Winston
Churchill was Born on British Soil
to
a Former U.S. Citizen Mother and a British Citizen Father
Ted
Cruz was born on Canadian Soil
to
a U.S.(Former?/Canadian?) Citizen Mother and a Canadian/Cuban Citizen
Father
This
post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted
on Mario Apuzzo's blog onDecember 2, 2014 at 10:35 AM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16
<<>>
- Justin said...
"I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I should be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter."
Winston Churchill did not believe he was eligible even though he had an American mother!
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Thank you for posting that interesting comment on Winston Churchill.
Mr. Churchill was correct in his answer that a constitutional amendment was needed to make him eligible to be President of the United States.
Mr. Churchill was not an Article II natural born citizen which is defined under constitutional national common law as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. He was born on November 30, 1874 in Blenheim Palace, Woodstock, Oxfordshire, Great Britain, to a British father and an American mother who, under then-current law, would have become an alien upon her marriage to her British husband. Hence, Mr. Churchill was missing birth in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent and birth to U.S. citizen parents. Even if his mother had retained her U.S. citizenship as Mr. Obama’s mother, he still would not have been a natural born citizen, for he would have been born to an alien father, like Mr. Obama, and hence, subject to a foreign power from the moment of birth as much as if born to two alien parents. Being born subject to a foreign power under U.S. law, i.e., being born in allegiance to a foreign power other than the United States under U.S. law disqualifies one from being a natural born citizen.
So, Mr. Churchill was, indeed, correct that a constitutional amendment was needed for him to be eligible to be President.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ajtelles
said...Dittos to Justin...
Churchill and America, page 139
"Once again Churchill encouraged questions, which continued for more than an hour.
"The final question was:
“Would you become an American citizen if we could make you president of the United States? I know our Constitution disqualifies you, but we can amend that."
"To which Churchill answered:
'There are various little difficulties in the way. However, I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I shall be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter.' "
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=4aZCUZMvj7cC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=I+have+been+treated+so+splendidly+in+the+United+States+that+I+should+be+disposed,+if+you+can+amend+the+Constitution,+seriously+to+consider+the+matter&source=bl&ots=qhNHZGvN-4&sig=IkaUw1fUtsJRSKDSqR4gl_I7Zkg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=esl9VMSFNor6yASJ-YKwBA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=I%20have%20been%20treated%20so%20splendidly%20in%20the%20United%20States%20that%20I%20should%20be%20disposed%2C%20if%20you%20can%20amend%20the%20Constitution%2C%20seriously%20to%20consider%20the%20matter&f=false
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In 1874 when Winston Churchill was born, his immigration status was as a child born on the soil of England to a British citizen father and, by marriage, a British citizen mother who had formally been a U.S. citizen. He was not thought of as having dual U.S./foreign citizenship.
From 1787 until 1922*, both of the married parents of children who were born in the U.S. were either both U.S. citizens or both were aliens (Cable Act of 1922, Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act).
* Here are three sources about the citizenship rights of women.
American Citizenship Rights of Women (1933 – a short history of the 1922 Cable Act)
( http://loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/0014160126A.pdf )
Prologue Magazine (Summer 1998, Vol. 30, No. 2 )
Women and Naturalization (1802-1940)
Part 1: ( http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html )
Part 2: ( http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-2.html )
After the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Churchill's U.S. citizen mother would be considered a U.S. citizen (see clause (g) below), and Churchill would be considered a U.S. “citizen” but NOT a U.S. “natural born Citizen” and NOT “...eligible to the Office of President.” So, as Churchill suggested, the U.S. Constitution would STILL need to be amended to make him “...eligible to the Office of President,” which means that after 1952 Churchill would be considered to have dual U.S./foreign citizenship, just like Sen. Ted Cruz, whereas before he, Churchill, had ONLY singular British citizenship.
That before and after scenario is why Texas Federal Senator Ted Cruz is, yes, a U.S. “citizen” “by statute” (positive law) but NOT a U.S. “natural born Citizen” “by birth” (natural law) and so NOT “...eligible to the Office of President” for the same statute reason that Churchill was NOT “...eligible to the Office of President” of the United States, without an amendment to the U.S. constitution.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The McCarran-Walter Bill of 1952
Public
Law No. 82-414
1952
Immigration and Nationality Act
INA:
TITLE III
CHAPTER
1 –
NATIONALITY
AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
[
http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html ]*
| ACT 301 | Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth |
| ACT 302 | Persons born in Puerto Rico |
| ACT 303 | Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904 |
| ACT 304 | Persons born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867 |
| ACT 305 | Persons born in Hawaii |
| ACT 306 | Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands |
| ACT 307 | Persons living in and born in Guam |
| ACT 308 | Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth |
| ACT 309 | Children born out of wedlock |
INA:
ACT 301 –
NATIONALS
AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
Sec.
301. [8 U.S.C. 1401]
The
following shall be nationals
and citizens
of the United States
at birth**:
[“AT”
birth is exclusively a
“positive law” statute
declaration.]
[“BY”
birth is exclusively a “natural law” phenomenon.]
(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: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899
* See more at http://originalbirtherdocument18.blogspot.com/
**
“The
following
shall be nationals
and
citizens
of
the United States at
birth:”
“AT”
birth is exclusively
a
“positive law” statute
declaration.
“BY”
birth is exclusively a “natural law” phenomenon.
For
POTUS “natural
born Citizen” eligibility
(Article II Section 1 Clause 5)
to determine who, not
“what,” but “who” is a “natural born Citizen,”
there is no
such thing as (1)
a “by”
birth exclusive “positive law” declaration, or
(2) a “by”
birth exclusive “positive law” phenomenon, or (3)
a “by”
birth inclusive “natural
law” declaration, or
(4)
a “by”
birth inclusive “natural
law” phenomenon.
For
Congress “citizen”
eligibility (House
of Representatives—Article I Section 2 Clause 2, or Senate—Article
I Section 3 Clause 3) to determine who, not “what,” but who” is
a “citizen,” there IS
such a thing as (1)
an “at”
birth exclusive “positive law” declaration (barring
some aliens from citizenship “at” birth or by “naturalization”
is not a phenomenon), and
(2)
an “at”
birth inclusive “positive law” declaration (“naturalization”
is not a
phenomenon, and common sense Fourteenth Amendment citizenship
“at”
birth to
one U.S. citizen parent is
not a phenomenon, while
erroneously granting Fourteenth
Amendment citizenship
“at”
birth to zero U.S. citizen parents is not a phenomenon—it
is foolish, yes,
but not a phenomenon).
Well,
maybe phenomenal
foolishness, but U.S.
citizenship granted to children born on U.S. soil to alien parents
(1898 Wonk Kim Ark),
citizenship granted since the 1898 SCOTUS inference as to what the
Fourteenth Amendment original intent of
“born” implied in
1868 when ratified,
or U.S. citizenship granted by Congressional statute for
children born inside or outside the United States, these
are easily corrected
with a SCOTUS opinion, a COTUS statute or a “several states”
Article V amendment. An
Article V amendment will be necessary
if the SCOTUS and the COTUS continue to ignore their fiduciary duty
to honor, protect and defend the Constitution from ALL enemies,
foreign and domestic, including protecting
the original genesis
original intent of
“born”
in both Article II
(Section
1 Clause 5—“natural
born
Citizen”) and
“born”
in the Fourteenth
Amendment (Section 1
Clause 1—“All persons born...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction….”).
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Next is a short essay extract from Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog from Monday, May 25, 2015:
Senator
Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to
Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto
President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not
Eligible to Be President
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html
[...snip…]
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that for those born before the adoption of the Constitution, having satisfied the 35 years age and 14 years residency requirements, being a "citizen" of the United States was sufficient to be eligible to be President. It also provides that for those born after the adoption, only a "natural born citizen" of the United States is eligible to be President. So, with presidential eligibility under Article II, for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, we are looking to define a natural born citizen, not a citizen. We can also see from this constitutional scheme that in the United States there are only “citizens” or “natural born citizens” and that all natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens.
[...snip…]
The Framers also defined a natural born citizen under natural law and the law of nations. Again looking to Vattel upon whom they would have relied for that definition, he defined a natural born citizen as follows:
“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.”
Id. Sec. 212 Citizens and natives. We can see that Vattel expected not the citizens, but the natural born citizens as being the persons upon whom the expectation lied as being the ones who would best protect and perpetuate the civil and political society into which they were born.
[...snip…]
The definition of a natural born citizen as reflected in American common law became under Article IV, Clause 2 upon ratification of the Constitution the supreme law of the land subject to change under Article V only by duly ratified constitutional amendment.
During the Founding and until the Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, "Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act") was passed, married parents of children were both either U.S. citizens or aliens. See Minor and Wong Kim Ark (only provided for scenarios in which the child’s parents were both either citizens or aliens). Hence, citizen parents meant that both father and mother had to be citizens. The Cable Act reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage.
Previously, a woman lost her U.S. citizenship if she married an alien, since she acquired the citizenship of her husband. The law did not apply to men who married foreign women, for such women became U.S. citizens. The law [Cable Act of 1922] repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907. With this new law, women did not lose their citizenship if they married an alien, provided he was an alien eligible to be naturalized under U.S. law. Marian L. Smith, "Women and Naturalization, ca. 1802-1940," Prologue Magazine 30 (2) (1998). Additionally, under the Act, women who married aliens who were eligible for naturalization could keep their U.S. citizenship, provided they lived in the United States. If they married such aliens and lived on foreign soil for two years, they could lose their U.S. citizenship. In 1931, an amendment allowed females to retain their U.S. citizenship even if they married aliens who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship (e.g. at that time an Asian). The Cable Act was repealed in 1936. The liberation of wives from their husband’s citizenship done by the 1922 Cable Act, an Act of Congress and not a constitutional amendment, has not nor could it amend the constitutional rule that both father and mother had to be citizens at the time of their child’s birth in their country in order to make a natural born citizen.
To date, the American national common law meaning of a natural born citizen has never been changed by any constitutional amendment or decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.
So, a "citizen" of the United States "at birth" is defined by either the Fourteenth Amendment (only if born in the U.S.) or naturalization Act of Congress (if born in or out of the U.S.). Regarding the former, it is any person born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." As to the latter, it includes any person born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Act of Congress has any impact on the meaning of a natural born citizen, for, not only because they did not exist when the Constitution was adopted and ratified, but also because they did not repeal or amend the natural born citizen clause or define it. Under these well-established rules, a child of one or two alien parents, if born in the U.S., can be a "citizen" of the United States "at birth" under the Fourteenth Amendment. A child born out of the U.S., if born to one or two U.S. citizen parents, can also be a "citizen" of the United States "at birth." But not being born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents, neither of them can be an Article II "natural born citizen" of the United States, regardless of their "at birth" citizen status, for they are born citizens, not natural born citizens.
De facto President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen because, even if he was born in the United States, he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. Obama was born to a U.S. citizen mother, but to a non-U.S. citizen father. His father was a citizen of Great Britain and then Kenya upon it gaining independence in 1963. Senator Ted Cruz is also not a natural born citizen. Unlike Senator John McCain who was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States and therefore reputed born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents, Senator Cruz was born in Canada presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father who was a citizen of Cuba and both in Canada for private purposes. Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are also not natural born citizens, for while they were born in the United States, they were born to two non-U.S. citizen parents who were citizens of Cuba and India, respectively.
If they are not natural born citizens, then what are they? President Obama, Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal are all "citizens" of the United States "at birth,” but only by virtue of some non-common law positive law. None of them are "natural born citizens" by virtue of common law which provides the only definition of the clause which is a child born in a country to parents (father and mother) who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Obama (if born in the United States), Rubio, and Jindal are “citizens” of the United States “at birth,” but only because of the Fourteenth Amendment, by the only fact of being born in the United States. Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” but only because of a naturalization Act of Congress, by the only fact of being born to one U.S. citizen parent. None of them were born with the complete facts and circumstances needed at birth to be a natural born citizen and which allows one to be a natural born citizen and therefore a citizen without the aid of any positive law. They are all missing either birth to two U.S. citizen parents or birth in the United States. Obama was born a citizen of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus soli [rights by soil/place/location/nation – emphasis added] if he was born in the United States) and Great Britain and then Kenya upon conversion through its independence from Great Britain (through jus sanguinis [rights by blood/parents – emphasis added] from his father). Cruz was born a citizen of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus sanguinis if his mother was still a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth) and born a citizen of and in allegiance to Canada (through jus soli) and Cuba (through jus sanguinis from his father). Rubio and Jindal were born citizens of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus soli) and Cuba (through jus sanguinis from both of their parents). They are all therefore under U.S. law not born with sole allegiance to the United States, but also subject to a foreign power and with natural sympathies for those foreign nations, a condition that the Framers did not allow future Presidents and Commanders to have. Being born subject to foreign powers and influence and with such sympathies, they are not nor can they be natural born citizens. Not being natural born citizens, they are not eligible to be President.
[...snip… see the rest of the article at the url ]
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html
Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.
May
25, 2015
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
Copyright
© 2015
Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.
All
Rights Reserved
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here are forty Winston Churchill quotes from Townhall.com -
Churchill's quote #6 below is appropriate and applicable in the informed and vigilant defense of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and defense of the inherent meaning and implication by John Jay in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to Washington.
By implication, I mean this.
Since John Jay was familiar with Frenchman Emer de Vattel and his book The Law of Nations and Vattel's articulation of parents, plural, and the consequent citizenship of the children derived from parents, and since John Jay was obviously aware of the English and American common law understanding in the 1700s that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, and the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the child, the question is simple, what was Jay presupposing and implying about birth place and birth parents?
Was Jay presupposing and implying the opposite of Vattel's understanding of citizenship or the same understanding as Vattel?
Jay was implying in 1787 the same as Vattel about citizenship of the parents, plural, and place of birth and citizenship of the child.
Was Jay presupposing and implying the opposite of the common law understanding in the 1700s of the citizenship of the children or the same as the common law in the 1700s?
Jay was implying in 1787 the same as the common law in the 1700s about the citizenship of BOTH parents determining the citizenship of the child.
The 40 Greatest Quotes From Winston Churchill
>>
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/01/19/the-40-greatest-quotes-from-winston-churchill-n1492794/page/full
40) “It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.”
39) “I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.”
38) “To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.”
37) “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”
36) "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."
35) “In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity.”
34) “Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.”
33) “This is no time for ease and comfort. It is time to dare and endure.”
32) “When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.”
31) “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
30) "We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
29) Lady Astor: “Winston, if I were your wife I’d put poison in your coffee.”
Winston Churchill: “Nancy, if I were your husband I’d drink it.”
28) “When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.”
27) “If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time-a tremendous whack.”
26) “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”
25) “Character may be manifested in the great moments, but it is made in the small ones.”
24) “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened.”
23) “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
22) “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”
21) “Socialists think profits are a vice; I consider losses the real vice.”
20) “The Americans will always do the right thing… after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.”
19) “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.”
18) "Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality that guarantees all the others."
17) “If you are going through hell, keep going.”
16) "Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon."
15) “The Germans have received back again that measure of fire and steel which they have so often meted out to others. Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
14) "You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."
13) “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”
12) “To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!…Hitler’s fate was sealed. Mussolini’s fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder.”
11) “If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”
10) “What kind of a people do they (Japan) think we are? Is it possible they do not realise that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget?”
9) “I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”
8) "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
7) “We (The British) have not journeyed across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy.”
6) “You ask, What is our policy? I will say; ‘It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.’ You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You
ask,
What
is our policy?
I will say;
I will say;
It
is to wage war, by sea, land and air,
with
all our might and with all the strength that God can give us:
to
wage war against a monstrous tyranny,
never
surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime.
That is our policy.
You ask,
That is our policy.
You ask,
What
is our aim?
I can answer with one word:
Victory
victory at all costs,
victory in spite of all terror,
victory however long and hard the road may be; for
without victory there is no survival.
I can answer with one word:
Victory
victory at all costs,
victory in spite of all terror,
victory however long and hard the road may be; for
without victory there is no survival.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5) “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
4) “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
3) “We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”
2) “Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fall, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour!’”
1) “Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"
See Bartleby.com - paragraph #14 to read about the "Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861 at the start of the civil war.
>> http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
No comments:
Post a Comment