PUBLIUS SPOKE OUT ON THE SUBJECT OF JUS SOLIS CITIZENSHIP

!!!!

 

 James Madison, Fourth President of the United States,  1809-1817

 

Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and thus is ineligible to be President of the United States.

It is important to distinguish between being born a citizen of the United States and being born a natural born citizen of the United States.  Only those persons who are born on the soil of the United States of two parents, BOTH OF WHOM WERE CITIZENS OF THE U.S. AT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH, are citizens of the United States within the meaning of Article Two, Section One of the United States Constitution that specifies the necessary qualification for becoming President.  

By act of Congress late in 19th Century any person born on the soil of the United States is a citizen of the United States regardless of the nationality of the child's parents, but that child is not a natural born citizen if both parents were not themselves citizens at the time of the birth.

Some have argued that according to British Common Law those persons born on the soil of the United States of parents who themselves were not citizens of the United States were citizens even though Congress in the 1802 Naturalization Act specifically denied the applicability of British Common law in the matter of citizenship in the United States.

Leo Donofrio, posted the article below on his blog Natural Born Citizen showing that Publius (who was probably President James Madison) strongly stated British Common Law did not apply in a case involving James McClure.

- Leo Rugiens

.............................................................

 

THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA: Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madison’s Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship.

by Leo Donofrio

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

I was recently forwarded an incredibly amazing article from the October 10, 1811 edition of The Alexandria Herald newspaper.  RXSID of Free Republic sent it with a brief note, stating, “Check out this case.”  The Herald article is entitled, Case of James McClure.  The author is…PUBLIUS.
Publius was the pseudonym used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, for their anonymous authorship of The Federalist Papers.  By 1811, Hamilton was dead and Jay retired.  My research leads me to believe that the article was written by James Madison, but this has not been conclusively established yet.  Regardless of authorship, Madison was President at the time the article was written, and it discusses the official position of his administration denying U.S. citizenship based upon simple birth in the country.
The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens.  This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth.  The article makes clear that the United States Minister to France, General Armstrong, refused diplomatic protection for McClure by denying he was a citizen of the United States.
This was the official decision despite McClure having been born in South Carolina in 1785 to a father who was naturalized months later in 1786.  Armstrong informed the French authorities that the man was not a U.S. citizen, and McClure was left in French custody.  The article by PUBLIUS indicates that Armstrong might have mis-applied the 1802 Naturalization Act, but PUBLIUS also makes clear that McClure was not a citizen by virtue of his native birth in South Carolina:

There was no statute in South Carolina in 1785 which granted citizenship to persons born there similar to Virginia’s statute mentioned in the article by PUBLIUS.  Simply being a “son of the soil” was not enough, and this evidence repudiates the contention that the British common law had been adapted in all of the states after the revolution.  Since there was no statute in place making those born in South Carolina citizens, McClure was not held to be a native-born citizen.  That argument was utterly rejected throughout the affair.
The article goes on to question whether the 1802 act is defective in that PUBLIUS seems to believe citizenship ought to be revoked for naturalized persons who return to their original country and establish domicile there again.  But the article makes clear that Madison’s administration steadfastly denied that simple birth in the United States was enough to establish citizenship.  This, of course, discredits the conclusions of Justice Horace Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, as well as the infamous New York Chancery opinion of Lynch v. Clark.  Both cases contain erroneous assumptions that the British common law rule of jus soli governed citizenship from the very genesis of the United States.
I tracked down the original article published in the Richmond Enquirer on October 1, 1811, which was then republished in The Alexandria Herald on October 10, 1811.  Both of these newspapers were published in Virginia, Madison’s home state.  Furthermore, the PUBLIUS penned article was the grand finale of nearly a year-long argument which went viral in various newspapers of the day starting in January 1811.
I have been up and down the East Coast tracking down the remaining newspaper articles on this as well as other supporting historical information.  I have also consulted with professionals and am preparing an extensive section for my forthcoming book which details everything that has been unearthed.
The whole story cannot be understood by way of online searches.  The internet is barren on this case.  Some of the necessary information isn’t even available in the Library of Congress or National Archives.
Here are the images from the Alexandria Herald and Richmond Enquirer.  The Herald scan is much easier to read than the Enquirer scan.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
[See commenting rules here.]

Like

2 bloggers like this post.

• 
• 

This entry was posted on December 28, 2011 at 10:14 PM and is filed under Uncategorized . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

1. 

   naturalborncitizen Says:
   December 29, 2011 at 10:01 AM

   When Publius states, “The case of James McClure is clearly a nice one -”, the word “nice” is used to indicate “requiring accuracy”.
   nice   [nahys] Show IPA
   adjective, nic·er, nic·est.
   1.
   pleasing; agreeable; delightful: a nice visit.
   2.
   amiably pleasant; kind: They are always nice to strangers.
   3.
   characterized by, showing, or requiring great accuracy, precision, skill, tact, care, or delicacy: nice workmanship; a nice shot; a nice handling of a crisis.
   4.
   showing or indicating very small differences; minutely accurate, as instruments: a job that requires nice measurements.
   5.
   minute, fine, or subtle: a nice distinction.
   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nice
   
2. 

   naturalborncitizen Says:
   December 29, 2011 at 11:03 AM

   Everything you’ve been force fed about the early citizenship standards in the fledgling United States which insists that the British Common law jus soli rule had been adopted by our new federal government is wrong. Justice Horace Gray should have recused himself in Wong Kim Ark because he was directly determining whether or not the President who had appointed him was eligible. Therefore, Gray was determining his own fate and how history would view his appointment. His opinion in Wong Kim Ark is built on a foundation of lies and half truths. This case of James McClure was not even mentioned by Gray, yet it destroys his false assumptions.
   There was no general rule in this country for Jus Soli citizenship. Gray was full of crap, but he was really smart at dishing out crap. He was a genius at obfuscating the truth of the law, but history will now correct the lie.
   Don’t forget, it was the US Government which denied Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen. But I guess the Executive Branch was occupied by a bunch of birthers in 1898. The Attorney General just didn’t like Obama, who he must have seen in a prophetic vision. Damn birthers.
   Damn facts. James McClure was not a US citizen by birth on the soil. The Madison administration required his father to be naturalized before he was born for him to have been considered a citizen at birth. James McClure was NOT eligible to be POTUS. The article makes clear that months after McClure was born, he might have been entitled to citizenship via derivative naturalization, but he certainly was not a citizen at the time of his birth, and therefore was not natural born. His birth in the US did not make him a US citizen at all, let alone natural-born. The case of James McClure speaks volumes to the original meaning of Article 2 Section 1.
   More to come on James McClure et al.
   Leo
   

HAIL, CAESAR!

!!!!





IN OBAMA HE TRUSTS

by Dr. Milton R. Wolf

THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Wednesday 28, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/28/in-obama-he-trusts/

There’s something profoundly tragic about the failed presidency of Barack Obama.

He was supposed to be a new kind of president, a man who embodied hope and would transcend petty politics and even race. Instead, we’re left with a downgraded America that is stagnating under the weight of its bloated government. As tragic as that alone is, even this is but a mere symptom of Mr. Obama’s larger fundamental failure: He simply does not trust the Americans who entrusted him with the presidency.

 Most presidents, we believe, ascend to the Oval Office, but for the 44th president, the reverse seems true. Whatever majesty the White House can muster must rise to the grandiosity of Barack Obama. “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” said the man who writes autobiographies and later would claim to control the rise of the oceans.

 As recently as this month, the food-stamp president of 13 million unemployed Americans declared himself the fourth-most-accomplished president in the history of the United States, eclipsing, in his own mind, President Reagan and even our nation’s father, George Washington. That in only three years. Barack the Magnificent won’t allow trivialities like $15 trillion debts or historic national credit downgrades dissuade him.

Mr. Obama may care deeply for America, but he believes in only one thing: Barack Obama. And you are not Barack Obama.

Where once the American flag was hailed universally as the ultimate symbol of freedom, we who live under it have slowly but surely surrendered our liberties to an insatiable government. Consider our decline in just the past two generations. Our grandfathers, who stood against evil and shed their blood to stop it, never would have tolerated their own government becoming so totalitarian that it would dictate to them what car they should drive, what (if any) health insurance they should choose or even what light bulb they should buy.

Has our generation been worthy of earlier Americans’ sacrifices? Or have we surrendered their hard-fought victories in return for false promises of a big-government utopia that never materializes? Look no further than the politicians we elect. We have chosen as our president a man who believes we are unworthy, not of the previous generations’ sacrifices, but rather unworthy of freedom itself.
The sum total of Mr. Obama’s political philosophy, the unifying theme of his presidency, amounts to this: You cannot be trusted to live as a free American.

President Obama’s first major legislative action, the failed $787 stimulus, revealed his fundamental distrust of free Americans. A president who actually trusts his people would stand aside as they freely chose how to invest their capital and their labor. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, simply doesn’t believe you are smart enough to know what’s best for you. He commandeered nearly $1 trillion dollars from the taxpayers and redirected it as he saw fit. That he squandered billions on crony boondoggles such as the Solyndra solar-panel company or laughable efforts to measure the malt-liquor habits of Buffalonians and the like is evidence merely of his incompetence. That he trusted only himself to allocate taxpayers’ money in the first place - even if he had had the capacity to do so brilliantly - is evidence of a much larger offense: This president distrusts his subjects.

Obamacare is a modern-day monument to government arrogance. So untrustworthy are Americans that they cannot be allowed to decide for themselves whether to purchase health insurance or, if so, how much. Likewise, physicians are too untrustworthy to provide you with care without first consulting the government’s “best practices” guidelines. Obamacare would solve both.

Untrustworthy bankers would become angelic under the restrictions of Dodd-Frank. Untrustworthy bloggers would fall in line under the Stop Online Piracy Act. Untrustworthy manufacturers would create the only jobs worth having under the dictates of the National Labor Relations Board. And untrustworthy energy consumers would act responsibly only under the restrictions of “cap and trade” or at least a dictatorial Environmental Protection Agency.

For statists like Mr. Obama, no matter how bloated our government has become, America is forever just one legislative act away from utopia, if only those untrustworthy Americans would just get in line. The man who ran on hope has instead embraced a tragic pessimism that views all free Americans with disdain as either incompetent rubes in need of his salvation or unrighteous villains in need of his rules. Either way, Mr. Obama embraces a command-and-control government and rejects American freedom.

Mr. Obama’s distrust of Americans is his fatal flaw, and Republicans would be wise to exploit it fully. The GOP should resist the temptation simply to become a cleverer version of autocrats who pull the same powerful levers of government but in different directions. Instead, they should become the party that embraces liberty.

If the 2012 election is between Republicans and Democrats or even between conservatives and liberals, Republicans might win. But if the election is instead between a bloated, ineffectual government that distrusts its subjects and Americans who still yearn to breathe free, Republicans will win. Only then will voters have a dramatic choice between a party that trusts Americans to be free and a party that does not.


Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a Washington Times columnist, is a radiologist and President Obama’s cousin. He blogs at miltonwolf.com.

RECOGNIZE ANYONE YOU KNOW? PERHAPS SOMEONE IN YOUR OWN FAMILY!

!!!!

MEET OUR WEALTHY OLIGARCHS

!!!!







The House of Representatives of the United States Congress was designed by our Founding Fathers to be the mirror image of the people of the Nation, while the Senate was designed to be the voice of the states and for most of the Nation's history the senators were selected by state legislatures.  It is indicative of how far our federal government has lost touch with the voters of the Nation that the members of the House are now wealthy oligarchs as this item from the Political Diary of the Wall Street Journal Online shows:

At least one group of Americans has been profiting despite the faltering economy: members of the U.S. House of Representatives. They're supposed to be the part of the government that's "closest to the people." But as the saying has it, they came to do good and stayed to do well. In their cases, mostly very well.

"Between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House more than doubled, according to the analysis of financial disclosures, from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, excluding home equity," the Washington Post reported Monday. By contrast, the typical American saw his "comparable median figure sliding from $20,600 to $20,500." The data came from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics at the University of Michigan.

That means the average representative's net worth is 35 times that of the average American's. This helps explain why Congress is so out of touch with the ordinary Americans they claim to represent and who in too many cases are suffering unemployment, foreclosures, even evictions. And it looks like the Occupy Wall Street movement needs to march about 228 miles south, from Manhattan to Capitol Hill. 

-- From an editorial in the Orange County (Calif.) Register on Dec. 27.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NO SPIRO AGNEW

!!!!

The Agnew Funeral.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 24, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
 
Today we can finally bury, and lay to rest, the slander that Spiro Agnew, Vice President under Richard Nixon, did not meet the two citizen parent standard defined in Minor v. Happersett.


I was at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. yesterday and today double checking the information I found at Princeton’s amazing Firestone library earlier this week.  Before that, I was in Baltimore where I received a couple of important clues.


A few weeks ago, I was researching this issue at the Maryland Historical Society in Baltimore, only blocks from where Spiro Agnew grew up.  I asked the head reference librarian to help me track down the 1910 census.  I was hoping it would provide more information than the 1920 and 1930 census info, which contain a serious discrepancy.   The 1920 census indicates Spiro’s father was not naturalized by 1920, two years after Spiro was born, which, if true, would mean Agnew was born to an alien.  This has been alleged as precedent for Obama, who was born of an alien father.


The 1930 census indicates that Spiro’s father Theodore had been naturalized by then.  It was also common knowledge that the 1920 census info contradicts a World War I draft registration card on file for Theodore Agnew dating back to September 12, 1918, which indicates he was naturalized just prior to Spiro’s birth on November 9, 1918.


In Baltimore, the librarian told me that Agnew’s father lived in Schenectady, N.Y. in 1910 and that I should check the census for that city.  He also warned me that the name might be spelled wrong so I should try various spellings.  This turned out to be quite prophetic.


At Princeton, I found catalogue records for many biographies on Spiro Agnew, but most of them were not available on the shelves.  I had to order them from a special annex and it took 24 hours for them to arrive.  Meanwhile, I began Googling these biographies and was able to unearth a very relevant fact from the snippet view at Google for, “What Makes Spiro Run: The Life And Times Of Spiro Agnew“, by Joseph Albright (published by Dodd, Mead & Company New York, 1972).  The snippet told me something I did not know, that Spiro’s father first shortened his full Greek name to Theodore Anagnost, not Agnew.


I then plugged the name “Theodore Anagnost” into the database at Ancestry.com and searched the Schenectady N.Y. area.  Direct hit.  And the Md. Historical Society librarian was spot on, the name was listed on the 1910 census, and Ancestry.com had it catalogued as both Theodore Anagnost as well as Amagnost.  It clearly shows that Theodore entered the U.S. in 1902 and that he was naturalized by the time this census was taken in 1910.  It also contains the correct year of birth, 1878, and it includes the other members of his family.


Here is a hi res scan of the 1910 census record.  (See lines 5-8.)  The birth year is identical to the year listed on the draft card as well.


The next day I returned to Princeton and the biographies were waiting for me.  Two of them confirmed all of the above and more.  The Albright book states that Spiro Agnew’s father was born on September 12, 1878, named Theofraste Spiro Anagnostopoulos.  He entered the United States on September 19, 1902 through the port of Hoboken, N.J.  But before we discuss more from that book, separate relevant details stated in, “Spiro Agnew’s America” by Theo Lippman, Jr. (W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., New York, 1972), must come first.


Lippman’s book states that Theodore Anagnost declared his intention to naturalize in 1906, and that he submitted his petition for naturalization in 1907.  The declaration and the petition are two different documents.


Back to the Albright book now, and he indicates that Theodore had become a United States citizen in 1909 and then changed his name again in 1911 to Theodore Agnew.  Albright’s book gives a lot of detail on the genealogy of Spiro’s parents.


Here is a PDF of the relevant pages from both books.


Albright’s book also includes important details which corroborate the accuracy of the 1910 census regarding other household members who were included in that census and who were also included in the book.  Albright mentions Theodore’s brother George, his girl cousin Angeliki, and a male cousin who had anglicized his Greek last name to Lambert.  All of these people are listed in the 1910 census right under Theodore Anagnost, and all of these people are mentioned on the same page in Albright’s book as having lived together in Schenectady.


I also tracked down a high res image of the World War I draft card which is right next to brother George’s on the microfilm at the National Archives.  They both registered for the draft on the same day, Theo’s birthday, September 12, 1918.  Furthermore, both of them were listed as having been naturalized.


I also took a hi-res scan at Nara of the 1920 census.  If you look a few spots down from Theodore Agnew’s family entry, you will see the entry for George Agnew’s family.  It’s obvious now that many mistakes were made.  Both men are listed as having entered the U.S. in 1887.  That is absolutely wrong.  Furthermore, it lists both men as aliens, and it lists their wives as aliens.  This is also not accurate according to the 1910 census, the 1918 draft cards, and two thoroughly researched biographies from Spiro Agnew’s heyday.


Spiro Agnew was born in the U.S. of two parents who were citizens.  Therefore, he was a “natural born Citizen”.


Leo Donofrio, Esq.

MEET MITT ROMNEY, THE LGBT CANDIDATE

!!!!

Dec. 20, 2011 MassResistance Update Pro-family activism "In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell Home Page Blog Please DONATE

Campaigning in Iowa, Mitt Romney publicly re-states his pro-homosexual positions on military, judges, and more. An unsettling glimpse into a Romney Administration . . . As the campaigning for the Iowa caucuses on January 3 heats up, Mitt Romney has publicly — and rather shockingly — restated his support for many of the homosexual movement's goals. These recent statements, while fairly shocking, certainly square with his actions as Governor of Massachusetts, which we have documented. They differ sharply from the hardcore "social conservative" façade he presented when he ran for president in 2008. He did his best to disguise his radical viewpoint on "sexual orientation" record then. But Romney was candid about his pro-gay positions during the national televised candidates' debate in Iowa on Thursday, Dec. 15 and also during a newspaper editorial board meeting on Dec. 9. At national Fox News debate in Iowa on Dec. 15. From left: Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Jon Huntsman. Romney emphasized that the one exception to his pro-gay positions is regarding marriage. He said he always did everything possible to fight against same-sex "marriage." But even that claim has serious problems. These positions certainly make Romney in the minority among the Republican presidential candidates, and would make him the most pro-homosexual Republican presidential nominee ever were he to get the nomination. And they should be a pretty clear window into what a Romney Administration would be like regarding this issue. In particular, Romney discussed his positions on: (1) Support for gays in the military On Dec. 9, Mitt Romney met with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Iowa's major newspaper. Here is what he said (see video) regarding this issue: Reporter: How do you feel about gays serving openly in the military? Romney: That's already occurred. I'm not planning on reversing that at this stage. Reporter: But you're comfortable with it? Romney: I was not comfortable with making the change during a period of conflict, by virtue of the complicating features of a new program in the middle of two wars going on. But those wars are winding down. And moving to that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem. In December 2010, in a cowardly lame-duck session, the Democrat-controlled US House and Senate pushed through a repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," effectively homosexualizing the US military. The margin of victory was by liberal legislators who had already lost their re-elections the previous month. They knew it would never have passed after January 1, 2011 when the new Congress came in. It was greeted with universal outrage in the conservative movement. Romney speaks to editorial board of the Des Moines Register. See video here. So, Romney supports the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. His only issue was making the change during wartime. He had been vague on this issue throughout the campaign four years ago. But in 1994 while running against Ted Kennedy for US Senate, he said in his infamous letter to the homosexual group Log Cabin Republicans that open service for homosexuals in the military was a goal he agreed with. (See link to letter below.) (2) Romney's strong support for "gay rights" in society During the debate, Moderator Chris Wallace asked Romney about his 1994 pledge to the homosexual lobby that he would aggressively "seek full equality" for homosexuals. [See his letter to the Log Cabin Republicans here.] "In 1994, when you were running for the Senate, you wrote a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans in which you said, "I am more convinced than ever before that, as we seek full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent," who was Ted Kennedy. . . So you are still more of a champion of gay rights than Ted Kennedy was?" Romney replied: "Let me go back and say that. I do not believe in discriminating against people based upon their sexual orientation. There are some people that do . . . I believe as a Republican, I had the potential to fight for antidiscrimination in a way that would be even better than Senator Kennedy, as a Democrat, was expected to do so." As we all painfully know, "full equality" and "anti-discrimination" when used with "sexual orientation" are code words for forcing everyone in society under penalty of law to accept homosexual (and transgender) behavior into their lives as normal, subverting their moral and religious beliefs. During Romney's term as Governor, this was particularly manifested in the public schools, where Romney's "Governor's Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth" was well-funded, had access in the schools, and put on an annual "Youth Pride Parade" and "gay/transgender" prom in Boston. On two occasions (2003 and 2004) Romney signed proclamations for "Gay Youth Appreciation Day" to coincide with those events. While Romney was governor, most people weren't aware that their tax dollars were supporting homosexual "Youth Pride" events. This 2005 parade was led by "transgender warrior" Leslie Feinberg (in dark jacket on left of banner). [Mass-Resistance photo] Romney's moral position on homosexuality: it's not immoral As Amy Contrada points out in her book The Mitt Romney Deception, the best key to understanding Romney's moral position on homosexuality may be his condemnation of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Peter Pace. In March 2007, Pace committed the politically incorrect sin of saying that homosexuality is immoral. Romney said in response: "I think General Pace has said that he regrets having said that, and I think he was wise to have issued an apology, or a withdrawal of that comment. I think that we, as a society, welcome people of all differences, whether there are differences in ethnicity, faith, or sexual preference, and I think he was wise to correct his comment and to suggest that was an inappropriate point to have made." In other words, it's not a problem. It's just a "sexual preference" that we need to learn to tolerate. (3) Willing to appoint homosexual [activist] judges Romney has strongly indicated that he does not believe that homosexuality is a moral issue and not a concern even when appointing judges. During the debate Romney said: "I do not believe in discriminating against people based upon their sexual orientation . . . I didn't ask justices that I was looking to appoint . . . what their sexual orientation was." We saw that first hand in Massachusetts when Romney was Governor. One of Romney's known homosexual judge appointees was Stephen Abany (in May 2005) to district court. Abany was an activist for gay-rights causes. He was a board member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which heavily advocated for homosexual "marriage." Abany also had testified at the State House in 1999 advocating repeal of the Massachusetts law criminalizing sodomy. Such activism and glaring opposition to Romney's stated support for traditional marriage apparently did not keep him from making this appointment. At 2010 Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Bar Association fundraiser. From right: Judge Stephen Abany, gay activist lawyer Gary Buseck, Dinner co-chairman Richard Moore. Another Romney district court appointee was Marianne C. Hinkle. Hinkle is a Democrat who worked as an aide to Governor Michael S. Dukakis in the late 1970s and prosecuted John C. Salvi III in the 1994 Brookline abortion clinic shootings. Hinkle, in her application for the bench, describes herself as a longtime active member of Dignity/USA, a group that advocates for expanded gay rights in the Catholic Church and in society. While in office, Romney created a Judicial Nominating Commission to help find people for him to nominate as judges. The state lesbian and gay bar association was given a seat on that committee, and its members encouraged to apply for judgeships. (See Amy Contrada's new article on "Romney's Judicial & Legal Appointments.") In our experience every judge (and every politician) who publically "outs" himself as a homosexual is also an emotional, active advocate for the homosexual movement's political goals. This includes "gay marriage" and support for homosexual-transgender programs in the schools. We've seen this over and over again. That's why the homosexual lobby goes to such lengths to get homosexuals appointed as judges and elected as public officials. Romney apparently doesn't get it. In this regard he could be particularly dangerous for the pro-family movement. Romney's 'Governor's Council' excuse. At one point during the debate, Romney said that as Governor he only "nominated" judges, and the Democrat-dominated elected Governor's Council actually approved them, so he needed to nominate judges who would pass muster with the Governor's Council. In theory that's true. But in fact the Governor's Council always acts as a rubber stamp and very rarely rejects a judge's nomination for any reason whatsoever. It's a disingenuous argument. (4) Touting pro-homosexual/transgender daycare center as "success story" Twice during the debate Romney mentioned Bright Horizons Children's Centers as one of his businesses successes. Sounds good, until you dig deeper (as MassResistance researcher Amy Contrada recently did). To social conservatives, Bright Horizons, a national day-care provider, is a huge red flag. Like Bain Capital, Romney's old company, Bright Horizons has earned a 100% rating with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a national homosexual advocacy organization. What does a 100% HRC rating mean? Company must give full transgender benefits, including hormone treatments, cosmetic, and even surgical procedures. Company must have domestic partner benefits and full "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" equal opportunity policies. Company cannot donate any money to, or have any financial relationship with, pro-family groups, or in the case of law firms, give them legal advice. And MUCH more. Bright Horizons describes its commitment to diversity to include, among other things, celebrating the value of all "sexual orientations, family structures and genders." It's troubling, to say the least, that Romney would have no problem with all this. Is he not even bothered by the obvious possibility of transgender teachers at day care centers? What does that say about how a President Romney would run the federal government? (5) Romney on "gay marriage": yes and no. During the debate, Romney said emphatically: "I oppose same-sex marriage. That's been my position from the beginning." But Romney's definition only extends to the word "marriage." He supports state-sanctioned same-sex marriage-like relationships, even involving children. Refused to support strong marriage amendment: In 2001-2002 — before the Goodridge "same-sex marriage" decision (Nov. 2003) — a strong petition referendum for a pro-marriage constitutional amendment was put forth by Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage (MCM). The 2001 MCM constitutional amendment read: Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the Commonwealth, its agencies, departments, authorities, commissions, offices, officials and political subdivisions. Nothing herein shall be construed to effect an impairment of a contract in existence as of the effective date of this amendment. A candidate for Governor at the time, Mitt Romney refused to sign it. As the Boston Globe reported, Romney said it was "too extreme." This was despite the fact that his wife, son, and daughter-in-law had signed it. As the Globe reported in the article (3/22/2002): Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney campaign spokesman, said Romney opposes gay marriage but also opposes the amendment, since he sees no reason to change the current laws, which allow for domestic-partner benefits to public employees. Currently, state employees' partners get limited benefits, but no health benefits. Romney's family members signed the petition to put it on the ballot "without reading the fine print," Fehrnstrom said, but he has no reason to believe they do not support it. "Mitt did not know they signed it, and Mitt does not support it," he said. "As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it's unnecessary." In refusing to sign it, Romney was out of step with the overwhelming conservative movement in Massachusetts. The amendment required 56,100 certified signatures to go to the Legislature. Over 100,000 people signed it, and 76,000 of those were certified. Unfortunately, when it got to the Legislature, the Senate President Tom Birmingham refused to allow a vote on it. The Supreme Judicial Court later ruled that Birmingham had acted illegally, but said that they couldn't force him to follow the Constitution and hold a vote. Supported civil unions. After the Goodridge same-sex "marriage" court decision, Romney supported a constitutional amendment written by the Legislature, the "Travaglini-Lees Amendment," which would have created marriage-like civil unions in the Constitution with complete legal equivalence to marriage. (That amendment eventually died.) Supported domestic partnerships. Later, in 2005, when another marriage amendment which was not as restrictive had emerged as a referendum initiative, Romney told a State House press conference that if the amendment were to pass, he would support domestic partnership legislation for homosexuals. As Romney said at the press conference: "There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sex couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions." July 2004: Man-on-the-street reaction to "gay marriage" ruling in Massachusetts. [MassResistance photo] (6) Romney re-intreprets the Massachusetts Constitution on marriage During the Dec. 15 debate, Rick Santorum challenged Romney about how he fatally mishandled the "gay marriage" ruling in 2003 and began issuing same-sex marriage licenses the following year — and ordering justices of the peace to perform them if asked — without any legal authority or directive from a court or the Legislature. Santorum said: "Governor Romney — the court then gave the legislature a certain amount of time to change the law. They did not. So Governor Romney was faced with a choice: Go along with the court, or go along with the constitution and the statute. He chose the court and ordered people to issue gay marriage licenses, and went beyond that. He personally as governor issued gay marriage licenses. I don't think that is an accurate representation of his position of saying tolerance versus substantively changes in the laws." Romney answered: "That is a very novel understanding of what our Supreme Court of Massachusetts did. I think everybody in Massachusetts and the legal profession in Massachusetts and my legal counsel indicated that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts determined that under our constitution, same-sex marriage was required. And the idea that somehow that was up to me to make a choice as to whether we had it or not is a little unusual. We got together with our legislature and I fought leading an effort to put in place a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts to overturn the court's decision to make marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman." Actually, there were widespread calls from the conservative legal community across the country for Romney to ignore the judges' ruling, since Constitutionally it could only possibly apply to that particular case, and only the Governor and Legislature can deal with marriage issues. The Constitution also states that only the Legislature can make or suspend laws, and the Massachusetts marriage law then (and now) clearly states marriage is between a man and a woman. (Even the Court acknowledged it couldn't change the law.) An excellent analysis of this and the exchange between Romney and Santorum can be found on Steve Deace's blog in Iowa. Steve Deace is a longtime political commentator in Iowa as well as a major radio talk show host. Deace reports that after the debate Romney issued a challenge that Santorum wouldn't be able to find any respected legal authorities that would agree with his characterization of Romney's culpability. Deace went right to work on that! (Besides, Amy Contrada's book, Mitt Romney's Deception, already included well- documented expert legal analysis.) Rick Santorum charges Romney with misrepresenting the Mass. Constitution for his own expediency, as Romney looks on. See video here on Steve Deace's website. Moreover, Romney's legal counsel at the time of the ruling, Daniel Winslow, was a pro-gay advocate who supported "gay marriage". As a reward for work persuading Romney to move forward on that issue, Winslow was subsequently enthusiastically endorsed by the homosexual lobby when he ran for State Legislature in 2010. As we said, all of this gives a view of what a Romney Administration would be like from a traditional values perspective.

MEET MITT ROMNEY, CAREER POLITICIAN

!!!!

MITT ROMNEY, on the set of "Morning Joe," to Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski: "I think that the only way we're gonna get President Obama out of the White House - because it's HARD to replace an incumbent - is if we have someone run against him who is different than a lifelong politician. ... There's nothing wrong with being a lifelong politician: We got one in the White House right now. Newt Gingrich has spent his life in Washington. And I don't think someone who has spent their life in Washington is going to be able to be sufficiently distinctive from President Obama to actually beat him. I think my background of 25 years in the private sector gives me credibility on the economy and on creating jobs that President Obama doesn't have. And that distinction is gonna make the difference."

OK, but what Mitt Romney does not say is that he has spent the last seventeen years of his life running for public office, participating in the political game of raising campaign fund and wheeling and dealing with other politicians for support for his campaigns.  If that does not make him a lifelong politician I do not know what does.

   -   Leo Rugiens 

LIFE IN THE NANNY STATE

!!!!

Winning the war against ‘civility’   By Wesley Pruden If only the peasants would sit up and pay attention, the liberal nannies could straighten out “the mess” in Washington overnight.

The nannies, Democrats almost to the man (and woman), are frustrated that the system is working the way it was designed to work—with arguments (some of them angry), querulous debates and contentious disputation, leading at last to a fragile but workable consensus. This frightens liberals who have controlled the national debate for lo, these many decades. Some of them prescribe a cure called “civility,” which, accurately translated, means “sit down, shut up, and eat your spinach.”

Thomas Jefferson distrusted the federal government because he knew it would grow too big and arrogant.

A little less debate and a little more acquiescence would, for current example, resolve the debate over extension of the payroll tax cut, set to expire with the year. President Obama is trying to sound enthusiastic about the payroll tax cut extension, making all manner of noise about how he’s looking out for “the little people” while the Republicans are only interested in the good fortunes of tycoons who light their illegal Cuban cigars with thousand-dollar bills. But what the president is really enthusiastic about is getting congressional approval of $1 trillion (or maybe more, we’re only talking multiples of zeroes) in new federal spending. The partisan passion could be softened with “civility,” followed by a vote approving a continuation of his profligate ways. It’s not really rocket science. It’s so simple you might think even a cave man (i.e., a Republican) could master it. Naturally the liberals—or “progressives,” as the people who stunk up the word “liberal” now want to be called—find others to blame for the parlous condition of the body politic. The monthly Bulletin of the reliably liberal American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) blames air conditioning, cable-TV and Thomas Jefferson. Tamara Lytle, writing in the current issue, makes the case that this array of bad phenomena is responsible for the polarization of the electorate, the “permanent campaign,” “citizen shortcomings,” the “dysfunctional design” of government by the Founding Fathers, and the rule of the “special interests.” So frustrated are the people, she argues, “that the tea party and the Occupy Wall Street movements have sprung up from opposite ends of the political spectrum to voice public anger at the federal government.” If “the system” worked like it once did, and the way it ought to, there would be no public anger because the nannies would have had their way with the spinach. Alas, now a handful of newspapers, cable-TV networks and Internet blogs have given voice to the peasants who once had to tug their forelocks and say “yessir, boss,” and no sass or back talk. Such were the “civil” times. “The system is broken,” mourns David Gergen, the director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard (naturally). “You’d have to be blind not to see dysfunction in government. And if you’re blind, you’d hear it.” Actually, blind people are perfectly capable of “seeing” dysfunction, too, and many do. They see dysfunction with a clarity that escapes Mr. Gergen, blinded as he is by politically correct eyesight. Even the blind see that the cure for dysfunction is fewer laws, not more; fewer regulations written by unelected bureaucrats, not more; smaller government, not larger; and more trust in the wisdom of the people, not less.  Where you stand always depends on where you’re sitting. The rap on air conditioning, one of the great blessings of the 20th century, is that it enabled the growth of cities in the sunny precincts. Before air conditioning tamed ferocious summers, cities like Atlanta, Miami, Jacksonville, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix were small towns asleep in the sun, where nothing moved in June, July and August. Now they’re powerhouse cities, redoubts of Republican voters, and of course this is bad. As air conditioning spread, many retirees moved south with their conservative politics, making the South even “more . . . Republican and tilting parts of the urban Midwest and Northeast more Democratic,” writes Miss Lytle of the AARP. She might have observed, but didn’t, that this further increased the obstructionist strength of the liberals in the Northeast unable to “grow” with the times. Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father to whom we all owe the most, arouses liberal ire because he argued against usurping the rights of the states that created the federal union. Like certain of his fellows, Jefferson distrusted the federal government because he knew it would grow too large, become disconnected from the people, and be heir to the arrogance, insolence and prideful haughtiness that is the lot of the unrestrained homo erectus. It’s being deprived of this arrogance, insolence and prideful haughtiness that makes the liberal nanny’s teeth itch. Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

FROM LOS ANGELES TO RANCHO MIRAGE

!!!!

Ben Stein's Diary

It's Gingrich-Huntsman

By Ben Stein on 12.14.11 @ 6:09AM

THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR ONLINE

A very clear view from Rancho Mirage.

Monday

A grueling drive down from rainy Los Angeles to Rancho Mirage. It is about the drabbest drive there is anywhere on earth. The New Jersey Turnpike is like the 17 Mile Drive in Carmel by comparison.
We always make a lot of stops because, well, because we're old and get tired easily. I visited with people at a hotel in Ontario, then at a CVS and a gas station in Calimesa, and at a Bob's Big Boy. I am like a small town politician and my district runs along Highway 10 from Los Angeles to Rancho Mirage.


In Rancho Mirage, we stopped at Pavilions to buy a few animal food things. The immense superstore was eerily empty. Only a few elderly men and women, alone, not in couples, shopped carefully for cat food and casually for frozen TV dinners. They looked desperately lonely. What if I were one of them? And how much it evokes my father when my mother died. He was miserable until he met a woman who took him to concerts at the Kennedy Center. Then he was happy. A good woman is everything.


I had wandered far away in the store from Big Wifey and suddenly I could not see her any longer. I got frightened. What if she were gone? What if I were alone without my wife? I was totally scared. I don't want to be 67 and alone. Or any age and alone.


I scurried around and found her smiling her big Denman grin at the checkout counter. Now, it's Christmas. My gift from God was standing there looking at magazines. The most beautiful, kindest, smartest, most loving, most generous woman, with the best sense of humor on this earth. The best creature I have ever encountered and I get to have her as my wife. It is Christmas all year long. I think my wife has more of the spirit of “love thy neighbor as thyself" than anyone else I have ever met. She's literally the best person on the planet and I get to call her Big Wifey! CHRISTMAS! EVERY DAY!


We got home, unpacked, rested, then went up to the clubhouse for dinner. There was almost no one else there. We watched C-Span, by far the best reality channel there is, as we ate. On air was a calm, extremely thoughtful debate between the next President of the United States, Newt Gingrich, and the next Vice President, Jon Huntsman. This was a scholar's debate. Long, intelligent answers, no glib bullet points, no wisecracks, no zingers. Just a super smart analysis of foreign policy and defense issues.


My wife and I were awed. These guys have it over Barack Obama and Joe Biden by so much it's almost unbelievable. They are truly impressive. Newt's position on defense -- get the best defense you can and need and then figure out how to pay for it; sequestration -- the worst possible way to play the budget game; Iran -- the greatest threat on the planet -- all of these were brilliant. He loves America. He loves Israel. He loves freedom. He is not bent over with self-loathing and conflict. I like him.
This is vital: Newt stands up for America. So does Mr. Huntsman. I see them as dynamic campaigners and I see Newt knocking Obama out in every debate. Comparing Mr. Huntsman with Joe Biden is just plain cruel to my neighbor from Delaware.
I like these guys and now I have hope. If I were Mr. Obama, I would be worried.


Then, back home and a long, long swim under the stars. Perfect. We have a lot of worries at home in town with intruders and scary lawyers. But out here, it's calm and peaceful. It's Christmas.

About the Author

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.

MARCO RUBIO IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

!!!!

I am an ardent fan of Senator Marco Rubio!

I believe that he has a great future as a United States Senator.


 He is bright, intelligent, conservative and politically very smart.

He accumulated a lot of praise for his work as Speaker of the House of the Florida State Legislature.

He is attracting a lot of attention nationally now as a United States Senator.

Inevitably he is being mentioned as a possible choice for Vice-President if a Republican should win the presidency in  2012.  

However, I am very sorry to have to say that he is neither eligible to be Vice-President in 2012 nor President in 2016.


The reason is because, like Barack Hussein Obama, Marco Rubio is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN within the meaning of that term as set forth by the United States Constitution in Article 2 and in the United States Supreme Court decision in the case Minor v Happersett.  Here is the relevant passage from that decision:

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.  (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])

Like Barack Hussein Obama, Marco Rubio was not born in the United States of parents who at the time of his birth were citizens of the United States.

IT IS FRAUD, CORRUPTION OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM, POLITICAL SABOTAGE

!!!!


December 14, 2011

JustiaGate: 'Natural Born' Supreme Court Citations Disappear

By Dianna C. Cotter with L. Donofrio Esq.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/m-justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html

Did Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency?


On October 20, 2011, New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio accused online legal research behemoth Justia.com of surgically redacting important information from their publication of 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions which cite Minor v. Happersett, an 1874 decision which arguably contains language that appears to disqualify anyone from presidential eligibility who wasn't born in the country to parents who were citizens.  According to the decision in Happersett:

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.  (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])

Justia is a Google Mini-powered website which has singled itself out as one of the most comprehensive and easy-to-search legal sites on the internet.  Other legal resources such as Lexis can cost as much as $5,000 a month for a subscription, and it's impossible to hyperlink to cases which include copyrighted headnotes and analysis.  This is why powerful law firms such as Perkins Coie (where former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer practices law) have cited Justia's pages.
The Wayback Machine, run by InternetArchive.Org, is the means by which the changes made at Justia were documented over time.  Among the first responses from Justia regarding this controversy was to block its Supreme Court Server from being viewed by the Wayback Machine.


Click the following link for an image documenting the pattern of changes made to one of those 25 cases, Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9 (1913).  Notice that the case name "Minor v. Happersett" has been removed, minimizing the case searchability.


The cover-up simply reeks.  While Justia owner Tim Stanley told CNET that there were more cases which had also been "mangled," there is no way to identify how much bogus law was published by Justia over the three-year period in question.  Minor v. Happersett simply disappeared from cases which cited it, minimizing its footprint on the internet at a critical juncture in history -- the election of 2008.


McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976)


On Nov. 3, 2008, one day before the election, Donofrio petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the ballots in New Jersey from being used the next day in the case Donofrio v. Wells, claiming that the eligibility of both Obama and McCain had not been verified by the NJ secretary of State as required by law.


In his research, Donofrio had found a reference to McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976), an important precedent which allows the Supreme Court -- or even one justice acting alone if an emergency stay is requested -- to order a secretary of state to insert a name on the ballot.  The holding of the case implies a reciprocal power to remove names from ballots for the several secretaries of State, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.


Back in '08, Donofrio couldn't find the in chambers decision anywhere online.  Forced to go old-school, he procured it from a brick-and-mortar law library.  But to this day, McCarthy v. Briscoe remains elusive at Justia.  If you look in their "Volume" database and click "429," all of the in chambers opinions are mysteriously absent. 


In chambers opinions generally begin on pg. 1,301, but not every official volume has them.  For example, Volume 428 has no in chambers opinions, but 429, 434, and 439 do.  Justia's database for Volumes 434 and 439 do exhibit the in chambers opinions, but Volume 429 has them scrubbed.
If you search Justia's Cases & Opinions by Year in 1976, McCarthy v. Briscoe is listed.  There are two cases, an insignificant one-page opinion at page 1,316, followed by the relevant decision on pg. 1,317.  There are links to the preview as well as "Full Text."  However, all of the links are broken, leading back to Justia's front page.


Additionally, Justia's publication of a following 1977 5^th Circuit case, 553 F.2d 1005, includes a hyperlink back to 429 U.S. 1317, and that link is also mysteriously broken.


It would be instructive to track the timeline of changes in the Wayback Machine, but Justia is steadfastly preventing that transparency.  Furthermore, if Justia continues its previous pattern, the links (eg: http://supreme.justia.com/us/429/1317/) will be restored upon publication of this article.  

Take your screenshots now.

With numerous state-level challenges being prepared by opponents of Obama's eligibility for 2012, McCarthy v. Briscoe will be a required citation.  That it continues to be unavailable at Justia seriously calls into question Stanley's contention that the cases on Justia's servers were mangled by an innocent coding error.


This claim of innocent technical error was debunked by Dr. David Hansen, a Ph.D. in computer science.  McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976) at Justia shows a completely different pattern of information removal from what could be explained away by a single coding error which erased case names.


The removal of prior versions of cases from the Wayback Machine by Justia amounts to nothing less than supreme hypocrisy considering Stanley's high stature as a leading light championing transparency of legal information for the public.  


Use at your own risk


Justia in 2008 tangled with the State of Oregon when it downloaded and republished the State Statutes without either informing the state or gaining its permission, in violation of copyright law.  Dexter Johnson, the head of the Office of Oregon State Legislative Counsel Committee reported that the Committee received information that the State Statutes were available at a website other than the state.  Upon investigation, the Committee ultimately decided not to pursue legal action against Justia for copyright violation; instead, "the committee decided to waive its copyright on the Oregon Revised Statutes going forward," said Johnson in a phone interview.


It is left to a user of Justia to verify the information to be found within its pages, despite a disclaimer of "Full Text of Case" on its pages.  Upon inquiry with the U.S. Supreme Court, Patricia McCabe Estrada, deputy public information officer of the U.S. Supreme Court, responded that "the official opinions of the Supreme Court are posted on the Court's Website and we don't generally monitor other sites." 


Johnson says Oregon also does not have a monitoring policy in place.  When asked how a person using Justia's services would know if he were receiving accurate information or not, Johnson replied:

The only way, it seems to me, would be to compare that with what's on the legislature's website. In which case you might as well go directly to the legislature's website. It's one of the reasons why we had originally suggested that they have their website simply point in the direction of our own.

Justia publishes SCOTUS cases with the positive affirmation "Full Text of Case."  Clearly this was not done with regards to the specific opinions it redacted and covered up.  Whether a violation of law or not, various non-profit agencies, students, law firms, and private researchers who relied upon Justia's services remain in the dark, unable to determine if their research materials were altered by Justia, as the company has released neither what it redacted nor in what cases.  Without an effective means of verifying accuracy, Justia's transparency and credibility are questionable.


Public.Resource.Org


It turns out that Justia received additional help from their close counterpart in the open government information movement, Public.Resource.Org (PRO), founded and run by Carl Malamud.  Malamud was also the chief technology officer for The Center for American Progress, a progressive think-tank funded in part by none other than George Soros.  Tim Stanley is on the Board of Trustees at Public.Resource.Org, and Justia is PRO's top benefactor.  Stanley is also a co-convenor of Malamud's Law.gov organization, which, despite appearances, is not a government entity. 
PRO makes available a huge database of court cases to other organizations such as the Cornell Legal Institute, which has now been dragged into the Justia mess through a case that cements Minor v. Happersett as defining "Natural Born Citizen."  Ex Parte: Lockwood  states:

In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since[.]"  (Emphasis added.)

However, at Cornell, the opinion is cut off right after "Minor v.".  Someone searching for "Minor v. Happersett" will be detoured from this case and its holding in support of Minor's precedence.  Cornell's version of Ex Parte: Lockwood is completely mangled.  Yet Lockwood helps prove that the decision in Minor created a legal definition of "Natural Born Citizen," something the national narrative states that no Supreme Court Case has ever done, in part because Minor's importance was effectively obscured.


There has been a deliberate, targeted effort to minimize if not erase the legal importance of Minor v. Happersett in defining the term "Natural Born Citizen."  Justia and PRO champion freedom of information yet at the same time hypocritically redacted the law to suit a political goal.  Justia and Tim Stanley butchered these cases and, when caught, removed Wayback Machine's access to Justia's entire Supreme Court server.  The only thing hidden now is the evidence of Justia's deliberate scrubbing, as the cases are available in the public domain.


Tim Stanley has not returned messages asking for comment on this story at time of publication.  Sometime last week, Justia added a disclaimer at the bottom of its SCOTUS case texts:

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

The disclaimer speaks volumes about the credibility and accuracy of Justia.com.

COMMENTS ON AMERICANTHINKER

Showing 18 comments

• groman Today 03:57 AM

  What is incredible to me, is that we have a mountain of hidden or fabricated facts about Obama's life prior to his selection as president. No transcripts from any of the colleges he attended, no one at these schools remember him. A trip to Pakistan when no American would normally be allowed to enter the country. Two highly lauded books which now appear to be ghostwritten frauds. We have evidence of voter fraud and intimidation during both the primary process and the general election. We have many "coincidences" such as the timely disappearance of pertinent information on Justia dot com and  yet to mention any of this in public is to be thrown into the category of "tin foil hat" wearing fool. Call me a fool, but this man and his entire administration stinks on ice.
  

• willmay Today 05:06 AM

  The audacity, hoping no one would notice. Thank goodness we have intrepid true journalists like you.  The unfathomable becomes ever more believable with each discovery like yours that hints at the extensive preemptive and follow-on manipulation of information the purveyors of "the facts" carried out in order to smooth over any bumps on the road to the left's anticipated glory days.
  
  

• PE Today 06:58 AM

  Just like the relentless efforts of the NAZI hunters, continue your pursuit. when you bring this fraud to justice with all his enablers and abettors, the "oceans will recede, the tyranny will be overturned, and America will rise again". thank you!
  
  

• notnow Today 07:24 AM

  The good ole USA. Our laws are only as good as our lawyers internet skills? OMG. I love a hard copy. It's why they made them. I have lots of books. More importantly, I know where to get them. This doesn't seem that hard to me, and yet we have an illegal running our country. As far as anyone knows. What's an uneducated guy to do? Inconsolable weeping?
  
  

• TonyRome Today 07:52 AM

  Can anyone tell me why the main stream media (includes Fox as of late) hasn't covered this story?  I will save you the time to think about it, they are all carrying Barack Hussein Obama's water.  They all fear that if they criticize Barack they will be labeled racist.   Shame on all of them.  Starting in 2003 Congress made no less than 8 attempts to change the Constitutional requirement that a person who wanted to be POTUS or VP had to be a "natural born Citizen."  This is proof positive that the Congress of the United States knows what was meant by "natural born Citizen" or they would not have made such a strong effort to change the requirement avoiding the use of an amendment. 
  
  The fact that Barack Hussein Obama was not forced into a vetting process which John McCain was forced into to prove he was a "natural born Citizen" will eventually result in nothing but total embarrassment for our nation and in particular our Congress.  McCain proved he was a "natural born Citizen" via a birth certificate that showed both his parents were American citizens at the time he was born.  Barack will never qualify and he is presently...

  show more
   

• borderraven Today 08:03 AM

  "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.  (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])"
  
  Two words in the above quote bear weight. In the clause "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves", the word "in" implies jus soli and the word "of" implies jus sanginis. So, if the phrase were written, "it was never doubted that all children born jus soli in a country jus sanguinis of parents who were its citizens became themselves...".

• imsi12b Today 08:20 AM

  Wish I could say something as lofty as my predecessors here, but all I can think of is George Orwell's "Animal Farm" where every time the other animals (the non-pigs) looked at the Constitution it was slightly different than they remembered it.
  

• Chrisden Today 09:07 AM

  Why has nothing been done about this issue?  Why have we allowed the "coverup" to continue?  I have to believe that our entire government and legal system have been corrupted.  I told my Senator about Minor v. Happersett 3 years ago.  His response was that Congress declared Obama a citizen (nothing said about the natural born requirement) and thus eligible for POTUS.  Case closed.  The entire ruling class is involved in this coverup.
  
  

• Liberty Today 09:07 AM

  Our enemies have told us that they were going to destroy this great country from within for decades and the older I become the more I see their desires and threats coming to fruition.  And with the election of Barack Hussein Obama our enemies have truly grasped the golden ring and yet, with all the utter disasters and imcompetence displayed by this Nowhere Man in the Oval Office, he is still polling in the 40+ percentages and could win re-election.  This is utterly nightmarish and while reading this excellent article I know my blood pressure must have gone off the scale realizing just how deep the conspiracy to protect 0bama runs and how wide its tenacles continue to grow with each new revelation.
  
  In a lighter point, I sure do hope Mr. Peabody and Sherman can get that Way Back Machine fixed and please give me a call when you do, I would love to tag along and go back for a short respite from all that I see and hear going on in a very screwed up world -- maybe to when I was eight years old when my biggest fear was that a rain shower was going to cause the cancellation...
  

  show more
   

• JQAdams Today 09:22 AM

  So JustiaGate committed fraud...shame on them. The question remains how did this help Obama bypass the law? Is there not any old dusty law books and court records regarding Minor v. Happersett. Oh that's right you found those court cases without Justiagate. It appears to be settle by the supreme court the Natural Born clause definition. Now what do we do about it since it is settled law?
  
  

• RJ118 Today 09:45 AM

  Just another coverup in an administration of cover ups. It sickens me to think that all of the future generations will suffer directly as a result of the election of this non american hateful leftist to the lofty position of president. When I joined military years ago the FBI background check for a secret security clearance went all the way back to my 5th grade teacher, I was born and raised in one place and attended one school system from 1-12 grade. I cannot believe that our great nation has devolved into such a patently oblivious state.
  
  2012 is the last hope, either we get the elitist in D/C back under the rule of law or this nation is doomed to the ashpit of history. History will not be kind to those who sat back and allowed this to occur. Think of the normal nation loving Germans who sat on the sidelines or the soldiers who herded 6 million jews into the rail cars and killing stations. Rational thinking Americans blinded by political correctness are quickly becoming the next in a long line of sheep being lead by the Judas goats into the grinder of socialism.
  
  

• angrytom 41 minutes ago

  There has to be a direct challenge from a lawyer for the client challenging the issue.Where are these people? Why are they waiting for?
  
  

• Conrad 33 minutes ago

  I would urge fellow conservatives to exercise a bit of skepticism and not accept every new conspiracy theory that pops up.  At most, the authors have shown that Justia's version of old cases aren't necessarily accurate.  However, they haven't shown that the discrepancies exist due to a deliberate effort to hide “conservative” cases from public view .  If we're really interested in avoiding the "tin hat" label, let's be realistic about a few things:  1. Justia’s entire business model depends on people accepting the accuracy of its online databases.  Given this, how likely is it that its officers would intentionally misrepresent the text of old cases, KNOWING that there are myriad correct versions of those same cases available both to the public and, more importantly, to lawyers and judges?  2.  If Justia were trying to "diminish the importance" of Minor v. Happersett in establishing a definition of NBC, wouldn't it make a great deal more sense for them to alter that particular case in some way (or disappear it completely) rather than simply alter cases that cite to Minor?  3.  Wouldn't any lawyer or judge actually involved in litigating the NBC issue be aware of the existence and significance of Minor  and thus address that case as part of their analysis of the issue?  I'm trying hard...
  

  show more
   

• Muldoon1 29 minutes ago

  What kind of movie are we watching, what kind of book are we reading, to where this situation is allowed to continue. How can little barry be placed on state ballots without being properly vetted. We have a little over 10 months to correct this wrong before the 2012 election, and no one with the power to fix this seems concerned. If this is not corrected, in my mind, it proves the Republicans are complicit in this scheme to defraud the American people. I expect as much from the socialists, but for the Repubs to sit idly by and watch this happen is unthinkable!
  
  

• babysam 25 minutes ago

  So what?
  
  Obama is in place and possession is 9/10 of the law. Obama with his troops depend on this. They  are living their "dream". Long planned and engineered in America, as  in Europe with the present EU fiasco, i.e. the entire West. Obama is culmination of Progressives aims. To transform, to change a strong  structure it is necessary to "deconstruct" to make way for the "new".They "know their enemy" and use this most important rule of warfare very successfully. The engines of the nation have BEEN GIVEN  into their hands to drive the nation to where  they want because they have no serious effective opponents to stop him/them  from their  attacks on the nation's laws and structure. Few  willing to risk, singly or in cooperation, their seats on the gravy train of politics to stop him.
  
  Few  in those positions to which has been given the DUTY to stop unlawful arrogations of power: Congress, Senate and Judiciary. All busy playing in-group games, bowing and kneeling to this Obama and his generals for  personal advantage, or seeking ways for self aggrandisement in "not letting a crisis go to waste". Forgotten is their bounden duty to their oath of office in their contract with...
  

  show more
   

• 11bravo 22 minutes ago

  This article is years late, although another was published here a few months ago. Like everyone else is asking; do something! Don't just write an article exposing it. Find someone to file a law suit. This is where the GOP gets its head handed to it everytime-the media and legal war. It is a conspiracy (war) of sorts and the socialists are cleaning our clocks!!
  
  I am an unemployed nuclear technician, I do not have the resources but I have ideas. One is the fight over this issue was over on election day 2008-welcome to the party.
  
  

• DaveOregon 19 minutes ago

  After reading this - dod you really want the government controlling the Internet? Obummer and his allys - which seem to be many in private as well as public domain - are rewriting facts and creating fiction and posting/publishing it as facts. No government agency should ever be able to control the content of the internet; you should be prosecuted for knowingly providing false inforamtion; prosecuted for knowingly abridging court records, etc. Bankers, financial managers and attorneys working in collusion with communist/socialists to get Obummer elected. Saw that coming -remember "Manchurian Candidate" - coure Hillary Clinton was the Chinese's main effort there - but Obummer was their "ace" in the hole. We are in one sorry state of affairs people...not sure we can stop the ship from sinking if no one admits the boat has holes in the hull.
  
  

• inspectorudy 14 minutes ago

  This says a lot about the state of our nation. For a legal reference web site to DELIBERATELY erase information that may be used by site PAYING visitors is a total violation of trust. How can anyone in the future trust a web site that they know has lied or cheated in the past? This is on a par with Wikipedia and there totally unreliable definitions. Who at this point in time would ever pay to use their service again? I am thankful that someone has gone to the trouble to ferret out this deliberate lie and I can only hope that you are able to entice the networks to make an issue of it. Good work.

Full Site | © American Thinker 2011