HEARING TO RESUME ON FRIDAY EVENING
by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 11, 2013) — [Editor’s Note: Pete Santilli uses obscene language.]
As of this writing, Pete Santilli is broadcasting live on the “lynching” of Police Chief Mark Kessler, whose fate was discussed on Thursday evening at the Gilberton Borough town hall complex.
Kessler had attracted national attention by producing obscenity-filled and what some perceive as violent videos in his purported support of the Second Amendment. At the end of July, he was suspended without pay for 30 days, after which the suspension was extended. Thursday’s hearing was set to determine whether or not he will be terminated permanently.
The borough council accused Kessler of using borough property without permission and making controversial statements on his radio show, but his attorney claims the allegations are “trumped up.”
Thursday’s hearing was continued to Friday evening because an attendee dropped a loaded gun which fortunately did not fire, and the meeting was then adjourned.
Kessler is planning on attending protests over the weekend in Washington, DC to deliver a “list of demands,” according to Santilli, at the World War II Memorial. The list of demands reportedly includes the fact that Obama’s scant documentation has been proven to be fraudulent by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.
Kessler had been in attendance at the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers’ Association (CSPOA) conference in St. Charles, MO at the end of May and interviewed Cold Case Posse lead investigator, Mike Zullo. Ten days later, Kessler inexplicably began to hurl insults at Zullo on his radio show.
In early August, Kessler was a guest on the Rense radio program.
A resolution drafted by Kessler in January nullifying any federal gun-control legislation which Congress might pass was drafted by Kessler and adopted by the Borough of Gilberton.
A citizen journalist reporting to Santilli said that truckers from Gilberton drove to Washington to participate in the Truckers’ Ride for the Constitution which began today and is reportedly slowing traffic in the Beltway.
At 12:58 p.m., the citizen journalist and Santilli are discussing why Obama, who was “not born in Hawaii,” is still in the White House.
Santilli is calling for Obama’s resignation. He is also Kessler’s radio program co-host.
Kessler is running as a write-in candidate for Schuylkill County Sheriff.
People are still stuck on the birthplace issue as if it were the sole deciding factor in determining whether or not Obama is a “Natural-Born Citizen”. It is not the sole determinant. Being born in the USA (Jus Soli) is but one of two factors that define a “Natural-Born Citizen”. In addition to being born in the United States, a President/Candidate MUST have Parents who were both American citizens themselves (100% Jus Sanguinis) when the President/Candidate was born. The VP must also meet this definition since he/she would not be able to ascend to the Presidency if they were not a “Natural-Born Citizen”.
1st, the horse must be hitched to the front of the cart.
The attempt to be chronologically specific about the ‘evolution’ of U.S. Citizenship requires the understanding that ALL citizenship, in the 1st instant, is a result of a political calculation that invokes some form of ‘naturalization’, whether it be immediate or conditional, explicit or tacit, all being provided for in the Constitution at A1S8C4.
The Constitution “established” a New Nation among the Nations of the World and prior to it there were NO U.S. Citizens under the Constitution, nor could there have been any U.S. natural born Citizens.
That the Constitution “collectively naturalized” those persons who were then Citizens of any of the several States under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and no others, has been acknowledged broadly, including Justice Taney in Scott v Sandford and Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett.
Therefore, the Founding generation would also be considered as “1st generation Citizens” which is consistent with the terms of the 1790 Act passed by the authority and mandate of Article I Section 8 Clause 4 and therefore their children then existing were then also U.S. Citizens.
(Commencement of U.S. Citizenship for the Founding generation was considered in a retroactive fashion to the date of the Declaration of Independence in several probate & citizenship cases).
The 1790 Act says in words, and words that require it, that a child of a married U.S. Citizen father is born a (U.S.) natural born Citizen.
The specific words, before statutory interpretation, states that such a “foreign born” child is to be “considered as” a (U.S.) natural born Citizen. In the end that has become a distinction without a difference given that the “foreign born” provision was repealed and replaced with such a child being considered as a (U.S.) “Citizen”, again, the “considered as” being a distinction without any legal effect between a native born and foreign born “U.S. Citizen, in and of its-self.
What is important to consider is the statutory significance of the term of words “considered as” and the residual effect on the status of U.S. natural born Citizens post the 1795 repeal of the `1790 Act.
When using the term of words “considered as” for legal and statutory purposes there is a requirement of the existence of a “counter-part” and or comparison, similarity, (a thing sharing similar characteristics), relationship, likeness, and or parallel, with only an exception accounting for the degree of difference that creates a distinction or distinctions from which the statutory provision arises.
So the provision of the 1790 Act that says; “ … And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as (U.S.) natural born Citizens: . …” REQUIRES a “native born counter-part” in order for the provision to even posit such a consideration given that the only relevant distinction is “where” the child is born insofar as the authority of the 1790 Act extends to U.S. Citizens that travel beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, is concerned.
Much ado is given to the repeal of the 1790 Act insofar a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law, is concerned. Many postulate that U.S. natural born Citizens were removed entirely from the codified Federal statutes, being left orphaned as it were.
The legislative repeal of the legislated Act did not and could not repeal the Constitutional requirement for the existence of (U.S.) natural born Citizens nor did the repealing Act of 1795 extend its repeal of the 1790 Acts “foreign born” child’s “considered as” status to the counterpart “native born” child of a married U.S. Citizen father.
Again, the “foreign born” (U.S.) natural born Citizen child could NOT have existed without the native born counterpart, lest they would have been created of whole-cloth by the Congress and all potential Presidents would have been contemplated to be foreign born under such a construction.
{Edits and citation suggestions appreciated}
//// to be Continued.
At least a few more people are risking all to expose Obama’s coup and usurpation in an apathetic and mostly coward based society hiding behind profit based and greedy aggressive tactics to exploit or steal money any way available on the Democratic agenda. In five years we have seen multiple Military Veterans and retired members run the gamut of Obama’s thugs willing to do anything for a paycheck even against their own members.