I know I promised to write up the Democrats gun-ban bill, HR 5717, but this has to come first.

All the fuss over Article II, 14A, “citizen,” "birthright citizen," and “natural born Citizen” is getting out of hand.

I have the gun-ban bill done, but questions are flooding in to me. Have to answer all at once.

This first. Then I have co-written articles about the BLM and race-baiting,

but the mess media won't let up on this --

 

Birther Is an “N” Word.

 

It’s almost as bad as calling someone “a racist.”

 

Typically, the people who charge racism are the racists, did you ever notice that?

 

 

This is a way to avoid a discussion, to write off a person or topic as unworthy of debate.

Using a curse word to avoid using your brain is dishonest. It avoids knowledge, facts or logic.

 

Cursing you out is a cheap shot, a way to hide truth.

 

There is nothing “birther” about the U.S. Constitution, or Article II, or its requirement for the U.S. President to be not just a citizen but a “natural born Citizen” spelled that way in Article II with no hyphen and one capital letter.

 

Our Founding Fathers (yes, Fathers) put the nbC requirement in the Constitution for a reason, a critically important reason, and modern efforts to denigrate it, whitewash it, pretend it doesn’t exist or doesn’t mean what it really means are really about destroying America. Yes, it is that important. Anyone who says “birther!” about this is worse than someone who shouts the N word, because the "N" word is just racism. This is about the survival of freedom.

 

A lot of lies and distortions are being used to attack the Constitution right now. Leftists and unfortunately Democrats are the main culprits (but not the only ones). The whole concept of a natural born Citizen, or nbC is under attack, along with infringement of your right to arms and more. Some of these principles you know, they’re easy. NOTE: Be sure you're registered to vote, do it.

 

1. The Constitution can only be changed by Amendment. You know this. It cannot be changed by a statute from Congress. News media has been insisting otherwise, shame on them, they abandoned ethics long ago. It cannot be changed by a Supreme Court decision (though some decisions reinterpret it, sometimes badly).

 

2. The Constitution does not define “natural born Citizen” and while that’s true, anyone saying that seeks to deceive you, it’s a "tell," a dead giveaway.

 

The Constitution doesn’t define virtually any of its terms. You know that too: weights and measures; post roads, arms, infringed, the people, privileges, immunities, due process of law, free speech. the press, houses, papers, religion, assemble, none of it is defined. If you see “But the Constitution doesn’t define natural-born citizen!” you know you’re dealing with an evil bastage.

 

The Founders warned, when a question of definition arises, go back to the original meaning at the time the Constitution was written and use that.

 

3. Article II has never been amended. The process for amending the Constitution is in Article V. It has never been used to change Article II. The President must be a natural born Citizen, or the Constitution is violated, abrogated.

 

4. You also know this -- The Founders used language carefully and with precision. They did not just jot things down without thought.  This is less widely known, and is now being obfuscated (obscured, blurred, confused, muddied, twisted): “natural born Citizen” was defined and well known when the Constitution was written. The definition of nbC, the only definition existing at the time, was in a book Ben Franklin brought to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a process described in detail below.

 

A natural born Citizen is a person born on U.S. soil, to two U.S. citizens at the time of birth. There is no other way to gain this quality. Period.

 

5. Simply becoming a “citizen” by being born here is different. “Birthright citizenship” is different. “Naturalization” is different. What the 14th Amendment accomplished is different. The Supreme Court Ark case did not affect nbC or Article II. All these things are being brought up in a vain attempt to suggest the conditions of Article II have been amended, which is false. The 14th Amendment doesn’t even mention Article II, or natural born citizenship, it introduces birthright citizenship, and important new concept. Same for the important Ark case. The requirements for the presidency remain unchanged.

 

As a side note, the U.S. military allows expecting couples to take a leave of absence so they can come stateside to have their baby, to preserve their child’s nbC birthright and remain eligible to be President, should that ever come to pass. Being born overseas, even to U.S. citizen parents in uniform, would remove that important nbC characteristic.

 

Yes, there are all sorts of arguments to the contrary. I’ve studied them all. I watched the full congressional challenge to McCain on those grounds, and through contorted logic decide the Panama Canal Zone was U.S. soil, so he qualified as nbC, with both Obama and Hillary on the panel (did you know that? it’s in the Federal Register, I have a copy). Funny, the hearing for the other candidate was never held, I’ve never been able to determine how, but I suspect I know why.

 

 

 

The recent opposition piece in Reason Magazine Online that folks keep sending me was written by my friend and colleague, scholar Eugene Volokh, apparent responses to an email chat we’ve been having. When he says “some people have been saying...” that’s me, covers our talks online. He didn’t like my original memo about Kamala’s lack of eligibility. We differ, and he took to Reason to make his case, since he could not get around my arguments and documentation from the Founding era. I’ve asked Reason’s editor for a chance to reply, no response yet. (The USA Today and NY Times articles are gas; the CRS paper was done at a time (2011) and for a reason that undermines its faulty logic and holes, can’t go into everything here.)

 

 

Kamala Harris is clearly not eligible. Article II distinguishes between a citizen and a natural born Citizen, right in its wording for good reason, and only the latter is eligible. She is not by definition. I posted the letter from John Jay, our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to George Washington, saying make sure only a natural born Citizen can become Commander in Chief, to which George replied good idea. It’s a definition, not a mystery.

 

I did the legwork, I did not make this up or get it wrong. The Founders were serious, and for good reason. It's not about simply being born here, as so many people say or wish was the case (CNN! OMG), it's about putting a 100% American in the office and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. (In modern days this includes the nuclear launch codes.)

 

It’s easy to gain citizenship, in a number of ways. A natural born Citizen happens in only one way, born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents at the time of birth, no foreign component at all. The military even grants leave to expectant parents so they can come here to give birth and preserve that birthright.

 

Now we have an Indian American, and Jamaican American running, not even an African American, despite "news" media calling her Black (Biden has stiffed the Blacks -- they don't even realize it). How about that. CBS even has a headline calling her an African American! Of all the absurd bad journalism! I saw a report, Indians are furious about this! When did Indians become Blacks?

 

ALERT: I just learned that a 1962 amendment to the Constitution of Jamaica claims anyone with a Jamaican father is a Jamaican citizen, so Kamala, born in 1964 has dual citizenship. How do you suppose this affects her legal allegiance? Look for yourself, again, I don’t invent this:

https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Jamaica/jam62.html See Ch. 2, Sec. 3C.    

 

FROM MY 2016 IMAGE MEME:

If all that’s required is birth in America,
as Marco Rubio claims, then how is Cruz eligible, born abroad?
If birthplace (jus soli) sets the standard, then why isn’t
Cruz a Canadian? (He was, relinquished citizenship there in 2014.)

If all that’s required is one citizen parent,
as Ted Cruz claims, then how is Rubio eligible, with none?
If parentage (jus sanguinis) sets the standard, then why isn't Rubio a Cuban?
(Cuban law claims he is, both parents were Cuban.)

 

P.S. If all that’s required is birth on this land, then what’s to stop North Korean dictators or Iranian mullahs from sending a couple here to drop a baby, raise it elsewhere, then come back for the required 14 years and offer it up for president? Don’t you think the Founders considered such a scenario? They faced exactly that with international intrigues from the monarchies in Europe. This is exactly why they put the natural born Citizen requirement in Article II. The only definition of the term, existing from the Founding era, is in the book Congress had at the time, which Ben Franklin had sent over to him from Europe and brought to the convention (Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations, famous and widely used, Franklin got three copies, kept one, put one in a library, brought one to the Congress, which he said they were using.)

 

It defines it as two citizen parents and birth on U.S. soil. Why such arduous debate today. Why the enthusiasm to let foreigners run for our presidency? That answer is ugly. Look further if you’ve the stomach for it.

 

Remember Cruz and Rubio, who are good folks but unfortunately ineligible. People no longer give a crap about the Constitution. We drown in infringements. So many people were involved in misprision of treason that to recognize it now, well, that’s simply an intolerable act.

 

Alan.

 

P.P.S. Biden shafted the Blacks -- he didn't give them a Black, er, African American... she's Indian, or Jamaican. An Indian American! I saw a report, the Indians are furious about it. Haven't heard from Jamaicans yet, mon. Mess media has avoided this obvious oversight. They're calling her Black anyway, CBS has a headline calling her African American! Doesn't even look black. Mulatto I believe would be the correct term. Colored woman, now known as woman of color, the preposition "of" assuages the racism for leftist racists, Emperors clothes, you know... it’s a truth-affronting disgrace. No ethics in media any longer. CNN pundits simply talk about African Americans, when there is none.