Daily Archives: January 19, 2026

Colon Cancer IVC Protocol

Posted on January 19, 2026 by | 3 comments

Do our loved ones & friends KNOW ? - and don’t count on your mainstream Doc to tell you!

  • Note taken from Health Sciences Institute e-Alert - Jenny Thompson - 1/14/16

    Dear Reader,

Imagine this scene: You’ve suffered through round after round of radiation. Sickening chemo drugs cost you your hair and had you bent over the toilet more times than you can count.

And now your doctor tells you nothing is working — and that your cancer may even be incurable.

That’s what too many cancer patients — especially people with colon cancers — are hearing every year.

But now there’s new hope on the horizon. Because researchers have proven that a simple vitamin cure may hold the key to helping you beat even the hardest-to-treat cancers.

And it’s available to you right now.

Cutting off cancer’s food supply

“This (could) be the one answer… everybody’s striving for.”

That’s what Channing Der, a molecular biologist at the University of North Carolina, said about his latest research on using intravenous vitamin C (IVC) to stop colon cancer dead in its tracks.

You see, for years people with colon cancer have had the deck stacked against them. That’s because about half the cases of colon cancer involve genetic mutations — called BRAF or KRAS — that make them nearly impossible to treat.

In other words, they spit out just about anything doctors throw at them.

Well, not anymore.

Because when Der and his colleagues tested high-dose vitamin C on colon cancer cells with BRAF and KRAS mutations, the cells started dying off in droves.

Even better? When mice with hard-to-treat colon cancer were given IVC, they ended up with far fewer — and much smaller — tumors.

Cancer cells are just like any other cells — they need “food” to keep them growing. And the colon cancer cells with these mutations make extra sure they have enough to “eat” by producing a protein that draw glucose right to them.

But large doses of vitamin C (equivalent to eating 300 oranges) actually cut off the food supply. And the next thing you know, these hungry, deadly cancer cells literally starve to death.

I’ve been telling you about the cancer-killing powers of IVC for years. And Mark Levine, a vitamin C researcher with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, said he’s hoping that this latest research finally gets more docs taking notice.

Well, I hope so, too. Because, believe it or not, IVC has been available as a cancer treatment for decades.

Linus Pauling, who won the Nobel Prize twice, began championing vitamin C to treat cancer back in the 1970s. But because you can’t patent and charge a fortune for vitamin C, Big Pharma and most mainstream docs won’t touch it with a 10-foot pole.

But that might be starting to change. Even the University of Kansas has now developed an IVC protocol for treating cancer, and lots of alternative docs are using it.

And in just the past few years, IVC has been tested on patients with deadly brain and pancreatic tumors, and it’s been found to be both well-tolerated and often highly successful.

Dr. Lewis Cantley, at Weill Cornell in New York City, and one of the authors of the current study, said that he hopes to begin clinical trials with cancer patients who have those genetic colon cancer mutations as soon as possible.

But you don’t have to wait. Because, as I said, many alternative doctors are using IVC to treat cancer right now.

To find a doctor who practices alternative or natural medicine, just go to the Health Sciences Institute database and select your state from the list.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

Sources:
“Vitamin C kills tumor cells with hard-to-treat mutation” Jocelyn Kaiser, Science, November 5, 2015, news.sciencemag.org

3 Comments

Posted in Health

Tagged

Natural born citizen status is inherited – it’s not bestowed by the Constitution or Acts of Congress

Posted on January 19, 2026 by | 2 comments

PART 2, BY PUBLIUS HULDAH

  1. Neither Obama, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz are natural born citizens. At the times they were born, their Fathers were not citizens. Location of birth is irrelevant. Those who insist that a person must be born within the US point to Section 212 of Vattel. But one must read all that Vattel wrote on the subject and which is contained in Sections 213-217.

A “natural born” citizen inherits his citizenship from his parents. Just as he inherits his eye and hair color from them, so he inherits his citizenship status. He is “born” with the hair and eye color his parents gave him, and he is “born” with the citizenship status they gave him. No provision in the Constitution made him a Citizen – no Act of Congress made him a Citizen – just as no provision in the Constitution or Act of Congress determined his eye or hair color. His citizenship, eye color, and hair color are all inherited from his parents. THAT’s what a natural born citizen is. READ all of the sections on this which Vattel wrote: By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular. In my first paper, you can find the links to Vattel and other original source documents illustrating the original intent of “natural born citizen”.

2. Our first generation of Presidents were all born as subjects of the British King. There were no US citizens until July 4, 2026 when we proclaimed our Independence. Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 contains a grandfather clause which permitted our first batch of Presidents to qualify. They were citizens at the time of the Adoption of our Constitution.

3. It appears that both of Donald Trump’s Parents were Citizens at the time he was born. It is irrelevant that his Mother was an immigrant: She came here from Scotland; and later became a US Citizen during 1942 – several years before Donald was born. Donald is a natural born citizen eligible to be President. [But because of the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at the time of our Framing, the status of Donald’s Mother is probably irrelevant.]

4. I found another article on this topic which is excellent: http://www.latimes.com/…/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-…

5. Our Country would be so much better off if people would stop spouting off about this subject until after they become well-informed. And they can’t become well-informed until they have studied this carefully using original source documents and read all the original source documents I cite in my first paper.

And you must detach the result you want from your thinking when you are studying. TRUTH sheds its own Light – and you will NEVER get that Light until you love TRUTH above all things including the outcome you want. I am well aware of the disgraceful cases where peoples’ views on this issue are determined by whom THEY want for President.

Be sure to read the short article in the LA Times. The law professor author discusses the 3 ways of reading our Constitution:

  • original intent (yours truly);
  • textualism (the words mean what they mean today not what they meant when our Constitution was drafted & ratified);
  • it’s a living, breathing, evolving Constitution which means whatever the Judges, or whoever has the power, says it means.

Which are you? Think hard about the ramifications of each position before you decide.

Jan 17, 2026

2 Comments

Posted in 2016 Election

Tagged

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

Posted on January 19, 2026 by | 4 comments

THERE IS THE AUTHORITY ON THE CONSTITUTION and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

BY PUBLIUS HULDAH

We have been visited recently with several very silly articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1788), and hence is qualified to be President:

Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress may define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.

Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.

Human Events claims that anyone born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.

Jake Walker at Red State purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present. After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House, Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”:

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…” [emphasis mine]

“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” [emphasis mine]

But “subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to Citizens of a Republic!

The four writers don’t know what they are talking about. But I will tell you the Truth and prove it. We first address Word Definitions.

Word Definitions:

Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.

Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.

So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.

So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?

What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?

Article II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution, requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen”.

The meaning of this term is not set forth in The Constitution or in The Federalist Papers; and I found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention or in Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.

What does this tell us? That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around defining “pizza”, because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is.

Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles1 already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.

And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work. I’ll prove it.

How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:

During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

“… 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 public 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…” (2nd para) [boldface added]

Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”

Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:

“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]

In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:

“… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.” This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]

So! Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3

Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:

From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1 [READ this footnote!] We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country.They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

Do you see? The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”. But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.

How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:

The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787. John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:

“…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”4

According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” [boldface added]

In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.5

Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States – not merely born here (as were our Founders), butborn as citizens.

And do not forget that the children born here of slaves did not become “citizens” by virtue of being born here. Their parents were slaves; hence (succeeding to the condition of their parents) they were born as slaves. Black people born here did not become citizens until 1868 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

So! Do you see? If Our Framers understood that merely being born here were sufficient to confer status as a “natural born citizen”; it would not have been necessary to grandfather in our first generation of Presidents; and all the slaves born here would have been “natural born citizens”. But they were born as non-citizen slaves, because their parents were non-citizen slaves.

David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship:

David Ramsay was an historian, Founding Father, and member of the Continental Congress [REMEMBER: This is where they “pounced” on Vattel], whose Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring The Character And Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States was published in 1789, just after ratification of our Constitution and the Year the new Government began.

It is an interesting dissertation and only 8 pages long. At the bottom of his page 6, Ramsay states:

“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right,belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.”[modernized spelling & emphasis are mine]

Do you see? Ramsay’s Dissertation sets forth the understanding of the Time, formally stated by Vattel and incorporated by our Framers, that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of citizens. And we had no “citizens” until July 4, 1776.

Now, let us look at the First Congress.

How the First Congress followed Vattel and our Framers:

Article I, §8, cl. 4 delegates to Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.6 Pursuant to that power, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790. Here is the text, which you can find at 1 Stat. at Large, 103:

“SECTION1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 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 natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States … APPROVED, March 26, 1790.” 7

So! This Act of the First Congress implements the Principles set forth in Vattel, embraced by our Framers, and enshrined in Art. II, §1, cl. 5, that:

  • A “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of parents who are citizens.
  • Minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized. Thus, they are not “natural born” citizens.

Our Framers rejected the anti-republican and feudal notion that mere location of birth within a Country naturalizes the children of a foreigner. 8

The distinction written into Our Constitution and implemented by the Naturalization Act of 1790 is between someone who isborn a citizen, by being born of parents who are already Citizens, and someone who becomes a citizen after birth by naturalization. Only the former are eligible to be President.

So! Original Intent? Or Whatever the People with the Power want it to Mean?

I have proved the original intent of “natural born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 – it is one who is born of parents who are citizens. We may not lawfully change that definition except by Amendment to the Constitution. Section 1 of the 14thAmendment does not change the definition because the 14th Amendment defines “citizens” of the United States (which includes naturalized citizens) and not “natural born Citizen”.

Some Democrats no longer pretend that the glib, handsome & black Obama (who, following the condition of his putative father, was born a subject of the British Crown) is “a natural born Citizen”. They now assert that the Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever they choose to run for president, including someone who is not qualified for the office. [See pages 3 & 4 of the linked Court Order.]

The school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy our sovereignity. Once we accept that our President need not be a “natural born Citizen”, we will have made a major step towards submission to global government. Because then, anybody can be President. PH.

Endnotes:

1 Monarchies have subjects. Republics are formed by citizens. We broke from a monarchy under which we weresubjects; and with our War for Independence, were transformed into citizens!

The common law of England recognizes only subjects of the Crown. England has never had citizens. Her feudal doctrine of “natural born subjects” is set forth in Book I, Ch. 10, of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (I modernized the spelling):

“THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the … allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie … which binds the subject to the king …” [emphasis mine]

Under feudalism, people are possessions who belong to the Land in which they were born. So they are “naturally” subject to whoever owns the Land. They were born as subjects to the owner of the land [ultimately, the King] on which they were born.

With our War for Independence, We repudiated the notion of natural born subjects. As Citizens, We ordained and established Our Constitution wherein We created a federal government which was subject to us!

Jake Walker doesn’t seem to know the difference between being “a subject of a King” and “a citizen of a Republic”, as he equates the feudal concept of “natural born subject” with the Republican concept of “natural born Citizen”.

Chet Arthur and Human Events tell us the “original intent” of “natural born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 is given by an Amendment defining “citizen” [not “natural born citizen”] ratified 80 years later!

And Bret Baier seems unaware that the methods for amending the Constitution are set forth in Article V; and that Congress may not amend the Constitution by making a law which redefines terms set forth in the Constitution!

These four amateurs would do well to study Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny, by Professor Edward J. Erler. Erler addresses the distinctions between “citizenship” and “subjectship”; and the concept of “citizenship” at §1 of the 14th Amendment. He proves that not everyone born here is a “citizen”: Only those whose parents are “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” are citizens. Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” – they are invaders whose allegiance is to the Country they left. Foreign diplomats stationed here are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. Thus, children born here of these aliens are not citizens!

2 The 1916 ed. of Law of Nations with Lapradelle’s introduction is a Google digitized book. If you download it, you get an easily readable text.

3 Many thanks to my friend, David J. Edwards, who provided me with Evidence of Vattel’s profound influence on our Founders & Framers.

4 The hyperlink contains another link where you can see Jay’s handwritten letter!

5 Note that Art. I, §2, cl. 2, permits naturalized citizens to serve as Representatives; and Art. I, §3, cl. 3, permits them to serve as Senators.

6 “Naturalization” is the process, established by law, by which foreigners become citizens.

7 Note that in §§ 215, 216 & 217, Vattel says that children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. He goes on to say that by the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular. But he doesn’t expressly say they are “natural born citizens”. The italicized words at the end of the 1790 Act correct that and make it clear that children of citizens of the United States are “natural born citizens” wherever they are born.

8 The 14th Amendment doesn’t change this one whit! READ Prof. Erler’s paper, linked above.

NOTICE! To all who strain to find something I “failed to mention”: I didn’t quote Minor v. Happersett because Minormerely paraphrases, in dicta, a portion of the Naturalization Act of 1790, the text of which is set forth above.

July 19, 2026

POST SCRIPT added July 25, 2012:

The following valuable comment was posted by Political Junkie Too at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2908140/posts?page=18

From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791:

If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.

In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.

But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.

The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.

Yes, Paine did use the term “native of the country.” Does this mean “native born” instead of “natural born?” We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites “foreigner” and “half a foreigner” as the oppposite to “full natural” connection to the country. So, what is “half a foreigner?”

It seems to me that “half a foreigner” is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a “full natural… connection with the country.”

Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want “half-foreigners” to be president, and why only people with a “full natural… connection with the country” were allowed to become President.

Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.

Paine’s description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.

4 Comments

Posted in 2016 Election

Tagged

Image

Donald Trump

3 Comments

Posted on January 19, 2026 by in Donald Trump

Tagged

“I’ve lived in Your Future and It Did Not Work”

Posted on January 19, 2026 by | 4 comments

BY ILEANA JOHNSON

Vladimir Konstantinovich Bukovsky, a Russian writer born in 1942 but educated at Cambridge, was a dissident in the Soviet Union of the 1960s and 1970s. Because he exposed the Soviet practice of jailing political prisoners in psychiatric institutions, the young Russian was sentenced to twelve years (1964-1976) in prison, labor camps, and psychiatric wards under the brutal Soviet regime that did not allow any dissenting opinions. He was released to the West in 1976.

After the fall of the Soviet empire, the Russian government invited him in 1992 to testify against the criminal actions of the Soviet Communist Party. According to Paul Belien, who interviewed Bukovsky in 2006, in order to “prepare for his testimony, Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government.” http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

The documents Bukovsky was able to read and copy, allegedly confirm “the existence of a ‘conspiracy’ to turn the European Union into a socialist organization.”

Vladimir Bukovsky is not shy about calling both the demised Soviet Union and the European Union a “monster.” No sooner had they buried the communist monster, he said, that a new leviathan was created – the European Union.

The similarities of the two are obvious to Bukovsky. The Soviet Union was ruled by fifteen unelected people who appointed each other and were not accountable to anyone. The Supreme Soviet was the Soviet Union’s parliament that rubber-stamped what the Politburo decided. Nobody dared to diverge from its platform.

The EU is governed by twenty people who are also not elected, are not accountable to anyone, meet in secret, and nobody can fire them. Parliament members are so unimportant that they only get one minute to speak in the chambers. The EU Parliament is “elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation,” Bukovsky said. The similarity with the Supreme Soviet is glaring. It votes on silly things and the average MP can only speak six minutes per year in the chamber, he added.

There are hundreds if not thousands of “Eurocrats,” handsomely paid, with huge staffs, privileges that people can only dream of, and attractive bonuses; and nobody really knows exactly what they do or “fail to do.”

Bukovsky described how the Soviet Union was created by force, many times with military occupation. Likewise, the EU was created by “coercion and economic bullying,” he noted.

Nations did not necessarily join the EU voluntarily. They voted in referendum after referendum “until the people voted the way that was wanted.” Bukovsky called it a “shotgun marriage.”

The Soviet Union had to constantly grow and spread; otherwise it would have collapsed. The historic entity, the Soviet people, was created at the expense of nationalities that were forced to relinquish their customs, languages, and ethnic traditions. Bukovsky sees the same development about the European Union. The entity EU created is called European, a person with no national feelings, living as a pawn in a multi-national community. And eventually, we will all become global citizens subjugated to the power of the U.N. and those elitists that pull its strings.

When the Soviet Union collapsed after 73 years, the end result was widespread ethnic conflict, in the wake of the destruction of the nation-state. Likewise, Brussels is absorbing nation-states with the idea that eventually they will cease to exist. There are already changes in school curricula, separating students from their history and their identity as French, Greek, or Italian citizens and turning them into European or global citizens.

Corruption was endemic in the Soviet system and such corruption is “flashing in the EU.” They keep telling us the same story in the EU as in the Soviet Union,” that a federal state is necessary in order to avoid war. “

There are no Soviet style Gulags in the EU but “political gulags” called political correctness. PC stifles freedom of speech installing a self-imposed gulag in which you are not allowed to speak of race, of ideology, to criticize Islam or the massive influx of illegal immigrants and refugees.

How did the European Union come to be? In his opinion, the turning point occurred in 1985-86 when the Italian communists and German Social-Democrats visited Gorbachev complaining about the onslaught of ‘wild capitalism.’ The left-wing parties of the West feared the loss of influence and prestige to capitalism which coincided with the communists’ fear. To avert this evil, they decided to “introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once.”

“The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that, if they worked together, they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of the open market, they would turn it into a federal state.”

Bukovsky described, in his interview with Paul Belien, a meeting that took place in January 1989 between Gorbachev and a delegation of the Trilateral Commission composed of the former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, American banker David Rockefeller, and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The goal was to convince Gorbachev to “integrate Russia into the financial institutions of the world, such as GATT, the IMF, and the World Bank.”

During the meeting, as revealed in the documents Bukovsky was allowed to peruse, Giscard d’Estaing told Gorbachev, “Mr. President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other East European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

Bukovsky continued in his 2006 interview with Paul Belien,

“This was January 1989, at a time when the Maastricht Treaty [1992] had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years’ time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution?” [2002-2003]

Bukovsky expressed his concern to Belien about the Europol with powers much bigger than the former KGB, including diplomatic immunity. They will police 32 kinds of crimes, he said; particularly worrisome to Bukovsky then was the crime of “racism” and “xenophobia.” A British government bureaucrat allegedly had told him that “those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes.”

“The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness.”

As seen everywhere, not just in Europe, political correctness has become an “oppressive ideology.” Hate speech laws in regards to race relations, religious speech, and Islam represent a “systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures.” Democracy is disappearing rapidly and systematically. Civil liberties are suspended and emergency powers by executive order are introduced.

As the recent events in Germany and other European countries have shown, the out-of-control refugee invasion is creating huge problems for its native citizens while the bureaucrats and politicians are turning a blind eye, telling their own constituents that rhetoric against the unwanted flood of refugees of military age, who rape and pillage, is just as bad as the hundreds of European women who were molested and raped.

Bukovsky believes that “The EU has grown the seeds of its own demise. Unfortunately, when it collapses, and it will, it will leave a massive destruction behind, with huge economic and ethnic problems.” He continued, “The old Soviet system was incapable of reform and so is the EU. But there is an alternative, to being ruled by those two dozen self-appointed officials in Brussels, it is called independence. You don’t have to accept what they have planned for you. After all you have never been asked if you wanted to join. I have lived in your future, and it did not work.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHOuc12J4W4

If decisive rejection of such plans would only be so easy! U.N’s Agenda 21 signed in 1992 has already been implemented around the world under the guise of Sustainable Development. Agenda 21 has now morphed into its sister on steroids, Agenda 2030, United Nation’s vision of global socialism, controlling every aspect of human life.

4 Comments

Posted in Communism

Tagged ,

White Shaming Taught At Portland College.

Posted on January 19, 2026 by | 2 comments

This is about a 3 rolls of duct tape story folks. Don’t say I did not warn you. The only thing that gives me any satisfaction about the “Special snowflakes” at College is I can just imagine when they go for their first interview and the guy tells them “there are no safe spaces here” LOL Welcome to the real world snowflake.

Portland Community College to devote an entire month to ‘whiteness’-shaming

Peter FrickeInvestigative Reporteron Jan 18, 2026 at 8:22 AM EDT

The school says the month is an “educational project” exploring how the “construct of whiteness” creates racial inequality.

Portland Community College has designated April “Whiteness History Month” (WHM), an “educational project” exploring how the “construct of whiteness” creates racial inequality.

“‘Whiteness History Month: Context, Consequences, and Change’ is a multidisciplinary, district-wide, educational project examining race and racism through an exploration of the construction of whiteness, its origins, and heritage,” PCC states on its website. “Scheduled for the month of April 2016, the project seeks to inspire innovative and practical solutions to community issues and social problems that stem from racism.”

Whiteness “does not simply refer to skin color[,] but [to] an ideology based on beliefs, values, behaviors, habits, and attitudes, which result in the unequal distribution of power and privilege based on skin color.”

The WHM site makes clear that the project is not a “celebratory endeavor” like heritage months, but is rather “an effort to change our campus climate” by “[challenging] the master narrative of race and racism through an exploration of the social construction of whiteness.” (“Challenging the master narrative,” PCC explains, “is a strategy within higher education that promotes multicultural education and equity.”)

[RELATED: Portland State course aims to ‘make whiteness strange’]

The initiative was conceived by a subcommittee of PCC’s Cascade Campus Diversity Council, which noticed that “evidence from hiring data, student-­led research, surveys, focus groups, college-wide emails, and other sources have illuminated the underlying reality of whiteness embedded in the overall college climate.” In response, the subcommittee decided that “intentional action” was necessary across the district’s four campuses to honor PCC’s strategic plan, which calls on the college to “create a nationally renowned culture for diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

According to a sub-page defining the term (adapted from a definition developed by the University of Calgary), whiteness “does not simply refer to skin color[,] but [to] an ideology based on beliefs, values, behaviors, habits, and attitudes, which result in the unequal distribution of power and privilege based on skin color.”

Not only does the concept of whiteness allow those who are “socially deemed white” to accrue benefits, the page asserts, but those benefits “are accrued at the expense of people of color, namely in how people of color are systemically and prejudicially denied equal access to those material benefits.”

The ideology of whiteness, it continues, dates back to “at least the seventeenth century, [when] ‘white’ appeared as a legal term and social designator determining social and political rights,” a concept that eventually grew to include “thousands” of “special privileges and protections” for white citizens.

For those interested in learning even more about the study of whiteness, PCC provides a link to a portal on the school library’s site listing additional resources.

Planning for the event is still ongoing, with applications being accepted until February 1 from those who wish to “get engaged” by hosting a lecture, guest speaker, panel, film screening, discussion, art exhibit, or class field trip to local art or history museums.

Representatives for PCC had not responded by press time to Campus Reform‘s inquiries as to whether professors would be allowed to assign grades for participating in field trips or on-campus events.

While details about the specific programming are not yet available, PCC does outline the objectives that it seeks to accomplish through the project, as well as the concepts it would like students to explore over the course of the month.

In the “Context” category, for instance, the school challenges students to explore the meaning and history of whiteness, specifically how it “[emerged] from a legacy of imperialism, conquest, colonialism, and the American enterprise.”

Following from that, PCC wants students to explore the “legal, cultural, economic, social, environmental, educational, and/or intrapersonal consequences of whiteness,” especially in terms of the winners and losers that result from it.

Finally, the school asks them to consider “alternatives to a culture of white supremacy … approaches and strategies to dismantling whiteness … [and] the roles and responsibilities of white people and people of color in dismantling whiteness.”

Through the event, PCC says it hopes to improve its campus climate and bolster student retention and success, while also helping students to graduate “with local, national, and global sensibilities regarding the learning tasks of Critical Race Theory.”

Campus Reform has not been able to reach spokespersons for PCC, but this story will be updated if and when they provide a response.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @FrickePete

~Steve~

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7174

2 Comments

Posted in Education, Political Corruption, Useful Idiots

Tagged , , ,

The Elephant in the Constitution that No One References when dealing with the Natural Born Citizen Issue

Posted on January 19, 2026 by | 2 comments

BY TIM BROWN FROM FREEDOMOUTPOST.COM

The issue over the idea of natural born citizen is being touted quite a bit leading up to the GOP debate this week and in its wake, too many people are confused and have not looked at what the Constitution says, nor have they taken the time to go back and see how the founders understood the term. They regurgitate what conservative talking heads and such spew out about Supreme Court rulings and cite laws that do not deal with the term natural born citizen. However, the elephant in the room (or the Constitution) that is never addressed is the differences of how there are the apparent differences of citizens in the Constitution itself.

I have alluded to this previously when pointing out that the Constitution specifically addresses in the very qualifications that there are natural born citizens and citizens.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution reads:

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. (Emphasis mine)

Now, there is no question that men like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal all meet the criteria of being at least 35 years old and have been residents in the States. There is also no question that these men are citizens. The question is, are they natural born citizens.

The other night in the debate, Ted Cruz mixed up natural born citizen and citizen just like he has in the past. However, he’s not the only one that does that. There are lots of people who claim you are either a citizen or a naturalized citizen and there is nothing else that can be added to another kind of citizen, but that’s not what the framers had in mind and it isn’t even what the Constitution presents to us.

First, as has been very eloquently presented by Publius Huldah, the founders had at least three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations in their possession during the first Constitutional Convention and they made use of it. In that book, it is the first place that we read about a natural born citizen. Vattel writes concerning citizens and natives:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Emphasis mine)

Clearly, Vattel, in defining natural born citizen, would have deemed Obama, Cruz, Jindal and Rubio as those who are not natural born citizens. I really don’t think there is any argument against Vattel on that. However, the question is, does the Constitution follow that thinking? Lo, and behold, it does.

As cited above, there is a clear distinction between a natural born citizen and the citizens in the grandfather clause. While many of those in America would be considered citizens at the time of the founding, they would never be natural born citizens and so this was the need for the grandfather clause.

But consider in addition to Article II, Section 1 that deals with the requirement to be a natural born citizen for the President, that there are other requirements for representatives and senators and notice the language:

Article I, Section 2 states:

 

“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

Article I, Section 3 states:

 

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

Do you notice something that is obviously missing from a requirement of these offices that is in the requirement for President? That’s right, there is no requirement for representatives and senators to be natural born citizens. Rather, the framers simply used the term citizen, as they did in Article II, Section 1. We can also see that they emphasized a length of time one had to be a citizen to hold that office (7 years for a representative and 9 years for a senator).

So, what is the issue, you ask? Clearly, the framers saw, for lack of a better term, “different classes of citizens.” This has nothing to do with diminishing the rights of any citizen, but distinguished who would have the privilege of serving in these offices and who could not.

The real difference here is this: natural born citizen is a fact and citizen is a legal status.

Get that?

And lest you think I’m straining at gnats here, understand that the “devil is always in the details,” or in this case, the distinction of natural born citizen and citizen. The framers have even written in such a way to make that distinction. Every other place in the Constitution, only the term citizen is used and I believe it was a clear indication of protecting an office that only one man holds and they wanted to ensure that his loyalties were not divided with dual citizenship allegiances.

My contention in this matter is not about personalities. I have addressed the issue with Obama and now I’m addressing it with those who claim to be on my side. The issue is one of principle. To mix and match citizen with natural born citizen is to undermine the very wording of the Constitution and distinction of those terms for the purpose of holding office.

This article is far longer than I desired it to be already, but I hope that it sets a foundation of understanding that the Constitution presents the two citizens as distinct. I will continue my thoughts on this in a future installment. Stay tuned.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon

2 Comments

Posted in 2016 Election

Tagged , , ,