In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be through him was life,
and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness has not overcome it.
The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
He was in the world,
and the world came to be through him,
but the world did not know him.
He came to what was his own,
but his own people did not accept him.
But to those who did accept him
he gave power to become children of God,
to those who believe in his name,
who were born not by natural generation
nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision
but of God.
And the Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
full of grace and truth. – John 1:1-5, 9-14
Blogs For Victory 
Yes, let’s remember the Reason for the Season and celebrate the birth of Christ. Merry Christmas to all of you, and God bless us every one.
I could not put it any better. Merry Christmas everyone.
Kurt Schlichter writes about something I have often commented on—-that is, how the International Left has been so successful by being careful and incremental, and how the new rambunctious and undisciplined American Left is screwing it up by being uncontrolled and in-your-face. He says:
The secret weapon of the American left as it marched through the institutions was stealth. It gained power and influence, but largely out of sight, in the shadows, metastasizing quietly while normal people paid attention to other things. But today, thanks to stupid leftists, ideological leprosy has come out into the open before it was able to rot away from our society fully.
The art of incrementalism is NOT something craftily thought out by the “left”, but rather a tool implemented by satan to achieve his goal, which is to steal and destroy souls. He cannot be so obvious by blatantly pushing his end goal without first shrouding it. Incrementalism does that. We give the left far too much credit for this apparent skill. As has been pointed out many times here, the left just isn’t that smart. Many people are unfortunately, puppets of this ploy. I believe this is in part why Amazona see our fellow leftist citizens as largely unexamined dupes rather than evil people needing to be destroyed. Satan cannot obtain his end goal in the time allotted to him and will always overplay its hand, which we are seeing now.
Jesus was sent to save all people. As Christians, we have a responsibility to help spread His message, that redemption can be had for all who turn to and accept God. When truth is distorted, something satan is ever so eager to do, people blindly act in a manner which is against their own best interest.
We will not win the hearts and minds of those who unfortunately fall prey to satan’s deception by advocating their death. While there are times when this course of action is required, it should not be a first choice. The only way to achieve true peace on earth is to proclaim the truth, that Christ is God. Prayer is far more powerful than the end of a gun. God wishes for all of us to humble ourselves before Him, trust in Him, understanding He is God and that His will and glory will triumph.
I hope the spirit of Christmas is with you all.
I hadn’t read this Longfellow poem in years, probably decades. Robert Malone included it in his Christmas message today. Written during the American Civil War, it’s as pertinent today as it was then. The only difference is that today it’s the Leftist agenda that’s trying to drown out the carols instead of the thundering cannons of war. But as the last stanza points out, there is always hope.
I heard the bells on Christmas Day
Their old, familiar carols play,
and mild and sweet
The words repeat
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
And thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along
The unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Till ringing, singing on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime,
A chant sublime
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Then from each black, accursed mouth
The cannon thundered in the South,
And with the sound
The carols drowned
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
And made forlorn
The households born
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
And in despair I bowed my head;
“There is no peace on earth,” I said;
“For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men.
Merry Christmas.
I am so disappointed in Matt Margolis, as he inexplicably decided to go all in on the beloved Lefty pejorative “birther” to attack Laura Loomer and her quite accurate assessment of the misunderstanding of the term “natural born citizen”. I thought Matt was more analytical than this.
She inaccurately noted that Natural born citizenship isn’t the same as birthright citizenship.” because strictly speaking natural born citizenship is ONLY conveyed through birthright, or being born to citizen parents, and not by location of birth to non-citizen parents.
The quotations Matt cites are embarrassing in their common quality of utterly missing the point. One, for example, quotes Ron DeSantis when he said that his administration would “take action to end the idea that the children of illegal aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship if they are born in the United States. Dangling the prize of citizenship to the future offspring of illegal immigrants is a major driver of illegal migration. It is also inconsistent with the original understanding of 14th Amendment, and we will force the courts and Congress to finally address this failed policy.” Matt’s take on this is to claim that Haley’s parents were not here illegally. Wow—talk about a non sequitur!
Matt just confused the very accurate comment by DeSantis with something no one has ever said or implied, which is also BTW totally irrelevant. He might have/should have focused not on the “illegal alien” part but on the highly relevant ” It is also inconsistent with the original understanding of 14th Amendment, and we will force the courts and Congress to finally address this failed policy.”
He also cites the left-wing Legal Information Institute of Cornell University:: A natural born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth, and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life. Under the 14th Amendment’s Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship. One can be a citizen while not being a natural born citizen if, for example, that person gained citizenship through the process of naturalization.
False. Cornell can’t just make a native born citizen a natural born citizen by ignoring centuries of jus sanguinis or citizenship of a child depending not on his place of birth, but instead follow the status of a parent (specifically, the father—or, as more recently recognized, either parent, There are three ways to be a citizen. By being born to citizen parents, or being a “natural born” citizen; by being naturalized; and possibly (depending on future rulings) merely being born in this country even to non-citizen parents, which would be a “native born citizen”.
And the ruling on Wong Kim Ark did not say he was, by nature of location of his birth, a “natural born citizen” as the term had been known and accepted for centuries and at the time the Constitution was written. What it said was: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that “a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China”, automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
Interestingly, the acknowledgement that the parents were “subjects of the Emperor of China” seems to contradict the requirement in the 14th Amendment that the parents must not be under the jurisdiction of another nation for the child to be considered a native born or birthright citizen.
Pointing to the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, an act of Congress which declared to be citizens “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed”, and which was enacted into law only two months before the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress, the dissenters argued that “it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power'”
While it is understandable that some choose the simplistic approach of saying that merely being IN the United States means being under its jurisdiction as the laws of this country apply to them, we need to look a little deeper. I knew a man from Peru who had lived in the United States for 13 years and had permanent residency here, but when he died the Peruvian Embassy stepped in to deal with arrangements for his body and to help his family get it back to Peru. Clearly he was, at the time of his death, under the jurisdiction of the land where he was still a citizen, even though while living here he had to follow the laws of our country.
I’m very disappointed in Matt. I expected better from him.
She inaccurately noted that Natural born citizenship isn’t the same as birthright citizenship.” because strictly speaking natural born citizenship is ONLY conveyed through birthright, or being born to citizen parents, and not by location of birth to non-citizen parents.
What’s “inaccurate” about that statement?
BTW, I don’t think either Haley or Ramaswamy is going to be our next President, but if, on the outside chance, one of them is elected, you can bet Democrats will litigate the Natural Born Citizen issue all the way to the Supreme Court. It would be nice to finally have it settled, but not that way.
For all the whining about a “constitutional crisis” this would pose a true constitutional crisis, and must be addressed as soon as possible. Even being elected as Vice President would have the same effect.
I do think that Matt’s rather disjointed article illustrates the confusion surrounding the topic.
You’re right. I meant to say “accurately”. It’s not a legal defense, but to be fair my feet were under savage attack under my desk from a very bored cat.
In 2019 a man named Paul Engel wrote a very thoughtful essay on the meaning of “natural born citizen”.
Several people I’ve talked to have claimed Emmerich de Vattel’s book, The Law of Nations, as a reference text for understanding different parts of the U.S. Constitution. This book is most commonly referenced when discussing the citizenship requirements for President of the United States, so I decided to do some research on the topic for myself. And, of course, to share it with you.
As I said, I usually see Vattel brought up in reference to the qualification for President of the United States, specifically about the definition of a “natural born citizen”.
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;
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
According to The Law of Nations this is because:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The Law of Nations, Article 212
So we need to ask the question: Is The Law of Nations a legally binding reference for determining the meaning of words in the Constitution? To answer this, we must look at three things: Is The Law of Nations referred to in the Constitution? Was it referenced during the debates about the Constitution? And finally, is there a simpler explanation of the term “natural born citizen”?
To this I would add that the Constitution is full of words which are not specifically defined, as their meaning is assumed to be commonly known and agreed upon. If The Law of Nations was a commonly known and agreed upon source of definitions, there would not have been any reason to refer to it or define the term.
Is The Law of Nations referred to in the Constitution?
I have read and studied the Constitution for many years, and I have never seen the book The Law of Nations referred to in the document. To be fair, I have never seen any other text directly referred to in the Constitution. Some have claimed that it appears in Article I, Section 8.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 10
This is most often supported by the fact that the term Law of Nations is a proper noun, since it is capitalized in the original text. Does that mean the authors were referring to Vattel’s book?
Even Vattel refers to the “law of nations” as the rights and obligations of sovereign states.
The law of nations is the law of sovereigns; free and independent states are moral persons, whose rights and obligations we are to establish in this treatise.
The Law of Nations, Article 11
It seems the term “law of nations” was commonly used at the time to describe the set of laws, both natural and those established by treaty, between sovereign states. This is reinforced by the context of the clause being crimes committed outside of the United States itself. Based on the use of capitalization in the Constitution as a whole, that language here does not appear to refer to a specific document.
Was The Law of Nation referenced during the debates about the Constitution?
Next, I searched the debates of the Continental Congress. My search included all of the records of the congress from 1774 through 1789, both for the terms “law of nations” and “Vattel”. What I found was the most predominate usage of the term “law of nations” was in reference to international law. I did find some correspondence about acquiring copies of Vattel’s book, along with a few instances of Vattel being read or used as an example. There are even a few examples of Vattel either being quoted directly or where it is assumed that something someone said was an idea coming from his work. However, none of these references are related to the qualification for President or the term “natural born citizen”.
What I did find was a committee report of a list of books to be used by Congress. The Law of Nations was included, although it was mis-titled Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations. But is that the only reference?
Vattel says that for a person to be natural born, they have to be born on U.S soil to two U.S. citizens. But Blackstone, another resource for the debates, says only the father has to be a citizen (or subject, since Blackstone was writing about British law), regardless of the place of birth.
So, while Vattel’s definition may have been what our Founding Fathers considered when they wrote the Constitution, there is no proof of that fact. And with other definitions coming from other sources we do know were used, it’s hardly a slam-dunk that Vattel is the standard we should be using.
Is there a simpler explanation of the term “natural born citizen”?
Assuming the simplest answer is usually the best, I then looked for that simple answer to our question. Both Vattel and Noah Webster (whose dictionary I use as a reference document) agree that a natural born citizen is also a native citizen.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The Law of Nations, Article 212
2. A native; an original inhabitant.
Natural – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
3. Conferred by birth; as native rights and privileges.
Native – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
If “native” means “conferred by birth”, then it can be inferred that a “natural born citizen” is one who is a citizen at birth as opposed to one being granted citizenship later in life.
Conclusion
Is the definition of “natural born citizen” from The Law of Nations legally binding on the Constitution? While it is true Vattel was read by some of the delegates who debated the Constitution, and was occasionally referenced, there is no evidence that his book was considered to be definitive in any sense of the word. The Law of Nations was included in a list of books proper for the use of Congress, but I find no evidence that it was referenced in the debates about the qualifications for President. In fact, other resources include different definitions for the term.
With no solid definition of the term “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, and with differing definitions in possible supporting references, we are left with only one way to define the term: Natural law. Since natural laws are, by definition, laws so obvious they don’t need to be written down, I believe the best definition of the term “natural born citizen” is the simplest: That of a child who is a citizen at birth.
To be a citizen at birth, one must be a child of a parent or parents who are citizens of the United States. I see no requirement that the child be born on U.S. soil. This is supported by the debates around the 14th Amendment recognizing not only geography but jurisdiction as being necessary to citizenship. Therefore, the standard we should use for qualification for President is a person who was born a citizen, not one who received their citizenship later in life.
And even here, his “conclusion” is not a real conclusion, as it still leaves in limbo the native citizen (a citizenship created by law nearly 100 years after the Constitution was written and still under debate regarding just what it means by “under the jurisdiction”, which is the key to determining if location of birth can apply to children born to citizens of other countries.) Though he does say, in the preceding paragraph, that To be a citizen at birth, one must be a child of a parent or parents who are citizens of the United States. The 14th Amendment, if it does truly convey citizenship by nature of location of the birth, is still not an example of natural law. It is still a legal construction.
John Yinger also wrote a detailed essay about “Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution.” I’m not sure when he originally wrote it; it just says “Revised Version, April 6, 2000.”
Among everything he says, this lone sentence is the best explanation for why the Founders used the term “natural born citizen:”
There are several references in this work
Alexander Porter Morse…… writes that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing “the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.” In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born. Thus, according to Morse, “the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.”(
……………………………………
A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.
………………………………..
Morse also emphasizes the difference between the terms “native-born” and “natural-born.” The dictionary, which follows the English precedents, defines “native-born” as “belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth therein” and “natural-born” as “having a specified status or character by birth.” If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, Morse writes, “it would only have been necessary to say, ‘no person, except a native-born citizen
…………………………………
whoever drew the act followed closely the various parliamentary statues of Great Britain; and its language in this relation indicates that the first congress entertained and declared that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, “natural-born citizens.” The act is declaratory: but the reason that such children are natural born remains; that is, their American citizenship is natural — the result of parentage — and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements.
…………………………………
We’ve all read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark numerous times, Fielding. Without reading it again, my recollection is that it was the first time the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Do you have a point beyond that?
So you’re saying that at least one of Nikki’s or Vivek’s parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of their birth?
There are four different kind of people in this country when it comes to Constitutional rules like the natural born citizen requirement. You’ve got the ignorant like the California Lt. Governor who said you just need to be 40 years old and not be an insurrectionist. Then you’ve got the illiterate who wouldn’t know the Constitution if it hit them in the face. Next are the literate who have read the Constitution, but either don’t understand the difference between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen or think it’s just a silly 235-year-old rule that doesn’t apply anymore. And finally, you got a huge number of Americans who just don’t give a sh*t.
To be clear, I’m a stickler for rules. Rules are necessary for a civilized society. f you’re not going to follow the rules, then there might as well not be any rules. The reason for the natural born citizen requirement , IMO, is not as great as it was in 1788, and is an outright impediment (technically) to otherwise qualified candidates. It’s way past time that it was litigated and settled.
And I disagree, as back then it was not possible to have millions of people flocking to this country. And the anti-American sentiment was, when it existed at all, pretty much focused on snobbery, on the disdain by European elites for what they saw as bumpkins. Given today’s ease of travel and the tone and degree of hatred for this county all around the world, I think it is even more important than ever to do whatever we can to make sure that our president, at least, grew up in a family with loyalties to the United States.
Look at the difference in Congress if this were applied to Senators and Representatives. We would not have Omar and Tlaib openly flaunting their contempt for this country while representing constituencies that largely feel the same way. All over the country we are seeing the damage and dangers of people in high political office whose only claim to being an American is the place of their birth, but who grew up in families with deep loyalties to other nations.
OK, I concede that maybe someday a remarkably qualified presidential candidate might be considered an American based on the location of his or her birth, and grew up loving this country, and that it would be a loss to the nation if this person could not be president. But I think the danger is far worse to have a president whose father hated this country and was never a citizen.
Oh, wait! We DID have such a president! And his dislike for America was thinly veiled when he bothered to hide it at all.
I contend that we have to start treating citizenship as something of value, and stop handing it out like Halloween candy. I think the 14th Amendment is grossly misinterpreted and this whole “birthright citizenship” thing has got to end. And I think that demanding that a president grow up in an American family, while inadequate to ensure respect and loyalty to the country, is as much as we can do and should not be abandoned.
It still doesn’t say anything about “natural born citizen,” which is the requirement for President and Vice President. There’s no question that both Haley and Ramasawmy are native-born American citizens, but they are not natural born citizens. Thanks for playing.
BTW, you ARE correct that Obama is a natural born citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen and met the residency requirement. I”m convinced, as I think Amazona is, that the entire birther controversy surrounding Obama was initiated by his own campaign to create an non-issue that would obfuscate all of his negative baggage. And it worked.
It not only worked then to build a matrix upon which “racism” could be uttered constantly and general confusion reigned, it has served to make the whole topic terrifying to people who should be examining it.
I don’t agree that ” There’s no question that both Haley and Ramasawmy are native-born American citizens” other than the fact that even if the 14th Amendment is finally accurately interpreted and applied it would be hard if not impossible to rescind citizenship from those who have spent their lives convinced they were citizens.
I’ve read both sides of the issue and I have to say that both sides argue convincingly. IMO, I’ll say a person is an American if born to a citizen and resident of the USA.
That IS the definition of “natural born citizen”.