Monday, February 02, 2009

A Hard-to-Ignore Request!

Over at The Betrayal I found a great letter of request written and sent to Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) that I think, ultimately, will be difficult to ignore! Spread this information and request around to all the blogs! A person from each state should send a copy to their senators in that state!

I had originally posted this under my last blog post. However, after thinking about the importance of the matter, I decided to create a new blog post for the letter and links.

Fellow Patriots - get busy and send this letter to your senators in Washington!

Christine

*******

Quote:

Posted on February 2nd, 2009 by David-Crockett

Natural Born Citizen…Orly? published:

Download Copy Here

1 February 2009 Sunday

U.S. Senator Patty Murray, (D - WA)Washington, D.C. Office173 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510Phone: (202) 224-2621Fax: (202) 224-0238via Fax: (202) 224-0238

Re: U.S. Constitution; FIRST CONGRESS; THIRD CONGRESS

Dear Senator Murray:
Your representation as a U.S. Senator is formally requested within this letter. Due to a rapidly growing concern among voters in the State of Washington there appears to be a developing crisis requiring your membership in the U.S. Congress to fully cooperate with the voters and address four questions below.

In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) are margin notes that state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states,“…children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States…shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…” [THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415] [Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3] (Attachment A)

The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,“…children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States…shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…” [[FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104] [Document margin note: Their children residing here, deemed citizens. Document margin note: Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.] (Attachment B)
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,“No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United Statesat the time of the adoption of this Constitution,shall be eligible to the office of President…” (Attachment C)

The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner cites

“…the Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 82-414) …states that‘…A person born…after April 30, 1900 is a CITIZEN (emphasis added) of the United States at birth….’” (Attachment D)

U.S. Senator Patty Murray, (D - WA)
1 February 2009 Sunday
Page Two

WE, voters in the State of Washington, witness to these four documents cited, i.e.:
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789

The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warnerand we also witness the apparent denial in the current United States Congress to address the phrase “natural born citizen.”

THEREFORE, WE formally request a comprehensive answer from your position as Senator to the following four questions:

ONE
As a U.S. Senator, how did you define the term “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” versus “CITIZENS” in regard to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election; as so stated in the U.S. Constitution, the FIRST and the THIRD Congress of the United States?

TWO
Are children of citizens (plural) of the United States granted citizenship if one parent is not a citizen of the United States; as the phrase “…children of citizens of the United States…” is so stated in FIRST and THIRD Congress of the United States?

THREE
To be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” of the United States is a person required to be a child of “citizens (plural) of the United States” as the phrase “natural born citizen” is so stated in the U.S. Constitution, and the FIRST Congress of the United States?

FOUR
On behalf of voters in the State of Washington, will you provide us with comprehensive clarification from United States Senator Mark R. Warner regarding the legal difference between the legal term/phrases “CITIZEN of the United States” and “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States?”

In advance, I thank you for your prompt and comprehensive response to these four questions.

Very truly yours,
Michael Angelus

Attachments:
A: Image of original document THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21, 1795, p. 415

B: Image of original document FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.3, 1790, p. 104

C: Image of original document Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789:

D: United States Senator Mark Warner (Virginia) January 26, 2009 letter to Dr. David Earl-Graef

*******
P.S. There is something highly suspicious going on over at Dr. Orly's blog site. When I clicked on the link to her post about this letter, I got the "Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site [included the web address] Operation Aborted!!"

However, when I simply click on the sidebar link to her original weblog address, everything appears fine. You can read the "operation aborted" posts!

Does anyone know why such a thing would be happening?

10 comments:

Matt W. said...

Testing, testing, 1,2,3...

Christinewjc said...

Thanks so much, Matt. It appears that people like you who have blogs with Blogger are able to post.

I have had two WordPress people tell me that they were unable to post comments. I just don't know why this is happening.

Thanks again for running the "test."

Sincerely,
Christine

Christinewjc said...

Just received an email with additional information. One WordPress blogger told me that the "verification" letters do not show up.

Faultline USA said...

Christine. I am able to post but also have a blogger blog. I too noticed "There is something highly suspicious going on over at Dr. Orly's blog site. When I clicked on the link to her post about this letter, I got the "Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site [included the web address] Operation Aborted!!"

Gary Baker said...

Hi Christine,

Just testing as well.

4simpsons said...

Testing . . . I have a Wordpress blog and use the Open ID option below.

Euripides said...

I just went through this problem with Blogger. If you want to post a comment to a Blogspot site, you need to set your preferences to accept third party cookies.

Susan Smith said...

Hi Christine--

This is a test per the request. (ss)

Christinewjc said...

Thanks, everyone, for responding to my request. Really appreciate it!

Barb - Someone who can post comments at Orly's blog might want to tell her what is happening. Her site is definitely being attacked!

Euripides - Thanks for the tip about settings to accept "third party cookies." I will pass that info along to those who are currently having difficulty.

Thanks again - all!

Christinewjc said...

Got your two "tests" Mark.

And I have to say, "no you're not!"

Thanks for coming by and posting a comment!