Posted on 11/05/2010 10:19:53 PM PDT by chatter4
I agree!
* How would being educated during their MOST formative years, in Islamic schools rank someone on the 'no HINT of allegiance' scale?
* How would collecting over FOUR TIMES more salary from FOREIGN SOURCES ($1,617,268) than their POTUS salary ($374,054) in 2009 rank someone on the 'no HINT of allegiance scale?
If the forefathers had intended that, they would have said that. The constitution was written so commonsense people could understand it not so people would have to twist themselves into pretzels in order to come up with a result.
Based on YOUR interpretation, they relied on european thinking to make sure there were no european presidents.
Mark Rubio??? Who is that? Nothing of what you post makes any sense until you get that fixed.
While you’re at correcting—it’s Marco Rubio’s parents - not Mark Rubios parents.
Get to it.
There is overwhelming proof that the founders and framers not only were familiar with Vattel (and MANY other European sources, as well as ancient Roman and Greek), but they relied upon his work specifically over the course of the founding of the country. How Can A Natural Born Citizen's Status Be "Governed" By Great Britian? follow that link and you will see the documented history for this.
You, on the other hand, must ignore history to attempt to come up with a way to make your argument work. You've offered nothing in the way of proof, only your opinion. In 1787, where did the framers find another definition for citizens who were natural born?
"Based on YOUR interpretation, they relied on European thinking to make sure there were no European presidents."
That makes no sense what so ever.
So what if they were familiar with Vattel? If they wanted his view they would have written it into the Constitution.
Actually, they DID incorporate many of the ideas from natural law, or the Law of Nations. From where, do you think they got the general concepts of a right to life and liberty, of a "Constitutional Republic" with a separation of powers, the limitation of government and state sovereignty and a Judiciary as a check against the Legislature from legislating away Constitutionally "protected" rights (to name a few)? They were FAR more than merely "familiar" with Vattel's work and the concepts of natural law (see below). They consulted his work, and others who wrote on the concepts of natural law frequently as they first Declared Independence from the British Crown (actually, even prior to that as well - See James Otis's writings!), and then as they (over the years) formed and framed the country.
As you know, the Constitution isn't a dictionary. It contains MANY phrases that have "required" interpretation as to what the framer's intentions were.
"Being born in this country of LEGAL immigrant parents does not indicated anyone with dual allegiance. Good grief!"
Actually, it sure can. One scenario: A British subject (man) comes to the U.S. as a LEGAL immigrant (& doesn't become a Naturalized citizen). He is considered an alien (a LEGAL alien). He marries a adult U.S. citizen woman here. They have a child. That child, by virtue of being born here and being born to an adult U.S. citizen woman is considered a "citizen" per the 14th Amendment (& statue law). That child, however, is ALSO born with British citizenship by BIRTHRIGHT, inherited from his LEGAL alien resident British citizen father.
Just as a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen adult parents "inherits" his/her parents U.S. citizenship...so too can a child born in THIS country inherit their parent(s) foreign citizenship.
That child, is then born with multiple citizenship's. Multiple allegiance owed at birth.
By the way, not only is Vattel's book "Law of Nations" mentioned in the Constitution itself:
Article 1. section 8, clause 10:but the concepts of which the Law of Nations is built upon...natural law (or laws of nature) is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence as well:"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.Oh yeah, and Vattel was read aloud and referenced during the Convention that created the Constitution.
From James Madison's notes (which certainly are not a 100% complete transcription of the event) on the convention, we see that they mention Vattel specifically twice [1] and the laws of nations 14 times while drafting and debating the creation of our Constitution and it's concepts therein: [1][2 x2][3 x2][4][5][6][7][8][9 x4]
Look, admittedly, I too was completely unaware of most of this information up until a little more than 2 years ago. The irony of having a usurper (assuming Sr. is his legal father at birth) in the oval office is that it has "inadvertently" educated a whole lot of people in this country as to who our founders and framers really were and what their intentions were. Something I most definitely did NOT learn in school, through the nightly news or "pop" culture.
Obviously, Vattel's "Law of Nations" wasn't the only reference the founders and framers read and used while building the country. However, a reading of the historical record should make it equally obvious that his work was profoundly important to them as well.
And it was his work, after-all, that was the only one that was well known to them in 1787 that contained a definition for who the natural born citizens are.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii)* and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!
| Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro * | NOT Obama / Soetoro |
 |
 |
| * This assumes HI birth, which is yet to be verified. A citizen of 2 countries at birth. |
|
Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].).
Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
================================================================================================================================
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.
Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though many could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:
Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]
 |
|
| From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 197 of 592) [Note: A ~22 MB PDF]: Section title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels" To English: "Citizens and natural" Clearly there is a differentiation made between "Citizens" and "Natural" (born citizens). See below. French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages." |
|
A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
| Prior to the Constitution |
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel, It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own publick library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts-Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."
Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."
Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."
In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].
Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.
Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:
"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.
The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governedThose (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations).
 |
 |
|
This accepted translation of 'naturel' in 1781, predates John Jay's 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years. This 'naturels' means 'natural born' translation in 1781 was subsequently confirmed by the 1797 translation of the part of the relevant sentence and paragraph in Vattel's Law of Nation, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, that is, "natural-born Citizens, are those born in the country, to parents who are citizens". Thus when the founders and framers wrote the Constitution in 1787 they clearly knew what "natural born Citizen" meant when they upgraded the Citizenship requirement in Article II from simply being a "born Citizen" as proposed by Hamilton to that of being a "natural born Citizen" as recommended by Jay as a strong check against foreign influence on the persons in the future who would be President and Commander of the military. And that meaning was understood to be a person born in the country to parents who are Citizens of the country. Such a person has sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to only the United States. That was the intent of the founders and framers for that legal term of art, natural born Citizen, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. This restriction on the type of Citizen who could be President was a national security issue to them back then and it is still a national security issue to us now. |
|
| The Constitution |
The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect UnionAgain, those phrases are not from England's common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."...
Article 1. section 8, clause 10:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"
George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."
Why natural law, Vattel vs English common law, Blackstone: "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
| After the Constitution is ratified |
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.
Ramsay reaffirms the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)
The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"
Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (A case on citizenship and domicile. Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel six (6) times by name, and "law of nations" ten (10) times.) SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel) |
The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..
A few of the more notable POTUS references to "law of nations" are:
| John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment! "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))" |
SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)
It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.
The point is that up until relatively recently, the SCOTUS, the Congress, Presidents and the country were well acquainted with the law of nations and Vattel's edition in particular. It is also that, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" (of the U.S.) has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country and who often then pass that foreign citizenship & allegiance owed on to their child - by birthright).
This compilation has been added to and improved with the help, hard work and comments of many FReepers (including, but not limited to: Spaulding, bushpilot1, Red Steel, BP2, El Gato) and many of the "eligibility" lawyers and/or their clients (including, but not limited to: Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donfrio)
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt.
I am a huge Rubio supporter...one of the first in the Tampa area to push his candidacy over Suntan Charlie’s. But that was FOR THE SENATE.
Marco is perfectly qualified to serve in the Senate but as for the presidency, we need to find out about his parents’ citizenship history. If they weren’t citizens in May, 1971, then Marco may not be a NBC. I do not think tea partiers or documenters like my self should be hypocritical about strict eligibility standards.
SCOTUS could bring it all into focus for us but they refuse to do that. As one supposed acquaintance of Scalia quoted him as saying, “It takes four.” To get a hearing, that is.
At any rate, the whole issue is WAY too premature since Marco is just barely starting to get his feet wet in the Senate. I hope he proves to be a star but only time will tell. In the meantime, let’s knock off the presidency talk about him...and also about Allen West. They are good campaigners and good conservatives but if their ethnicity were different, nobody would be pushing them so hard and so fast.
Please lets not be like the Democrats with their disgusting identity politics.
“parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”
I’m sure if it were argued before SCOTUS, Rubio’s lawyers would maintain that Cuban refugees like Marco’s parents had no allegiance whatsoever to the Castro regime, which is one reason why those folks are under a different set of residency rules(Cuban Adjustment Act) than other foreigners. The Cold War and taking a moral and political shot at the USSR is another reason.
If Rubio’s parents had not sworn sole allegiance to the U.S. and its Constitution when Marco was born, if they were not naturalized, then Marco is not a natural born citizen. I do not know for a fact that this is the case. Bobby Jindal has been clear about his parents’ naturalization, which accrued after he was born here. Obama’s father, of course, was never naturalized. We have a naturalization process which does not provide for retroactive declaration. Citizenship is a privilege, and natural born citizenship was required only for our president and vice president. It appears that our Constitution is now a minor historical artifact, not understood by our poorly educated citizens, and suppressed by the state-run media.
Thanks to “bad behavior” on the part of our jurists and legislators we are well along on an old script. Obama’s comrades have crippled our petroleum and energy production capabilities, thrown the economy into a downward spiral nowhere near compete, and have sown violence, withdrawing support for the largest Arab state, having already seen Lebanon fall to Iran=Syria, and watching - probably helping Hezbollah=Iran=Syria=Lebanon overthrow Jordan, to turn most of the middle east over to Islamic fundamentalists.
The public does not understand Arab Islam. Egypt will follow Iran, possibly led by the the principal protector of the myth that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, Al Baradie. Islamic fundamentalists are manipulating Western naivety with their usual skill. This will lead to war. That is what Muslims want. That is what the Koran is all about - Jihad. They would happily lose ten million if they can kill 1 million Jews, because the 10 million died for Allah, and are going to a mythical better life.
Obama’s Harvard, and probably Columbia, educations, according to Percy Sutton, Malcolm X's attorney and a New York Assemblyman, was funded by Whalid bin Talaal. What could Bin-Talaal he have been thinking? Obama is supporting Shia sponsored terrorism, though Egypt is largely composed of Sunni Muslims, as they kill Christians at an increasing pace. We can ponder what the Marxists will gain by fomenting more Islamic dictators in the Middle East. It is most likely seen as a means of weakening the U.S., making it ripe for the final socialist takeover of the U.S. government, because, as the Israelis have proved, again and again, even a weakened U.S. military, can destroy Arab Islam if need be. But we won't have the economic or political will to protect the Saudi family. That is why Obama isn't concerned about losing the House. Much bigger moves are coming, with the help of the economic destruction brought on by the collapse of the Middle East. The Saudis will not benefit by this, and might even be one of the early casualties.
I’m tired of trying to find the answer. Why doesn’t someone just ask Rubio if his parents were both citizens when he was born?
Yep, I keep asking for proof that it says both parents must be US citizens if someone is born in the US and you keep saying “Oh look at this shiny object I found” and it has NOTHING to do with this thread
-____
I hear you, and I want to know the same thing. I can’t believe nobody knows the answer. Ask Rubio.
WTF? Is that real?
I’m here. Sheesh, let me know if it’s a true and accurate screen shot of his tax return.
IMPEACH!
As to post #161.( if true)
All three of us know what that means. The Obamas likely have accounts in Indonesia, Spain, and maybe the Vatican banks, or elesewhere.
to think that Obama is discouraging Americans to invest offshore by castig a chill on foreign investment accounts
while hitting it himself? Feel the rage.He likely has $50,000 dollar accounts in many different locations, or he has a waiver.
**************************************************
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2485940/posts?page=1#1
If you thought you could move your capital to the non-sequestration safety of non-US financial institutions, sorry you lose - the law now says so. Capital Controls are now here and are now fully enforced by the law.
Let’s parse through the just passed law, which has been mentioned by exactly zero mainstream media outlets.
Here is the default new state of capital outflows:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after chapter 3 the following new chapter:
‘‘CHAPTER 4—TAXES TO ENFORCE REPORTING ON CERTAIN FOREIGN ACCOUNTS ‘‘Sec. 1471. Withholdable payments to foreign financial institutions. ‘‘Sec. 1472. Withholdable payments to other foreign entities. ‘‘Sec. 1473. Definitions. ‘‘Sec. 1474. Special rules. ‘‘SEC. 1471. WITHHOLDABLE PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any withholdable payment to a foreign financial institution which does not meet the requirements of subsection (b), the withholding agent with respect to such payment shall deduct and withhold from such payment a tax equal to 30 percent of the amount of such payment.
Clarifying who this law applies to:
‘‘(C) in the case of any United States account maintained by such institution, to report on an annual basis the information described in subsection (c) with respect to such account, ‘‘(D) to deduct and withhold a tax equal to 30 percent of—
‘‘(i) any passthru payment which is made by such institution to a recalcitrant account holder or another foreign financial institution which does not meet the requirements of this subsection, and
‘‘(ii) in the case of any passthru payment which is made by such institution to a foreign financial institution which has in effect an election under paragraph (3) with respect to such payment, so much of such payment as is allocable to accounts held by recalcitrant account holders or foreign financial institutions which do not meet the requirements of this subsection.
What happens if this brand new law impinges and/or is in blatant contradiction with existing foreign laws?
‘‘(F) in any case in which any foreign law would (but for a waiver described in clause (i)) prevent the reporting of any information referred to in this subsection or subsection (c) with respect to any United States account maintained by such institution—
‘‘(i) to attempt to obtain a valid and effective waiver of such law from each holder of such account, and ‘‘(ii) if a waiver described in clause (i) is not obtained from each such holder within a reasonable period of time, to close such account.
Not only are capital flows now to be overseen and controlled by the government and the IRS, but holders of foreign accounts can kiss any semblance of privacy goodbye:
‘‘(c) INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED ON UNITED STATES ACCOUNTS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The agreement described in subsection (b) shall require the foreign financial institution to report the following with respect to each United States account maintained by such institution: ‘‘(A) The name, address, and TIN of each account holder which is a specified United States person and, in the case of any account holder which is a United States owned foreign entity, the name, address, and TIN of each substantial United States owner of such entity. ‘‘(B) The account number. ‘‘(C) The account balance or value (determined at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may provide). ‘‘(D) Except to the extent provided by the Secretary, the gross receipts and gross withdrawals or payments from the account (determined for such period and in such manner as the Secretary may provide).
The only exemption to the rule? If you hold the meager sum of $50,000 or less in foreign accounts.
‘‘(B) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS HELD BY INDIVIDUALS.—Unless the foreign financial institution elects to not have this subparagraph apply, such term shall not include any depository account maintained by such financial institution if— ‘‘(i) each holder of such account is a natural person,and ‘‘(ii) with respect to each holder of such account, the aggregate value of all depository accounts held (in whole or in part) by such holder and maintained by the same financial institution which maintains such account does not exceed $50,000.
And, while we are on the topic of definitions, here is how “financial account” is defined by the US:
‘‘(2) FINANCIAL ACCOUNT.—Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, the term ‘financial account’ means, with respect to any financial institution— ‘‘(A) any depository account maintained by such financial institution, ‘‘(B) any custodial account maintained by such financial institution, and ‘‘(C) any equity or debt interest in such financial institution (other than interests which are regularly traded on an established securities market). Any equity or debt interest which constitutes a financial account under subparagraph (C) with respect to any financial institution shall be treated for purposes of this section as maintained by such financial institution.
In case you find you do not like to be subject to capital controls, you are now deemed a “Recalcitrant Account Holder.”
‘‘(6) RECALCITRANT ACCOUNT HOLDER.—The term ‘recalcitrant account holder’ means any account holder which— ‘‘(A) fails to comply with reasonable requests for the information referred to in subsection (b)(1)(A) or (c)(1)(A), or ‘‘(B) fails to provide a waiver described in subsection (b)(1)(F) upon request.
But guess what - if you are a foreign Central Bank, or if the Secretary determined that you are “a low risk for tax evasion” (unlike the Secretary himself) you still can do whatever the hell you want:
‘‘(f) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN PAYMENTS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to any payment to the extent that the beneficial owner of such payment is— ‘‘(1) any foreign government, any political subdivision of a foreign government, or any wholly owned agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, ‘‘(2) any international organization or any wholly owned agency or instrumentality thereof, ‘‘(3) any foreign central bank of issue, or ‘‘(4) any other class of persons identified by the Secretary for purposes of this subsection as posing a low risk of tax evasion.
One thing we are confused about is whether this law is a preamble, or already incorporates, the flow of non-cash assets, such as commodities, and, thus, gold. If an account transfers, via physical or paper delivery, gold from a domestic account to a foreign one, we are not sure if the language deems this a 30% taxable transaction, although preliminary discussions with lawyers indicates this is likely the case.
And so the noose on capital mobility tightens, as very soon the only option US citizens have when it comes to investing their money, will be in government mandated retirement annuities, which will likely be the next step in the capital control escalation, which will culminate with every single free dollar required to be reinvested into the US, likely in the form of purchasing US Treasury emissions such as Treasuries, TIPS and other worthless pieces of paper.
Congratulations bankrupt America - you are now one step closer to a thoroughly non-free market.
BTTT for a great assessment that is coming true.
I just hope that enough SCOTUS guys decide to do the right thing. If Congress and SCOTUS continue to do nothing regarding 0bastard’s eligibility, well - the future is very dark indeed.
Good post Spaulding. You teach History( at Spaulding School in NH??)
I can spot a historian a mile away who has read Churchill thoroughly.
Agree, it is an excellent post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.