An outstanding and clearly scholarly article for which sincere thanks!

It’s such a shame that the two very different terms “Natural Born” and “Naturalized” sound so similar – making it far easier for devious manipulators of the truth to confuse and fool the American public.

I notice that, quite rightly, a number of the people commenting here have mentioned the very important, and highly relevant, case of “Minor v. Happersett” (1874). As the title of your article is “The Biggest Cover-Up In American History” I’d like to draw attention to a highly interesting and important related article that appeared in American Thinker a few months ago. It highlighted yet another small piece of the huge jigsaw of lies, corruption, intimidation and deceit perpetuating that cover-up….. the presumed intentional removal (no doubt by friends, supporters and minders of the central puppet in this case; Obama) of references to “Minor v. Happersett” from the Justia.com website.

Please see;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html

It’s all part of the same monstrous cover-up

Thanks again &
Kind Regards,
IQ al Rassooli

It’s such a shame that the two very different terms “Natural Born” and “Naturalized” sound so similar – making it far easier for devious manipulators of the truth to confused and fool the American public.

I notice that, quite rightly, a number of the people commenting here have mentioned the very important and highly relevant case of Minor v. Happersett (1874). As the title of this article is “The Biggest Cover-Up In American History” I’d to draw attention to a highly interesting and important related article that appeared in American Thinker a few months ago highlighting yet another small piece of the huge jigsaw of lies, corruption, intimidation and deceit perpetuating that cover-up….. the presumed intentional removal (no doubt by friends, supporters and minders of the central puppet in this case; Obama) of references to Minor v. Happersett from the Justia.com website.

Please see http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html

It’s all part of the same monstrous cover-up

Thanks again &
Kind Regards,
IQ al Rassooli

The answer to your question is very SIMPLE: No one can find a SINGLE verse in the Gospels INCITING the followers of Jesus to HATE or WAR against those who do not believe in him.

Those who MURDERED millions in the ‘name of Jesus’ were NOT Christians in the sense as TRUE followers of Jesus no matter how many CROSSES they wore.

On the other hand each and every BELIEVING follower of Muhammad – as JIHADISTS, obedient to Sharia – must and can only be: Hatemongering Warmongering Misogynist Racist and hence totally UNGODLY.

In FACT any ‘Musllim’ who wants to live in peace and harmony with us KUFFAR/ Unbelievers (80% of current humanity) would be concidered APOSTATE by the ‘believing muslim’.

IQ al Rassooli

You are correct about the 14th Amendment, however, it does not apply to the President of the United States. When one Amendment supersedes another, it is duly noted, and there is no notation in the 14th Amendment nullifying the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article I, Section 1, Paragraph 5, which remains in full force and effect.

If you read the article carefully you will note that John Jay’s letter was meant to hold the president to a higher standard of citizenship. The Founders were deeply concerned that someone of considerable influence in Great Britain or other European countries would come here, become a citizen and become president, essentially to rule the country as a monarch. In particular, historians have noted that John Jay was deeply concerned about General von Steuben, a Prussian general who assisted us in the Revolutionary War. Afterwards, however, he was sympathetic to Shay of Shays Rebellion. Von Steuben’s ultimate plan was to have a Prussian prince come here, become a citizen and ascend to the presidency and then bestow upon him the “American Crown.”

For that reason, it was decided by all the Framers that for anyone to be eligible for president they must be held to a higher standard of citizenship, and they stipulated that anyone wishing to become president MUST BE born in this country to parents [plural] who are BOTH U.S. citizens at the time of his or her birth. In no way did the 14th Amendment change that requirement. To say that anyone born here is a citizen under the 14th Amendment is true, but only for people not wishing to become president. It does not negate the full force and effect of “natural born Citizen.” To believe that it does is erroneous. That clause has been changed in any way. And that’s a problem, as well, for Marco Rubio whose parents were not citizens when he was born.

Hindus also should introspect and fearlessly criticize inhumane practices and beliefs. Hindus tend to be smug about their supposed ‘spirituality’ claiming that evil is due to the aberrant behavior of individuals and not the teachings. This is far from the case.

We cannot and should not tolerate conduct in the name of God that would not be acceptable on humanistic grounds.

Religion is the creation of man, not nature. There were no religions before humans appeared on the planet.

This is not just my opinion. The great Shankaracharya (c. 7 – 8th C) said: “Scripture is not any word of God but the product of our jnana (gnosis or knowledge) and karma (activities).”

And Shankara’s successor Madhvacharya (1238 – 1317) said: “Never accept human knowledge (paurusheya) as authority (i.e., uncritically). Humans are subject to error and deception. One deludes oneself in taking a human authored text to be free of error and deception, and he alone was the source of that knowledge.”

Again, my compliments to Amil.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

That may have been written after the Civil War but it is a permanent part of our Constitution. It hasn’t changed since it was written. It may have originally been written to guarantee the protection of freed slaves but it still applies today, a century and a half after the war, and it applies to ‘all persons’, not just former slaves. Its wording suggests a difference between those born in the US and those who were naturalized because both words were included.

By Amil Imani ~ I was born in a Muslim family that did not push religion down the kids’ throats. Yet, religion always cast a big shadow on everything. I just had to deal with it and couldn’t simply set it aside. And Islam, the Shiite Islam was the most…