gdp's Comments

Birther Report : Audio: Top Trump Adviser; Many Computerized Graphics Experts Say Obama Birth Certificate Not Real

Sun, 23 Oct 2016 04:48:00 +0000

The "definition", or the means to identify a (U.S. {implicit}), "natural born Citizen", is currently ASSUMED to be "ambiguous", and that ambiguity creates a "legal-loop-hole" that at once makes the provision unenforceable and indistinguishable from any and ALL other conditions of U.S. Citizenship. The intellectual dishonesty and incompetence of the assumption is astounding given that immediately following the Ratification of the COTUS the 1st Congress, in March of 1790, expressed the "attendant circumstances" required to be considered as a U.S. natural born Citizen at birth within the Constitutionally mandated plenary power over the subject of U.S. Citizenship naturalization at A1S8C4. Unfortunately any discussion on the subject of "citizenship" requires a primer in order to establish certain FACTS in order to comprehend how the various distinguishing circumstances of acquisition of citizenship can be identified. ALL "citizens" are "made" in the 1st instant, without which there can be no "natural" perpetuation of citizenship giving rise to "natural born citizens". (See Aristotle, Politics, Bk III, Pt II). In order for "natural perpetuation" to occur its acknowledgement must be provided for within the particular society, whether by "doctrine" or "private law decrees", i.e., a provision of law codified as a statute.

Birther Report : Audio: Top Trump Adviser; Many Computerized Graphics Experts Say Obama Birth Certificate Not Real

Sun, 23 Oct 2016 04:47:05 +0000

I have for years been saying that most of the "Birther gurus" have been on the wrong track, quoting old English Common Laws and misguided SCOTUS Opinions ........... instead of BLACK LETTER LAW, ........... An Apologetic * on the subject of U.S. natural born Citizen as construed under the Federal Laws of the Constitution of the United States of America The one essential Constitutional element of Article II Section I Clause V is the "exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision", i.e., " ... No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ; … "

Birther Report : Full Audio: Sheriff Joe Arpaio To Politico; Obama ID Fraud Investigation Isn’t Over By A Long

Fri, 22 Jul 2016 01:26:06 +0000

The one essential Constitutional element of Article II Section I Clause V is the "exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision", i.e., " ... No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ; … " The "definition", or the means to identify a (U.S. {implicit}), "natural born Citizen", is currently ASSUMED to be "ambiguous", and that ambiguity creates a "legal-loop-hole" that at once makes the provision unenforceable and indistinguishable from any and ALL other conditions of U.S. Citizenship. goo.gl/W8KZmf http://foundersowndreams.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-...

Birther Report : Full Audio: Sheriff Joe Arpaio To Politico; Obama ID Fraud Investigation Isn’t Over By A Long

Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:55:19 +0000

There is NO "de facto officer" statute that covers the Office of Potus......... there is NO statute of limitations on the civil & political offense of USURPATION of the Executive Branch Offices of POTUS / V-POTUS .....

Birther Report : Must Read: Incontrovertible Proof Vattel Is Law; Natural Born Citizen Is Born On Soil To Citizen Par

Fri, 13 May 2016 19:52:46 +0000

You are a total moron and continue to sprew total bullshit. The 1790 Act CONTAINS the term of words in question, so you turn your back on it without even TRYING to understand its usage in the Act and the effect of the subsequent Repeal & Replace 1795 Act. You have no desire for the TRUTH, your happy to follow the other morons over the cliff .... .....end

Birther Report : Must Read: Incontrovertible Proof Vattel Is Law; Natural Born Citizen Is Born On Soil To Citizen Par

Fri, 13 May 2016 19:03:15 +0000

It is obvious from your 1st to your last statement that you have NO IDEA what you are ranting about...... FYI, there is NO Jus Soli and/or Jus Sanguinis doctrines in US Law. The ESTABLISHED uniform Rule is the "Right of US Citizenship" that attaches to a person when they become a US Citizen, at birth or otherwise. It would be OBVIOUS to you if you took the time to try and follow the ACTUAL LAW on the subject. The EFFECT of "Right of US Citizenship" can be characterised as; " Once a person becomes a US Citizen, then to too do their children, at birth or otherwise, any where in the world; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: ..." Try studying the ACTUAL Acts and try to comprehend the intended effect on the various attendant circumstances ... http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web... Also read here; goo.gl/W8KZmf

Birther Report : Must Read: Incontrovertible Proof Vattel Is Law; Natural Born Citizen Is Born On Soil To Citizen Par

Fri, 13 May 2016 11:12:32 +0000

The comma separates them as SUBJECTS only as the word AND after the comma "RECONNECTS" the two SUBJECTS to be uniform throughout the United States. To say otherwise would be flying in the face of 226 years of Constitutional Law on the two (2) SUBJECTS. Just do not attempt to dissuade me from the TRUTH with your ill informed understanding of, well, of anything as far as I can tell from your pseudo rants. Go ask Mario Apuzzo if HE has found any fault with the Proposition of Constitutional Law on the subject yet....????

Birther Report : Must Read: Incontrovertible Proof Vattel Is Law; Natural Born Citizen Is Born On Soil To Citizen Par

Fri, 13 May 2016 00:56:24 +0000

I said learn the language and vernacular of Statutory Construction and Interpretation which requires learning the usages of commas, colons and semi-colons and other devises to denote various IMPLICIT functions or natures of the CONSTRUCTION of STATUTES. You have no idea what you are saying and how very silly it is.....do you..(!?!)...don't bother to answer.

Birther Report : Must Read: Incontrovertible Proof Vattel Is Law; Natural Born Citizen Is Born On Soil To Citizen Par

Thu, 12 May 2016 23:10:09 +0000

Well there is something obvious ..... what we have here is a failure to communicate .... Read the ACTUAL Constitution and learn how to read & interpret Statutory Construction, which is the language and vernacular of it. ....and then go to this link and pay particular attention of commas, colons & semi-colons... and good luck with the rest of your life .... https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei...

Birther Report : Must Read: Incontrovertible Proof Vattel Is Law; Natural Born Citizen Is Born On Soil To Citizen Par

Thu, 12 May 2016 21:01:26 +0000

Well, you make it obvious that I do have superior knowledge on this subject than you. Try this question, since the others are apparently beyond your abilities. Where is the limitations made by the Constitution on the authority of the Congress on the subject of US Citizenship & naturalization thereof ...? Hint: The Congress shall have power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, ... throughout the United States; A1S8C4 COTUS .....?

Birther Report : Must Read: Incontrovertible Proof Vattel Is Law; Natural Born Citizen Is Born On Soil To Citizen Par

Thu, 12 May 2016 19:01:30 +0000

You are misstating and misinterpreting just about every thing I have posted which indicates to me that you have no, NO, knowledge of Statutory Construction & Interpretation. In order to test whether we can come to a common ground let me ask a few questions: During the period of that the 1790 Act was the Law of the Land, besides the possible births of "foreign born" US natural born Citizens were there ALSO births of US natural born Citizens WITHIN the LIMITS of the USA...? IF the passing of the 1795 Repeal & Replace Act eliminated the foreign born provision of the 1790 Act did that not EFFECTIVELY LIMIT where US natural born Citizens shall be born thereafter to WITHIN the limits of the USA...? Accepting that the 1922 Cable Act ABROGATED the ancient doctrine of matrimonial coverture is it then not true that ANY WIFE of a US Citizen husband BEFORE that Act, from 1790 to 1922, was considered as a US Citizen for the purpose of a child's political character...? Is the Established uniform Rule of (US CITIZENSHIP {implicit)) naturalization found in the words "Right of Citizenship" by the effects they provide BOTH existing US Citizens and those that are MADE under the rule of law...?

Birther Report : Must Read: Incontrovertible Proof Vattel Is Law; Natural Born Citizen Is Born On Soil To Citizen Par

Wed, 11 May 2016 22:58:37 +0000

Well, you spent a lot of time pointing out things that you think I got wrong and end up EXACTLY where you should . The 1790 Act REQUIRES that a US natural born Citizen be the child born to the wife of a US Citizen father ANYWHERE in the world. The 1795 Act REPEALED and REPLACED THAT provision and thereby effectively LIMITING WHERE US natural born Citizens shall be born to WITHIN the LIMITS of the USA thereafter. VATTEL will & can not be CONCLUSIVE in a Petition to SCOTUS no matter what you say. It may be SUPPORTIVE of the ACTUAL US LAWs passed by the 1st & 3rd Congress along with the RECONCILIATION of the Cable Act abrogation of the ancient doctrine of matrimonial that provided women with INDEPENDENT US Citizenship but Vattel can NOT be called the Law of the Land when the 1790 & 1795 Acts are LEGAL FACTs within the LEGAL history on the subject of a US natural born Citizen. Get my point yet .... ???

Birther Report : Must Read: Incontrovertible Proof Vattel Is Law; Natural Born Citizen Is Born On Soil To Citizen Par

Wed, 11 May 2016 19:53:51 +0000

" ... Aristotle did affirm the existence of a “law of nature,” but he was admired by and influenced the American Founders more for his related views on republican government and the rule of law. ..." My point exactly. So why is Vattel's identification of the attendant circumstances of a natural born citizen better than Aristotle's when they are one in the same....??? For THAT matter, why is Vattel's identification of the attendant circumstances of a natural born citizen better than that of the 1st US Congress of 1790, later revised by limiting where a US nbC shall be born by the 3rd Congress in 1795 ....??

Birther Report : Must Read: Incontrovertible Proof Vattel Is Law; Natural Born Citizen Is Born On Soil To Citizen Par

Wed, 11 May 2016 00:21:08 +0000

Aristotle made Vattel possible and saved Vattel a lot of research and composition concerns. To this particular subject Book III Part II represent the shoulders that Vattel balanced upon. END Part I ... He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizens of that state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life. BOOK_3|2 II - But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- 'Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.' Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, 'born of a father or mother who is a citizen,' cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state. There is a greater difficulty in the case of those who have been made citizens after a revolution, as by Cleisthenes at Athens after the expulsion of the tyrants, for he enrolled in tribes many metics, both strangers and slaves. The doubt in these cases is, not who is, but whether he who is ought to be a citizen; and there will still be a furthering the state, whether a certain act is or is not an act of the state; for what ought not to be is what is false. Now, there are some who hold office, and yet ought not to hold office, whom we describe as ruling, but ruling unjustly. And the citizen was defined by the fact of his holding some kind of rule or office- he who holds a judicial or legislative office fulfills our definition of a citizen. It is evident, therefore, that the citizens about whom the doubt has arisen must be called citizens.

Birther Report : Must Read: Incontrovertible Proof Vattel Is Law; Natural Born Citizen Is Born On Soil To Citizen Par

Tue, 10 May 2016 23:07:11 +0000

When will you guys learn, Vattel is a NARRATIVE on a HYPOTHETICAL "Our Country". What Vattel DID do, is to identify specific attendant circumstances in order for the SUBJECT to conform with the "laws of nature AND nations". In this instance Vattel identifies that the political character of a child is that same as the fathers. This, of course, was at a time when the ancient doctrine of matrimonial coverture still provided a wife with the cover of that political status of the husband, whatever that may be. Also, Vattel did NOT limit a child's birth within the home country of the father which is made obvious when Chap 212 and 215 are read together as one (1) subject / topic, i.e., the "attendant circumstances in order to be considered as a 'natural born citizen' The Constitution is NOT a 'narrative', as it was written in the language and vernacular of Statutory Construction and Interpretation, therefore any RECONCILIATIONS of 'attendant circumstances in a natural law is then TRANSLATED into the language of Statutory Construction. Stop RESORTING elsewhere. The 1790 & 1795 Acts and the 1922 Cable Act are the only LEGAL resources that are necessary to CONSTRUE when looking for the "definition" of a United States natural born Citizen that is Constitutionally LEGAL & ENFORCEABLE.. The Challenge stands ..... prove me wrong ...?? Just try...!!

Birther Report : Breaking: WOBC Launches Petition To Stop Article II Ineligible Canadian-Born Cruz From Continuing To

Sat, 6 Feb 2016 00:19:58 +0000

...their argument is a non-starter when they say; " Whereas Congress under its powers granted to it in the U.S. Constitution in Article I can only create naturalized Citizens, either at birth or after birth subject to certain precedent and subsequent conditions outlined in said laws, and that any law or congressional act that Ted Cruz may point to past or present to try and claim eligibility, said law can only make him a “Citizen” at birth and not a “natural born Citizen” at birth. Adjectives mean something. Therefore, be it declared." That is at once a convoluted, mis-stated and incomplete overview of the nature of a US natural born Citizen and the Statutory Provision that provides for the means of their existence in the 1st instant, i.e., the established uniform Rule of (US Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization and identified as "the Right of Citizenship" as expressed within the 1790 Act. Once the term of words "natural born (US {implicit}) Citizen" was used within the COTUS it became a STATUTORY requirement within the intent of the provision and such citizens existence became NECESSARY in the body politic. The 1790 Act established their existence and the attendant circumstances that made them so. Those attendant circumstances stand as Statutes at Large as reconciled to the 1795 Act and the 1922 Cable Act, there being no other Acts, Amendments or SCOTUS findings to the contrary. http://goo.gl/4IzKlb

Birther Report : Breaking: WOBC Launches Petition To Stop Article II Ineligible Canadian-Born Cruz From Continuing To

Sat, 6 Feb 2016 00:09:26 +0000

These are the provisions that provide for the NATURALIZATION of a "foreign born child" of a US Citizen parent. The very circumstances that Lil' Teddy was BORN INTO and the LAW at the time .......... Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA" Children Born Outside the United States Definition of Child for Naturalization Purposes According to INA §101(c)(1), for the purposes of nationality and naturalization, the term "child" is defined as an unmarried person under 21 years of age and includes: A child legitimated under the laws of the child's or father's residence or domicile; and An adopted child, if the legitimation or adoption takes place before the child reaches the age of 16; and the child resides in the legal custody of the legitimating or adopting parent at the time. Under the former INA §322, a child born outside the United States, who has at least one U.S. citizen parent could be naturalized according to the following rules: The child must have been lawfully admitted into the United States; The child must have been under 18 at the time of naturalization and in the custody of the citizen parent; The child must have been residing with the citizen parent (the citizen parent and child must be residing in the state or district of the INS office where the application is filed) and the citizen parent must have been been physically present in the U.S. for five years, at least two after the age of 14; Good moral character and attachment were presumed if the child was under 14 years of age; The child could not be otherwise be barred by INA §313 (subversives), §314 (deserters), §315 (claiming exemption from military service) and §318 (deportees); and There were no literacy or civics requirements. In addition, if the citizen parent could not meet the physical presence requirements, the physicial presence of a citizen grandparent (the citizen mother or father of the citizen parent) could be used to satisfy this requirement. The physical presence requirement is waived if the child is permanently residing in the United States with the citizen parent pursuant to lawful admission. http://goo.gl/4IzKlb

Birther Report : Served: Ineligible Presidential Candidates Challenged Over Article II Natural Born Citizen Requirem

Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:52:52 +0000

I did NOT say "challenge" them, I said name them as Respondents who have an "interest" in the Relief Requested. If you go on as you are now the FL Court will eventually say that they do not have the Jurisdiction to provide you with the Relief Requested because it affects all the other States and the Executive Branch of the Federal Guv'mnt. Given that your formulation of determining the nature & legal status of a U.S. natural born Citizen requires the Court to choose from a number of Opinions rather than the ACTUAL LAW they may well simply Dismiss calling your case frivolous in the legal sense because you are attacking LAWS with OPINIONS. The Ratification made US Citizens of the existing State Citizens, (and no others,{Scott v}), the 1790 Act expressed the RIGHT of Citizenship, (acquired concurrent with citizenship) as the uniform Rule of US Citizenship and the means of perpetuation through the generations and expressed the ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES requisite to be considered as a US natural born Citizen, i.e., a child born to the legal wife of a US Citizen father, anywhere in the world, and not otherwise. The 1795 Act did not annul the existence of US natural born Citizen, it ONLY limited WHERE they would thereafter be born, i.e., within the limits of the USA. The 1922 Cable Act separated women's citizenship status from that of a husbands, ergo, each parent, married or not, are thereafter required to be US Citizens INDEPENDENT of each other in order to produce a US natural born Citizen in congruity with that "natural born citizen" contemplated by the Constitution and ESTABLISHED by the 1790 Act. THAT IS the Black-letter law under the Constitution and Rules of Statutory Interpretation and NOT OPINION.

Birther Report : Served: Ineligible Presidential Candidates Challenged Over Article II Natural Born Citizen Requirem

Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:03:32 +0000

Great start, but your wasting an opportunity by focusing ONLY on Florida Election Laws.......... file a motion to ADD RESPONDENTS, i.e., all 50 States, their Governors, AG, Sec 0 State & President of State Legislature along with the RNC & DNC.........THEY ALL have an INTEREST in the REMEDY PLEADED FOR, i.e., Declaratory Judgement........ ...then 2nd Motion for an Order to Show Cause why the State of FL should or should not issue a Declaratory Judgement to each of the Respondents ............. .... and if you want indisputable BLACK LETTER LAW as exists for U.S. natural born Citizens please read here ... http://goo.gl/4IzKlb ......and

Birther Report : Served: Ineligible Presidential Candidates Challenged Over Article II Natural Born Citizen Requirem

Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:02:06 +0000

Opinion is not law ...... Cruz was born to a US Citizen mother because the 1922 Cable Act gave her independent citizenship rights and the right to RETAIN her citizenship when she married an ALIEN foreign national. The "exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision" of A2S1C5 requires a distinction between a US Citizen, however that citizenship is acquired, and a US natural born Citizen, an occurrence that requires specific ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES as expressed in the 1790 Act. i.e., a child born to the legal wife of a US Citizen father anywhere in the world. The 1795 Act limited WHERE a US natural born Citizen could be born to within the limits of any of the admitted States, and not otherwise. Therefore, Cruze is a foreign born "tri / dual citizen at birth' and is excluded from eligibility by the words of the provision its-self.