JustiaGate

 Dianna Cotter, PortlandCivil Rights Examiner

October 18, 2011

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history – Minor v. Happersett (1875) – to directly construe Article 2 Section 1’s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent.  In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in theUS to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain. 

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

NOTE: Although the author is correct that in June 2008, Minor was not being discussed. I did in fact publish the ‘Barack Obama Un-Constitutional‘ in Sept 2008, the exact date Sept 26th, 2008 which does list Minor as a reference.  Again, this blog is vindicated!

Meanwhile, at the “Supreme Court Center” of the influential legal research website Justia.com, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words “Minor V. Happersett” along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations.  And In two documented cases actual text was removed.

Clearly this was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic Nomination at the DNC Convention inDenver,Colorado in August ’08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive.

So far, 25 corrupted SCOTUS have been identified, and this number may continue to rise as the scope of the tampering becomes apparent. These cases all relied upon Minor, some specifically referencing its definition of Natural Born Citizen – a definition which makes Obama ineligible to be President as that definition is part of the holding and continuing precedent, issued from the highest court in our nation making it the law of the land, even now.   

The most extreme sabotage so far discovered appears to have been done to the landmark decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was sabotaged to remove “Minor v. Happersett” three times, along with one reference to “Scott v Sandford”, another to the Slaughterhouse Cases  and some accompanying text relevant to the issue. These surgical alterations would alter and shape the national dialogue; leaving a persistent and  incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause. There is no doubt whatsoever that this was the specific intent of those responsible for this illegal editing of American history and law.

As previously mentioned, the specific distinction between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen made in Minor v. Happersett is in the holding of the case, the section which creates the Law, and it is this Law which has been repeatedly cited over the decades since. In order to minimize the importance of Minor, someone at Justia deliberately decided to make these supporting citations as difficult as possible to find.

This has had the desired effect, diluting the importance of Minor v. Happersett in the national dialogue across the blogosphere’s political spectrum ever since. The end result: the one case which defines Natural Born Citizen was reduced to seeming irrelevance, and thus the conversation never got past doorkeepers already in Obama’s camp in the mainstream media.

Of course, a lawyer going into Court would never rely upon anything but an official source for Supreme Court law, but 99.9% of the population have no access to dusty law texts, or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw. Those who committed these crimes were well aware of this, and used it to their advantage.

The manipulation at Justia.com diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns Justia.com’s version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia’s version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere’s forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical Law Library.

This is nothing short of appalling. Justia swapped their tampered versions of the cases for the actual Supreme Court opinions and then pawned them off as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text” of the Supreme Court’s opinions. Yet Justia CEO Tim Stanley claims that making case law available to the public for free is the mission of Justia. In reality, Justia has been re-inventing our legal history and passing it off as genuine.

Attorney Donofrio’s Full report “Justia.com Surgically Removed “Minor v Happersett” from 25 Supreme Court Opinions in run up to ’08 Election”,  published today explains that exposure to criminal punishment is a direct result of not just the tampering, but more specifically, as a result of placing text on every tampered page which states, “Full text of case”:

Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”.  This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism.  It’s propaganda.  And there is no place for it in the United States.  The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers. – Leo Donofrio Esq.

Clearly, the corruption of Supreme Court Cases was systemic and surgically targeted within Justia.com, one of the largest and best known legal research sites on the internet. Justia is nothing if not efficient in driving traffic to its site; this is after all their business. Today they partner with Google and have Google Analytics within their site which does two things; it increases Justia’s visibility on Google searches, and it pushes their website to the top of those searches done on legal issues. When specific search terms are erased out of a document, naturally that document will not appear on a search. Anyone searching for the case name “Minor v. Happersett” and “citizenship” would never see the dozens of cases manipulated by Justia.com.

Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of ‘freedom of information’.  On June 19th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following statements:

“Our goal is to provide academic researchers, government officials, attorneys, and the public with advanced features, including full‐text search, annotations by legal professionals, and comparison tools to visualize the differences in the law between the individual states…”

And

“In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation’s laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system.”

To describe these comments, made at roughly the same time Supreme Court Cases were being scrubbed and deliberately altered at his site as ironic, is an understatement of gross proportions.

Only a person thoroughly educated in the law would know precisely which cases to look for in order to direct the changes to be made to those cases. Furthermore, only someone with access to Justia.com’s database could physically make these changes from inside the website. This artificially created a near empty result set and the cases which did turn up led those inexperienced in the law, nowhere.

This appears to violate every principle Tim Stanley and Justia.com have built their business upon.

The manipulations at Justia.com were initially discovered by Attorney Leo Donofrio on July 1, 2011, when he published his initial report, “Justia.com Caught Red Handed Hiding References to Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Decisions,”. Upon publication of his original discovery documenting the sabotage of Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, two Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor v. Happersett as precedent on citizenship, two things happened almost immediately: First, the altered pages were returned to their original versions at Justia within an hour or so of Donofrio’s publication. Second, despite Justia CEO Tim Stanley’s cries for freedom of legal information (and law suits compelling the same), robots have now been placed on the Justia URL’s for the Boyd and Pope cases at InternetArchive.org, also known as the Waybackmachine.  These robots make it impossible to see the tampering as it unfolded in mid-2008… with those cases. 

So much for freedom of information. 

One can, however, still see the tampering from screenshots taken by Donofrio and are attached to that original report on July 1, 2011 at his blog, Natural Born Citizen, which has been singularly focused on the issue of Presidential eligibility since late 2008.

As Donofrio documents in his article today, when he discovered a third tampered case, instead of rushing to publish it, he contacted a number of other bloggers and reporters to help document the evidence before Justia dispersed their robots to block it.  While Donofrio originally only discovered two cases of tampering, somebody at Justia knew where the bones were buried and went about reinstating “Minor v. Happersett” in the at least 25 cases which it had earlier sabotaged.  It appears that whoever knew about these additional despoiled cases, must have believed by fixing them before the corruption was exposed no one would ever suspect they too had been altered.

What tipped Donofrio off last week to the extent of Justia’s tampering was the case “Luria v. United States”. This case also firmly supports Minor on citizenship, and he double checked the text to see if it included references to Minor. It did… something he had not noticed upon previous readings of the case at Justia.com.

With his new insight into SCOTUS case tampering, he plugged the URL into the Waybackmachine to see if it had been altered in the past. Bingo. It had. Furthermore there was nothing blocking his ability to see those snapshotted pages, and how they had been altered compared to the original text. The gun wasn’t just smoking, the bullet was still flying.

A brief explanation of the how the Waybackmachine works. It takes snapshots of internet pages. It may not record the day a given webpage changed, but it documents the changes when it does hit that page. Thus a date on the Waybackmachine of April 13, 2004 means this was the date the snapshot was taken, not when the changes were necessarily made. There is no way of knowing precisely when the change occurred as the waybackmachine does not record the precise instant the change is made, it is only sometime later when the Internet archive records it.

The evidence he discovered there, at the time of publication of this article, is still available and shows the same exact same pattern of behavior – deception – that Justia exhibited with the Boyd and Pope cases Donofrio published back in July.

If Justia hasn’t blocked access to the WaybackMachine for their publication of Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) by the time you read this, then it continues to be evident and accessible that on Nov. 4, 2006 the Waybackmachine recorded  Justia published the true original opinion issued by the Supreme Court with no tampering evident. Minor v. Happersett is cited on page 22 directly referencing Presidential eligibility as follows:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225.”

The July 6, 2008 Waybackmachine snapshot of Luria v. US is the first snapshot that shows the tampering:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society.  These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.  Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.   88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827.”

Notice that “Minor v. Happersett” has been removed along with the reference to “Osborn v. United States”, another case which causes trouble for Obama (and McCain).  All of the WaybackMachine snapshots between July 6, 2008, and April 13, 2010 for this case, show the same tampering.  The current, live Justia page for Luria v. US has been un-scrubbed and shows the original Supreme Court text. It is only with an archival resource such as the Waybackmachine that the alterations can be seen.

At publication, insertion of the URL into the Waybackmachine for this page at Justia still reveals the changes made to this page over time. Repeat this entire process with 25 Supreme Court cases and the extent of the tampering becomes evident.

This is disturbing enough, yet there was another subtle and insidious layer of deception. In every single instance of tampering, the numerical citation attached to Minor V. Happersett, has also been altered.  (See Donofrio’s blog for a complete break down of this.)  Changing these numbers is yet another layer of deception practiced at Justia.

While Donofrio documents in detail what the finer points of law in both versions mean in his article, this Examiner.com publication documents what this reporter has personally witnessed – the tampering of Supreme Court Cases online in the guise of “Full Text of Case”. This article is not the legal opinion of an attorney; it is witness to an event.

It’s important to note that the only way Justia could block all access to previous versions of their publication of cases would require .txt robots to be placed on their entire domain records at the Waybackmachine.  If Tim Stanley were to secure Justia.com from the honest and forthright archiving of the WaybackMachine, he would be an instant pariah in the freedom of information scene of which he is a leader. 

Furthermore, ifStanleywere to place robots on only the 25 (or more) cases which cite Minor v. Happersett, it would be a de-facto admission of guilt. 

It appears that whoever tampered with these cases went back and “fixed” all of them, including 23 Donofrio wasn’t aware of until this week when he conclusively established the sabotage by Justia.  For all 25, the pattern is precisely the same. In 2006, the cases at Justia are pristine in the Waybackmachine; word for word from official Supreme Court cases. Then at various points in 2008, the cases are corrupted by removal of the case name “Minor v, Happersett” ( as well as some other case names and text.)

The cases remained corrupted, according to the snapshots of the Waybackmachine in most cases, until late 2010.

Today however, all 25 cases have been painstakingly returned to their official Supreme Court versions; all references to Minor are back, the case and page numbers have been restored, as well as all missing text and references to other cases.  Still, the pattern is clearly visible to anyone who takes the time to look at the evidence made available by the Waybackmachine.  The sophistication and surgical elegance used to sabotage these cases is astounding, and has been personally witnessed by this reporter.

Every case which has been found to date by Mr. Donofrio has been documented with great attention to all these details. This has been accomplished by downloading the full code of the original un-tainted pages and the corrupted revisions from the Waybackmachine’s date stamped archive, along with screenshots of the pages as they appeared in browsers such as Mozilla Firefox before and after the tampering occurred, and the restored pages.

The volume of data is significant and Mr. Donofrio is in the process of making the entire archive available to the public. The article he has published today contains what he refers to as a “document dump“. It is in reality evidence. The reader is strongly encouraged to view the images which document Justia’s actions. Upon doing so, every member of congress should be notified of the existence of this information. Such usurpation of American history and law cannot be allowed.

Screenshots and links have been sent to several specific media contacts which include the Washington Times, Accuracy In Media, and Free Republic. In the interest of putting this information in front of as many eyes as possible before publication, it has been made freely available since Friday October 18, 2011 in the form of screenshots and saved page code. Should the information presented here be altered on the internet following publication, there will be a significant number of media outlets with knowledge and proof of any further alterations to internet archives.

The penalty associated with violating the “False Writings Statute”, 18 U.S.C. 1018 is jail and a fine for each count. With at least 25 counts if not more, this could mean upwards of 25 years in prison. The manipulation of Supreme Court cases is an offense against all Americans, and the Court itself. If like Fast and Furious this scandal reaches directly to the White House, the ramifications are both dire and catastrophic.

Minor v. Happersett defined the one specific term which Barack Obama could not overcome with “Hope and Change” though he could ‘hope’ someone would ‘change’ the cases which help define the term “Natural Born Citizen,”.  This case, if it had been sufficiently known to the public and media, and sufficiently documented by supporting citations, might have eliminated the possibility of Obama’s nomination and/or election. Either Obama got lucky in this regard, or the “constitutional law professor” and former editor of the Harvard Law Review had some hand in directing the efforts to erase the very citations in law which define him as a citizen, and at the same time rule him out as a constitutional candidate for President of the United States.

Just as certainly as the corruption at Justia.com has been documented and archived, more will be revealed. Stay tuned, it is expected that this information will generate some significant updates. They will be reported here as they happen.

Continue reading on Examiner.com JustiaGate – Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate#ixzz1bR3mM19i

Read from Leo’s site http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/

 

Citizenship Jeopardy By Cindy Simpson at American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/citizenship_jeopardy.html

Obama’s Political Prisoner

Pastor Manning

By Steve Cooper
The Conservative Monster.com

The truth like it needs to be told; Welcome back Pastor Manning...So, keep staring at the blackboard, your brains will be mush. I turned on Beck yesterday for the hell of it (the first time in NINE months) and I was amazed that the show was exactly the same as the last show that I saw. The same pictures on the blackboard, the same script and it has not stopped one damn thing.

Fox News has protected Obama aka Barry Soetoro long enough, the same man that will put a knife into their heart. I know most of you Beck-bots can not grasp this, but it is true. This is over your heads, because you are brainwashed and you obey the ‘talking’ blackboard.

Talking about czars does not scare the left, but the Obama eligibility issue DOES. Do not listen to the liars like Beck, Breitbart, Bill O’ or Coulter, because they are Murdoch puppets protecting John McCain’s alleged assistance in this conspiracy.

Notice that Fox only bashes the birther movement, but they refuse to have anyone on to dispute their lies? Joseph Farah mentioned on my radio show the other night that he challenged Bill O’ to a debate on the eligibility issue and Bill O’ said “NO THANKS”. The reason is because they would rather censor the entire topic, rather than report it and let the people see the truth or form their own opinion. They want to form it for you….

Keep talking about the issues; your country is almost gone, because it is too late. WE wasted valuable time not pushing the eligibility issue and idiots like Beck, Coulter and Breitbart are guilty of sabotaging this movement from growing inside the Tea Party. The Tea Party has already been subliminally brainwashed to not talk about this issue. 
 

It does not matter if the judges are corrupt and they will not side with the eligibility lawsuits, they know we are still here and it makes them very uncomfortable that their cover up will be exposed. BOTH parties took part in this cover up, because the elite have their own rules. Some very powerful people wanted Obama in office, Global influential people and foreign enemies like Russia and the Saudi's wanted this Marxist/Muslim agent inside of our defenses.

The damage has been done already. The Joint Chiefs should have demanded proof before Obama took the oath, but they are also part of the BIG LIE. They are traitors as well, because we now have a possible domestic enemy and foreign agent sitting inside the White House.

THE ENEMY WITHIN…

The media purposely killed the Obama birth certificate issue.

Go to http://atlah.org/lists/?p=subscribe and sign up for the ATLAH Newsletter. Follow us on twitter. http://twitter.com/atlahworldwide

Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration

Evolution of a Constitutional ‘Natural Born Citizen’

First off, one needs to ask the question ‘Why the grandfather clause’ in the Constitution? No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

British subjects born in the colonies were and have been regarded as ‘Natural Born Subjects’ in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 1] GEORGIA [1732] “It was further declared, that all persons born in the province should enjoy all the privileges and immunities of natural-born subjects in Great Britain.”

Even in the Mayflower Compact written in 1620, “In the name of God, Amen.  We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.”

The Treaty of Paris, 1783, was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay, names hardly unfamiliar with those here.  Acknowledged the Thirteen Colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof, that also released jurisdiction and the colonists allegiance to the crown.

It was only after that those born after the Treaty of Paris was signed, the condition of their father changed from jurisdiction and allegiance to the Crown, to the jurisdiction and allegiance to the newly formed  13 colonies, at birth. Jurisdiction and allegiace to the individual state.

Vattel’s Laws of Nations BK 1  §4. What are sovereign states.
Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State, Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws.

Vattel’s Laws of Nations BK 1  §10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

Per the Articles of Confederation, Artile 1, IV;

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

 Where the Continental Congress in 1781 described the privileges and immunities to which the citizens of one State are entitled in another. However, the Articles of Confederation which were weak and did not give a strong political or economic base for the newly formed nation that the United States Constitution was formed and eventually ratified.

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 21 October 1, 1783 – October 31, 1784
James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson

In his letter of May 21 Jefferson had asked: “Is there a commission for an additional treaty with France? The instructions made this necessary, and without it we shall be at Paris but private citizens unprotected by the laws of nations, and liable to the jurisdiction of the country.” On June 3 Congress ordered Charles Thomson to prepare commissions for Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson “to make supplementary treaties of commerce with France, the United Netherlands, and Sweden.” JCC, 27:530.

Vattel’s Laws of Nations BK 1 § 212. Citizens and natives.

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.

Vattel’s Laws of Nations BK 1 § 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

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.

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a  perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
Such were formerly the cities of Greece; such are at present the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands, and such the members of the Helvetic body.

Vattel’s “Law of Nations” 1758   Book One, Chapter 1 § 10. Of states forming a federal republic.        http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

 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. Your manuscript “Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect.         I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.  -Ben Franklin (December 9, 1775), Letter 459: Benjamin Franklin to Charles William Frederic Dumas. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol02.html

The fundamental regulation that determines the manner in which the public authority is to be executed, is what forms the constitution of the state. In this is seen the form in which the nation acts in quality of a body politic, how and by whom the people are to be governed, — and what are the rights and duties of the governors. This constitution is in fact nothing more than the establishment of the order in which a nation proposes to labour in common for obtaining those advantages with a view to which the political society was established.

Vattel’s “Law of Nations” 1758   Book One, Chapter 3 § 27. What is the constitution of a state.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html   1787

The Virginia Declaration of Rights
June 12, 1776

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/independence/virdor.htm

The Northwest Ordinance July 13, 1787

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/ohio/norwes.htm

The Continental Convention had been authorized merely to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation but, as Madison later wrote, the delegates “with a manly confidence in their country” simply threw the Articles aside and went ahead with the consideration of a wholly new form of government.  That new form of government based on on the solid foundation of colonial experience, English practice, and French political philosophy. That political philosophy was based on ‘Laws of Nations’ by Vattel. As the keystone of the Constitution, the Convention adopted a brief but highly significant device:

“Congress shall have power . . . to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the . . . powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States. (Article I , Section viii.)

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Article Vi. )

“In all free states, the constitution is final,” wrote John Adams, second President of the United States.

More Vattel from the Founding Fathers

Prove it to yourself – So easy ANYONE can do it Pt 2

In an ongoing effort to educate those about the COLB fogery. I have been holding some cards back. Now it’s time to “Cry Havoc! And slip the dogs of war”.

There are those that claim, that the COLB off “FTS’ Fight the Smears is scanned and therefore defects and other items are not going to be picked up. Or that the high resolution images off FactCheck are just as deceptive. Well lets take a look at these. First off the image off The DailyKos is 2427 x (h) 2369 to compare this to the average users desktop which currently is 1280 x (h) 1024 – hence this document the DailyKos posted is over two (2) times the size, the even higher resolution images off FactCheck come in at a whopping 2304 x (h) 3072 or close to three (3) times the size of the standard desktop resolution, some of the FactCheck images are rotated to the side and therefore some are 3072 x (h) 2304 respectfully.

There is a filter that can be applied to digital images called Statistical Image Enhancement [We will refer to this as SEI].  Which is defined as ‘The present invention relates to image enhancement by exploiting statistical properties of reference images. In particular, images may be sharpened by reconstructing missing frequency components in accordance with statistical constraints that are determined from higher order statistical properties of a reference image that corresponds to the difference of the original image and a lowpass filtered version thereof. This form of statistical image enhancement may also be applied to image and video coding in order to achieve superior image qualities at higher compression gains by transmitting statistical properties of the coding error together with the encoded images.’ 

Digital enhancement is routinely done in the field of astronomy. With the advent of CCD imaging, and software that allows even the basic amateur astronomers, to capture and enhance images caputred in with the  basic of telescopes.  Go to the Meade Telescope web-site and browse through the gallery section, or a simple google search of the same. Here is a good resource, http://www.willbell.com/aip/index.htm

Now this leads us to the images posted on the internet refered to the the previous “Prove it to yourself – So easy ANYONE can do it”  Some comments that I recieved complained that MS Paints is to basic a program, that is the point, without any special software, it is possible to detect the forgery.  Now let’s move on to further establish the forgery is self-evident.

There is a nifty freeware program called ‘Image Analyzer’. This program will be a treat for most computer users as it can manipulate pictures from the net or digital cameras. 

Now we are going to take the next stair up the forgery staircase. If you have downloaded and kept the images off the original “Prove it to yourself – So easy ANYONE can do it” you can use the same ones for this exercise. Off my blog are some additional images. Download the following images. The Decosta Birth Certificate, The Tomoyasu Birth Certificate, The Covered 1990 Certificate, The Edith Rear images.  Then after installing Image Analyzer, open the individual images and then go to the menu bar and select the ‘Operations’ – ‘Color Correction’ – ‘Statistical image enhancement…’ option, a pop-up will appear with the mathematical equation and the default entry of 0.5.  You can change this or keep it and then click on ‘OK’, at this point the process will begin and depending on the size of the image, your compter’s processing power it might be a few seconds to even a minute.

Notice that in the above images and the original ones in the previous exercise, you can clearly see the indications of the SEAL being applied to the certificates and certifications with the exceptions of FactCheck #2. WHY? Is this not supposed to be the same document as the DailyKos document (which again, HAS NO SEAL, but that was apparently scanned), or ‘FTS’ Fight the Smears (again another scanned image that has no SEAL), or the FactCheck #3 that clearly shows an embossed SEAL (but not the type defined by the State of Hawaii), so how does FactCheck #2 account for it’s existence?

Here is an original Hawaiian Certification and the SEI version;

Even this one that is NOT scanned shows evidence of the embossed SEAL.

So why doesn’t the following images show any evidence of an embossed SEAL?

FTS – Fight The Smears

The DailyKos supposed scanned imaged [resized from the original]

Or FactCheck #2

So in reality we are not talking about ONE image or document that does not contain the SEAL, we are talking about the DailyKos image that was posted in mid-June 2008 [that is a high resolution image], the FTS image posted in Aug 2008 and the FactCheck # 2 document [another high resolution] image posted after that. Now, just to be fair, here is the FactCheck #3 that does show embossing of a non-State of Hawaii issued SEAL applied. [Image resized, and area enlarged to see embossing visible]

Now I would like to remind you what the State of Hawaii has stated.

The SEAL is applied by machine and there is lettering, that lettering being “Department of Health” and “State of Hawaii”. So how does the Seal disappear and reappear and disappear off the same document?

Part 3 will also explore another aspect of digital enhancement.

“Cry Havoc! And slip the dogs of war”.

UPDATE:

Liar Lawyer who misrepresents the facts posted the following

“He also repeats his previous claim (which he pontificated on at length in his original ‘analysis’) that the COLB as posted on Kos should be considered a forgery because you can’t see any bleedthrough from the signature inkstamp. Of course, in another post he treated another COLB that similarly had no signature bleedthrough as unquestionably legitimate, which just serves to remind readers that Steve and other Birther ‘analysts’ pick and choose their evidentiary standards as they go along, without regard for consistency.”

Here is the facts and liar lawyer is smacked down again.

Here is the link to that other post: another post

The COLB that he is referring to is the following

Here are some additional images that prove that liar lawyer not only doesn’t know anything about analysis or documents and that the signature stamp that he claims is not there is not only there, but detectable, unlike the Obama ‘FORGED’ COLB that appeared on the DailyKOS and Fight the Smears that has no signature stamp and the FactCheck ‘FORGERY’ that has no embossed SEAL or signature stamp.

 

The image below with the Embossed SEAL, the Date Stamp, and the signature Stamps clearly visibe. The image was inverted to create a negitive of the original above.

The next image is the same COLB with the same inverted image [negitive] with the exposure increased to highlight the details. Note that the embossed SEAL, the Date stamp, and the signature stamp are even more detailed and pronounced.

in the third image we increase the Zero Point and even more details of the embossed SEAL, Date stamp, and signature stamp are evident.

In the forth image we ‘flip’ the image horizontally to be able to read the correct orientation. The date stamped is FEB 19 2003, the birth was on October 4, 1977, the embossed SEAL is evident and correct per the ‘State of Hawaii – Department of Health’ and the signatures stamp is evident.

Again, unlike Obama’s ‘FORGED’ COLB that has no signature stamp that was posted on the DailyKOS and Fight the Smears, and one version posted on FactCheck. This lawyer misrepresents the facts, and is again proven to be the liar that he is.

John Adams on Natural Born Citizens and Subjects

Here are some letters from John Adams concerning Natural Born Citizens and Subjects, including Natural Born Subjects.

John Adams

Dear Sir.

Grosvenor Square July 24th. 1785—

I have a Letter from the Baron D^e Thulemeier of the 19^th, and a Copy of his Letter to you of the same date. I hope now in a few Day’s to take M^r. Short by the hand in Grosvenor Square, and to put my hand to the [Tr]eaty. I think no time should be lost. We will join M^r. Dumas with M^r. Short in the Exchange if you please.

I applyed as you desire, and obtained the interposition of the Lords Commissioners of the treasury, and the Commissioners of the Customs for the transhipping of D^r. Franklin’s Baggage. We have heared of the Doctors arrival at Rouen, but no further.

— 994./ 130./ 301.1071. 160. 7 /1353./ 1333./ 925./ 1542./ 1178. 787. 793./ 1105./ 1537./ 340./ 195./ 583./ 330./ 542. 1307./ 162./ 1437./ 1145./ 565. 611. 244.1021./ 1297. 8./ 56. 712. 1024./ 1537./ 34./ 726./ 1105. 7./ 162./ 340./ 991./ 411./ 1145./ 425./ — — 565./ 519. 543. 277. 320./ 1213./ 436./ 527. 1291./ 240./ 1281. 1471. 518. 346. 598./ 994./ 525.7./ 297. 301./ 1162. 821./ 266. 7./ 240./ 994./ 69./ 1537./ 297. 301./ 1162. 821./ 1281. 186. 7./ 240./ 57./ 556. 998./ 240./ 994./ 1453./ 847. 1205./ 985./ 1154./ 780. 207. 1082./ 406./ 458./ 41. 747./ 565./ 413./ 1213./ 565./ 301. [152./] 985. 7./ 215./ 1145./ 677./ 213. 1122./ 1409./ 994./ 362./ 1103./ 179./ 676./ 636.7./ 506./ 292./ 206. 8. 1205. 1189./ 292./ 1290./ 1133./ 565./ 925. 694./ 247. 476. 1267. 7./ 240./ 330./ 65./ 1575. 1122./ 565./ 330./ 704./ 676./ 1072./ 406./ 301. 238. 1205./ 330./ 565./ 994./ 776. 1122./ 240./ 110. 821. 346. 7/ 114. 158. 7. 957. 8./ 215./ 7042.1042/ 994./ 362./ 1059./ 411./ 1575./ 565./ 330./ 406./ 562. 250./ 1319. 1190./ 559. 476. 1267. 7./ 365./ 951./ 1381. 436. 1449./ 1353. 7./ 1537./ 1199./ 1558. 250./ 2./ 616./ 446. 1492/ 330./ 1333./ 815./ 994./ 506./ 1290./ 1097./ 1537./ 933. 692. 1466. 925./ 1053./ 240./ 700./ 995./ 994./ 513. 1129. 633./ 215. /162./ 340./ 943. 1548./ 556./ 459. 895. 821./ 301. 1551./ 692. / 994 / 737./ 513. 1129. 633. /209./ 784./ 994./ 1351./ — 818./ 261./ 1579./ 1042./ 716./ 21./ 1086.7./ 565./ 1154. / —

There is a Bill before Parliament to prevent smuggling Tobacco, in which restrictions are very rigorous, but cannot be effected. two thirds of the Tobacco consumed in this Kingdom I am told is smuggled—how can it be otherwise when the impost is five times the original Value of the Commodity. If a pound in five escapes nothing is lost. if two in five, a great profit is made.

The Duty is 16^d. p^r. pound and tobacco sells for three pence. —Yet all applications for lowering the Duty are rejected— —

Yours most affectionately

John Adams

Thomas Jefferson’s Deciphered Version

the British alliense duty is a very burthensome thing and they may carry it hereafter as far upon tobacco rice indies & twenty other things as they do now upon oil. to obviate this I think of substituting the words natural born citizens of the U.S.and natural born subjects of G.B. in stead of the most favored nation you remember we first proposed to offer this to all nations, but upon my objecting that the English would make their ships French or sweadote or Dutch E^tc. to avail themselves of it without agreeing to it on their part we alltered it to the foot ing of gentis amicissimi. but if the English will now agree to it we shall secure ourselves against many odious duties and no ill consequence can arise. it is time the French Dutch Sweden and Prussia will of course claim the advantage but as they must inreturn allow us the same advantage so much the better. let me know if any objection occurs to you

 

 

 

 

John Adams to John Jay

25 Aug. 1785

Dear Sir

Grosvenor Square Westminster August 25. 1785

Yesterday, I had a long Conference with M^r Pitt for the first time. He never had proposed any Interview with me, and I had delayed to request him to appoint any Time, after the first ceremonial Visit, for two Reasons; because that while Parliament was Sitting his Time and Mind were so engaged that it was impossible he Should attend in earnest to the Affairs of the United States, and because I expected that a little Time would bring, both from America and Ireland, Intelligence which would Somewhat lessen that Confidence with which the Ministry and the Nation were elated. Such Intelligence has now arrived: The twenty Resolutions have been, in Effect, given up that they might not be rejected by the Irish Parliament: and the Massachusetts Act of Navigation has appeared, together with Advices from Virginia, Philadelphia New York and various other Parts of the United States, which have excited a Serious Apprehension that all have the same Principles and Views.

I Shall not attempt to give you the Conversation in detail, Yet it is necessary to give Some Particulars, from which you may judge, how much or how little may result from the whole[.]

He asked me what were the Principal Points to be discussed between Us? I answered that I presumed the Marquis of Carmarthen had laid before the Kings Servants Some Papers which I had done myself the Honour to write to him. He said he had. I replied that those Letters related to the Evacuation of the Posts upon the Frontier: to the Construction of the Armistice: and to a Treaty of Commerce: and that besides these, there were the Negroes carried off contrary to the Treaty, and Some other Points which I had particularly explained to Lord Carmarthen. He Said that the carrying off the Negroes was So clearly against the Treaty, that they must take Measures to Satisfy that demand if We could prove how many were carryed off. I told him that Sir Guy Carleton could easily ascertain the Number, and that Coll Smith, who negotiated with Sir Guy, could do the Same, And that I had the Evidence of their Proceedings ready to produce whenever it was wanted. He entered then into the Subject of the Armistice, and We were longer upon this Point than We need to have been. I observed to him that M^r Blowers’s Construction was demonstrably absurd, because it would place the whole Coast of America in the Period of five Months: the Coast of the United States certainly was not between the Canary Islands and the Equator, and therefore could not be included in the Period of two Months: it is neither in the Channell nor North Seas; and therefore cannot be within the Period of twelve Days: consequently if it is not in the Period of one Month, it must be in that of five Months.—an Idea that never could have been entertained a Moment by either of the contracting Parties. M^r Pitt Said he thought that was clear, and that this Point might be easily Settled: but as to the Posts, Says he, that is a Point connected with Some others that I think must be Settled at the same Time. I asked what those Points were? He said the Debts. Several of the States had interfered, against the Treaty, and by Acts of their Legislatures had interposed Impediments to the Recovery of Debts, against which there were great Complaints in this Country. I replied to this, that I had explained this at great length to the Marquis of Carmarthen; but that I might now Add, that Congress had, very early after the Peace, proposed an Explanation of the Article, as far as it respected the Interest of Debts contracted before the War. They had instructed their Ministers at Paris to propose Such an Explanation to this Court. That We had proposed it, through M^r Hartley first and the Duke of Dorsett afterwards; and that I had renewed the Proposition to my Lord Carmarthen, upon my first Conference with him: but that We had never received any Answer. I thought it was best there Should be an Explanation; for I was perswaded th[at] an American Jury would never give any Interest for the Time which run during the War. M^r Pitt Said that would Surprize People here; for that Wars never interrupted the Interest nor Principal of Debts, and that he did not See a Difference between this War and any other and the Lawyers here made none. I begged his Pardon here, and Said that the American Lawyers made a Wide Diff[er]ence. They contended that the late War was a total Dissolution of all Laws and Government, and consequently of all Contracts made under those Laws. And that it was a Maxim of Laws that a Personal Right or Obligation, on[ce] dissolved or Suspended, was lost forever: that the Interven[tion] of the Treaty, and the new Laws was necessary for the Revival of those ancient Rights and Obligations. That these Rights we[re] in a State of Non Existence during the War, and no Interest during that Period could grow out of them. These being the opinions in America, it was not probable that any Jury would be found from Georgia to New Hampshi[re] who would give, by their Verdict, Interest to a Creditor, and therefore it was most fair and equitable, that an Explanation Should be made, that the Same Rule of Law might be observed on both Sides. This Observation appeared to Strike him. He Said if there was any danger of this, it would be best that an Explanation Should be made; but th[at] [t]he Ballance of Debts was much in favour of this Country; which I did not deny. But he said the Government would not dare to make it, without previously feeling out the Dispositions of the Persons chiefly interested, and knowing how it would be taken by them. We had a much longer Conversation concerning these Debts and the Difficulty of paying them arising from the Restrictions on our Trade; in which I repeated to him what I had before Said to Lord Carmarthen, and to the Deputies of the Scotch Creditors; but as I have transmitted all that to you before it is unnecessary to repeat it here.

He then began upon the Treaty of Commerce; and asked what was the lowest Terms which would be Satisfactory to America. I answered, that I might not think myself competent to determine that Question. Articles might be proposed to me that I Should not think myself qualified to decide upon, without Writing to Congress. But I would venture so far as to Say, that I thought the Project I had communicated to Lord Carmarthen would give Satisfaction to America, and Secure the Friendship of the United States and the Essence of their Trade to this Country. But that in Proportion as a Plan less liberal was adopted that Friendship would be precarious and that Trade would be Scattered. I added, that the most Judicious Men in America had been long ballancing in their Minds the Advantages and Dissadvantages of a Commerce perfectly free, on one Side, and.of a Navigation Act on the other: that the present time was a critical one: the late Intelligence from all Parts of America concurred, with the Navigation Act of the Massachusetts, in proving which Way the Ballance began to incline; and in my Opinion it would be decided by the conduct of this Country: it was now in his M^r Pitts, Power to decide it. But the more Americans reflected upon the great Advantages which they might derive from a Navigation Act, the more they would become attached to that System. I had heard there were five hundred foreign Ships employed the last Year in the Commerce of the United States: how easy would it be to have all these Ships the Property of American Citizens? and the Navigators of them American Seamen? There was once a Statute in England (that of 5. Ric.2.c.3.) “that none of the Kings liege People Should Ship any Merchandize out of or into the Realm but only in Ships of the Kings ligeance, on pain of Forfeiture.” I asked him what Physical or political Impediment there was to prevent the United States from adopting that very Act, in all its rigour. The Right of every Nation to govern its own Commerce, its own Exports and Imports, would not be denied, nor questioned by any Nation. This he agreed. our Ability to build the Ships and our Abundance of Materials could not be doubted. This he assented to. No Body would pretend that our Produce would not find a Markett in Europe, in our own Ships, or that Europeans would not Sell Us their Manufactures to carry home in them. Even England, if She Should make ever so strict Laws to prevent Exports and Imports in our Bottoms, would still be glad to receive and consume Considerable Quantities of our Produce, tho’ she imported them through France or Holland; and to send Us as many of her Manufactures as We could pay for, through the same channells. He more than Smiled assent to this; for he added that there were American Articles of much Importance to them. But he said that Englishmen were much attached to their Navigation. and Americans too, says I, to theirs. But, Says he, the United States, having now become a foreign Nation, our Navigation Act would not answer its End, if We Should dispense with it towards Y[ou.] Here I begged his Pardon again; for I thought their Navigation Act would compleatly defeat its own End, as far as it respected Us; for the End of the Navigation Act, as expressed in its own Preamble, was to confine the Commerce of the Colonies to the Mother Country: but now We were become independent States, if carried into Execution against Us, instead of confining our Trade to Great Britain, it would drive it to other Countries. This he did not deny[.] But Says he you allow We have a Right. Certainly I do; and You […] will allow We have a Right too. Yes I do; But you cannot blame Englishmen for being attached to their Ships and Seamen, which are So essential to them. Indeed I do not, Sir, nor can you blame Americans for being attached to theirs, which are so much fewer and so much more essential to them.—No, I dont blame them. As this w[as] a very Sprightly Dialogue and in very good Humour, I thought I might push it a little. I will be very frank with you sir Says I, and and I think it will be best for Us to go to the Bottom of these subjects. The Americans think that their Exclusion from Your West India Islands, the Refusal of their Ships and Oyl and other Things, a[nd] their Exclusion from your Colonies on the Continent & Newfound[land,] discovers a Jealousy of their little naval Power and a fixed Sy[mbol] of Policy to prevent the Grouth of it; and this is an Idea that they cannot bear. No, Says he. If We endeavoured to lessen your Shipping and Seamen, without benefiting or increasing our own, it would be hard and unreasonable, and would be a just ground of Uneasiness. But, When We only aim at making the most of our own means and Nurseries, you cannot justly complain. I am happy Sir to hear you avow this Principle, and agree with you perfectly in it.—let Us apply it.—both Parties having the Right and the Power to confine their Exports and Imports to their own Ships and Seamen, if both exercise the Right and Exert the Power in its full Extent, what is the Effect? The commerce must cease between them. Is this eligible for either? To be sure, Says he, We should well consider the Advantages and the Disadvantages in Such a Case. if it is not found to be eligible for either, Says I, after having well considered, what remains but that We Should agree upon a liberal Plan and allow equal freedom to each others Ships and Seamen; especially if it Should be found that this alone can preserve Friendship and good Humour, for I fully believe that this Plan alone can ever put this Nation in good Humour with America, or America with this Country. He then mentioned Ships and Oil. He said We could not think hard of them for encouraging their own Shipwrights, their Manufactures of Ships, and their own Whale Fishery. I answered, by no means; but it appeared unaccountable to the People of America, that this Country Should Sacrifice the general Interest of the Nation to the private Interest of a few Individuals, interested in the Manufacture of Ships and in the whale Fishery; so far as to refuse these Remittances from America, in Payment of Debts, and in Payment for Manufactures; which would employ so many more People, augment the Revenue so considerably, as well as the national Wealth, which would even, in others Ways, So much augment the Shipping and Seamen of the Nation. it was looked upon in America as Reconciling themselves to a diminution of their own Shipping and Seamen, in a great degree, for the Sake of diminishing ours in a Small one; besides keeping many of their Manufacturers out of Employ, who would other wise have enough to do, and besides, greatly diminishing the Revenue, and consequently contrary to the Maxims which he had just acknowledged, that one Nation should not hurt itself, for the sake of hurting another, nor take Measures to deprive another of any Advantage, without benefiting itself.

He then asked if We could grant to England by a Treaty any Advantages which would not immediately become the Right of France? I answered We could not. if the Advantage was Stipulated to England without a Compensation, France would be entituled to it without Compensation: But if it was Stipulated: for an Equivalent or reciprocal Priviledge, France must allow Us the Same Equivalent or reciprocal Priviledge. But, I added, France would not be a very Successfull Rival to Britain in the American Commerce, upon So free a Footing as that of the mutual Liberty of natural born Subjects and Citizens: upon the footing of the most favoured Nation, France would Stand a good Chance in many Things. in Case of mutual Navigation Acts, between Britain and America, France would have more of our Commerce than Britain. in Short Britain would loose and France gain; not only in our Commerce, but our Affections, in proportion as Britain departed from the most liberal System. Upon this He asked a Question which I did not expect.—What do you really think, Sir, that Britain ought to do.? That Question, Sir, may be beyond my Capacity to answer, and my Answer may be Suspected, but, if it is, I will answer it to the best of my Judgment and with perfect Sincerity. I think this Country ought to prescribe to herself no other Rule, but to take from America every Thing She can Send as a Remittance; nay, to take off every Duty, and give every Bounty, that Should be necessary to enable them to Send any Thing as a Remittance.—in this Case, America would prescribe to herself no other Rule than to take of British Productions as much as She could pay for. He might think this no Proof of our Republican Frugality; but Such was the Disposition of our People, and, how much soever I might lament it, I would not disguise it.—He then led me into a long rambling Conversation about our Whale Fishery, and the English Whale Fishery; and the French Whale Fishery that M^r De Calonne is essaying to introduce, too little interresting to be repeated. Yet I should mention, that he asked me a Sudden Question, whether We had taken any Measures to find a Markett for our Oil any wher[e] but in France.—This Question must have been Suggested to him I think, either by Information that our Oil is wanted in some Countries upon the Continent, or by a Suspicion that We have been trying to introduce our Oil into Ireland. I answere[d] that I believed We had, and I had been told that some of our Oil had found a good Markett at Bremen; but there could not be a doubt that Spermaceti Oyl might find a Marke[t] in most of the great Cities of Europe, which were illuminated in the Night, as it is so much better and cheaper than the Vegitab[le] Oil that is commonly used. The Fat of the Spermaceti Whale gives the clearest and most beautifull Flame, of any Substa[nce] that is known in Nature, and We are all Surprized, that you prefer Darkness, and consequent Robberies, Burglaries and Murders in your Streets to the Receiving as a Remittance our Sperma Caeti Oyl. The Lamps around Grosvenor Square I know and in Downing Street I suppose are dim by Midnight, and extinguished by two o clock; whereas our Oyl would burn bright till Nine O Clock in the Morning, and chase away before the Watchmen all the Villains, and save you the Trouble and Danger of introducing a new Police into the City.—

He said He owned he was for taking Advantage of the present Short time of Leisure to mature Some Plan about these Things. I told him I rejoiced to find that was his opinion and that I would be at all times ready to attend him or any other Minister, whenever any Explanation should be wanted from me: that I was anxious for an Answer concerning the Posts, as I was in duty bound to insist on their Evacuation. He Said He thought that connected with Several other Points, and Should be for Settling all these together, So that he must reserve himself at entire Liberty concerning them.

I am Sorry that, in representing all these Conversations, I am obliged to make myself the principal Speaker. But I cannot get them to talk. The Reason is they dare not. all must be determined in the Cabinet, and no Single Minister chooses to commit himself, by giving any opinion, which may be ever quoted to his Disadvantage by any Party. This is not only the State of Mind of every Minister, but of every Ministry. They have an unconquerable Reluctance to deciding upon any Thing, or giving any Answer: and although M^r Pitt and Lord Carmarthen have hazarded opinions upon some Points to me, I dont believe I Shall get any Answer, officially, from the Cabinet or the Minister of foreign Affairs. I wish for an Answer, be it ever so rough or unwise. M^r Pitt I confess was much more open than I expected. He was explicit in my favour, relative to the Negroes, the Armistice, and for digesting the whole in the present Leisure, and giving me an Answer. I should rejoice in a Cabinet Answer to all my Letters, and especially in a Counter Project of a Treaty. But I will be so free to Say I dont expect any Answer at all before next Spring; nor then unless Intelligence Should arrive of all the States adopting a Navigation Act or authorizing Congress to do it; and even in that Case I am inclined to think they will try the Experiment and let our Navigation Acts operate, to Satisfy themselves which People will first roar out with Pain. They deceive themselves Yet in Many Points, which I may enumerate in a future Letter.

From what M^r Pitt Said I am convinced We shall have no Answer concerning the Posts.

With great Respect and Sincere Esteem / I have the Honour to be, sir, your most / obedient and most humble servant

John Adams.

 Thomas Jefferson to John Adams

7 Feb. 1786

Dear Sir

Paris Feb. 7. 1786

I am honored with yours of Jan. 19. mine of Jan. 12. had not I suppose at that time got to your hands as the receipt of it is unacknoleged. I shall be anxious till I receive your answer to it.

I was perfectly satisfied, before I received your letter, that your opinion had been  misunderstood or misrepresented in the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres. your letter however will enable me to say so with authority. it is proper it should be known that you had not given the opinion imputed to you, tho’ as to the main question it is become useless, Monsieur de Reyneval having assured me that what I had written on that subject had perfectly satisfied the C^t. de Vergennes & himself that this case could never come under the treaty. to evince still further the impropriety of taking up subjects gravely on such imperfect information as this court had, I have this moment received a copy of an act of the Georgia assembly placing the subjects of France as to real estates on the footing of natural citizens & expressly recognizing the treaty. would you think any thing could be added after this to put this question still further out of doors? a gentleman of Georgia assures me General Oglethorpe did not own a foot of land in the state—I do not know whether there has been any American determination on the question whether American citizens & British subjects born before the revolution can be aliens to one another? I know there is an opinion of L^d Coke’s in Calvin’s case that if England & Scotland should in a course of descent pass to separate kings, those born under the same sovereign during the union would remain natural subjects & not aliens. common sense urges strong considerations against this. e. g. natural subjects owe allegiance. but we owe none.—aliens are the subjects of a foreign power we are subjects of a foreign power.—the king by the treaty acknoleges our independance; how then can we remain natural subjects.—the king’s power is by the constitution competent to the making peace, war & treaties. he had therefore authority to relinquish our allegiance by treaty.—but if an act of parliament had been necessary, the parliament passed an act to confirm the treaty. &c &c. so that it appears to me that in this question fictions of law alone are opposed to sound sense.

I am in hopes Congress will send a minister to Lisbon. I know no country with which we are likely to cultivate a more useful commerce. I have pressed this in my private letters.

It is difficult to learn any thing certain here about the French & English treaty. yet, in general, little is expected to be done between them. I am glad to hear that the Delegates of Virginia had made the vote relative to English commerce, tho they afterwards repealed it. I hope they will come to again. when my last letters came away they were engaged in passing the revisal of their laws, with some small alterations. the bearer of this, mr[expansion sign] Lyons, is a sensible worthy young physician, son of one of our Judges, and on his return to Virginia, remember me with affection to mrs[expansion sign] & miss Adams, Col^os. Smith & Humphreys and be assured of the esteem with which I am D^r. Sir / Your friend & servant

Th:Jefferson

 Michael DeGray to James Madison

17 Jul. 1825

Sir	City of New York: Division Street, No. 198. July 17th. 1825.

We hope you will excuse the freedom of strangers addressing a citizen of the first reputation and whose political merit stands high Excepting with the british party in the united States.

The intention of writing to you was suggested to us by pure love of country or our attachment to a representative government. Therefore it is our belief that you was chosen chief Magistrate of a Federal nation at a time the most critical since the declaration of Independence no man could have had a more difficult task to perform but we conceive that measures must have been conducted Judiciously, or the opposition would have been calculated to frustrate its happy termination at last, but which was effected during your official duties notwithstanding.

But your Successor in office has performed his part in a more singular manner than any President of which you must be very Sensible Here we think he has cultivated a misterious friendship with the british government the great extent of which we are at a loss exactly to comprehend, because with a view to insure its operation a coalition of the parties in one body was deemed necessary however mischievous in its effects confounding the whole under the indefinite term of peoples Men, or party whose design was to abanden the old mode of nominating candidats for offices producing a compleat indecision in the Electoral colleges. Consequently carrying the choice of the chief Magistrate to the hause of Representatives this being the only alternative or provision. It may be considered the death of representation, or its final termination or the pivot where Aristocracy begins. His theory being that parties are unnecessary in our government. See his letter to General Jackson.

Under this administration all true influential characters who defended the Elective representative institutions of the social order are distroyed in their reputation and popularity however honest, or costly it proved to obtain they obtained them you alone sir, have Escaped the general wreck or ruin attendent on adherence to truth or Justice. We have at present no other to address consult or look to. We have lost our solomons and Sampsins. Their hair are all cut and become weak like other men. Yet besides all this there is one trait in James Monroes official performances, that requires special notice nearly at the close of the last term of his office he sends a Presidential invitation to Lay Fayette, to visit the United States on which account he is denominated the Nations guest, of which the british party has made a most tremendous use clothing him with the most Extravagant Panegyricks in every part of the Union which no modest true democratic Republican could condesend to receive

All this parade and flattery, is predicated upon his revolutionary Services upon which we observe that the revolution presented a suitable Theatre, that suited the ardour and ambition of Youth more especially upon condition of receiving a <Major> Generals commission for Military experience.

Notwithstanding it appears that he has heretofore receved Such remunerations as other officers received, which is all that Justice required to be done. Yet he was made the most important article in the Presidents Message and although he made no legal claim yet, by a process of Legislation he recieves a very large and liberal gift from the nations purse. Let us ask you the reason why it is that our national purse is so easily approached by one of the princes of the blood, and all the whole Scene attended with general Ecclat and noise, when a natural born citizen shall exhaust all his resources at a more more recent period as a liberal Benefactor in his countries cause from pure principal and love of country shall be refused even what is Justly due him. Were is that Magnanimity of his country that he was referred to while she was in danger. Alass it flew as quick as that danger disappeared, and instead of any national gift, or satisfaction for legal claims he was calumniated in the most vilest manner in all parts of the Union. by or with means devoid of all foundation Such is the picture of the Still born administration of James Monroe, He himself ceartainly knew the Merits of the Man. Had he taken half the pains to do Justice to Daniel D. Tompkins as he has done to rewards Lay Fayette unnecessarily he might have been our Republican champion still, and instead of his present repose in the grave enjoying the sweets of domestic life with the rest of his cotemporary citizens and in fine it would have prevented that painfull arrangement of suffering his name to be recorded on the list of public Defaulters and read before his face in the Senate.

This example Shews plainly that this rewarding donation to Lay Fayette is a political contrivance and doth not flow from principal It possibly may be as the british party in the united states covered corruption and intrigue under the Name of Washington so likewise under the Name of Lay Fayette, they may try to perform this Same But we rather consider him in his private Sentiment in favour of a limitted Monarchy which constitutes the ultimate object of the british party in the united States.

Uppon the whole, we conclude, that the present Lay Fayette Eulogy, presents the vilest insult to all the true patriots of the late war. That very party that was most vehement in his praise acted in opposition to the late war and styled themselves the peace party This party did all in their power to bring your administration into total ruin and disgrace How absurd then is it to think that they shall have it in their power to brag among themselves how easely they can decieve and flatter the poor silly democrats. Shall it ever be said that Lay Fayette deserved as Much or more praise and rewards than the champions that stood firm during the late war. What an insult to the feelings of those that took a patriotic part, in repulsing the inveterate foe from our dear bought rights. Shall it ever be that the british party shall reign triumphant, and Yoke us again under the power of Aristocracy,

To conclude, we ask you Sir, Can you receive the visit of this European Sycophant, which will come clothed with all hypocracy of the british party whose main designs is to distroy republican Governments in general and that of the United States in particular. How consious how mistrustfull how Jealous should the partisins for a Republic to be when they have the General cuning of Royalty cooperating among them taking every shape for deception.

This letter sir you can answer or not, as you may think proper: but this Much we will assure you that if you should, it shall never find its way at this day, in any public print, we shall not all sign our Names, at present we wish to act still and quiet, not in public Jornals at present but by private letters

Michael DeGray

RC (DLC). Docketed by JM.

A Blog Response

Recently on another blog: The Right Side of Life posted the following;   Rep. Deal Wants Obama’s Birth Certificate; Let the Blowback Begin!

Apparently Rep. Deal knew he was going to stir up quite the proverbial hornet’s nest by seriously suggesting that he was going to ask the President to see his birth certificate. So, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (h/t PeachPundit), the castigations are now beginning.

As you read through what I post from the article, below, I’m going to interject my own commentary into what the included public figures say, because I think most of them are seriously full of it; the idea that somehow someone is considered to be, essentially, other than rational for daring to question the President is, itself, asinine:

“I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available and it leaves many things to be desired,” Deal said in an interview Friday.

Deal’s statement came a day after he noted in an online chat that he would join other U.S. House members in writing the president and asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate.

a poster that goes by siseduermapierdra posted again the flawed Wong Kim Ark decision in his rantinmgs. I posted the follwing reply. Posted here for you all to read.

I hate to break the news to you, but I have been saying the following LONG before Leo.

Quote; Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown.

The 14th Amendment and Title 8 state that NOT only being born in country, but that you have to have the Jurisdiction.

You attempt to solve a math problem with only half the equation, it does not work.

Citizenship + Jurisdiction + Allegiance = Natural Born Citizen

Even SR511 that allowed McCain, was flawed as it clearly stated the requirements for NBC status.

 Senate Resolutions is a resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
What Constitution are they refering to that protects the NBC requirement.

“””Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it…”””

Note BORN TO TWO (2) US CITIZEN Parents, but OUTSIDE the Country.
Which we know McCain was NOT born in a US Military hospital on base, as there WAS no hospital on base.

Please state who are Barack Obama TWO (2) US Citizen parents?

Now, lets take a look at John Bingham, ‘author’ of the 14th Amendment of which you attempt to use a flawed decision of KWA.

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

Note: that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown.

I believe Obama fails, based on John Bingham

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

Now Justice Waite;
it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Again born in country to parents who are citizens

Please state the US Parent(s) of Barack Obama, both of them.
Oh, that’s right his father was a foreign national, or ‘as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.’

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy
-Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

Again, please provide the names of both the United States citizen Parent(s) of Barack Obama.

that’s right, his father was a foreign national. He was from a foreign country.

Since you like to use KWA, here is another
“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.”
-Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1…

Where is this other resort that the Supreme Court and other cases used to determine.

E. Vattel, the Law of Nations.

 212. Citizens and natives.
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.

It’s hard for Obama supporters to face facts.

Agent 00-Bama – The British Muslim 00 Agent

Barack Obama aka Barrack Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barry Obama aka ? was born….

 when …. unknown

where …. unknown

 However from the country that does claim him, 

Citizenship at Birth …. British 

 This is admitted by Barack Obama aka ? and is the ONLY citizenship mentioned or claimed.

Citizenship then changed to include Kenyan when British East Africa a British Colony gained independence in Dec 1963.

 If he never exercised his option of converting it to Kenyan, his British citizenship remained intact.

 Citizenship by adoption… Indonesian Barack Obama adopted by Lolo Soetoro. School registration identifies male attending school as Barry Soetoro, Citizenship – Indonesian 

There has never been any confirmation, allegation that Barack Obama aka ? actually had, has, ever held any American citizenship in his life.

The ONLY reason that there is even a hint of ‘NATIVE’ US citizenship is that he claims to have been born in Hawaii. There has never been any substantiated proof of that.

 At Occidential he was housed with foreign students. WHY?

Unless his registration and documents hinted at this, it would have been against protocol and procedure, don’t you think? 

Therefore why would he, as a foreigner elect to sign up for the selective service in a foreign country, the United States.

Guess where they DID put out the Welcome mat and signs? Africa. 

Obama aka ? is not eligible for the Presidency, but that he is also an illegal alien who has used forged documents in gaining employment in the United States.

 From his own web-site Fight the Smears, “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

How could it have expired in 1982, ‘IF HE NEVER HAD IT?’

Also off ‘FTS’ to the left of the main post. “The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.”
Again, ‘Native’ citizen not ‘Natural Born citizen’

As for the Indonesian citizenship, here is my blog post.
Showing the Indonesian school registration.

https://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/so-who-is-he/

WND has also displayed the same.

Key fact;
Obama and his supporters can’t have it both ways. Either he is Barack Obama born in Hawaii with a foreign father and admitted British at birth, or he is Barry Soetoro who entered the US without going through the US Customs and Naturalization process and is an illegal alien.

Obama stands before the American flag 

Obama stands before the Soviet Union’s Flag
However if and I quote ‘IF‘ Obama was born in Hawaii, then he would have released his Birth Certificate long ago. There is NO evidence and documentation that he was in fact born in Hawaii or any other part of the United States. The COLB’s that have been posted are forgeries.

https://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/292/

Senate Resolution 511 and what it really means

Most people looking into the eligibility issue concerning Barack Obama aka Barrack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barry Obama, [sounds more like a wanted posted with all these alias’s], have seen SR511. Senate Resolution 511 is in terms the defining moment when the Senate gave its approval for one of their own, to circumvent the laws of this nation.

Let’s look at  SR511 and it’s interpretation of the Presidential eligibility

 Here is the Resolution text.

 Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

 Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.

 Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

 The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

 It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

 Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?

So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.

More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on  being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.

Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States. 

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?