Video Player is loading.

Up next


WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE ( Millie Weaver)

Batfly
Batfly - 7,282 Views
59
7,282 Views
Published on 16 Aug 2020 / In Film and Animation

Credit and Support: https://youtu.be/9HFxVvrXjCg

WARNING, NOT SUITABLE FOR YOUNG AUDIENCE. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED. MUST BE OVER PER COPPA and YouTube T.O.S
Note:
Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for FAIR USE for purposes such as criticism, comment,news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. this channel makes NO money from other videos,NO MONEY FROM ADVERTISER'S! Only use material for FAIR USE: criticism, comment,news, teaching and research!
Community Guidelines Disclaimer: The points of view and purpose of this video is not to bully or harass anybody,but rather share that opinion and thoughts with other like-minded individuals curious about the subject to encourage conversation and awareness.
NOTE: The views, opinions,and lifestyles of people in chat,and on panel do NOT represent that of the channel,or me the owner..... ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK! 18+

Show more
4 Comments sort Sort by

Burton Runion
Burton Runion 4 years ago

I d id not know how to share this but this man has something important to say . https://twitter.com/i/status/1295763825216626690

Reply   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
Aldo
Aldo 4 years ago

donde encuentro el video subtitulado en español'?

Reply   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
Burton Runion
Burton Runion 4 years ago

You tube took Millie's video down saying it was hate speech . I see no such thing . I see that You tube hates for people to hear it .

Reply   thumb_up 1   thumb_down 0
nobarack08
nobarack08 4 years ago

I have posted this on several sites already. It’s a long read, but I tried to be as concise as possible. First off, Kamala Harris is not eligible.

Like Obama and Ted Cruz, the mother is not relevant to the eligibility issue, and never has been. Read on and see what has been hidden will be revealed.

I know that those that taut Vattel, with the father and mother as separate entities are set in stone and this is wrong. The equation they use is Citizen Father (1) and Citizen Mother (2) and Born in Country(3), as a three legged stool. This is shortsighted as Vattel states in § 213. Inhabitants. ...their children follow the condition of their fathers;
Again; Their children follow the condition of their fathers

Then in § 215. ...By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular...

Again; children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular

This is why the mother (under the language of the Constitution does not matter, and there has been no amendment to alter that language. Remember what John Bingham wrote about the language in our Constitution.) historically a man and a woman come together as one (in marriage) they produce offspring, children. The wife becomes one with the husband and takes his condition. This is why under history and outlined in Vattel, the mother is not a separate entity, but conjoined in the union. The term as defined by the framers/founders understood this as they used Vattel in the founding of a new nation, (Ben Franklin to Charles Dumas). Thought out the Congressional record, debates, etc, the term parents were used together, however it was understood to mean as one. Christian theology (forgive the spelling here) Under the 14th Amendment, those that were born and UNDER the Jurisdiction were declared citizens, but this did not alter/change/amend the Natural-Born requirement.

Moving forward to the FIRST TIME a woman could retain her US citizenship if she married a foreigner was in 1922 with the Cable Act, when a woman married a foreign national she lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women, since again the wife takes the condition of her husband as do the children.

Again, moving forward, to The Citizenship Act of 1934, a U.S. citizen mother were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.

To that point in 2000, in the United states Supreme Court Case of In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statement

Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”

Again, documenting that prior to 1934 the mother’s citizenship was not a determining factor.

This is the reason prior to 1934, citizenship was based solely on the father. From the founding of the nation till 1934, the father was the determining criteria and the mother was irrelevant, as documented. The framers and founders understood that children follow the condition of their father.

Then in 1957, Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, an UN convention that entered force in 1958 and was ratified by 74 countries, protects the citizenships of women who married citizens of other countries (previously such a marriage often resulted in the loss of the woman’s original citizenship).

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )

Neither Acts of Congress has altered the Constitutional requirement of a Natural-Born Citizen nor as John Bingham wrote language of our Constitution, the courts have polluted the understanding and historical meaning to hide their treason

Reply   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
Show more

Up next