View Single Post
 
Old 08-09-2015, 11:29 PM
frisco kid frisco kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 230
It was witnessed by a woman who actually called it a golfball.

She saw the same ball that was filmed by cbs, nbc, ny1 and wb11, above. JERSEY SIDE=NOT 175.

As this terrified woman was running pell-mell away from the first collapsing tower — her hair, coat and feet on fire — Ms. Patricia Ondrovic witnessed vehicles parked along the street spontaneously erupt into flames. She even witnessed an aircraft disappear while in flight:

I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn’t there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions. I just kept on running north.” And she’s got a lot more to say. - See more at:

Witnesses Saw People ?Vaporized? on 9/11 Just Wondering ? Alternative News and Opinions




9/11 Reflections Part 2: Interview with Simon Shack of September Clues - Salem-News.Com

An independent journalist in Oregon, Ersun Warncke, actually did perform this tedious task and came up with this data:

Out of 2,970 9/11 victims listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file.

Ersun Warncke Salem-News.com

I did an exhaustive check of the list of victims provided on the CNN website. What I found is that out of 2,970 people listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file. Of those, not a single one has a valid “last address of record” on file. That is a lot of clerical error, or maybe Simon Shack is not as crazy as it would seem at first glance[2].

If your interpretation were correct, then adding the words foreigners and aliens would've been pointless because it was already understood that ambassadors and foreign ministers were not U.S. Citizens. The words who and belong are also unnecessary to make your fake point. This is shortest way it would've been written. YOUR EXCUSE IS DEBUNKED.

He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States

He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States


Clever article, but it still does not debunk how clearly Senator Jacob Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause that he proposed and was ratified. He described three groups and used two words to describe the first group. Howard's comments and clarification came after concerns that the new language was too broad in regards to acquiring citizenship.

Senator Jacob Howard of MI proposed the Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment in May of 1866. It was ratified in July of 1868. Thankfully, in no uncertain terms Howard confirmed that Illegal alien babies born here are NOT U.S. citizens.

The Citizenship Clause was proposed by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the joint resolution from the House of Representatives which had framed the initial draft of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment.[26] The heated debate on the proposed new language in the Senate focused on whether Howard's proposed language would apply more broadly than the wording of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.[27]

Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[26] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.

He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.


The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/112/94

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1603

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44251.pdf

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCS1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
__________________
 

Last edited by frisco kid; 11-03-2018 at 10:32 PM.
Reply With Quote