pic from dailymail.co.uk
I was watching a news/opinion type program, from my sofa, the other day. This lovely and very thin blond actress is being interviewed about a complex dilemma she has found herself in.
After hearing her and her childrens story, the first thing that pops into my mind is, naturally, natural born citizenship. How should the United States view the citizenship of her two children, and what action, if any, should take place?
“Judge Gesmer seized my children and their U.S. passports, and forced them to leave the United States and reside in Monaco, a country where neither they nor I, nor even their father, has citizenship.”
A US Judge seized the passports of two US citizen minors, and shipped them off to Monaco. The mother of the children, Kelly Rutherford, is a US citizen of good standing. Not a dual-type, but sole allegiance. She was married to a fellow who was in the US on a visa. His visa
expired was revoked, so he did a very unusual thing and actually left the US. The problem is that he moved on and then filed for custody rights while living in France/Monaco, and he won.
How is that a “thing”? Well, here we have a non-citizen husband on a visa married to a US citizen woman. Apparently he was not to collect automatic US citizenship just by virtue of being married to her, so he doesn’t rate as a mail-order Japanese variety of bride as those do get marriage citizenship eventually. Nope, he was still a foreigner, as he apparently isn’t a Mexican either.
The children, however, are both US citizens. They are not and never were, according to Ms. Rutherford, dual-citizens, but indeed have sole allegiance. They are US citizens, born in California, which is in the United States of America, although largely peopled by folks who are not US citizens.
The mother a US citizen, sole allegiance. The two children are US citizens, sole allegiance and actually BORN on US soil. The children have no other citizenship in any other territory or land. The father of the two children is a non-US citizen. Some country where he is pleased to abide
has awarded custody of the two US children to Mr. Divorced Husband , and so (correction: the initial ruling was out of a CA court (even scarier IMO) the US court basically DEPORTED the two US citizen children, born to to US citizen mother on US soil, to Monaco where they do not have citizenship, but do have a father who is apparently not a citizen of Monaco either.
One question, after all that, is this: IF obama daddy, who was indeed a Kenyan citizen, was awarded custody, in a Kenyan court, (or U.S.A. liberal court) of bitty baby obama, and the US court upheld the ruling to deport bitty baby obama, a dual-citizen of Britain-United States to his daddy to live all Kenyan-style, would he still be considered a “natural-born citizen”?
sorry, I’ve been trying to do the corrections and my computer keeps freezing up
Just who gets to call the shots on which of our United States history lessons become hidden away, and what we are allowed to keep out in the open? Does putting flags into a dark closet, does tearing down monuments and desecrating graves answer the demand to have better equality between Americans?
Stupid questions all. Yet here we are at this pass. Taking down the Confederate flag from the few places where it should be flying, and digging up a man deceased for over a century … all in a profoundly exaggerated endeavor to avoid having sensibilities stirred. That’s right – lets hide history, lets dig up a dead man and his wife, lets remove flags that flew over some of our darkest days as a nation, lets pretend that these things have no place in our modern society.
Because they make some people have hurt feelings.
Denounce and deny your heritage Americans. Come away from those places that make you feel wonder. Put down those symbols which stir up some connection to your ancestors. Turn from your past. Turn, and walk away from the anguish and passion, the desire and the necessity, the promise and privation, and all the infinite events that led to those symbols and to all those dead men. Are we better now?
Will pulling the Confederate flag down from the battlefields it has a legitimate duty to wave above change our attitude towards each other? That flag is bound to those places, as surely as the blood and bones that bonded to the battlefield soil. Taking it from our hands and hiding it from our sight will not ever right any wrong, will not ever soften that history. Our history.
On April 12, 1861, the Confederate army fired artillery at the federal military installation, which is located in Charleston Harbor, in the first armed conflict of the Civil War. Union forces surrendered 34 hours later, and for four years, the fort remained in Confederate hands. The National Park Service is now in control.
- Meanwhile, it is now being reported the state legislature has the votes necessary in South Carolina to have the Statehouse Confederate flag removed
CHARLESTON, S.C. — The historic site where the first shots of the Civil War were fired is no longer flying versions of the Confederate flag above it.
The U.S. National Park Service ordered all flags except the U.S. flag to be taken down at the Fort Sumter National Monument in Charleston Harbor.
The park service also took down the South Carolina state flag.
Read more: wcnc.
Health Sciences Park was called Forrest Park — in honor of General Nathan Bedford Forrest — until February 2013 when the City Council voted to *change the name* along with the names of two other parks, the Herald reports.
“I’m not trying to change history, history is what it is, but in 2015, this day and age is much different than it was 100 years ago.” ~ Memphis Mayor Wharton Jr. (Mayor Wharton Jr. is a Democrat, a gun grabber, and a global warming activist type.)
Memphis Mayor A C Wharton Jr. has called for the removal of the grave and memorial of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest from a city park.
“These relics, these messages of this despicable period of this great nation, it’s time for those to be moved,” Wharton said in a press conference Thursday.
Forrest is believed to have been the first Grand Dragon of the KKK and Wharton said the man’s memorial is no ordinary monument, according to WMCA.Read more:DailyMail
Workers at Antietam National Battlefield took Confederate flags, T-shirts and magnets off gift shop shelves Thursday as the National Park Service announced plans to stop selling some items with the increasingly controversial symbol.
Park service officials said they would stop “stand-alone depictions” of the familiar battle flag, which has 13 white stars on a blue “X” over a red field. They said educational items such as books, exhibits, and media showing re-enactments and interpretive programs may use images of the battle flag “in its historical context” as long as they cannot be “physically detached.”“We strive to tell the complete story of America,” National Park Service director Jonathan B. Jarvis said in a statement. “All sales items in parks are evaluated based on educational value and their connection to the park. Any stand-alone depictions of Confederate flags have no place in park stores.”
Read more: VA Gazette
Historic Gettysburg seminary bans Confederate flags
Administration rewrites its policy to stop using symbols of hate speech and racism
Read more: Evening Sun
At Gettysburg the Confederate flags are no longer for sale in the Visitors Centers, or anywhere that is touched by the National Park Service.
Your history is being erased, courtesy of the National Park Service, at the behest of whom? Just Democrats? The White House? Rouge Director at the Park Service? These things, events, and places that unite us in our shared history are being taken. Good or bad, we all share them in common, destroy our links – and what will be the end result?
.google image tagged @bradleedeanblog
I have just woken up, ’cause menopause, and that’s all I am saying ’bout that. Anyway I wake rather late these days, so today my tired crusty eyes open to read that the Supreme Court® has declared that all fifty states must allow homosexual marriage.
With all of the outrages shoved up our asses lately, I really find my self at a loss for words. Mostly it’s because of the staggering, breathtaking, and terrifying actions of our own government, including the indisputably activist Supreme Court™. (Not sure if it’s correct to use the “registered sign” or the “trademark” sign, so I will alternate just to cover all bases) So, don’t get me wrong here – a bunch of homosexuals pretending to be married isn’t scary to me – I find it idiotic play acting. I watched how the homos began with the plea that they just wanted the same legal protections as “everyone else”… like there are not lawyers who can arrange such. Then it was about not being able to cover their “life-partner” homo lovers who didn’t have health coverage through their work provided health insurance . Because they were transmitting Aids to each other, and the “hetro”, *cough*, community at such a pace, that their sexual partners were dying all over the place. Then it was about being bullied. And it took off from there.
News flash flamers – I was bullied as a youngster, and a teen, and a young adult, I made it through. News flash flamers – it’s because you act like out of control freaks in public, disrespect peoples natural sensibilities, demand special attention due to your special sexual choices, and basically make yourselves shocking and needy and morally jarring. WE don’t need to be forced to embrace you. People in general are tolerant without compulsion. Homos – not so much.
“Jiggery-Pokery” indeed. The Supreme Court® has done one thing, in it’s rulings on obamacare and homosexual marriages, and that is to insure that the sovereignty of the States has been utterly destroyed. I think the homosexual crowd may one day wake up to find out they stepped on their own dicks.
That’s right – no more sovereignty for us. Thanks fags! State Governors are reduced to arranging for disaster relief in minor events. The big stuff is the domain of the Federal Government. State Governors have no power to push back against the Federal Government on anything anymore. Guess what else this means? Your vote just lost nearly all of it’s significance. Remember how the people in CA voted against the marriage of homosexuals? And the court – a homosexual judge – ruled that the vote of the people held no power.
I know that a lot of people hate the idea of a constitutional convention. But I ask you, what is the danger now? That the President can be President for life? You think that the Federal Government and the Supreme Court™ can’t push that through without much resistance? The fuck they can’t.
We need term limits. We need them for every elected and appointed individual who is in any political position above the local level.
UPDATE 9:55 PM EST at pink link .
check it out
Per Imraan Siddiqi with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):
“Recently, the mosques here in Phoenix actually received threatening letters — very specific threats, saying that we are going to massacre your congregations,” he said.
Should we consider as credible too, then, the threats from the Muslim community towards those who would draw a Mohammed? Kind of like those two who got culled at Gellers event. Those devout Muslims with guns who were looking to massacre the people attending that private event. They made threats prior to acting. Yet we are told over and over that we misunderstand – and that the Muslims don’t mean such threats literally, they are just desperate to protect their deity from desecration.
“Ritzheimer anticipates possible problems because of the rally and says people should bring their guns.” “People are also encouraged to utilize (their) second amendment right at this event just (in case) our first amendment comes under the much anticipated attack,” the event’s Facebook page says.Bikers will be there too, according to the post.”
Siddiqi calls it the “intersection of Islamophobia and (the) gun culture.”
“When we see these two things … then obviously it becomes more of a concern,” he said. “We’re advising people … it’s better to stay clear from the event, don’t engage with these people.”
“These people”. Islamophobia. Gun culture. Now, the motorcycle ridin’, gun totin’, cartoon drawin’ are not reasonable people, it is clear. If they were reasonable they wouldn’t even consider hurting the feelings of Muslims.
Then there is this position from the all inclusive crowd:
They also should know that consequences and responsibility come with those rights.
Consequences eh? Serious ones I imagine? For free speech, the exercise of which is our right, we should fear consequences. Responsibility, as in being responsible for getting your own ass shot or stabbed to death for being a serial cartoon sketcher. Yeah, like that.
What are the typical consequences of the sort of free speech which some few might find hurtful or offensive?
Why, in a sane world simply that the receiver becomes offended or feels impotent outrage. That is all.
Now however, American society is turning towards warning the offender that it is they who need to fear, yes fear, dark consequences. Presumably those consequences will be more severe than the offender being outraged or offended in turn – you know, tit for tat. I am guessing that the consequences they refer to won’t include Muslims holding a Draw Jesus event.
At Ace of Spades: screenshot
How indeed Mr. Lamont, do you get to define terrorism any old which-a-way? Remember this ?: screenshot
I do wonder how Mr. Hill views all the Christians slaughtered by Muslims. Is that Muslims resistance to oppression? When will the gays murdered by the Muslims have their day?
Only when a bunch of Americans convene at a cartoon contest, “as silly as it sounds”.
This is how WE riot bitches.
You can’t circumscribe resistance Mr. Hill.
Not to mention the most vapid in history.
I mean – sending out an email to announce? Really? The expense behind that being oh, I don’t know, zero dollars.
“I wanted to make sure you heard it first from me — it’s official: Hillary’s running for president,” John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s campaign, wrote in the message. “She is hitting the road to Iowa to start talking directly with voters. There will be a formal kickoff event next month, and we look forward to seeing you there.”
Well, of course there would be the expense of all Hillary’s new servers and hard drives and associated costs, so there is that. And the cost of the, um, van.
So, our next President, the first female President like, evah, is excruciatingly underwhelming in her excruciatingly enervating announcement video follow-up to the clever email. By the way, is she the only candidate who has initially announced via email? I mean, so far all the Repubs have spent the cash to hire a hall or space of some sort, where, um, actual people could hear them announce in their own actual voice and later shake hands with the actual candidate. Are these guys out of touch or what? That’s sooo last century!
Then there is the van. Mercy on us.
Today I will speak on this weird phenomenon of people on the right getting rabid over the whole Article II natural-born Citizen question as applies to Cruz. Are they noticing that the most anti-Conservative media and bloggers and Cruz haters are willing to quietly accept that a man who was born in Canada, who had such citizenship at the instant of his birth, whose mother had to take the step of registering his birth at the American consulate in order to extend her citizenship to him, causing Cruz to be a dual citizen in fact only after that exercise – are they noticing how quiet the left is on this?
You all knew it was coming. Cruz announces and the anti-Birthers start popping off like Mexican jumping beans in a frenzy. Conservative people mostly, so presumably Constitutionalists. Listen, Cruz swears that he didn’t have any idea that he had Canadian citizenship – although he has a Canadian birth certificate. Yet the left is giving him a pass on that obviously ignorant and disingenuous claim.
Now, we all have been exposed to the LIV who are happy to accept the word of a couple of lawyers who claim that they understand the issue, and so have decided that any person who derived some form of US citizenship thru a US citizen parent, at birth, meets the Article II requirement. Even though it is not “settled” in any court or session of Congress. Quite the opposite.
So, I decided that I would veer off from looking for the “definition” and instead look for historical understanding of American citizenship. And naturalization. While a clear, unambiguous definition from the US Supreme Court, or even from Congress (heh), at some point in our history being decided and declared is not available, the common understanding of citizenship at the time of the signing, and for generations forward, should give us a clearer and better understanding of what was meant when our Constitution was signed.
Horace Binney, The Allegiance of the United States, 1853:
The state of the law in the United States is easily deduced. The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not and never was any such common law principle. But the common law principle of allegiance, was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution, and at the adoption of the Constitution; and by that principle the citizens of the Untied States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution, or since that time, by virtue of an Act of the Congress of the United States.
The question remains, what is the present effect of Acts of Congress, on the subject of naturalization; for it is unnecessary to advert to the long-extinct authority of the States.
The first Act upon this subject was passed on the 25th March, 1790. After enacting, that any alien, being a free white person, who had resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, might be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any year at least, on making certain proof and taking certain oaths, provides, 1st, that 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. 2dly, that 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–with a proviso, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons who had never been resident in the United States.
***since the common law did NOT confer automatic citizenship to children born outside of the country – the children born out of the limits were provided for by passing a naturalization law to address their condition.
Horace was a BFD in his day… a renowned attorney amongst other accomplishments.
His grandson later wrote a biography on Horace, where he mentions the book written on allegiance – or should I say he explains why Horace felt compelled to write it so late in life, and not even being a “writer”.
screenshot, click to enlarge:
More to come. I am tired now. OOPS! I forgot to mention that this post is mostly for the Article II geeks. If you have any question about why I posted this, or what this material means and how it is significant, please drop me a question in comments. If you are new here your question will go into moderation before being answered.