A Truth Monk exclusive news report…

An analysis of the AP video shows Tim Profitt apparently saying to Lauren Valle, “Did it hurt?” as he was stomping her head into the sidewalk.   Tim Profitt is the Rand Paul’s Bourbon County, Kentucky campaign coordinator and Rand Paul is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senator from Kentucky.   Lauren Valle is the 23-year-old activist from the group MoveOn.org.   Listen to the video below.

View the full length raw AP video.

New Links

Added links for the Thom Hartmann website, Randi Rhodes website, and a Washington Post article on interrogating Nazi prisoners during World War II in the Link Section of the Library.

New Design Concept — Custom Barack Obama Red Heart Designs

Brother Apollo has been at it again. He has spent the last month creating another design. In this design, you are an integral part. You get to decide who will be standing up with Barack Obama! Check it out.

Place your or a friend’s portrait next to President-elect Barack Obama in our Big Red Heart design. Based on our Obama-Biden Red Heart design this is a sure-fire way to give a hot unique gift that can’t be found anywhere else. Because you helped design it, this will be a gift that will always be remembered.

Book Review: The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe

The Fourth Turning An American Prophecy: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny By William Strauss and Neil Howe The Fourth Turning 400 pages. Broadway 1997.

The Fourth Turning, by William Strauss and Neil Howe, a book that is often recommended by Thom Hartmann, makes the case for a four generational pattern of economic outlook. The authors refer to the generational economic outlooks as turnings. The theory is basically that history goes through four types of turnings:

The first Crisis turning is a collapse of the social, cultural, or economic system. The Great Depression which started On October 29, 1929 and lasted into the early 1940s is an example. The second turning is a conservative High. Having lived through the crisis of the first turning, people remain in a conservative mode even as life improves. This is represented by stable institutions usually after a major war such as after the WWII. The third is a spiritual Awakening turning that occurs in next succeeding generation. The youth often have a religious re-discovery. An example is the hippy movement in the United States and Europe in the 1960s and 1970s. The forth is a wild decadent Unravelling where the collapse of social values and norms. Here people toss aside the ideas from the past considering them to be old-fashioned and unnecessary. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which put in place the structure and removed the regulations that allowed the Enron scandal and the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis to happen is an example.

What is a psychopath?

I think this is an interesting article (Originally published over at Scitechlab in a posting titled What is a psychopath? Used by permission.) so I re-posted it here because I believe there are many psychopaths in politics.

Let me start off by saying the terms psychopathy and sociopathy are non-clinical terms that are not defined within the DSM-IV. Without medically defined meanings, there really isn’t any ability to define differences in between the terms. In the UK, the tendency is away from the use of the term psychopathy to avoid confusion with ‘psychosis’ (symptom or feature of mental illness).[1] In the United States the move to replacing the term psychopathy with sociopathy was driven by change of thought on the caused the condition (internal vs. external).[2]

The term psychopath comes to us via way of German researchers who in the 1880s used it to imply that the condition is from an “internal sickness.” In the mid-twentieth century came the new liberal social thought which sought to find external causes for social deviancy. The psychologist G. E. Partridge coined the term “sociopath,” in 1930 to reflect this change of view.[2] The recent use of fMRIs has swung views on the underlying cause of psychopathy back to an internal origin.

Thus the terms psychopathy and sociopathy describe the same condition but from different viewpoints.

The American Psychiatric Association’s "DSM-IV" refers to psychopathy, sociopathy, and dissocial personality disorder as synonyms for 301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder. [3, page 702]

Again, without any primary medical definitions for these terms, it is the author’s call on how to use the terms to express his ideas.

Shortest Definition of a Psychopath

The shortest, simplest definition of a psychopath is

          A psychopath is a person who is sane but amoral.

It is a character defect not a mental illness.

An Expanded Definition of a Psychopath

Hervey Cleckley, a American psychiatrist, in his 1941 groundbreaking book, “The Mask of Sanity,” describe the psychopath as someone who has only a very superficial sense of beauty/ugliness and only the most elementary understanding of the basic concepts of goodness, evil, love, horror, and humor.[4]

Cleckley says the psychopath functions by mimicking the normal behavior of those around him hiding “a grossly disabled and irresponsible personality.” He, psychopathy is rare in women, is “brilliant and charming” and talks “entertainingly” all the while carrying “disaster lightly in each hand.”

Hervey Cleckley’s “The Mask of Sanity,” (1941) is a must read for anyone wanting to or needing to have an understanding about psychopaths and how they function. The book describes the clinical interviews he had with incarcerated criminals. The book has been out of print for a number of years.

But a private printing for non-profit educational use is available as a free PDF download at The Cassiopaean Experiment or in the Scitechlab Library: The Mask of Sanity (with a fancy cover).

Dr. Robert D. Hare, professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia and creator of the Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) has written two books for the general public on psychopathly — Without Conscience (1999) and Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (2007).

	Dr. Robert D. Hare		APA
	Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us	Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work	Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition (Text Revision)
Privacy Information

In ‘Without Conscience,’ Prof. Hare describes psychopaths by saying “psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for other, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.” [5, page xi]

Just pickup any newspaper and you will read about the “serial killers, rapists, thieves, swindlers, con men, wife beaters, white-collar criminals, hype-prone stock promoters and “boiler-room” operators, child abusers, gang members, disbarred lawyers, drug barons, professional gamblers, members of organized crime, doctors who’ve lost their licenses, terrorists, cult leaders, mercenaries, and unscrupulous businesspeople.”[5, page 3]

Psychopaths, even those who are “psychopathic killers, however, are not mad, according to accepted legal and psychiatric standards. Their acts result not from a deranged mind but from a cold, calculating rationality combined with a chilling inability to treat others as thinking, feeling human beings.” [5, page 5]

What happens when you Interact with Psychopaths

Prof. Hare emphasizes “on a more personal level, it is likely that at some time in your life you will come into painful contact with a psychopath. For your own physical, psychological, and financial well-being it is crucial that you know how to identify the psychopath, how to protect yourself and how to minimize the harm done to you.” [5, page xii]

Hare explains, “Everybody has met these people, been deceived and manipulated by them, and forced to live with or repair the damage they have wrought. [5, page 1]

He goes o to say that they use “their charm and chameleonlike abilities to cut a wide swath through society and leaving a wake of ruined lives behind them.” [5, page 2]

A 1992 FBI report reached the conclusion that almost half of the killers of law enforcement officers matched the profile for psychopathly. [times] At least two million psychopaths live in North America [5, page 2]

The Researcher’s Definition of Psychopathy: Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)

Robert D. Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) isn’t available for public sale.

Researchers do however use the term psychopathy. Clinically psychopathy doesn’t fall neatly into any particular DSM-IV disorder but could be considered, in this author’s opinion, as a ‘super disorder’ in that it contains components of multiple orders.

Under Robert D. Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), psychopathy falls roughly over three DSM-IV Cluster B Personality Disorders — antisocial personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, and narcissistic personality disorder.[6]

Hare’s fundamental psycho-diagnostic tool list 20 traits that are measured on a scale of 0 to 2 to determine a diagnosis —

Factor1: “Aggressive narcissism”

• Glibness/superficial charm
• Grandiose sense of self-worth
• Pathological lying
• Cunning/manipulative
• Lack of remorse or guilt
• Shallow affect
• Callous/lack of empathy
• Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
• Promiscuous sexual behavior

Factor2: “Socially deviant lifestyle”

• Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
• Parasitic lifestyle
• Poor behavioral control
• Lack of realistic, long-term goals
• Impulsivity
• Irresponsibility
• Juvenile delinquency
• Early behavior problems
• Revocation of conditional release

Traits not correlated with either factor

• Many short-term marital relationships
• Criminal versatility

The score is obtained from file information and a semi-structured interview. A score of 30 is needed for a research diagnosis of psychopathy. Incarcerated offenders have a mean score of about 22 while noncriminals typically score around 5.

Hare believes the DSM’s use of antisocial personality disorder as a catchall diagnosis that includes psychopathly is wrong.[2]

Hare said, “it’s like having pneumonia versus having a cold. They share some common symptoms, but one is much more virulent.”[2]

References

1. No author; Madness or Badness; Mind in Manchester; Webpage; No date. Accessed December 2, 2008 @ http://www.mind-in-manchester.org.uk/campaigning/comscare/personality_order_madness_or_badness.php.
2. Seabrook, John; Suffering Souls: The search for the roots of psychopathy, The New Yorker; Online; November 10, 2008. Accessed December 2, 2008 @ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?currentPage=allhttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?printable=true (print version).
3. American Psychiatric Association Task Force on DSM-IV; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Pub.; 2000.
4. Cleckley, Hervey M.; The Mask of Sanity ~An attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality; The C. V. Mosby company; St. Louis, Missouri, USA; 1941.
   Available as a free non-profit educational PDF download at The Cassiopaean Experiment or with a fancy cover in the Scitechlab Library: The Mask of Sanity.

5. Hare, Robert D.; Without Conscience; The Guilford Press; NewYork; 1999.
6. Hare, Robert D.; Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (2nd ed.); Multi-Health Systems, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2003.

• Hare, Robert D.; Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion; Online; Psychiatric Times; Volume 13 No. 2; February 1, 1996. Accessed December 1, 2008 @ http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54831#.

• Hare, Robert D.; Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work; HarperCollins Publishers; New York, NY, USA; 2007.

Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska) loses his re-election bid

The AP is reporting that Alaska’s Sen. Ted Stevens has loss his re-election bid to Democratic challenger Mark Begich. Stevens is behind by 3,724 votes with only about 2,500 overseas ballots left to be counted.

News Links:
Associated Press Wire Service Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens loses re-election bid

President Kennedy’s Famous 1960 Liberal Quote

During his acceptance of the New York Liberal Party’s nomination, President John F. Kennedy made his famous liberal quote —

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

This elegant quote was from the first paragraph of the September 14, 1960 speech.

The Monastery’s library multimedia section has a free PDF, “Kennedy’s Acceptance Liberal 1960” article of the entire text of his speech. The PDF also has an embedded mp3 audio of Kennedy speaking his famous, elegant, liberal quote along with background material about President Kennedy and the New York Liberal Party.

Gratuitous plug: Last October 5, we released an elegant design that befits Kennedy’s quote. His quote is printed in the shape of a large capital ‘L’ that is available on a number of great products including t-shirts, mugs, buttons, etc.

As always, store proceeds go to help those with autism spectrum disorders.

Download “Kennedy’s Acceptance Liberal 1960” article as a free PDF file containing the Kennedy mp3 audio and background information on President Kennedy and the New York Liberal Party.

Check out all our products with this great design based on Kennedy’s elegant quote in defense of liberalism.

Download the latest version of Adobe Reader.

United States Citizenship Categories and Definitions

A citizen (noun) is a legally recognized individual member of a state or commonwealth, who owes allegiance to a government, is entitled to protection from it, and has the rights to political participation in it.

Citizenship (noun) is the status of being a citizen with its attendant duties, rights, and privileges.

Two Categories of Citizenships

There are two categories of citizenship:[1]

1. Natural born
2. Naturalized

Natural Born

Natural born citizenship is the acquirement of citizenship at the moment of birth.[2]

There are only two types of natural born citizen:

1. Native-born is being born within the territory of the state or commonwealth under the principle of jus soli,
2. Attaining citizenship through the parents’ citizenship status under the principle of jus sanguinis.

Jus Soli

The principle of birthright citizenship gained through being born within a country is called jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”). It isn’t dependent on the citizenship of the parents.[2]

In the United States the principle of jus soli goes back to before the creation of the Constitution. Territorial birthright citizenship was first formally established under English common law in the 1608 case of Calvin v. Smith (77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K.B. 1608)) whose decision was based upon the feudal relationship between a king or lord with their subjects in the early English feudal system.[3]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution confirmed this birthright citizenship in the pertinent part of Section 1,

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” [Note 1]

It has been presumed that any person born within the territory of the United States, including the children of illegal aliens, are granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. [2] The only exception is for foreign diplomats’ and officers’ children.[4 and Note 2]

Jus Sanguinis

The other natural born citizenship birthright is called jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”). Jus sanguinis is based on having an ancestor or parent (often the father), who is a national or citizen of the state.[2]

Jus sanguinis has even a longer history under English common law than jus soli. The concept of jus sanguinis dates back to at least 1351 when the statute de Natis Ultra Mare (25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1351)) was passed. This statute became necessary due to King Edwards III’s overseas military campaigns. The statute goes beyond just granting citizenship to the children of those in the King’s service, to include “all children born beyond the sea whose fathers and mothers were at the faith and ligeance of the king of England, and provided that the mothers had gone outside the realm with the permission of their husbands, could inherit, i.e., that they were subjects.”[5]

The concept of Jus sanguinis did influence the creation of the Constitution in the United States. The Naturalization Act of 1790 ((1 Stat. 103) March 26, 1790) clarifies this type of natural born citizen by declaring that “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.” Thusly the act establishes the United States citizenship of citizens’ children, who are born abroad, without the need for naturalization.[Note 3]

Congress again confirmed jus sanguinis citizenship birthright in the Naturalization Act of 1795 (January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414)) “and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” While this leaves out the term natural-born, it does declare them to be citizens by-birth through their parents and therefore do not need the process of naturalization to become citizens.[Note 4]

Naturalization

The other type of citizenship is through the legal process called Naturalization.[6] “Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is conferred upon a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). All naturalization applicants must demonstrate good moral character, attachment, and favorable disposition. The other naturalization requirements may be modified or waived for certain applicants, such as spouses of U.S. citizens. The general requirements for administrative naturalization include:

• a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States;
• residence in a particular USCIS District prior to filing;
• an ability to read, write, and speak English;
• a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government;
• good moral character;
• attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution; and,
• favorable disposition toward the United States.”

U.S. Constitution

While the U.S. Constitution requires a person to be a “natural born” Citizen to qualify for the Office of the President of the United States,

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,[Note 5]

it doesn’t define what is meant by a “natural born” citizen [6] nor is it discussed much among the Founding Fathers.

It is well settled law that “native-born” citizens qualify for the Office of the President because they are “natural-born” and that naturalized citizens do not qualify.[7] “But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.”

Pryor then goes on to explain, “Constitutional scholars have traditionally approached the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of the natural-born citizen clause by inquiring into the specific meaning of the term “natural born” at the time of the Constitutional Convention. They conclude that a class of citizens should be considered natural born today only if they would have been considered natural-born citizens under the law in effect at the time of the framing of the Constitution.”

The “clarifying” of the Naturalization Act of 1790 would seem to make birthright by descent a closed topic, however, some scholars see the act as indicating the “early Congress’ belief in its power to declare who would be natural-born citizens.” Some scholars believe that congress doesn’t have the authority to define what constitutes natural-born citizenship. An understanding of the meaning of natural-born can only be realized by considering the interplay between it and the naturalization powers of Congress.

This remains a murky area of unsettled law. The U.S. Supreme Court has never made a ruling on its meaning and has only mentioned the natural-born citizen clause in dicta.

Notes

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
   

   — The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868), Section 1

    

2. Mr. HOWARD: … This amendment which I have offered 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. 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. (emphasis added)
   

   — Debate on the 14th Amendment[8]

    

3. An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

   Section 1. 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 a[application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall 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: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
   Approved, March 26, 1790.

   — United States Naturalization Law of 1790 (March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103))

    

4. An Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.

   For carrying into complete effect, the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

   Section 1. 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, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise:—

   First. He shall have declared on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citizen or subject.

   Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation, before dome one of the courts aforesaid, that he resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

   Thirdly. The court admitting such alien, shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

   Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

   Section 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, may be admitted to become a citizen, on his declaring on oath or affirmation, in come one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and, where the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

   Section 3. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States. born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as 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: Provided, also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

   Section 4. And be it further enacted, That the act intituled “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
   Approved, January 29, 1795.

   — The United States Naturalization Act of 1795 (January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414))

    

5. 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.
   

   — U.S. Constitution, Article II, Paragraph 5. (ratified by the Constitutional Convention on Sept. 17, 1787)

    

Bibliography

1. No author; Citizenship; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; No date. Accessed November 8, 2008 @ http://www.uscis.gov/citizenship.
    
2. Price, Polly J.; Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship; Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities; Volume 9, Number 1, Pages 73-146, Winter 1997.
    
3. Houston, Michael Robert W.; Birthright citizenship in the United Kingdom and the United States: a comparative analysis of the common law basis for granting citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants; Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law; Volume 33, Number 3, May 2000. Accessed November 9, 2008 @
   http://law.vanderbilt.edu/publications/journal-of-transnational-law/archives/volume-33-number-3/index.aspx.
    
4. No author; Citizenship of Children; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; No date. Accessed November 8, 2008 @ http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=85d3744a400ae010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=96719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD.
    
5. Dummett, Ann; United Kingdom; In Baubock, Rainer | Ersboll, Eva | Groenendijk, Kees & Waldrauch, Harald (Editors); Acquisition and Loss of Nationality: Volume 2, Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries: Country Analyses; Amsterdam University Press; Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Pages 551 – 585; April 20, 2007. Available @ http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/citmodes/countryreports.aspx.
    
6. No author; Naturalization; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; March 20, 2008. Accessed November 8, 2008 @ http://www.uscis.gov/naturalization.
    
7. Pryor, Jill A.; The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty; The Yale Law Journal; Volume 97, Number 5, Pages 881-899; 1988. Available @ http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf.
    
8. Howard, Jacob M.; Debate on the 14th Amendment; Congressional Globe; 39th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, Page 2890; May 30, 1866. Available @
   http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11.

• Karatani, Rieko; Defining British Citizenship: Empire, Commonwealth and Modern Britain; Routledge; London, United Kingdom; Pages 39 – 69; October 31, 2002.
   
• Kim, Keechang; Aliens in Medieval Law: The Origins of Modern Citizenship; Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, United Kingdom; Pages 103 – 125; January 29, 2001.
   
• Yinger, John; (testimony & prepared statement); Constitutional Amendment To Allow Foreign-Born Citizens To Be President; 106th Congress, 2nd Session, Page 25 – 41; July 24, 2000. Available @
  http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0f.htm.
   
• Yinger, John; The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a “Natural Born Citizen” and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?; Syracuse University faculty web site; Revised April 6, 2000. Accessed
  November 8, 2008 @ http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm.

A PDF version of this article is available in the Reference Section of the Monastery’s Library.

A different view on Senator John McCain Vietnam POW Experience

A new link was added to the library about the experiences that Senator John McCain had as a Vietnam POW.

Vietnam Veterans Against McCain

• Jerry Kiley, the founder of the organization described it as, “Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain was formed to dispel the myth of “Straight talkin’, principled, maverick war hero” John McCain. Through more than two decades of investigation of his behavior, through open-source documents, public statements of his colleagues, and personal conversations with other Vietnam POWs, we have come to the unavoidable conclusion that he is unfit by virtue of his temperament, character, dishonesty, and emotional instability to serve as President of the United States or in any other position of public trust.”
• Link to organization: Vietnam Veterans Against McCain.
• Library link page: Links