we are willing to admit our defensive walls have been compromised and those around us are cutting deals, with the enemy, to save their own necks.

      No one, in leadership, is willing to stand up and say “nuts”! YOU must be your own leader and engage the enemy at will based on your perception and to heck with anyone’s opinion of it.

      All around us, the “neck savers”, are trying to convince you if you don’t shoot they won’t hurt you. NUTS! They are going to lop your head off regardless of what you do, so you might as well go down swinging.

      Within that approach is a liberation, a freedom of sorts. You find yourself with nothing to lose because the outcome is going to be determined anyway. The funny thing is, if enough people do the same – victory will be at hand.

      God Bless.

      Wolverines!

      • yadent says:

        So is going ‘Galt’, so-to-speak, now a somewhat legitimate economic/social strategy?

        • sundance says:

          Depends on your definition of “going Galt”.

          Many local areas are finding they have “groups” of people engaging in economic transactions absent of *standard* currency transactions. To the extent you have the capability to do so I would say it can be a good thing…. Liberate yourself, yourself and your family, as much as possible.

          • yadent says:

            As one in the health professions, I’m very familiar with ‘creative transactions’. Just didn’t think I would be revisiting it after 30+ years. It is as is…..

            • Joke & Dagger says:

              Yup, looks like I get December off next year. Law of unintended consequences. I will stay in a lower tax bracket via less work before I go into the higher bracket.

              • thefirstab says:

                J&D, that is what I did last year. Obviously some tweaking of family finances was needed, and each person/family is different. Plan your work, work your plan.

          • That plan is sounding better and better to me all the time, SD.

          • rumpole2 says:

            Hi Sundance. I sent you an email (maybe 2)

            • sundance says:

              Hey, thanks, I’ll go check. I never, never, go to the mailroom unless the Admins tell me too, or y’all leave me a note. Lotsa hatemail in there, not enough shower time…. creepy, dark, and spiders…. spiders!

      • michellc says:

        I don’t want to say too much online and draw too much attention to my family, but we took steps before the election and have put much of the plan into action since the election. Sadly though I don’t think we realized just how bad they will be before it all does fall apart and I’m not sure it’s enough.
        It’s not that I ever had much trust in the GOP, I have watched them cower to Obama for four years and I have watched them do their own version of using the constitution as their toilet paper.
        I just had some hope in certain people and unfortunately I hoped Paul Ryan was one of those men.
        I also thought they would draw the line at gun bans, but witnessing how easily they rolled over on this and witnessing of the 7 from Oklahoma only one voting against this bill kind of showed me they have no line they won’t cross.

        You’re right though, if every person who was against taxes, against spending, pro-2nd amendment, pro-constitution, etc. would say okay we’re not playing anymore, you won’t get another dime from us through any kind of tax, we would win this battle. The farmers and ranchers are getting there and it might just be them that save our country, free money from the government won’t do you much good if American farmers and ranchers aren’t providing food in the box stores or restaurant chains to feed you.

        So if it gets to the point where you need a good hot meal Sundance, look me up because I’m more than willing to share what I have with the good guys.

  22. Sharon says:

    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/01/obama-there-is-no-more-debt-ceiling/

    Speaking Jan. 1 at the White House at 11:20 p.m., less than an hour after the House voted 257 to 167 to approve new tax hikes, President Barack Obama announced that he will assert the authority to raise the debt ceiling for spending approved by Congress.

    “One last point I want to make,” said the president flanked by Vice-President Joseph R. Biden Jr., whose Capitol Hill summitry closed the deal on a “fiscal cliff” compromise. “I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills, they have already racked up through the laws they have passed.

    • woohoowee says:

      Assert authority, once again, not vested in his office. Not surprised. Wondering what specific date history will record as the coup. It’s already happened and I can’t pinpoint the date :-(

      • Chip Bennett says:

        Obama has been trying to strong-arm Congress into giving him blanket authorization to raise the debt ceiling ever since he’s been in office. It now sounds like he is going to make a unilateral move to assert that authority, perhaps using a Fourteenth Amendment argument.

        Everything this man does comes back to one goal: consolidation of power at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

      • John Galt says:

        Stupid unfunded wars, extravagant spending, runaway debt. This will end badly.

        http://open.salon.com/blog/rw005g/2011/08/11/debt_tax_avoidance_causes_of_french_revolution_re-post

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Stupid unfunded wars, extravagant spending, runaway debt.

          The reality is, 99% of the budget* deficit every year comes from Entitlement expenditure/revenue deficit, and debt servicing. Discretionary spending contributes on the order of magnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly deficit. Entitlement spending contributes on the order of one trillion dollars in yearly deficit.

          Discretionary revenues are on the order of $1.3 trillion, and discretionary expenditures are on the order of $1.3 trillion.

          Entitlement revenues are on the order of $1 trillion, and entitlement expenditures are on the order of $2.3 trillion. Of that, the debt service alone accounts for an amount on the order of $200 billion.

          (All numbers are approximate, as I don’t have iron-clad sources at the moment.)

          Discretionary spending, which I still agree is out of control, does not meaningfully contribute to our ballooning debt. More importantly, cuts in discretionary expenditures will not contribute meaningfully to reducing that debt.

          The only thing that will meaningfully address both our yearly budget* deficits, and our aggregate debt, is Entitlement reform.

          * I use the term budget loosely, in the general sense of revenue-versus-expenditures, given that the Reid Senate has yet actually to pass a budget.

    • LadyRavenSDC says:

      Surreal.

      • Sharon says:

        It is. What do you think accounts for his boldness and Congress’ submission to his every demand? (And welcome to the Tree, btw ;) )

        • LadyRavenSDC says:

          Thank you for the welcome Sharon. Earlier in the evening you said something also and I was too busy destroying a fence with my bare hands to acknowledge. Again, thank you.

          Obama’s boldness? He’s had virtually non-stop wins for four years. 2010 was not a win but but that didn’t stop him. We’ve seen his nasty streak from the very beginning but I suspect we shall see it a whole lot more now that he does not have to worry about elections – and – I feel confident his handlers gave him the green light to enjoy himself now.

          As far as Congress is concerned – ignorance and an addiction to the ROP. Religion of power.
          What are your thoughts on it?

          • howie says:

            I predict the Newz will shift to Gun Control next. Also sob stories about the possible spending cuts.

          • Sharon says:

            My thoughts are along the same lines. Your second paragraph is exactly the sense I’ve had.

            At the outset, I remember a “feeling of reeling” at the speed with which they began to implement things within 10 days of him taking office: that scared me and rightly so, obviously. I was shocked that they had absolutely no reservation about going for broke right out of the gate. That suggested that they either had solid knowledge or some pretty solid reasons for their confidence that there wouldn’t be any significant resistance, that it wouldn’t hurt him politically. It has seemed that those who oppose him have been irrelevant ever since he invented and entered The Office Of The President-Elect.

            The complete lack of resistance from our so-called “checks and balances” government has been horrifying, not because of what’s happening right in front of us but because of this: “what’s happening right in front of us” tells me that stuff (i.e., agreements, surrenders) has happened that we are not seeing and we don’t know what it is. Congress is completely complicit.

            I’m often reminded of the title of Rumsfeld’s memoirs Known and Unknown….and his poem about the same thing:

            The Unknown

            As we know,
            There are known knowns.
            There are things we know we know.

            We also know
            There are known unknowns.
            That is to say
            We know there are some things
            We do not know.

            But there are also unknown unknowns,
            The ones we don’t know
            We don’t know.

            —Feb. 12, 2002, Donald Rumsfeld

            That whole poem could be the title over the second term of barackhusseinobama, as far as I’m concerned.

    • howie says:

      Pay it with Obamabucks. We constitutionally have to pay the bills approved by Congress. True. What wit??? Does not say.

  23. Pingback: Boehner MUST GO – D Day | LadyRaven's Whisky In A Jar – OH!

  24. ctdar says:

    Famous last words? Boehner tells Reid to go F$&@ himself last week. Apparent as of last night the only ones that got F’d was the Taxpayer & future taxpayers.

    http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/boehner-responds-reid-go-f-yourself_693476.html

  25. cmsiq2 says:

    The other alternative was keeping the conditions of the fiscal cliff, which is higher taxes on everybody.

    Add that to the fact we already have higher taxes because the Republicans are all for eliminating the payroll tax cut, so we go back up to 6.2%. That is about $1000 out of everyone’s pocket going directly to the government. The Republicans killed it. So did you really want the middle class to get nailed with higher taxes twice? Income taxes AND payroll taxes?? Because that’s what would have happened.

    Even your overlord Grover Norquist has given his adamant approval on this deal because it LOWERS taxes on 98% of the people. .

    I also see the leftists on leftist message boards are also griping about this deal, so it looks like the far right and far left are both pissed.

    • tnwahm says:

      Are you really that gullible that you don’t think everybody’s taxes would and will go up? I knew the night of the re-coronation of King Barry I and his cohorts in the Senate that everybody’s taxes were going up. My question was whether the Republicans would go along with it or not. I have my answer. Being a Republican doesn’t mean anything anymore. They are just Democrat-lite.

      If you think that King Barry I and his regime will stop at this tax-hike on the “rich”, you are sadly mistaken. This is just his opening salvo. It’s going to get much, much worse.

    • yadent says:

      No one insisted on extending the payroll tax ‘cut’. No one. As for this deal, something called exponential math is readying a greased debt club to use in the most inappropriate way on yourself and the American public at some point in the near future…..enjoy.

    • Coast says:

      Yes, I would rather everyone start pay higher taxes now…especially if Obama/Congress won’t cut back on spending. If fact, if I had my way I would raise taxes so that the FY 2013 deficit would be ZERO. GOT THAT….ZERO. Maybe, just maybe people would realize that there is no such thing as free money. And maybe, just maybe we can get back on the road of fiscal sanity. Passage of this Bill is not going to do anything but make the solution that much more painful.

      • Coast says:

        Let me make a slight but meaningful adjustment to my above statement. Not only should taxes be raised so that we incur zero deficit and thus add nothing more to the $16.4T national obscene debt, but tax rates need to be adjusted so that taxes are “fair”. After all, the people vote for Obama and he said that taxes need to be fair. Well, fair to me means that everyone pays the same rate. Thus taxes for the middle class and for the poor need to go way way up. I would really like to see the math but my guess is that in order to increase tax revenue equal to the FY2013 expected spending, and to make tax rates the same for everyone, regardless of income level, then rates would be much higher than what they are now. If I had my way, I would dish out severe punishment to the American people until they came to their senses. Instead, Congress and Obama gives us a slow death sentence.

  26. Chip Bennett says:

    …your overlord Grover Norquist…

    Are we supposed to accept such discourse as sincere?

    We are fully aware that this outcome was inevitable. It was inevitable from the moment the fiscal cliff was created, 18 months ago. It was inevitable from the moment Congress refused to deal with the real issue: Entitlement spending.

    But just because the outcome was inevitable doesn’t deny us the right to hold Congress accountable for the bed they themselves made, and now must lie in.

  27. recoverydotgod says:

    Boehner needs to go a Speaker. This speech will be used against him every single time, as it should be.

    • ThatOldGuy says:

      The same discontent can be expressed towards Paul Ryan, too:

      • recoverydotgod says:

        Bailout Plan Wins Approval; Democrats Vow Tighter Rules
        By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
        Published: October 3, 2008

        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/business/economy/04bailout.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

        -snip-

        Several Democrats in the Congressional Black Caucus said they were persuaded to support the bill by Mr. Obama.

        Representatives Elijah E. Cummings and Donna F. Edwards, both of Maryland, said they had each spoken to Mr. Obama who helped persuade them to support the bill, in part by assuring them that he would work to achieve a goal that Democrats gave up during negotiations: a change in bankruptcy laws to let judges modify first mortgages.

        Mr. Obama, speaking in Abington, Pa., said he had urged lawmakers from both parties to “not make the same mistake twice.” But he warned that passage of the measure should be just “the beginning of a long-term rescue plan for our middle class.”

        Mr. McCain, speaking in Flagstaff, Ariz., warned that the bill was not perfect and there was more to be done. “It is an outrage that it’s even necessary,” Mr. McCain said. “But we must stop the damage to our economy done by corrupt and incompetent practices on Wall Street and in Washington.” Mr. McCain said he spoke to House Republicans before Friday’s vote and urged them to approve the bill.

        -snip-

      • cmsiq2 says:

        Right…..Paul Ryan and Grover Norquist are not rightwing enough for you guys….

  28. LadyRavenSDC says:

    The vote is tomorrow on whether or not Boehner remains as speaker, that is, if it comes to a vote. A video was put together last night by Benghazi Truth to add more fuel to – Boehner must go! Please view and forward to anyone who might be interested. Danka!

  29. ctdar says:

    does congress even know what they voted on??

    http://m.cnsnews.com/video-channels

  30. popeyes spinach brand says:

    Those Congressional salary increases *cough* bribes worked.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s