Global Warming Hits South Dakota Just In Time For ‘Hopenhagen’

Via Keloland  news:

Sioux Falls students had an extra hour of sleep Wednesday morning because of the winter storm…It’s the first time in a long time [years] that parents and teachers [of the liberally run SF school district] have had to deal with a late start. [emphasis mine]

The Obama Administration & The ‘Fuller’ Court

If you have not heard it in mainstream media as of yet, you soon should.

On behalf of the Chrysler dealers, who were illegally forced to close their businesses by the Obama administration’s legal hacks, Leo Donofrio & Stephen Pidgeon have been retained  to represent the dealers in 2 upcoming legal actions and the blogosphere is abuzz over the pending litigation. Especially by those who are still loyal to their messiah.

A lot of discussions are being had as to whether or not these new cases will gain traction. I believe they will and this is why.

In all my research, I seem to have missed one very important legal thesis at the Federalsit Society by PA Madison. Not only does Madison dispute every legal theory the left uses to sanitize Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, Madison brings to light just how corrupt the ‘Fuller’ Court was by blatently disreagarding and bypassing US Laws & the US Constitution in many of their decisions:

By P.A. Madison on December 10, 2006

Updated 3/21/09

United States v. Wong Kim Ark is a notable court ruling for its dramatic departure over an earlier holding in the meaning “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” found in Elk v. Wilkins. It is also notable for the majorities insistence that the debates in Congress would not be admissible for controlling the meaning of the words.

Reading the majorities opinion in Wong Kim Ark, one can’t help but wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such obscure and irrelevant historical overviews as colonial and foreign law. With two previous established court decisions that substantially covered the same ground regarding the meaning and application of the words found under the fourteenth amendments citizenship clause, leaves one to wonder what is going on here?

Deeper into the decision, justice Horace Gray (writing for the majority) reveals exactly what the majority is up to: They are attempting to avoid discussion over the construction of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for its language found in the Constitution, Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull. They are also attempting to keep their holding to what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in Elk v. Wilkins out of the discussion, or else Wong Kim Ark can’t be said to be a citizen of the United States.

It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote: “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”

Whatever credibility the court may had at the beginning was soon lost when Gray wrote:

The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment … as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…”

Here the court is assuming what Congress may have intended while also arguing the written debates that could easily disclose this intent is inadmissible as evidence. This has to be one of the most incompetent and feeble rulings ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens would take issue with this inept attempt by the majority to rewrite the Constitution: “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”

Reviewing the intended purpose behind the words of the clause by both Sen. Howard and Sen. Trumbull, who were responsible for the drafting of the citizenship clause, clearly revealed the intended effect of the clause; leavening little doubt to why justice Gray desired to avoid the legislative history of this language. Howard presents a major hurdle for the majority when he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law,” never once making any reference to England’s common law doctrine. Perhaps this is why Gray wasted much of his commentary along common law themes.

An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was “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.” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.

Sen. Trumbull, who was the author of this national law, said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

However, Gray insists Trumbull really meant to grant citizenship to everyone born due only to the fact they were born on American soil. Moreover, if everyone owed allegiance by simply being on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps the true answer is because locality itself was never enough to confer complete allegiance.

Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Trumbull goes on to declare: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Sen. Howard follows up by stating, “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

The Supreme Court had earlier discussed the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause In the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

Even the dissenting minority affirmed that the result of the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the court was specifically asked to address “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held it meant:

The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is 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. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

In Wong Kim Ark the court reverses itself because the “decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.” But this isn’t the real reason.

The definition for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” handed down in Elk posed a real problem for Wong Kim Ark because Wong’s parents did not owe the United States direct and complete allegiance nor did they possess any political rights. To try and sidestep the judicial meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” found in Elk, Gray attempts to obfuscate the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” found in Elk:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State…

No longer is anyone required to be completely subject to the United States political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. Gray knew he could not come out and repeat what he had said in Elk because then Wong Kim Ark could not had been found to had been born a citizen of the United States because his parents were not “completely subject to their [United States] political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Instead, they were merely subjects of China residing in California unable to become U.S. citizens by treaty.

When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

Well now, the issue was not citizenship being withheld on account of the 14th Amendment to American citizens, and had the court bothered to consider the history of the amendment, they would have easily discovered it was all about granting citizenship as established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child. The idea of withholding citizenship upon birth to subjects of other countries who owed this country no direct allegiance was, well, the desired result of declaring who is, and who isn’t, a citizen of the United States.

The court in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) acknowledged that some, not all, but some authorities go as far to “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [born to American citizens].”

It was these kind of doubts Howard desired to settle through constitutional amendment. Sen. Howard said of the amendment: “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 was needed to prevent rebel States from refusing to recognize former slaves (now citizens) as citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth’s first section (privileges and immunities).

Furthermore, these former slaves could be said to had no political attachment to any other country – meaning they did not owe “allegiance to anybody else.” To add additional insult, the court says: “Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” Yet, the court refused to recognize the fact the United States had done just that through its revised statutes and Constitution.

The most significant truth to come out of the entire Wong Kim Ark ruling comes from Chief Justice Fuller himself when he said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” He was absolutely correct.

Only reason the language of the Fourteenth differs from the civil rights bill of 1866, which used the language “and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” to restrict citizenship, is because Sen. Howard feared a State could begin taxing Indians, thereby making them eligible for citizenship. Because Indians, and other classes of foreigners whom Congress and the States desired to withhold citizenship from, owed allegiance to a foreign power (Indian tribes were considered independent nations), the Fourteenth would become just as restrictive against Indians by demanding full jurisdiction on part of the United States as with any other class of foreigners.

It is worth mentioning that it was the U.S. government who argued Wong Kim Ark was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Obviously, the Federal Government had no difficulty in understanding the words of its own revised statutes or constitutional amendment.

For the majority to have been correct with their conclusion they would have to demonstrate how it was possible the States and Federal Government retained England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine. This “natural allegiance” was something most everyone despised and hated. Fuller argued this “rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.”

There is also a disturbing ethical aspect of Wong Kim Ark in terms of the majorities’ apparent willingness to place themselves unethically above both facts and the supreme law of the land. The United States by treaty with China was prevented from admitting Chinese subjects to citizenship. This treaty was ratified by the same senators who had adopted both Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Furthermore, the court was also prohibited under 22 Stat. §14 to admit subjects of China to U.S. citizenship, “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.” The court thought it could get around that by saying Wong Kim Ark was born a citizen of the United States per the Constitution by sweeping the holding in Elk under the carpet.

The Fuller court was no stranger to criticism or controversy when it came to interpreting law or the Constitution. For example, in the cases of Brooks vs. Codman, and Foote v. Women’s Board of Missions the question was who should get the money appropriated as indemnity for spoliations of William Gray’s (Justice Gray’s grandfather) ships? Codman was the administrator of William Gray’s estate and under a 1891 law payments could only go to “creditors, legatees, assignees or strangers to the blood.”

What did the court do? They did just as they had done in Wong Kim Ark; they simply said forget what the law says because we say payments should go to the “next of kin,” i.e., Justice Horace Gray.

Conclusion

Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause – and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings – leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny the acts of Congress in order to maintain England’s old feudal common law doctrine while rendering unethical and legally unsound rulings.

In the decision, the court again refers to foreign precedent instead of US Laws:

In the construction of wills and settlements, after considerable conflict of opinion, the established rule of interpretation in England is that the phrase ‘next of kin,’ when found in ulterior limitations, must be understood to mean ‘nearest of kin,’ without regard to the statutes of distribution…What little recent authority there is beyond that of the English courts supports the English view; and, on the whole, we are inclined to adopt it.

So, instead of going to law that was adopted by the US Congress, who is the body who has the authority to write and pass the law, the Fuller Court took it upon itself to overturn Congress and rewrite the law for the benefit of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

You can read the entire Fuller Court decision here. It is lengthy & delves well beyond the scope of US laws adopted by Congress as well as the US Constitution just as the WKA decision does regarding the 14th Amendment & US Naturalization laws passed by Congress.

Legitimate Questions Deserve Nothing Less Than Legitimate Answers

For over a year now, the Hawaiian officials have refused to release the information by which they have come to their conclusion that Obama is a ‘natural-born’ citizen.

Obama himself has never claimed this status, he clearly states at his site that he is a native to the soil, but never goes as far as to say he is a natural born citizen.

Then we have the DNC nomination documents of 2008 that also never make the claim that Obama is a natural born citizen:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:…”

 

But we also have this one, exclusively sent to Hawaii:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”….

 

So, which is it? It is high time Hawaii puts its laws before its politics. Hawaiian laws that state that any and all material used to make a public statement MUST be released to the public when requested under Hawaiian UIPA(Uniformed Information Pratices Act).

One of my readers is still working to pursue this as Donofrio now must give all his time & attention to his new clients. Please visit Marie G.’s site  to learn more of the Hawaiian UIPA laws and how they should be working for ‘We the People” not the politicians who wish to destroy our great Nation. Here is Marie’s request:

Hello Fellow Patriots,

Recently I posted a message on our forum about the intent to send a “mass” mailing out to Hawaii.

The letters are now available to be viewed and printed from my blog, the mission statement is posted there as well.

For your convenience, you can visit the forum, Natural Born Citizen Coalition for Legal Action, and find the links to my blog in the message titled : “The Date For The Mailing Has Been Set”.

There are copies of several of the provided “letters to Hawaii” on that thread.

http://www.meetup.com…

I, and several others, are sending alerts out to other blog owners also requesting that they post the invitation to join in this campaign. We are expecting an excellent result.

Thank you in advance for your help and your Patriotism.

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/letters-to-santa-actually-hawaii-doh-oip/

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/letters-to-santa-actually-hawaii-doh-oip/here-are-the-letters-to-santa-hawaii-all-ready-to-print-sign-and-send/

Sincerely,

G.Marie

To Marie & all others still pursuing the UIPA laws,  best wishes & God Speed.

I have done my own pursuit to no avail and thus have decided to continue my research of American history and will continue to publish my findings. There is a vast ocean of information out there, you just have to be willing to take the time to read it and understand it, as it was written in the 18th & 19th centuries. For with that knowledge, we can begin to right the wrongs done by staying silent while liberal, progressive socialists indoctrinate our youth for their marxist dreams.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************

Those that are not learned in past history shall have no future; because if it were not for the past, there would have never been a future.  ~  Author Unknown

“Dirty” Harry Once Again Pulls Race Card On Senate Floor, Distorts History

Taking a direct tactic out of the Marxist Alinsky ‘Rules for Radicals’ playbook to try and push support for his ‘StealthScare’ bill to nationalize and take over 1/6th of the US economy, Dirty Harry pulled out the race card this morning:

Let’s review the history Dirty Harry uses as support for his plan. He talks of filibusters in Congress that belated true civil rights reform, which included emancipating the slaves and then of course the Civil Rights Act of 1964; but he never comes out and tells the truth as to who did the fillibustering.

This is the Democratic Platform of 1864:

1864 Presidential Campaign

By 1864, the Country had grown weary of the long and bloody Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of the countries’ best and bravest young men had fallen on the fields of Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, and countless more. Many began to think that the war was not worth it, and the price of freedom too great. The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln (Republican) thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin. Unfortunately, after four long years of war, Lincoln’s support was dropping fast, and people were looking for a way out of the war.

With this backdrop, the Democratic Party chose General George McClellan to be their Presidential Candidate at the Chicago National Convention in 1864. The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of “Compromise with the South”, which became known as “The Chicago Platform”. While on its surface the Chicago Platform was seductive in that it promised an immediate cessation of hostilities, and a restoration of the union. What was unsaid in the platform, but clearly implied, was that the “compromise” would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union.  In other words, the Democratic party was ready to “Sell Out” the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives.

The 1864 Democratic Platform began with the words:

Resolved, that in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution, as the only solid foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a framework of government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of all the States, both Northern and Southern.

Nast wrapped these words around an image of their true meaning, showing men and dogs hunting down runaway slaves. The image to your left presents this portion of the illustration above.

Nast also points out in this drawing that the “people” referred to were clearly the white people. That returning to the Constitution of that day meant a return to a country where Blacks were property, and had no rights. The “Prosperity of the Southern States” clearly was a Democratic Promise to make slavery a permanent institution in the country, in exchange for an end to the Civil War.

Now via left-wing wikipedia, let’s take a glance at the ‘Civil Rights’ activity of the mid 20th century when the next substantial civil rights legislation came to the table via a Republican president after the Democrats had occupied the White House for 2 decades. Keep in mind that the Democrats had also retained control of Congress for most of this time:

In October 1952, the Eisenhower administration declared racial discrimination a national security issue. In How Free is Free? historian Leon Litwack writes:

The restructuring of race relations took on a new urgency, an importance reserved for matters of national security. White supremacy, at least its most blatant and embarrassing manifestations, had become too costly to defend to sustain. In October 1952, when the Justice Department filed an amicus brief in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, it explained the interest of the president and the executive branch in the eventual decision. Nothing less was at stake than the very credibility of the United States in the international anti-Communist struggle. “It is in the context of the present world struggle between freedom and tyranny that the problem of racial discrimination must be viewed… Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills, and it raises doubts even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.” The brief also cited a response from Secretary of State Dean Acheson affirming the importance of this case in the conduct of foreign relations. “The undeniable existence of racial discrimination, he declared, “gives unfriendly governments the most effective kind of ammunition for their propaganda warfare,… and jeopardizes the effective maintenance of our moral leadership of the free and democratic nations of the world.”

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in which segregated (“separate but equal“) schools were ruled to be unconstitutional, Eisenhower told District of Columbia officials to make Washington a model for the rest of the country in integrating black and white public school children. He proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. Although both Acts were weaker than subsequent civil rights legislation, they constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the Civil Rights Act of 1875, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant (another Republican). The “Little Rock Nine” incident of 1957 involved the refusal by Arkansas to honor a Federal court order to integrate the schools. Under Executive Order 10730, Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into Little Rock Central High School, an all-white public school. The integration did not occur without violence. Eisenhower and Arkansas governor Orval Faubus engaged in tense arguments.

HMMMM…’Dirty’ Harry, it’s time you quit spending so much time in ‘O’ blamo’s office. It is not helping your cause and it cetainly is not boosting your intellect.

 

Cotter Reports: Cars, Quo Warranto, and Obama

As I reported, Leo Donofrio has temporarily made unavailable links to his legal research for a much anticipated reason.

Dianna Cotter  of the Portalnd Civil Rights Examiner reported today that:

Neil Cavuto welcomed former Chrysler dealer James Anderer to his show on Fox Business News Daily to talk about a case that has been filed by a group of dealers who lost their businesses in the Washington D.C. District Court. Lead Plaintiff Anderer mentioned a team of legal experts while describing the case to Cavuto, and an anonymous source has named Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon as having been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. They have been retained to bring two actions:

1. A motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections.
2. A quo warranto in the D.C. District Court pertaining to Obama and his administration.

Continue here  to read her entire article

As we know, the wheels of justice move slow and they will also have the obstacle to overcome of a DOJ & AG that are not without bias. Holder has already shown this bias on several occasions by dismissing cases against Obama’s political thugs  that were all but sewn up and he has yet to even step up to the plate where ACORN is concerned.

Links to Leo Donofrio’s Site Temporarily Unavailable

My apologies to my readers. The links in my articles to Attorney Leo Donofrio’s research site are unavailable at this time. I do know that Phil at the Right Side Of Life has a lot of Leo’s work published at his site and I will also do some scouring of the web to find mirror sites, but I can not make any promises.

The good news is that if you just google the topics that I had linked to Leo for reference, you should be able to find most of the information at the SCOTUS, National Archives, the Avalon Project thru Yale University, US Senate, US House of Representatives or the Federalist Society websites or on my permanent page BHO & the Stubborn Facts that is listed above.

Now you ask, why the temporary inaccessibility of Leo site? Well, the time has finally come to put the legal blogging aside and concentrate on proceeding forward legally as set forth in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.

To Leo & his team…Best Wishes, God Bless & God Speed, You are all TRUE Unwavering Patriot Warriors forging through that very complex legal battlefield for the preservation of our Republic & our Constitution. Your efforts WILL be recorded in American history for all future generations to look back on, just as we have the Founders to look to for guidance:

Congress has for decades been trying to usurp the original intent of the founding fathers of this great nation, further risking our sovereignty & national security. An agenda that Washington warned about in his farewell address:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…

The United States Constitution as Jusctice Scalia says, is literally dead. It does not breath, therefore we must look to the framers for interpretation and Justice Story  confirmed that theory when he wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution:  Rules of Interpretation:

 § 210.  XV. In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it.  Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research.  They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.  The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.

full interview, well worth watching:

Breaking: Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Child Porn in the Classroom– Kevin Jennings and the GLSEN Reading List

I am so glad that the grandchildren are now home schooled, but it still does not totally eliminate the possibility of government intrusion into what content the parents may exclude from the curriculum.

 

This is a MUST read with follow-up calls to all our reps in DC. This rogue administration must be stopped and all the commie czars must be thrown back to the cesspool of corruption from whence they came.

 

Via FirstThings  aka former GatewayPundit:

excerpt:

Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily becausehe had founded and led GLSEN (scroll for bio).

(snip)

Through GLSEN’s online ordering system, called “GLSEN BookLink,” featured prominently on their Web site, teachers can buy the books to use as required classroom assignments, or students can buy them to read on their own.According to GLSEN’s own press releases from the period during which its recommended reading list was developed, the organization’s three areas of focus were creating “educational resources, public policy agenda, [and] student organizing programs”; in other words, the reading list (chief among its “educational resources”) was of prime importance in GLSEN’s efforts to influence the American educational system.

The list is divided into three main categories: books recommended for grades K-6; books recommended for grades 7-12; and books for teachers. (The books on the list span all genres: fiction, nonfiction, memoirs, even poetry.)

Out of curiosity to see exactly what kind of books Kevin Jennings and his organization think American students should be reading in school, our team chose a handful at random from the over 100 titles on GLSEN’s grades 7-12 list, and began reading through.

What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless.

We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.

Continue here  for the complete disgusting breakdown of the Obama appointed & approved Safe Schools Czar’s agenda of what US Children are now to be taught in the classroom.

“God Doesn’t Drive Parked Cars”

I finally received my copy of ‘Going Rogue” and have managed to begin reading it during breaks from my Christmas gift sewing. Then today my Limbaugh letter arrived and I have to say, it was one I couldn’t put down til the end because it was almost totally dedicated to Limbaugh’s interview of Sarah.

At the closing of the interview, Rush asks Sarah about her quote, “God doesn’t drive parked cars”. What a curious quote this was, so to the answer I immediately went. Here is my paraphrase of Sarah’s explanation of the meaning.

You’ve got to get out there if you want try try to effect change. Make the effort, work hard and throughout the day, do what you believe is the right thing to do. Then put it in His hands because in the end, it is He that is in charge. He has got the whole world in His hands and He doesn’t drive parked cars.

Sarah will be at the Sioux Falls Barnes & Nobles this Saturday Sunday. Best wishes to all those planning to attend and drop me a note of your experience if you wish.

Blogging will also continue to be light until after Christmas unless Congress goes overtly rogue during the next 2 weeks.

Merry Christmas & may God’s Grace & Peace be with you during this joyous season.

Krauthammer: Obama In Need of A Psychiatric Evaluation

I don’t normally watch “O’Really”, but was glad I caught this segment from tonight’s episode. Charles really nails it on Obama at approximately 3:57 into the clip, however the entire 5 min segment is well worth watching.

Take A Moment to ‘Thank a Veteran’, Especially Today

There is no mystery behind the endurance and the success of American liberty. It is because in every generation, from the Revolutionary period to this very hour, brave Americans have stepped forward and served honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States. Every one of them deserves the thanks and the admiration of our entire country.

Military service demands a special kind of sacrifice. The places where you live and serve, the risk you face, the people you deal with every day — all of these are usually decided by someone else. For the time you spend in uniform, the interests of the nation must always come first. And those duties are shared by family members who make many sacrifices of their own, face separation during deployments and sometimes bear extreme and permanent loss.

Military service brings rewards as well. There is the pride of developing one’s character and becoming a leader, serving a cause far greater than any self interest and knowing that our nation’s cause is the hope of the world. Every man and woman who wears America’s uniform is part of a long, unbroken line of achievement and honor. No single military power in history has done greater good, shown greater courage, liberated more people, or upheld higher standards of decency and valor than the Armed Forces of the United States of America.

That is a legacy to be proud of, and those who contributed to it must never be taken for granted.

VP Cheney 2008

Dr Utopia’s ISM Potion: The Socialists Cure Against A Capitalist Republic

Who Knew.. Today’s Statist/Socialist/Marxist/Progressive Politicians learned all they knew from a 1950’s cartoon:

Makes ya wonder doesn’t it? Old Ronnie and Goldwater knew exactly what was in store back during the presidential campaign of 1964.

“Whiplash Syndrome” Feverishly Sweeping the Nation “Bumped”

Are you feeling the muscle  strain from the perpetual back and forth of the “Far-Left Activist” vs the “Right-Wing Extremist” as I am?

I feel as though I am chained down being forced to watch a never ending speech by the TIC (teleprompter in chief) and the only thing I gain from it is a bad case of whiplash.

From here on in, I am going to call them by what they really are: the “Fascist” and the”Conservative”.

The “Fascist”, and I do not use that term loosely, would like to see that every aspect of our lives are controlled by a Hierarchy aka tyranny at its peak.

Now while some Constitutional scholars would like us to believe that we are in a soft tyranny, I couldn’t disagree more. When Congress has passed legislation or has legislation waiting to pass that would:

 “assume  control of what and how we eat or drink, what is the best course for treating our health needs, what kind of vehicle we drive, what legal pleasures/sins we may partake in before being fined or maybe even jailed, how we speak about our beliefs and values in public or private lest we offend some pedophile and are subjected to lawsuits or incarceration, legislation pertaining to how we are no longer trustworthy to protect our own homes and property, how many bedrooms you have and who and how many sleep in them(from the TIC’s new and improved census survey), and finally,  that same government  running roughshod over private corporations in the guise of protecting the taxpayer”

frankly, I see this as “America teetering on the brink” of a hard tyranny.

OK, now you are saying, “oh please, you’re being too harsh, it’s just socialism”.

I would agree to that had everything just ended with the healthcare reform. But instead, I refer you back to those things that have come down the pike since the passing of the C.R.A.P. (Congressional Relief Action Program) in February with all its hidden agenda items and then some that were not even voted on that were added after the vote. (You can thank Rahmbo for the add-ons. It was NO mistake that TIC took off for the Chicago get-a-way after he touted how urgent the passing of this C.R.A.P. was and left his Chicagoan Gangster Political Hit-man in charge of the office.)

Furthermore, nothing this new administration is doing (or plans to do) is instilling confidence into our Republic and bolstering a renewed energy that is needed to lift us out of this government provoked/sustained recession. Instead he is accomplishing most of his legislative triumphs by revoking the Constitution and using Hierarchy/Chicago-Style gangster thuggery.

Why keep things so bad?  Because that is how Fascists want it. It’s just another step forward towards the accomplishment of their final take-over and the total dismantling of our Capitalist Society.

How did they grasp that power?

Because these so-called “Conservatives” are not even close to making sure the Constitution is being protected. After they abandoned the laws to keep big government from forming, all the while aiding and abetting in over stepping their powers, they now have abandoned the prima-fascia law that was put in place to keep such a tyrant from holding the most powerful office of our Republic:

Article II, Section I, Clause V of the Constitution

The “Conservatives” who were elected and have taken the oath to protect and defend the constitution have now become the “CINO’s”, (Conservatives in Name Only). And if this isn’t bad enough, the so-called Constitutional scholars have joined them. They are no better to us at this point than the LSM (Lame Stream Media).

Article II, Section I, Clause V of the Constitution was our last vice and they have managed to shred it to smithereens.

When our founding fathers and framers of the Constitution were corresponding, many letters were written and referenced before finalizing this MOST VITAL clause. In fact, it was the most debated and the one clause that the framers spent the most time on.

The following is a fraction of the historical facts I have. They can also  be found at the United States Library of Congress:

Historical Fact #1: On July 25, 1787, John Jay, the 1^st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the new Republic and also the President of the Continental Congress, wrote to George Washington the following:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”

Historical Fact #2:  We know that the framers referenced on the “Laws of Nations” when drafting the Constitution so what does that have to say to the intent of framers in regards to the definition of “natural born citizen”. Even today, the US Supreme court refers back to the “Laws of Nations” when interpreting the intent of the framers who drafted the Constitution:

“The citizens are the members of society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or “natural born” citizen, are those born in the country, of parents [emphasis added on plural, meaning both father and mother] who are citizens. As society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise by the childhood of children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is suppose 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 society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born to 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.”

Historical Fact #3:  Additionally, in 1800, Charles Pinckney ( Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure…attachment to the country”:

“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”

Historical Fact #4: Further research brings us to St. George Tucker (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Congresses (March 4, 1815-March 3, 1819); chairman, Committee on District of Columbia (Fourteenth Congress), Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings (Fifteenth Congress); author of Tucker’s Commentaries and of a treatise on natural law and on the formation of the Constitution of the United States and State senate, 1819-1823; chancellor of the fourth judicial district of Virginia 1824-1831):

“The Provision in the Constitution which requires that the President shall be a “natural born” citizen, unless he were a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted, is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.

The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would render him a member of a fraternity of the crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.”

Historical Fact #5: Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, British at birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over this doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

Having won the Revolutionary war and having citizenship under the sovereign nation of the United States, England still considered them British Subjects and was still holding them to British laws. The newly freed American citizens could not travel to England to visit family due to the fact that they would be arrested. Also, because of the British blockades of the American ports where they would stop every ship and remove any person found to be British born and force them into military service on behalf of the crown, the new American citizens went that final step to completely sever any allegiance to the crown that England tried to hold them to.

So, what have we learned in the 1^stfive historical facts that we must apply to Barack Hussein Obama aka Berry Hussein Soetoro here-in referred to as BHO aka BHS?

Complacent and Ignorant citizens elected into the most powerful office of this country a man, who at birth was a “British Subject” and for all we know, still is today since he has NEVER renounced that citizenship formally.

But, even if he had renounced those citizenships when he came of age in 1979, under the definition, he could have never held any other US citizenship, other than that of, “citizen by way of birth on the soil only” under the 14^th Amendment which we will get to shortly.

This man spent the most impressionable years of his life fathered by 2 foreigners, one British/Kenyan and the other Indonesian. The rest of his youth he spent under the wing of a “Proud Communist” grandfather and also under the wing of the county’s most renowned communist at the time, Frank Marshall Davis, who fled the mainland for Hawaii to avoid prosecution. So, for all of BHO aka BHS’s young life before he came of age, he either was under the wing of foreigners or citizens who hated America and the Constitution and fought politically to undermine the country and the Constitution until the day they died.

Now some say that because of the Indonesian citizenship, he was automatically disqualified, but this is where I disagree with those claims.

Citizenship at birth can never be changed. History and research are very clear on this point. However, the actions of the person once they become of age, come into play as to qualifications for any elected office, thus the reason for the 14 year requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause V.

To be qualified, the person MUST have formally renounced any other citizenship before that 14 yr qualification, therefore leaving only their “natural-born” US citizenship having jurisdiction over them. For BHO aka BHS, since he was an Illinois State Senator 1^st,  and had he been a “natural born” citizen,  he would have had to formally renounce his dual citizenship no later than 1991, thus leaving only his US citizenship that he owed allegiance to. Unfortunately for BHO, there are records showing he traveled on a foreign passport during his term in the Illinois state senate and possibly also during his term as a US Senator for the state of Illinois. But more importantly, there are no records that can be found of BHO aka BHS formally renouncing any of his prior citizenships to the US State Dept. anytime between 1979 and 1991 that would have made him eligible to hold any elected office. To this day, BHO aka BHS still holds multiple citizenships.

Thus we are back to: “Why BHO aka BHS cannot be a “natural born” citizen under the 14^th Amendment”.

Historical Fact #6: According to the US Legislature, the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else”. Therefore, that rule prevents us from interpreting “natural born” under the 14^thAmendment because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance. Remember, BHO aka BHS held dual allegiances at birth. He, himself has publically acknowledged the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of BHO’s birth, therefore he, himself was also a British subject at birth.

The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, it was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons naturalized or born to citizens of the United States as citizens.

The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (elected as a Whig to the Twenty-seventh Congress (March 4, 1841-March 3, 1843); elected as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Kinsley S. Bingham; reelected in 1865 and served from January 17, 1862, to March 3, 1871), said during the drafting:

“The word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the Executive, or by the Judicial Department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States.”

When we look further into the study of the 14^th Amendment’s drafting, we find a ruling from US Attorney General, George Williams (1865 to 1871 Williams served as United States Senator from Oregon. In 1871 he was a member of the commission to settle the Alabama claims from the Treaty of Washington. December 14, 1871-1875; Attorney General of the United States). George was a US Senator at the time of the drafting of the 14^th Amendment:

“The word “jurisdiction” under the 14^th Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.”

Essentially, what this means is that in order to be a “citizen” under the 14^th Amendment, one must renounce any other allegiances so that their US citizenship is solely under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. In fact, controversy at the time due to dual allegiances was so great that Congress, in a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 said:

                “The United States have not recognized double allegiance”

In 1866, under Sec. 1992 of the revised statutes, the same Congress confirmed and adopted as law the principle in regards to determining citizenship at the time of birth:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be “citizens” of the United States.”[note the word citizen, not “natural born citizen”]

Rep. Bingham commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between ‘natural born” and ‘born” citizenships under the 14^th Amendment:

                “It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of “parents” [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a “natural born” citizen.”

What Bingham was referring to here was the fact that, by the laws of nature, a “natural born” citizen needed “NO” amendment to confer their US citizenship upon them, they already are born owing “NO” allegiance to any other jurisdiction, so the purpose of the 14^th Amendment was to further define citizenship of children born to a parent or parents who had not yet finalized their naturalization process, which is the only other type of citizenship one can obtain under the 14^th Amendment. “Naturalized” meaning, renouncing any and all allegiance to a foreign sovereignty; swearing to total and complete allegiance to the United States willingly; with the intent to settle permanently in the United States.

Therefore, it does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Since BHO aka BHS’s father was never a citizen, never applied for citizenship and had no intent of becoming a US citizenship since he was here on a student visa under the conditions that he return and work for the Kenyan government as payment for that schooling, we can without a doubt say:

Yes, BHO may be a citizen under the 14^th, but according to definition of ‘natural born citizen” by the US Legislature and the intent of the framers, BHO aka BHS “never” could have met the required qualification for a President who must be a “natural born” citizen. AND HE KNOWS IT!!!

Now that you have a grasp of the difference between a “natural born” citizen, a citizen and a “naturalized” citizen, the only citizenships one can claim under the 14^th Amendment and the reason behind it to further define citizens referred to in Article IV, Section II of the Constitution, I have a couple more facts that go prove that today’s Congress is fully aware and are hiding it from the general public.

Congressional Fact #1:

H.J.Res. 88: A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT. HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

I am pretty sure they were gearing up to make way for the Kennedy’s new “whipping boy”, Schwarzenegger, to run for office and although this was back in 2000, it still goes to the point of the extent of the knowledge our elected officials DO KNOW the intent of the framers regarding “natural born” citizen.

Congressional Fact#2:

A non-binding (will not hold up in a court of law), bi-partisan resolution, its only purpose is to say “In their Opinion” John Sidney McCain is a natural born citizen:

S. Res. 511

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States;

Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States; [ not in the literal sense, but we all know these elected officials fully know the intent and the meaning since it is on record in legislation regarding the 14th Amendment]

Whereas there is “no evidence of the intention” of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President; [my personal fav of all the whereases ( refer to Dept of States Foreign Affairs Manual 7FAM1116.1-4c) could they really be this arrogant or ignorant, choose your poision]

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term “natural born Citizen”; [ ok, they just said there was no evidence to the intent in the former whereas, refer to Historical Fact #6]

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders; [ ok, they got me on this one, our military are vital but in "NO" way does it make them immune from the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution]

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and [ yes, those that were citizens "AT THE TIME" of the adoption of the Constitution, nearly wet myself over this one, tee hee hee, they really are reaching here and it shows their desperation]

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be itResolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. [ wrong again, he was born in a Panama Hosp, the military hosp was not built until a few yrs later]

Permit me to add to this a bit for further clarity. Since it’s not legal, nor is it binding and only cleverly describes the opinions of those who stand to benefit from it, I won’t be breaking any laws. Also, make a mental note that this “opinion” was passed by a “unanimous consent vote” aka no one in the room, the name of the bill is read and the gavel goes down and the acting speaker says “passed unanimously”:

Whereas, this Congress is corrupt and to get BHO aka BHS slid through and on the Democrat ticket, and to the fact that the Democrats rose so much stink about McCain’s ineligibility to the point that McCain released all his records: medical,  vault copy of his BC, all school records, including his West Point records that were not so flattering;

Whereas BHO aka BHS has spent over a half million dollars of his 2008 campaign funds fighting to keep ALL his records sealed from the public and his hired thugs have formally threatened those who dare to push for the release of them;

Whereas there are several lawsuits still active requesting these documents be released;

Whereas, additional lawsuits continue to arise forcing BHO aka BHS to keep his hired law thugs on the dole;

Whereas BHO aka BHS must continue to heavily push for continued contributions to his campaign even though the election is over;

Whereas, Two of the co-sponsors of the non-binding, “Unconstitutional” Resolution that is worth less that the paper it is printed on include none other than one Hillary Rodham Clinton and one Barack H Obama and finally; and

Whereas you will “NOT” find a single record of this “unanimous consent” vote online at the Senate voting records page

Still want more? Oh, I know you do so here it just one more and it is one of the juicy kind:

A lawyer in a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then Sen. Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution’ s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen, calling the requirement “stupid” and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis.

Herlihy’s published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

“The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the ’stupidest provision’ in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American, ” “blatantly discriminatory, ” and the “Constitution’ s worst provision,” Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.”

 

“The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.

Oh, but wait, it gets better:

She blamed support for the constitutional provision on “fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers.”

Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated:

“Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a ‘foreigner’ coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland,” she wrote.

“The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty,” she wrote.

Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, “are based primarily on emotion.”

It looks like Obama’s camp looked into the matter of ‘natural born’ back as early as 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of:

“If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”

The online pdf has been scrubbed, but you can read the law review in its entirety here: Herlihy, natural born citizen is stupid clause

There you have it my fellow citizens, you have been duped by those who took an oath to abide by, protect and defend the Constitution. Doesn’t it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that they are looking out for your best interest?

You also, now know the 1^stof the many ugly truths as to why BHO aka BHS is having such a hard time with foreign policy that is leaving even the toughest of our brave military personnel quaking in their boots.

He hasn’t figured out which one, of the sovereign nations he holds allegiance to, is the most important/beneficial to his agenda as of yet. His “Global Campaign Tour of 2008”, where he made sure to stop in communist country as well as Muslim country announcing to all he is a “global citizen” (in which he “literally” is according to court and government records) was my 1^st clue that prompted the old saying: “Houston, we have a problem”.

His constant spewing, that we all must become “global citizens” in his agenda to “re-make America” and save the world, sent shivers down my spine and into full throttle mode digging for information on this enigma that had swept so many citizens off their feet like they were at a “Jim Jones revival”.

So, next time you have contact or correspondence with our state or US elected officials, don’t be shy, go ahead and ask them: “Are you a “Fascist” or a “Conservative”?” I predict they will certainly claim that they are the later, so take them to task. They “ALL” have this information and much, much more. I know, because I provided it to them, all “130 pages” of a very detailed report that included the official government docs. Everything I warned them on last fall is NOW happening and they still refuse to uphold their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

So, thanks for listening and now please excuse me while I take my neck brace off so I can shower to try and scrub some of the scum, that this massive corrupt Congress has strewn all over us, down into the proverbial cesspool in the sewer where it belongs . . . Isn’t 2010 here yet?

L. A. Melin 5/15/2009 www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

Michelle Obama’s Americorps

“Mobamacorps” and how to double down on its funding:

Via Michelle Malkin: Obama’s Americorps scandal — and the First Lady’s meddling

be sure to read all the links for the complete picture

Sotomayor: “Constitution is a “Timeless” Document That Was Written to Take Us “Generations & Decades” Into the Future

It is day 2 of the confirmation hearings and I have to say, not since the Thomas confirmation hearings have I been so glued to the debate because of its impact on our future as well as all generations to come.

Now, while some say that Sotomayor’s confirmation will not really have an impact on the overall balance of the court, I couldn’t disagree more. Sotomayor’s history is fact to that and also the recent interviews of Ginsburg & Breyer are very disturbing in the fact that for the 1st time, we could actually have a Supreme Court so radically balanced in favor of the progressive/statist agenda. A balance unequally  in favor of the possibility of the statists/progressives getting many of their unconstitutional social programs deemed constitutional under the guise of the 14th amendment.

One answer by Sotomayor has really stood out to me thus far today. In a response to Senator Hatch, Sotomayor claimed:

The Constitution is a timeless document, written with such thought as to address every issue that may come before the Supreme Court for generations and decades to come, so it is a Supreme Court Justices duty to always look to the original intent of the framers at the time the Constitution was written.

OK, let’s do that, let’s bring a hypothetical to the Court. A hypothetical that could very well be in front of them very soon.

Imagine it is 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036, 2040 or 2044, etc.

A good looking young person arises from nowhere, or maybe has served in another elected office with less stringent qualifications, to become a candidate for President. The candidate is the child of a well-known anti-American, anti-Democracy touting parent from say Cuba, Venezuela or even possibly Iran, Saudi Arabia or Egypt. From a country that is against everything our Constitution stands for and despises the freedoms it allows its citizens.

Also, imagine that all major political parties put forth several candidates who are also, under the qualifications of Article II, not qualified to hold the office of President and imagine even a non-major party candidate, who is not even an American as he is here on a green card from Nicaragua, is allowed on the ballots in atleast a half a dozen states.

Now as a child, one of the candidates,  though having one American parent, was taken to live in the foreign parent’s native land and made to learn and adhere to the laws of that regime only to return to live in communities that are steep in the tendencies of the regime of that foreign parent.

When the child grows up, he/she seeks out like minded individuals and begins working with them to promote the political agenda they were raised in. Promoting and teaching that this agenda is a much better way and  thus it is that candidates platform to “fundamentally change” the structure of our Republic. The candidate campaigns that it is dire to push through unconstitutional socialistic programs in the guise of the redistributive inactions taken in prior history. Redistributive action that they felt that they were owed and thus use the 14th amendment as their premise to a favorable outcome on their part.

Would you be willing to accept an heir of the Castro family, the Chavez family, or possibly even an heir of the Mahmoud Ahamadinejad family as your President or Commander in Chief? A President/CINC born with the possibility that, that they held dual citizenship at the time of their birth. A President/CINC that had spent their most impressionable years living and studying the ways of their foreign parent’s beliefs, the same beliefs their American parent has adopted?

If you say “NO”, then you are agreeing with me and thus agreeing to the fact that to be a “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section I, Clause V of the Constitution and the original intent of the framers that both parents must be citizens prior to the birth of the immediate candidate/President in question. (see article on the intent of the framers of our constitution )

If you say “YES”, then I can only suggest that you might like trying to find some property in one of those repressive countries and begin packing since you like their way of life so much.

The precedence being set forth, in the lack of any court including the Supreme Court, until yesterday, agreeing to address this issue, just goes to show the deterioration of our Constitution, the state of our free society and our country’s sovereignty. By pushing this issue under the rug, all courts and elected officials thus far have opened the door for the fore mentioned hypothetical.

 Barack Hussein Obama has had possibly 4 citizenships governing him thus far in his life: British at birth, Kenyan, Indonesian and possibly American. The later has yet to actually been proven due to the law & the age of his mother at the time of his birth and the lack of any visible/photo proof of his existence prior to being a toddler on his grandfathers shoulders or on a tricycle.

I was born in 1960 and even I have a hospital photo that was taken before I went home to live with my parents. My mother, who was born at home in 1941, has a photo that was within days of her birth.  My father, who was born in a hospital in 1940, also has a photo that was taken within days of his birth.

Today, in the age of a renegade, run-a-way Congress and Administration we are suppose to just roll over and accept, from the time of Obama’s birth until he was able to ride a tricycle, there were absolutely “NO” photos taken of him. As John Stossel would say: “give me a break”.

In conclusion, there is but one obvious and unavoidable fact of this day we now live in:

We are truly regressing and thus are once again becoming a nation ruled by “MEN instead of by “LAW”. Our fore fathers surely must be rolling in their graves and shedding tears of utter disappointment at the current state of the ”Free Republic” they fought and died for. Should Sotomayor be confirmed it will be of grave concern to our future sovereignty. And, although the words come out of her mouth about the applying the original intent of the framers when making judicial decisions, the passion is not there for those words. Sotomayor’s answers to overturned rulings, answers in which she adamantly stands behind her decisions in those rulings that have been overturned( RICCI case for exp), are in complete contradiction to her fore mentioned answer to Sen. Hatch about adhering and using original intent when deciding cases. It is as if the current White House is somehow feeding her scripted answers to the tough questions to get the pass to and be confirmed.

Obama 44th President A FRAUD just as Chester Arthur 21st President was a FRAUD Bumped for educational purposes for RedState Readers

OBAMA LIED, CONGRESS DENIED, THE CONSTITUTION DIED!!!

Imagine, a US Supreme Court Justice confirmed to sanitize the indiscretions of an ineligible president. Well, imagine no further as it seems American history has already written this scenerio…

In early December 2008, Leo Donofrio discovers that Obama has pulled a Chester Arthur while he was researching the history of the birth of all past American Presidents

This is an amazing piece of history that has been very well hidden..UNTIL NOW!!!

Talk about a mind blower. All cases thus far, whether they had gone to the US Supreme Court or to state Supreme Courts have been denied, There has absolutely “NO” cases heard on their merits, they have all been denied without opinion or for lack of standing.

There is a cover-up here of EXTREME MAGNITUDE that includes the US Supreme Court.

WE MUST BE HEARD, WE MUST KEEP SHOUTING AT THE TOP OF OUR LUNGS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE AND SOTOMAYOR IS CONFIRMED!!!

read Leo’s complete research here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

“If a Nation Expects to Be Ignorant and Free, in a State of Civilization, It Expects What Never Was and Never Will Be”

We are running our of time folks. I am urging all to act because complacency is “NOT” an option lest you rather be ruled by a “mob”:

Just for you leftists out there, what Jefferson was trying to say here is, you can’t be both stupid and free. This is the fly in your ointment friends. You think you can be stupid and irresponsible AND free. But you can’t… You think that freedom belongs to the spineless thief, but it doesn’t.

You think you can use a democratic process to force others to accept responsibility for your ignorance, but you can’t.

Oh sure, you can cast your vote on this basis and even elect a president and congress, who will seat a Supreme Court on this basis. But in the end, one of two things will happen. Either those who earned the gold you seek to steal, will take their gold and leave you holding your empty sack of broken promises, – or – you will trade your individual freedom for a pittance of “free stuff” from the public trough. You can be stupid, or you can be free, but you can’t be both…

In the end, there is no way to be both stupid and free! Jefferson knew this, Obamanation doesn’t.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule,
where fifty-one percent of the people
may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

read the full article by CFP here, then get to them calls to the Senate on Monday, the confirmation vote for Sotomayor is scheduled for Tuesday around 10:30am-ish.

UPDATED w/ Video: The AP Has Reported That Obama Was Listed as Barry Soetoro

SNAP SHOT OF NY TIMES OP-ED FEB 24, 2008 THAT WAS IGNORED BY MOST AND THE AUTHOR WASN’T GOING TO GO OUT OF HIS WAY TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS HE HAD LEARNED!

 

Obama wants to see and control our medical records, but he still refuses to release his…

Why all the secrecy? Afraid of more lies exposed would be the logical conclusion since Sanjay Gupta accepted the Surgeon General’s position, then later backed out.

WND has another update:

One of the little-explored issues relating to the controversy over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural born” citizen in that post is the impact of his move to Indonesia as a child.

(snip)

The AP has reported that Obama was listed as Barry Soetoro while a child attending school as a citizen of Indonesia and his religion listed as Islam.

(snip)

One WND reader whose name is being withheld because he is a private individual reported when he adopted his wife’s daughter from a previous relationship in Asia and brought the family to the United States, he was given a “certificate of birth” from the state of Kansas for his daughter.

However, the document cites specifically, “This Certificate is not evidence of United States Citizenship.”

(snip)

Some of the challenges to Obama’s presidency contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

From my research on dual citizenship:

The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (elected as a Whig to the Twenty-seventh Congress (March 4, 1841-March 3, 1843); elected as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Kinsley S. Bingham; reelected in 1865 and served from January 17, 1862, to March 3, 1871), said during the drafting:

“The word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the Executive, or by the Judicial Department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States.”

When we look further into the study of the 14^th Amendment’s drafting, we find a ruling from US Attorney General, George Williams (1865 to 1871 Williams served as United States Senator from Oregon. In 1871 he was a member of the commission to settle the Alabama claims from the Treaty of Washington. December 14, 1871-1875; Attorney General of the United States). George was a US Senator at the time of the drafting of the 14^th Amendment:

“The word “jurisdiction” under the 14^th Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.”

Essentially, what this means is that in order to be a “citizen” under the 14^th Amendment, one must renounce any other allegiances so that their US citizenship is solely under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. In fact, controversy at the time due to dual allegiances was so great that Congress, in a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 said:

                “The United States have not recognized double allegiance”

read the full WND article here

Bringing the Constitution Into the 21st Century

As the media continues to desecrate the legal standing of those who’s only wish is to have a Constitutionally qualified President, I feel I must address this 1 more time so there is no misunderstanding of my research. Especially for my new readers.

When looking into the original intent of the framers of the 18th century, we must remember that women did not have the rights of men. A woman’s citizenship followed that of her father until the day she married. At that time, her citizenship was automatically transferred to that of her husband, thus the reason for the wording in the following statements of the framers:

Historical Fact #1: On July 25, 1787, John Jay, the 1^st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the new Republic and also the President of the Continental Congress, wrote to George Washington the following:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”

Historical Fact #3:  Additionally, in 1800, Charles Pinckney ( Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure…attachment to the country”:

“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”

Historical Fact #4: Further research brings us to St. George Tucker (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Congresses (March 4, 1815-March 3, 1819); chairman, Committee on District of Columbia (Fourteenth Congress), Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings (Fifteenth Congress); author of Tucker’s Commentaries and of a treatise on natural law and on the formation of the Constitution of the United States and State senate, 1819-1823; chancellor of the fourth judicial district of Virginia 1824-1831):

“The Provision in the Constitution which requires that the President shall be a “natural born” citizen, unless he were a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted, is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.

The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would render him a member of a fraternity of the crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

Under the laws of the time, this would have meant that, as long as the father was a US citizen, then both parents were US citizens, thus the child was subject to no other jurisdictions and had no allegiance to any foreign nations.

Now fast forward to the 20th century when the laws were changed and women were given individual citizen status:

On 22 September 1922, Congress passed the Married Women’s Act, also known as the Cable Act. Now the citizenship status of a woman and a man were separate. This law gave each woman her own citizenship status. This act was partially drawn in response to issues regarding women’s citizenship that occurred after women were given the right to vote. From this date, no marriage to an alien has taken citizenship from any U.S.-born woman. Females who had lost their citizenship status via marriage to an alien could initiate their own naturalization proceedings.

1936
This act effected U.S. citizen women whose marriage to an alien between the acts of 1907 and 1922 had caused them to lose their citizenship status. These women, if the marriage to the alien had ended in death or divorce, could regain their citizenship by filing an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath of allegiance. Those women still married to their husband were not covered under the act and these individuals would have to go through the complete naturalization process.

1940
In 1940, Congress allowed all women who lost their citizenship status between 1907 and 1922 to repatriate by filling an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath. The complete naturalization process was no longer necessary for any woman whose marriage between 1907 and 1922 caused her to lose her citizenship status.

Thus any child born to parents with different citizenship, was born holding dual citizenship and it is recorded in Congressional records that the US did not recognize dual citizenship for the purposes of Article II, Section I, Clause V.

When we look further into the study of the 14^th Amendment’s drafting, we find a ruling from US Attorney General, George Williams (1865 to 1871 Williams served as United States Senator from Oregon. In 1871 he was a member of the commission to settle the Alabama claims from the Treaty of Washington. December 14, 1871-1875; Attorney General of the United States). George was a US Senator at the time of the drafting of the 14^th Amendment:

“The word “jurisdiction” under the 14^th Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.”

Essentially, what this means is that in order to be a “citizen” under the 14^th Amendment, one must renounce any other allegiances so that their US citizenship is solely under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. In fact, controversy at the time due to dual allegiances was so great that Congress, in a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 said:

                “The United States have not recognized double allegiance”

Rep. Bingham commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between ‘natural born” and ‘born” citizenships under the 14^th Amendment:

                “It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of “parents” [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a “natural born” citizen.”

 The term “natural born citizen” is only located in ONE place in the Constitution: Article II, Section I, Clause V:

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.

Now, make note of the phrase ” at the time of the adoption of this Constitution“. The framers grandfathered themselves in and limited the time that the grandfather clause could be used so that as soon as the next generation came of age, there would no longer be an option for someone with a foreign parent or foreign birth to hold the highest political office of our country.

It does not take a law degree nor even degree in history to figure this out. They used to teach it in grammar school, but unfortunately, American history has become passe’.

***************************************************************************************************************

All the above information can be found at the Library of Congress online and also at the Federalist Blog dot US

I sincerely hopes this helps to dispel all the myths floating around, especially when they come from our elected officials whom should know better and thus the reason I will not be voting for any of them to return to DC anytime soon. I’m thinking a change to Article 1 and congressional term limits are in order. How about you?

Also, please feel free to leave a comment if you have further inquiries as to citizenship and how it pertains to Article I or Article II and I will get back to you as quick as I can.

Obama’s Eligibility: A CIA Intelligence Investigator’s June 10, 2009 Report

In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue.  On July 21, 2009, The Western Center for Journalism obtained a copy of the June 10, 2009 Report that was updated on July 18, 2009. Read the full report HERE

Licentiousness = Today’s Media, Online and Otherwise As Most Are Nothing More Than Corrupt Propaganda Machines; Revisited

…the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety. ~ Thomas Jefferson December 9, 1805

 done

 

AS I Said: “British at Birth”

Thanks to Leo Donofrio for the tip that the ‘fightthesmears’ site reversed their scrubbing tactic:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only pertinent point that matters: ” That same Act ‘GOVERNED‘ the status of Obama Sr’s children”

Their words, NOT ours and they are in conflict with the qualifications set forth in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

A Question for Upcoming Townhalls

While health care will be the HUGE issue at upcoming town halls, we must not let this opportunity pass by. We must be given a straight answer from our US Congressmen & Senators:

Why are you allowing this president to run amuck and bypass Congress & what are you going to do to overturn the appointment of all these czars?

Obama and His Hidden Foreign Influences

Hat tip to the American Thinker

National Review Online’s Andrew McCarthy, former assistant US  Attorney, reports today: ‘Suborned in the U.S.A. The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.’

‘Forget Nairobi, focus on Jakarta’, McCarthy writes:

Shortly after divorcing Barack Obama Sr., Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, whom she met – just as she had met Barack Sr. – when both were students at the University of Hawaii. At some point, Soetoro almost certainly adopted the youngster, who became known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama’s lengthy, deeply introspective autobiographies do not address whether he was adopted by the stepfather whose surname he shared for many years, but in all likelihood that did happen in Hawaii, before the family moved to Jakarta.

Under Indonesian law, adoption before the age of six by an Indonesian male qualified a child for citizenship. According to Dreams from My Father, Obama was four when he met Lolo Soetoro; his mother married Soetoro shortly thereafter; and Obama was already registered for school when he and his mother relocated to Jakarta, where Soetoro was an oil-company executive and liaison to the Suharto government. That was in 1966, when Obama was five. Obama attended Indonesian elementary schools, which, in Suharto’s police state, were generally reserved for citizens (and students were required to carry identity cards that matched student registration information). The records of the Catholic school Obama/Soetoro attended for three years identify him as a citizen of Indonesia. Thus Obama probably obtained Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Soetoro in Hawaii. That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said “the parties” (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama as their child – he’d have been only Ann Dunham’s child.

(snip)

The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a “natural born” American — an uncharted constitutional concept.

This backs up my previous conclusion that we needed to look at his Indonesian citizenship status:

Now some say that because of the Indonesian citizenship, he was automatically disqualified, but this is where I disagree with those claims.

Citizenship at birth can never be changed. History and research are very clear on this point. However, the actions of the person once they become of age, come into play as to qualifications for any elected office, thus the reason for the 14 year requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause V.

To be qualified, the person MUST have formally renounced any other citizenship before that 14 yr qualification, therefore leaving only their “natural-born” US citizenship having jurisdiction over them. For BHO aka BHS, since he was an Illinois State Senator 1st,  and had he been a “natural born” citizen,  he would have had to formally renounce his dual citizenship no later than 1991, thus leaving only his US citizenship that he owed allegiance to. Unfortunately for BHO, there are records showing he traveled on a foreign passport during his term in the Illinois state senate and possibly also during his term as a US Senator for the state of Illinois. But more importantly, there are no records that can be found of BHO aka BHS formally renouncing any of his prior citizenships to the US State Dept. anytime between 1979 and 1991 that would have made him eligible to hold any elected office. To this day, BHO aka BHS still holds multiple citizenships.

(snip)

“If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”

There you have it my fellow citizens, you have been duped by those who took an oath to abide by, protect and defend the Constitution. Doesn’t it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that they are looking out for your best interest?

You also, now know the 1stof the many ugly truths as to why BHO aka BHS is having such a hard time with foreign policy that is leaving even the toughest of our brave military personnel quaking in their boots.

He hasn’t figured out which one, of the sovereign nations he holds allegiance to, is the most important/beneficial to his agenda as of yet. His “Global Campaign Tour of 2008”, where he made sure to stop in communist country as well as Muslim country announcing to all he is a “global citizen” (in which he “literally” is according to court and government records) was my 1st clue that prompted the old saying: “Houston, we have a problem”.

The information for this video was taken from the lawsuit filed with the federal district court of Columbus GA in the matter of the Army major seeking proof of Obama’s eligibility to serve as president. The private investigator hired by the attorney in the case discovered that Obama may have used up to 149 different addresses and 39 different social security numbers prior to becoming president.

 

I encourage you to read Andrew’s entire article for the in-depth conclusion that Obama releasing ALL his vital records is of utmost importance for our national security and…

I suggest Senator Johnson start paying attention and calling for and inquiry lest his son’s appointment for US Attorney should become invalidated by an illegitimate president.

 

THE SOURCE OF OBAMA’S ANTI-ISRAEL POLICY

THE SOURCE OF OBAMA’S ANTI-ISRAEL POLICY

by Bishop E W Jackson Sr (United States)

Like Obama, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School. I too have Muslims in my family. I am black, and I was once a leftist Democrat. Since our backgrounds are somewhat similar, I perceive something in Obama’s policy toward Israel which people without that background may not see. All my life I have witnessed a strain of anti-Semitism in the black community. It has been fueled by the rise of the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, but it predates that organization.

Click here to read Bishop E.W. Jackson’s complete & compelling interpretation of Obama’s foreign policy philosophy.

Update: just was at the American Thinker and found an interesting tid-bit from comment poster, ST. ITA PARISH, that really sheds more light onto this topic:

NATION OF ISLAM : Elyisiah Mohammed, deceased, founded the African heritage Nation of Islam whereby many Americn born celebraties changed their original angle-saxon (slave era) surnames to something islamic; par example, Cassius Clay becomes Mohammed Ali and Lew Alcindor becomes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

This form of religiosity began on the Chicago Southside with noble intentions that emphasized young black boys always dress with shirt and tie, excel educationally, and be performing athletes. No mention has developed relating Barack “Barry” Hussain bin O’BlatheringOne (aka: Comrade Commisar President Obama) to the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam is a major property owner on the Southside.

Citizen v. Subject, Natural v. Native

Sometimes you find the most interesting leads in the comments section of articles that further enhance the writers article.

Leo Donofrio has some of the most astute and highly motivated contitutionally thinking readers I have ever come across and here is why I recommend his website ‘Natural Born Citizen’ :

tanarg Says:

This is from Gray’s Wong decision, Leo.

Surely you can read its plain meaning:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

[Ed. Your comment assumes "natural born subjects" are the same as "natural born citizens". They are not. When read in context with the other passages I quoted, espcially Gray's reliance on Binney, it becomes clear that those who were deemed natural born subjects under British law would - at best - be deemed basic "citizens" under US law - not natural born citizens.

You must grasp the understanding that we're not subjects. And as you will see, the attitude at the time of the adoption of the Constitution makes the repulsion with being a subject clear. I will print for you now exactly what that attitude was straight form the mouth of David Ramsay - David Ramsay (congressman) (1749–1815), an American physician, historian, and Continental Congressman for South Carolina:

A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF

ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND

PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE

UNITED STATES

By David Ramsay, 1789

The United States are a new nation, or political society, formed at first by the declaration of independence, out of those British subjects in America, who were thrown out of royal protection by act of parliament, passed in December, 1775..

A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people who also changed from subjects to citizens.

The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.

Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of nobleman. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.

(Thanks to Kamira for the research on David Ramsay. This is not the first excellent source she's brought forward. Nice work.)

A natural born subject is an entirely different species of citizen than a natural born citizen. They sound the same - just as "native born" sounds like "natural born" but they too are not the same. ]

Obama’s Corrupt Propaganda Machine Strikes Again

Mirrored from www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Wall Street Journal Caught Spreading False Legal Propaganda Via James Taranto

Yesterday, American journalism reached a new low when James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal published legal propaganda that appears to blatantly lie to readers.  In discussing the issues surrounding Obama’s birth to an alien father, Taranto added text to a US statute which does not contain such text.  Here is the offensive passage:

“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”

No such law exists.

The words “natural born citizen” do not appear in the statute discussed by Mr. Taranto.  In fact, the words “natural born citizen” do not exist in any US statute.  Those words only appear in the Constitution -  Article 2 Section 1 – and only as a requirement to be President.

The US code Taranto makes reference to is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g):

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(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…

The statute does not use the words “natural born citizen”.

Mr. Taranto needs to get back to Hogwarts fast and try a new spell.  His magic wand didn’t add new text to the US Code overnight.

Had Mr. Taranto made the focus of his article the issue of whether persons who obtain citizenship at birth by statute are also natural born citizens for purposes of meeting the Presidential requirements of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, such a discussion would have been proper.  His legal analysis as stated in the article would be wrong, but stating such a question presented and taking a position thereto is a correct form of editorial.

But that’s not what Taranto has done.

Taranto and The Wall Street Journal have done something far more damaging and nefarious than simply mis-analyzing the law.  He’s written – and they’ve published – a piece of propaganda here which makes it appear as if the text of the law contains words which are not there.

Let’s call that what it is – propaganda.  They weren’t content to ask a legal question and honestly deal with both sides of the argument from a non-partisan and pure journalistic intent.  No.  This article is an attempt to trick readers into believing laws exist which do not exist.

The statute does not include the words “natural born citizen”.  Regardless, those who read Taranto’s article are left with the impression that the statute includes those words.

And that is journalistic evildoing personified.

Statutes that grant citizenship – at birth or later in life via naturalization – provide rescue to those people whose citizenship is not self evident at birth.  If you’re born in the US to parents who are citizens then you are a natural born citizen and you do not need a statute to create your citizenship which is natural and self evident.

Statutory citizenship does not give rise to natural born citizen status – which is not a right but a requirement to be President.  All citizens have the same rights, but not all “citizens” can be President.  Not even all “natural born citizens” can be President.  The Constitution put the requirements for President in the Document to exclude persons from eligibility, not include them.

Taranto’s article is a gauntlet thrown down in your face.  The fourth estate has signaled – through this blatant propaganda attack on the law – that it is willing to lie to your face – IN YOUR FACE – Amerika.

Perhaps all other measures to control this issue are failing. And perhaps my constant pessimism that this blog isn’t doing any good to wake people up is misguided.  Blatant propaganda tells me somebody somewhere is getting desperate to make this all go away.

The Wall Street Journal via propaganda agent James Taranto has taken a drastic course of action from which the point of no return is clearly mapped.  

We aint in Kansas anymore, people.

 

Because He’s the Most Caring President Evah!

If he treats a so called close friend like this, how will he treat us once he has control of our healthcare?

Oh, for the days of ole’, when a gentleman was truly a gentleman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Selling America’s Birthright

 By Pat Boone

I got an e-mail from President Obama today. It had a heading at the top:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington

I must admit, I had – and still have – mixed feelings about it. Anytime you get a “personal” letter or e-mail from the president of the United States, it naturally seems important.

But since it was obviously a form letter, sent to several million other American voters, you quickly realize that the man whose name is at the end of the letter doesn’t know you at all. He couldn’t pick you out of a crowd of two. It’s a political ploy, only special in the sense that only modern technology makes this kind of mass (though “personal” seeming) communication possible.

It starts out “Dear Friend,” and it’s signed simply “Barack Obama.” I really doubt that Mr. Obama even saw or approved the letter, much less composed it. It was conceived and implemented by his team, very much the same technique he used seeking votes on the Internet. Nice, friendly, bullet-pointed – and completely, almost desperately, political.

Its clear purpose was to convince me to personally support his health care plan, and even “put these core principles of reform in the hands of your friends, your family, and the rest of your social network.” This is one of the main ways he got elected, through slick use of the Internet, getting ordinary citizens to literally go to work for him and to campaign for him and his agenda. Teddy Roosevelt could never have done this and even George Bush and his folks never thought of it. Slick as a whistle and maybe effective.

“Speechless: Silencing the Christians,” by Don Wildmon, lays out determined strategy of coalition of liberal secularists, homosexual activists and Fortune 500 companies

But what was he trying to sell me?

He said, “It’s time to fix our unsustainable insurance system and create a new foundation for health care security,” and then proposed to provide eight specific consumer protections. They sound good and reasonable on the surface. But I’d been studying up on his health care proposal, and had just read at least 50 ways his plan could never work. It would actually devastate our economy and change the fundamental relationship between citizens and government. We’d no longer be freeborn citizens who have a consensual government; our very physical bodies would be the wards of the state.

So it left a bad taste in my mouth.

It vividly brought to mind the Genesis 25 story of Jacob and Esau, sons of Isaac and grandsons of Abraham. Esau was a rugged outdoors guy who loved to hunt and fish, and cook and eat what he killed. His brother Jacob was more a “stay around home” guy, a “mild man, dwelling in tents.” He could well afford to take it easy, because Papa Isaac was wealthy. And Jacob’s mama was happy to do all the cooking for him. She even taught him how to cook some himself.

One day, while Jacob was practicing his cooking, brother Esau came in from the field, dog-tired. “Hey bro,” he asked, “Gimme some of that stew. It smells good, and I’m worn out and hungry.” Well, Jacob was something of a conniver, and he saw a chance to make a big, big score. “I’ll serve you up some of this delicious stew, my brother — if you’ll sell me your birthright, as of this day.”

According to the Bible account, Esau didn’t even think it over. “Hey, I’m so hungry I could die, and then what good would my ‘birthright’ be? You got yourself a deal, little brother. Pass me the stew.” So in that moment of temporary need, he gave up his future and all his father intended him to have.

He ate a big meal, filled his belly, and went his way. He didn’t realize till later what a complete fool he’d been – and he “cried with an exceedingly great and bitter cry.” As the Bible says, “he despised his birthright.”

for the rest of the story, continue here:  Selling America’s birthright

Shared via AddThis

About That Single Payer System You Claim Won’t Happen

Don’t let them fool you, don’t let Johnson or Herseth-Sandlin(Obama’s new blue dog buddy) off the hook this month, this is what their goal is . . .

 

hat/tip:  Breitbart.com

Common Law v. National Law

I want to revisit this as there have been several new articles floating around the internet citing the Immigration/Naturalization Act of 1790, what they fail to mention is that this Act was repealed in 1795.

So, I bring back another great review from Leo Donofrio:

LEO DONOFRIO COMMENTS ON JUDAH BENJAMIN ARTICLE CONCERNING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND THE COMMON LAW

On November 28, 2008, Judah Benjamin published an article at the Texas Darlin blog which discussed my case and the natural born citizen issue.  While I enjoyed reading this article, and I agree with the conclusion – that Obama is not eligible – I disagree with the basis upon which that conclusion was made.

Specifically, I disagree that the common law is controlling on the issue of “natural born citizen”.  It is “national law” which is controlling.  I don’t know if Mr. Benjamin is a lawyer, but his reading, explanation and understanding of the natural born citizen issue is not exactly on point.

I do agree with Benjamin’s conclusion, that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but for the wrong reasons.

And I did enjoy Judah’s article above.  He has obviously done much research.  But there is a glaring mistake in his logic where he fails to point out the necessary concept in common law definition of “natural born subject”.

There are two mistakes in his article which need to be addressed.

FIRST MISTAKE: Failure to state cited law was repealed.

Judah mentions the 1790 naturalization act as follows:

“In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) it says:

‘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’.”

Unfortunately, Benjamin fails to mention, as do many others, that this act was specifically repealed in 1795 and replaced with the same exact clause as written above EXCEPT the words “natural born” have been deleted leaving only the word “citizens”.

See Section 3 Naturalization Act of 1795

This leads to the second point of error.

SECOND MISTAKE:  Failure to properly analyze common law.

Congress having repealed the”natural born provision” leads to the core problem in Mr. Benjamin’s analysis.  Naturalization only concerns people who were, “at birth” not US citizens.

People born in other countries as citizens of foreign powers, but who immigrate to the USA are naturalized.  Naturalization has nothing to do with citizens like McCain who are born abroad to American citizens and are US Citizens by statute “at birth”.

Naturalization also could not cover Obama who was (we assume) born on United States soil (Hawaii).

But at the common law, naturalized citizens WERE considered to be “NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS”.  At the common law, the act of naturalization returns them to birth and they are effectively reborn to the allegiance of the King.

The best case which explains this concept is “United States vs. Rhodes” which Mr. Benjamin does quote but fails to mention the case citation, which is always important because it provides the reader the chance to see the context of the quote discussed.  And this is very important.  Here is what Benjamin quoted from Justice Swayne’s eloquent opinion:

“Justice Noah Haynes Swayne was around when they wrote the XIVth Amendment and the Equal Rights Act of 1866 and in 1866 he said this:

‘All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born Subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution.’ “

And this appears to back Mr. Benjamin’s core thesis, that Obama is not a natural born citizen under the common law definition thereof, which may be true, but that in itself is NOT the main reason Obama isn’t eligible.  The common law is not our national law.  Our national law is the Constitution.  We do not follow the common law, we follow the Constitution.

And this is important to note because the common law, which may also bear out that Obama isn’t eligible, at the same time provides Obama with his best argument that he is eligible.  The reason for this lies on that part of Justice Swayne’s opinion which Mr. Benjamin did not quote.  Here is Justice Swayne’s relevant quote:

“An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129.  “Naturalization takes effect from birth; denization from the date of the patent.” Vin. Abr. tit. “Alien,” D. …The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process.  To make one of domestic birth a citizen is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power.  There is a universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.  [**26]  Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 578; 2 Story, Const. 44.

United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, at 790 (1866)

The status of the candidate “at birth” is relevant to Article 2, Section 1.  For somebody to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President, they must have the status “at birth”.

If the common law were applied in the USA, then all naturalized citizens would be eligible to be President since the common law understanding was that, as quoted by Swayne, “Naturalization takes effect from birth”.  If we followed that today, then all naturalized citizens would be returned to birth to be reborn and could therefore claim “natural born citizen” status.

Mr. Benjamin correctly points out that naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger can NOT be President since they are naturalized and the US doesn’t recognize those persons as “natural born citizens”.

But Mr. Benjamin also argues that this idea comes from the common law and he is wrong about that.  The common law holds that Arnold Schwarzenegger, having been naturalized, would have been a “natural born subject”.  And if we then apply the common law concept and understanding of “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen” then Arnold Schwarzenegger would be eligible to be President since, at common law, his birth status could change upon naturalization.

But Arnold Schwarzenegger is not eligible to be President because the United States doesn’t follow common law.  The United States follows national law, and our national law is the CONSTITUTION.

Obama was not naturalized, and I do not make the argument above to say that naturalization laws apply to Obama – although they might if he were not born in Hawaii- but let’s assume he was.   I make the argument above to show that the United States is not following common law and the Constitution will not be interpreted as if it were controlled by common law.  There is enough evidence in our history and other laws to bear this out.

The first of which is precedent.  In our history as a nation, every President we have ever had was born in the United States to parents who were both US Citizens.

And it’s very important, especially in light of Justice Scalia’s very recent comments to the Federalist Society of November 22, 2008 wherein he said that the common law is dead and does not control in the USA:

“The common law is gone.  The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”

You might want to hear Justice Scalia’s entire presentation:

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp

Furthermore, it is very clear that the those who wrote the 14th Amendment believed that only those so qualified as all previous Presidents were eligible to be President under Article 2, section 1, Clause 5.  This was made clear by Madison’s article:

“Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law” Dec 10, 2006

“John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “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…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.”

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, must also be read in light of the 14th Amendment which is just as much a part of the Constitution as any other part.

CONCLUSION

All in all, Mr. Benjamin has made a valiant attempt to provide a clear analysis of the natural born citizen topic.  Please do not assume I am bashing him.  I respect his passion and research, but it’s not entirely accurate.  And considering what Scalia just said to the Federalist Society about the common law being gone (only three days after my case was scheduled for conference), it’s important to keep things in their proper historical perspective.

Leo C. Donofrio

The Government is not My Shepherd, and I Shall not Surrender My Liberties

New contributor to WND, Herman Cain, brings his inciteful comments on government mandated/run health care

One of the most frequently asked questions I get from new listeners to my radio show is, “What can we do to stop this out-of-control spending and expansion of government by this administration and Congress?” My response is that we have to use the two weapons we have, our votes and our voices.

The power of the ballot box has not diminished. It has just been temporarily hijacked by liberals. Thomas Jefferson observed that “The American people won’t make a mistake, if they are given all of the facts.” The real facts about the Obama administration and Congress are becoming frighteningly more clear every day. More people need to be prepared to cast some different votes in November 2010.

Continue to the full article and a video of Herman going up against slick ‘Willy’ back in ‘93  here

American Values & the Survival of Our Republic & the Constitution

Is American political demographics changing?

Is there a new wave set to ride in upon the American landscape?

Are the DNC & RNC about to meet their maker?

Americans are tired and fed up with business as usual in Washington and are looking for a renewed kind of leadership. Leadership that is deepy rooted in the principles of our founding fathers & the Constitution.

We are continuely harrassed by the far left & also the moderate rights who claim we must move farther to the left to be accepted.

I reject that notion and millions more do also. We reject politicians that were elected on their promise of smaller government only to have them turn their backs on us once they have settled into their cozy Washington elitist world.

We are Silent No More and We are Here to Stay, So Get Used to It!

Our Voices ‘WILL’ Be Heard!

more about "American Values & the Survival of Our…", posted with vodpod

Outsourcing, The New American Way?

Congress Votes to Outsource Presidency Washington, DC , July 10, 2009

Congress today announced that the office of President of the United States of America will be outsourced to India as of September 1, 2009.

The move is being made in order to save the President’s $500000 yearly salary, and also a record $750 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead that his office has incurred during the last 3 months.

It is anticipated that $7 trillion can be saved to the end of the President’s term. “We believe this is a wise financial move. The cost savings are huge,” stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-Wa). “We cannot remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay,” Reynolds noted.

Obama was informed by email this morning of his termination. Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time.

Gurvinder Singh, a tele-technician for Indus Teleservices, Mumbai India , will assume the office of President as of September 1, 2009. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls , NY , thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month, but no health coverage or other benefits. It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without a support staff.

Due to the time difference between the US and India , he will be working primarily at night. “Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the Dell Computer call center,” stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. “I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President.”

A Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this should not be a problem as Obama had never been familiar with the issues either. Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses, he can address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issue at all. “We know these scripting tools work,” stated the spokesperson. “Obama has used them successfully for years, with the result that some people actually thought he knew what he was talking about.”

Obama will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final day of employment. Following a 2-week waiting period, he will be eligible for $140 a week unemployment for 26 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be eligible for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit.

Obama has been provided with the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower, Obama may have difficulties in securing a new position due to a lack of any successful work experience during his lifetime.

A greeter position at Wal-Mart was suggested due to Obama’s extensive experience at shaking hands, as well as his special smile.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Think about it, this is the precedence that has just been set by not following Constitutional Protocol and adhering to the qualifications for President as set forth under Article II, Section I, Clause V.

This is your new future; we now live in an era when anyone born on US soil can become our Commander in Chief.

How Did Barack Obama Become President of the United States?

How did a young man with no documented past, and no documented accomplishments experience such a meteoric rise to the pinnacle of power? Who pushed this guy to the top?

Can JFK shed light upon this for us?

“The very word secrecy is repugnant, in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. But we are opposed around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covetr means for expanding its fear of influence, on infiltration, instead of invasion, on subversion, instead of elections on intimidation, instead of free choice.

It is a system that has conscripted, vast human and material resources, into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No secret is reveled.”

 

Just thinking outload here while the mystery surrounding this 44th President continues to boil.

 

 

Vattel “Law of Nations’ Is the Key and It Is Now Verified: Updated with Footnote at the Conclusion

There is an ever increasing traffic pattern storming the web about the intent of our founding fathers when they included in the Constitution the words ‘natural born citizen’. This traffic is kept alive by those who also believe the Constitution is a living breathing document, would like you to believe that Blackstone’s definition of ‘natural born subject’ is where the founding fathers drew their definition from.  However, this is far from the truth, and now we definitively know for fact that is was not Blackstone that is quoted in the Constitution, it is Vattel and his ‘Law of Nations’.

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Therefore, we can indisputably say for certain that the ‘Law of Nations’ were the guiding document for our founding fathers and we can say for certain that under Article II, Section I, Clause V,

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.

that the founding fathers were quoting from Chapter XIX, Section 212 of Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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.”

To further confirm this, we have this quote from Alexander Hamilton in the Philidelphia Gazette, June 29, 1793:

“The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the Law of Nations, as well as the Municipal Law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.”

Obama, by his own admission was at birth a British subject. He then later became a Kenyan citizen and an Indonesian citizen and thus far has never shown verification that he formally has renounced any any of those citizenships when he became of age.

“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.”

We know for a fact from Obama’sown admission that at the coming of age he sought out those who did not like this country and he also traveled with those who were not of this country. He was able to enter Pakistan during their time of civil war. He resided and traveled in Pakistan with one of the most prominent opposition leaders there per these reports by Intl News/Pakistan, ABC News & former assit. US Attorney, Andrew McCarthy.

McCarthy writes: “By contrast, the question whether Obama ever was an Indonesian citizen is still unresolved, as are such related matters as whether the foreign citizenship (if he had it) ever lapsed, and whether he ever held or used an Indonesian passport — for example, during a mysterious trip to Pakistanhe took in 1981, after Zia’s coup, when advisories warned Americans against traveling there. By the way, many details about that journey, too, remain unknown. Obama strangely neglected to mention it in his 850 pages of autobiography, even though the 20-year-old’s adventure included a stay at the home of prominent Pakistani politicians.”

The Intl News/Pakistan:

Soomro was among Obama’s hosts in Pakistan

Thursday, April 24, 2008 NEW YORK: Chairman Senate Muhammadmian Soomro may be having a friend in White House if Barak Hussain Obamafinallysucceeds in his presidential bid.Hardly a few people know about Soomro’s link with Obama, which he never discussed it in public. But in private interactions with influential Pakistanis here in the US, Obama disclosed that Soomro’s father was his host when he went on a hunting expedition in Jacobabad during his visit to Pakistan in 1981.(snip) Ahmadmian Soomro had also served in banking industry and was considered a pioneer in cooperative banking. By the time Soomro’s father had hosted Obama, he was only a college student who went to Pakistan on his way from Indonesia where his mother was working with the Ford Foundation’s micro credit finance project. Also Obama’s mother was a frequent traveller to Pakistan and according to Time Magazine, she had a little bit proficiency in speaking Urdu. When Soomro was asked about the person who referred Obama to his father, he said he nowadays lived in some country in South America. He was, however, reluctant to disclose his identity, saying he will have to seek permission from that man before giving his profile.Although, Obamahas not disclosed his link with Soomro, he mentioned it during his canvassing campaign while talking to a Pakistani American, ShahidAhmadKhan, member of Board of Trustees Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

 

So, not only was Barack H Obama unqualified to run for our highest office, let alone be sworn in as President because he was a British Subject at birth, Barack H Obama aka Barry Soetoro may not even be a proper citizen of this country. Could this be why for the 1st time in American history we have a president who failed to meet the minimum qualifications of all US males by simply trotting himself down to the local post office to sign up for the selective service. My guess is yes, because had he done that, he would have been documented as an alien resident NOT a US citizen.

Thus, we now have a Commander in Chief who to this day owes allegiances to Foreign Governmentsand Foreign Militaries.

So, Barry Prez, can we talk about all that debt you supposedly had when you finished college and law school. Just whom and what country was that debt owed to beacuseyour actions thus far during your world apology tours, do not leave us with the impression it was anyone from the USA.

After post Footnote: Leo says that the Law of Nations is meant to mean universal law of nations. One theory being that Vattel was not the original author of Laws of Nations. Correct, however Vattel was the one in the hands of the founding fathers and thus the one we must refer to when determing the founding fathers definition of ‘natural born citizen’. I am having a hard time accepting Leo’s theory in light of the Hamilton quote, therefore, my conclusion here shall stand until Leo disproves Hamilton.

It ‘irks’ me when lawyers make things more complicated than they really are. The founding fathers drafted a document that was worded in a way that ‘ALL’ citizens of the time as well as all future generations could understand without having to have a law degree. Well, that is, all future generations not being taught in a corrupt liberal public funded education system where teaching history has become passe’ & irrelevant. It was their vision that the central government would be made up of common men & business men and they did fear the thought of a congress full of lawyers that would twist and turn the words of the constitution to fit their personal political agenda.

Common law is only referenced in one place in the Constitution and that is in the 12th Amendment where it refers to trial by jury and it is ‘not’ capitalized. However, in the meat of the Constitution, right there smack in the 1st article, Law of Nation is capitalized. This can not be shoved aside as immaterial. Especially in the light of all the Congressional records where the founding fathers quote from Vattel, as well as the public quotes such as Hamilton’s quote above.

Did the founding fathers have both Vattel & Blackstone in their hands when drafting the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution? Of course. However, Blackstone relied on old English comon law of British subjects of a centrel controlling monarchy while Vattel’s laws were written for a country based on individual citizen rights of a government of the people.

So, while lawyers may be necessary for some purposes in life, they have a knack for making the lay person feel inferior when the fact of the matter is, it is the lawyers throughout this nation’s history who are the ones to blame for this mess we are in and why the general public is taught that the lay person has no intellect as to the framers intent. They control the courts, thus they believe that they are the holders of the definition of all rules of law. The fact of the matter is, not all the early Supreme Court Justices as well as Federal Judges held law degrees.

Justice Thomas recently said that understanding the Constitution is like understanding a cell phone bill. This could not be further from the truth, yet is just goes to show how a lawyer will twist things around. Now had he said, the current legal system is like understanding a cell phone bill, I would have had to concur with him, because it is because of their profession, some of our freedoms have vanished into thin air.

No wonder mainstreet America despises lawyers so much. They have taken our once wonderful Cosntitution and twisted it to suit their own personal political agendas.

In conclusion, I believe Leo’s heart is in the right place and we have to ‘Thank” him for helping us get to the root of understanding the intent of the framers, however his legal education has warped the most common of understandings of our founding fathers, the understanding that the Declaration & the Constitution would be able to be understood by ALL men of ALL education levels.

Obama Revealed: ‘Natural Born Subject’ of the Great British Crown

According to Blackstone’s Commentaries:

“all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;”

Alas! I have been anticipating this article from Leo. Read, learn and spread the word while we wait for the conclusion, of what Obama’s real current citizenship status is, in Leo’s next article.

__________________________________________________________________________

Obama Was A Natural Born Subject: the Founders’ Greatest Fear As To Commander In Chief.

Our current US President was a Great British citizen at the time of his birth.  He then became a Kenyan citizen followed by what appears to be citizenship in Indonesia.  Perhaps he is currently a citizen or subject of a nation other than the US.  (That question will be the focus of my next article.)

Obama’s own web site carried an admission that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. That admission was published by Obama’s Fight The Smears web site as quoted from a discussion of Obama’s UK citizenship written by Factcheck.org.

The Factcheck.org essay went even further than the admission quoted by Obama’s site.  It further stated:

“In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC…Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived.”

Neither Obama nor Factcheck.org dispute that Obama was a British citizen at birth.  As you can see, it has been admitted.  All those who continue to dispute this fact are delusional.  Obama was a British citizen at birth.  Fact. Checked. Established.  The only question that remains on the issue is whether he’s still a British citizen or subject. (And that’s the topic of my next post.)

Having been a British citizen at birth, Obama was therefore a natural born subject of Great Britain.  Justice Gray – writing for the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark – quoted the following from a prior US District Court decision:

“In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”

Birth and allegiance go together.  Obama’s father conveyed British citizenship upon his son at birth.  His son, Obama Jr., was a natural born subject of the British monarchy.  Even if Obama was born in Hawaii and was a US citizen at birth, nothing can change the fact that he was also a natural born subject of Great Britain as well as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

The fact that Obama is a natural born subject has – up until this article – gone largely unnoticed.  According to Blackstone’s Commentaries:

“all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;”

Obama’s allegiance was – at the time of his birth – divided.  And the framers would never have considered him eligible to be President.   The same can be said for the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark which also indicated that the native born son of an alien was not natural born.

Now we shall turn our attention to the fears expressed by our founding fathers as to the possibility that foreigners might gain political footholds in our federal government.  The issue was discussed explicitly by Alexander Hamilton in Essay 68 of the Federalist Papers wherein he stated:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? (Emphasis added.)

In George Washington’s farewell address in 1796, he stated these most important words which today would be soundly ridiculed by the propaganda of political correct sarcasm:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism…

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another…

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government...  

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…(Emphasis added.)

The main stream media would have you believe that a natural born subject – a citizen at birth of Great Britain – entangled closely with the nation of Kenya where he was a citizen until at least the age of 21 – and still may be according to Kenyan law – would be eligible to the office of President of the United States and to be its Commander In Chief.  And they push this propaganda down your throat as if it weren’t even a serious issue.

They are lying to you and the depths of their lies betray their genuine recognition that a Constitutional crime has been committed against the Document and the judgment of the founders.

Your press, members of Congress, Senate and current Supreme Court have sold you out, America.

Something wicked this way comes.

And that wickedness comes in the form of a “citizen of the world” who declares our Constitution a flawed document out of one side of his mouth, while allegedly declaring an oath to protect it from the other.  (Although the oath was taken in private, so who really knows.) When I recently said I wasn’t worried about Obama, what I meant was that I wasn’t worried about him anymore than the Bush cabal or the Clintons.  They all perpetrated crimes against the Constitution.

So many of you are now so very very concerned about our Constitution.  Your patriotic fervor has been stoked by Hamilton and Washington just now as you wipe those Constitutional tears away.  Your heart burns for the Constitution and the nation, doesn’t it.

But let me take this chance to tell those of you who supported torture, unconstitutional wars and the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians – children, mothers, grandmothers – by the last administration – you don’t deserve the protections of our Constitution.

The Iraq war isn’t Constitutional.  There was no declaration of war by Congress.  And the war on terror is a myth.  “War” is only declared against a foreign state – not an ideology.  Terrorism is a crime and 911 should have been handled as a crime scene.  But the forensic evidence was shipped out to China.  And the case was solved in 24 hours by the same people who allegedly failed to stop it.

I’m not saying 911 was an “inside job” because nobody really knows the whole story.  But anyone who denies that elements of the crime have been covered up is lying or just ignorant of basic facts.

And we’re not supposed to do torture.  But Scalia would have you believe that torture isn’t a form of punishment.  He might just consider it punishment if he were subjected to it.  Scalia knows with absolute certainty that torture is punishment.  But the Constitution protects against cruel and unusual punishment, so Scalia has to play word games to get the desired ruling he seeks.  This makes him an enemy of the Constitution too.

There are many enemies of the Constitution in high places.  But you only care about Obama?  None of the above bothered so many of you.  But now you want to preserve the Constitution?

You’re too late.

This nation will not exist as a Constitutional republic for much longer.  Nothing can be done to stop the utter dismantling of the Constitution.  It will continue in name only.  But the protections it once granted will be ancient relics of a failed experiment in liberty: not failed because our founding fathers didn’t prepare us – failed because we prostituted our ethics for revenge.

I’ve made the legal case that Obama is not a natural born citizen and should not be President.  But he is President and Commander In Chief.  Nothing will change that.

This country does not have the will power to change it.  The country sold its soul to Bush, Clinton, Bush…  You didn’t care about the Constitution then and you’re gonna get what you got coming to you now.

CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA.

 

Beer & the ‘Natural Born Citizen’

H/T to faucetman for the analogy..it is spot on!

Let me try a BEER analogy, something at least guys might understand.

You go into an establishment that serves adult beverages. You order a Budweiser. The “server” (xxx I HATE that term) gives you a Bud Light. You immediately complain, “This won’t do, I want a Budweiser”. The server returns and sets down a Budweiser Brew Masters’ Private Reserve. Again you complain, “This won’t do, I want a Budweiser”. The server returns and sets down a Budweiser NA (Non-alcoholic version of Budweiser developed for the Middle Eastern market. Also available in Green Apple and Tropical Fruits versions). You become FURIOUS and DEMAND that you will NOT accept anything other than the one, the only, the very specific type of beer you ordered. While they were all BEER, while they were all Anheuser-Busch products, and they all had the name Budweiser on the label, (and they probably were all very good beer), THEY JUST WERE NOT THE SAME THING. When it comes to my BEER (president), I INSIST on the REAL THING.

Give The People Control of Their Own Money & Health Care? Are You Insane!

HUH, Calling an American an American Is Now Considered Un-American?

This is absolute madness and it must stop! It’s one thing to call the ‘War on Terrorism’ , ‘Overseas Contingency Operations’, BUT…

when they start banning us from using the term ‘American’ to describe American citizens in the United States of America they have crossed a line that will NOT be tolerated. This is race baiting at its absolute worst coming right out of the Obama administration.

This guy hates our great country and it is time to rise-up against this tyranny and take our country back!

Ramifications Of A POTUS Who Is A ‘British Subject’

From Leo Donofrio:

POTUS Usurper Chester Arthur Forced Military To Salute British Flag.

Posted in Uncategorized on August 19, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

Back in December, this blog broke the story that former US President Chester Arthur lied – in newspaper interviews with the Brooklyn Eagle – about his parental heritage.  These lies covered up the fact that Chester Arthur, at the time of his birth, was a British Subject due to the fact that his father, William Arthur, was not a US citizen at the time Chester was born.  This fact, had it been discovered back when Chester Arthur was running for Vice President, would have been an impediment to his nomination.

As fate would have it, Chester Arthur became President when Garfield was assassinated by a rabid Chester Arthur supporter.

Recently, there has been attempts in the main stream media (Colbert Report and AP propaganda) to normalize the fact that Chester Arthur served as President while also being a closet British subject.

We shall now examine one very upsetting official action taken by Chester Arthur as President of the US which bears witness to the importance of an accurate historical record for establishing such concepts as motive, allegiance and national sovereignty.

BY EXECUTIVE ORDER – CHESTER ARTHUR FORCED MILITARY TO SALUTE GREAT BRITISH FLAG

EXECUTIVE ORDER.[2]

[Footnote 2: Read by the Secretary of State before the people assembled
to celebrate the Yorktown Centennial.]

YORKTOWN, VA., _October 19, 1881_.

In recognition of the friendly relations so long and so happily
subsisting between Great Britain and the United States, in the trust and
confidence of peace and good will between the two countries for all the
centuries to come, and especially as a mark of the profound respect
entertained by the American people for the illustrious sovereign and
gracious lady who sits upon the British throne

_It is hereby ordered_, That at the close of the ceremonies
commemorative of the valor and success of our forefathers in their
patriotic struggle for independence the British flag shall be saluted by
the forces of the Army and Navy of the United States now at Yorktown.

The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy will give orders
accordingly.

CHESTER A. ARTHUR.

By the President:
JAMES G. BLAINE,
_Secretary of State_.

That’s incredible.  By Executive Order, the POTUS usurper and closet British subject ordered our military to salute the British flag.  I do not know of any other time in our national history where this happened. Read this part again:

commemorative of the valor and success of our forefathers in their
patriotic struggle for independence the British flag shall be saluted by
the forces of the Army and Navy of the United States now at Yorktown.

Commemorative of our struggle to rid ourselves of the British flag, and in recognition of the blood shed on the field of battle, the usurper forced our military to salute the enemy flag.  This is simply a form of blasphemy against our Constitution and our forefathers.  The act of saluting is an act of allegiance.  Chester Arthur can kiss my arse.

It was demanded of our military that they salute the flag of Great Britain.

There is nothing ceremonial about such an act.  A salute is a salute.  It has power and force.  A salute to the Queen in her silly robes and throne holding a golden scepter is disgusting.  Our military swears an oath to protect the US and its Constitution not the monarchy of Great Britain who our forefathers died on the battlefield trying to save us from.

What were they saving us from?  They were saving us from a future as subjects of a Crown.  They were saving us from being forced to bear loyalty to a monarch who believes there is something in her blood which makes her the rightful ruler of a people.

It is the very concept of royalty that the framers designed this country in opposition to.

The US is a direct creation of men who were determined that Government should fear the citizens.  But when was the last time that happened?  Our Government does not fear the people, but rather strikes fear in the people.

In his state of the Union address on December 6, 1881, Chester Arthur discussed this treasonous act as follows:

The feeling of good will between our own Government and that of Great Britain was never more marked than at present. In recognition of this pleasing fact I directed, on the occasion of the late centennial celebration at Yorktown, that a salute be given to the British flag…

The presence at the Yorktown celebration of representatives of the French Republic and descendants of Lafayette and of his gallant compatriots who were our allies in the Revolution has served to strengthen the spirit of good will which has always existed between the two nations.

Wasn’t this unconstitutional act a diplomatic smack in the face to France, our allies in the revolutionary war?  As long as the usurper was in the mood for a flag saluting free for all, why salute the enemy flag and not the flag of France, a country who saw men killed fighting for our freedoms as opposed to saluting the monarchy which tried to enslave us more than once?

[Thanks to reader Joss Brown who first brought this to my attention.]

Chester Arthur also appointed Justice Horace Gray to the US Supreme Court.  Gray wrote the majority decision in Wong Kim Ark.  That decision seriously damaged the true meaning of the 14th Amendment by subverting the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and thereafter weakening the jurisdiction of the US to prevent abuse of our immigration and naturalization laws.

The decision in Wong Kim Ark at first glance tends to give the appearance of sanitizing Chester Arthur’s citizenship issues.  One cannot help but wonder if Justice Gray was protecting the legality of his SCOTUS appointment.  Such is the everlingering stench of usurpation upon national precedent.

I expect that with these revelations coming at a rather fast pace, internet researchers/bloggers etc. will continue to unearth more relevant facts which bear witness to the true wisdom our forefathers had when they wrote Article 2, Section, 1, Clause 5: the natural born citizen POTUS eligibility requirement.

It comes as no surprise to me that usurper Chester Arthur, a closet British Subject, forced the US military to salute the flag of Great Britain.  Furthermore, his words of respect for the unjust institution of  monarchy – where the subjects are held by law to be lesser creatures than those of the throne – is a blasphemy on the principles of our republican form of Government where we the people own the country and its government.

This very concept -  that the government must answer to we the people – is a blasphemy to monarchy.  Since Chester Arthur was a natural born subject of Great Britain, he was born into blasphemy of our republican form of Government.

 

US President Barack Obama, Jr. was also a natural born British citizen/subject, a fact he has openly admitted.  I will examine his current status under the monarchy of Great Britain in a forthcoming report.

Constitutional ‘Nuclear Bomb’ Blasts Obama’s Eligibilty To Smithereens

Pour yourself a cup of refreshment, then come back and join me in learning some more Constitutional history; history that you will be teaching to future generations for decades to come. What I have I uncovered is the ‘nuclear bombshell’ that blows Obama’s claims to constitutional eligibility to smithereens.

 

I apologize to those in the chat room last night. I woke with a splitting headache this am and trying to concentrate on the final draft of this has been slow going, thus its tardiness getting published today.

 

Following up after a very informative debate on Wednesday evening, I set my sights to further research St. George Tucker and his commentaries on the Constitution. During the debate, the lawyer for the liberal cause was quite adamant that the 1790 Naturalization Act,even though it had been repealed, was the one law that backed his claims that Obama is constitutionally qualified under A2 S1 C5 of the Constitution.

 

The 1790 Act was repealed in 1795 and the words’ natural born citizen’ were removed, while the rest of the 1795 Naturalization Act remained in tact and verbatim to the original of 1790. You see, those in Congress at the time knew the same thing that those of us who have researched them know; a natural born citizen needs no law to qualify them for citizenship. When one is born on US soil to parents(both) who are American citizens, that one automatically owes no allegiance to any other sovereignty than the USA, thus they are ‘natural born’, nature working in its purest form. They also knew that the founding fathers did not consider themselves natural born citizens, hence the wording of A2 S1 C5 and its inclusion of a grandfather clause:

 

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution,”

 

Former assist US Attorney, Andrew McCarthy, in his most recent eligibilty article at NRO wrote this of the qualifications and stated that Obama was Kenyan at birth which is misleading, Obama was British at birth, Kenya did not gain its sovereignty from Great Britain until Obama was 2 years old:

 

“The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a “natural born” American — an uncharted constitutional concept.”

 

Now, while quite eloquently written using his legal mumbo-jumbo, as we go further, I will prove how McCarthy is quite wrong in his interpretation that Obama’s dual citizenship presents ‘complex dual-citizenship issues’.

 

Moving on, St George Tucker’s  commentaries are widely used in teaching constitutional law. His works are thorough and very enlightening, even to a lay person such as myself. However, while searching for more of his commentaries online, I came across another influential legal mind of the time who also wrote commentaries on the constitution. While I knew of him as a former Supreme Court Justice, I did not at the time know of his influences in the history of our legal system and the teachings of constitutional law across this great nation.

 

Justice Joseph Story was born in Marblehead, Ma in 1779. He graduated 2nd in his class from Harvard University in 1798. From there, Joseph went on to read law under Samuel Sewell, a then congressman and later chief justice of Ma. Joseph later went on to read law under Samuel Pitman in Salem, Ma and with no formal secondary law education; Joseph was admitted to the bar 3 years later in 1801. He would later go on to serve in the Ma House of Representatives and also represent Ma in the US congress. Joseph was nominated to the Supreme Court by President James Madison and he took his oath of office in November of 1811 at the age of 32 and he still remains the youngest ever to serve on the Supreme Court. Many of Justice Story’s opinions are still widely cited to this date. In the preface of Joseph’s Commentaries of 1833, he includes a dedication to President Madison in which he states:

 

“But in one department, (it need scarcely be said, that I allude to that of constitutional law,) the common consent of your countrymen has admitted you to stand with a rival. Posterity will assuredly confirm by its deliberate award, what the present age has approved, as act of undisputed justice. Your expositions of constitutional law enjoy a rare and extraordinary authority. They constitute a monument of fame far beyond the ordinary memorials of political and military glory. They are destined to enlighten, instruct and convince future generations; and can scarcely perish but with the memory of the constitution itself.”

 

Even as a young budding justice, Story knew that the preservation of the Republic and the Constitution relied on adherence to the original intent of our founding fathers and that is why he was both admired and despised by both parties of Congress during his tenure on the court.

 

Prominent radio host and constitutional scholar, Mark R. Levin, of the Landmark Legal Foundation and avid supporter of Hillsdale College recently referred to Justice Joseph Story as:

 

“the great Supreme Court Justice and constitutional scholar”

 

Joseph served on the Supreme Court until his death in 1845 and during that tenure; he was elected as overseer of Harvard University. Story is considered as the main founder of ‘Harvard Law School’ which was open for teaching in 1829. He would remain in the same position as overseer while he also served as a professor of law, a position he held until his death.

 

So, now that I have laid out the background of Justice Joseph Story, let’s get to the heart of today’s constitutional crisis that the founding fathers warned us of in their many writings.

 

In my earlier articles, I had quoted St George Tucker, (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Congresses (March 4, 1815-March 3, 1819); chairman, Committee on District of Columbia (Fourteenth Congress), Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings (Fifteenth Congress); author of Tucker’s Commentaries and of a treatise on natural law and on the formation of the Constitution of the United States and State senate, 1819-1823; chancellor of the fourth judicial district of Virginia 1824-1831):

 

“The Provision in the Constitution which requires that the President shall be a ‘natural born’ citizen, unless he were a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted, is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”

 

I thought I had the smoking gun here when I first quoted this back in March, but the liberal legal minds kept quoting that naturalization at the time, meant the same thing as natural born citizen per the 1790 Naturalization Act that was repealed. They like to quote John McCain as being naturalized under the 14th Amendment; however, McCain is a citizen by codified statute cited in the Foreign Affairs manual under children born to US citizens abroad. What I have uncovered will blast S. Res. 511, a Senate Resolution declaring John Sidney McCain to be a ‘natural born’ citizen  right into outer space where it belongs, because it is filled with nothing but hot air opinions of corrupt politicians. All their ‘whereas’ are nothing more than particles of a political solar system, waiting to disintegrate upon entry into the realm of constitutional law.

 

During Story’s tenure at Harvard and until his death, there were 12 published Commentaries on wide ranging aspects of American law. Three of these volumes were on the constitution and his works won him an international reputation as one of the most renowned constitutional scholars of the time.

 

It was in reading his works of Volume 3, Section 1472-73 of ‘The Founders Constitution: Commentaries on the Constitution’ originally published in 1833 and now provided online by none other than the University of Chicago (how fitting), Story writes of the qualifications of those who wish to attain election into the executive branch as laid out in A2 S1 C5 of the constitution.

 

§ 1472. Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required in the executive department, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age. That, which has been selected, is the middle age of life, by which period the character and talents of individuals are generally known, and fully developed; and opportunities have usually been afforded for public service, and for experience in the public councils. The faculties of the mind, if they have not then attained to their highest maturity, are in full vigor, and hastening towards their ripest state. The judgment, acting upon large materials, has, by that time, attained a solid cast; and the principles, which form the character, and the integrity, which gives lustre to the virtues of life, must then, if ever, have acquired public confidence and approbation.

 

§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicile in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicile, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.

 

Here Story clearly defines the difference between the 2 types of citizenship when he went into detail about the grandfather clause in which the original founding fathers relied on to attain election to the executive branch, a clause that would soon become obsolete and extinct.

 

(snip) or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.

 

Did you catch the pertinent words here? Those stubborn words ‘naturalized‘,  ’exception‘ and ‘extinct‘? Remember, Obama himself, claims that ‘words have meaning’.

 

(snip) This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct)

 

Now, permit me to reiterate that to this date, Justice Joseph Story remains one of THE MOST cited justices and his ‘Commentaries’ are main stays in the teaching of constitutional law worldwide since their original publications began in 1832.

Obama studied law at Harvard, he was the president of Harvard Law Review during his time there, yet we are not allowed to read any of his writings and none thus far have shown to have been published. More importantly is the fact that Story is the founder of Harvard Law School and Obama surely would have been very familiar with Story’s works, especially the 3 volumes on ‘The Founders Constitution’.

 

Obama also supposedly taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago. I say supposedly because there is some question as to his actual being on the roll as a professor. I have yet to find published academic course offering booklets, of the time he claims to have been there, that offer any constitutional law classes of which he is the professor teaching the class.

 

The man occupying the executive branch and commander of our military knew full well that he was not constitutionally qualified. He and his cronies in Congress have used the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 to obscure that fact and continue to feed the Kenyan birth theory to keep the true facts of his ineligibility swept under the rug.

 

That is . . . UNTIL NOW!

 

Let’s all say in unison: “BOGUS POTUS”!

 

The next order of business, in which Leo Donofrio is working on, pertains to Obama’s British citizenship at birth. Obama claims that his British citizenship changed to Kenyan citizenship in 1963 when Kenya gained their freedom from British rule, he also claims that since he did not act on that Kenyan citizenship upon coming of age (another clever smoke screen), this inaction automatically caused him to lose his Kenyan citizenship. That may be, however, research has shown that at the coming of age, Kenyans who were born during the time of British rule, had to formally renounce their British citizenship for if they did not, they would remain subjects of Great Britain and subject to the rule of the monarchy.

 

So, the questions remain, what country’s passports has Obama travelled on during his extensive world travels in the 80’s & 90’s when he was a poor struggling college & law student as well as his travels abroad while he was a US Senator? Also, where did the funds come from to finance his college & law educations?

 

Every American citizen has a very valid right to know the answers to these two final questions.

Justice Joseph Story Confirms: ‘Words of the Constitution Do Have Meaning’

I will go into elaboration on this, however let this phrase from Justice Joseph Story’s ‘Commentaries on the Constitution’ speak for itself while also providing further evidence that the founding fathers did not wish to draft a constitution so obscure that the common man could not understand it:

 (snip)

§ 183.  II.  In construing the constitution of the United States, we are, in the first instance, to consider, what are its nature and objects, its scope and design, as apparent from the structure of the instrument, viewed as a whole, and also viewed in its component parts.  Where its words are plain, clear, and determinate, they require no interpretation; and it should, therefore, be admitted, if at all, with great caution, and only from necessity, either to escape some absurd consequence, or to guard against some fatal evil. 

(snip)

§ 188.  IV. From the foregoing considerations we deduce the conclusion, that as a frame or fundamental law of government, (2.) The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred.  By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the constitution; that which will give it efficacy and force, as a government, rather than that, which will impair its operations, and reduce it to a state of imbecility.  Of course we do not mean, that the words for this purpose are to be strained beyond their common and natural sense; but keeping within that limit, the exposition is to have a fair and just latitude, so as on the one hand to avoid obvious mischief, and on the other hand to promote the public good.

(snip)

§ 210.  XV. In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it.  Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research.  They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.  The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.

Click here to read Justice Story’s abridged commentary on the ‘Rules of Constitutional Interpretation’.

The Law of Nations as U.S. Federal Common Law and Not English Common Law Defines What an Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Is

“Unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child’s (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831

Given the profound differences between the citizenship rules associated with the English common law and those connected with American national citizenship, it is evident that the Founders did not use English common law to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is but rather used the law of nations for that purpose.

To the extent that the English common law was relied upon in the colonies and States, that law was at the time that the Constitution was adopted “to a greater or less extent, recognized as the law of the States by which the Constitution was adopted.” The English common law would, however, be applied to determine questions of citizenship only if the written law was silent, i.e., there was no statute or federal or state court decision on the subject. Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). But the Founders did not rely upon the English common law to define the new national United States citizenship that they created for the new Constitutional Republic. Rather, the Founders displaced the English common law with the law of nations which became the new U.S. federal common law and the law of the federal government.

The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-known by civilized nations. Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. Upon independence from Great Britain, the United States “were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. 199, 281 (1796). There are other numerous authorities that state that the law of nations became the national law of the United States. Even William Blackstone recognized the importance of the law of nations which he considered “universal law” and the life blood of a nation wanting to be part of the “civilized world.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 67 (1769). Hence, the law of nations, when not codified into any Act of Congress, became the common law of the United States.

The Founders believed that the common law was discoverable by reason and was forever present, a “discoverable reflection of universal reason.” Sosa. So since the Constitution did not define “citizen” or “natural born Citizen,” “resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations” found in the law of nations, as defined by scholars, jurists, and commentators of the time who devoted “years of labor, research and experience” to the subject. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700(1900).

We know from the historical record and from the way the Constitution is framed that the Founders relied heavily upon E. Vattel and his treatise, The Law of Nations, as a crucial and fundamental guide in knowing what the law of nations was. The Founders knew that the law of nations as per Vattel defined a “citizen” simply as any member of society. They also knew that a “natural born Citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents. That is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401. It should be noted that during the Founding and throughout American history, there has always been a distinction between a general “citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born citizen” on the other. The law of nations did not make any specific requirements for one to be a “citizen” of a nation, for such a person was basically just a member of the civil society. Before and after the revolution, the Founders considered anyone who resided in the colonies or States and who adhered to the revolutionary cause to be a “citizen,” regardless of place of birth or condition of the parents. But the law of nations did provide for a strict definition of a “natural born citizen,” i.e., the child born in the country of citizen parents. And the Founders also adopted that stricter definition for an Article II “natural born Citizen” which applied only to one wanting to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

The Founders also understood what “natural allegiance” was. They knew that “liegance, and faith and truth, which are her members and parts, are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.” (p. 76). Calvin’s Case (7 Coke, 1, 6 James I.) They understood that an English “natural born subject” residing out of the kingdom or jurisdiction of the king still owed allegiance to the king of England. Id. Hence, they understood that “natural allegiance” or “allegiance by birth” does not depend upon locality or place; that it is purely mental in its nature, and cannot, therefore, be confined within any certain boundaries. . .” Ludham, 26 N.Y. at 363. They understood that natural allegiance or allegiance by birth did not depend upon boundaries or place but rather upon parentage. Id. at 364. The Founders understood that “as long as the parents continue to owe allegiance to the crown of England, so long will their children, by the rules of the common law, whether born within or without the kingdom, owe similar allegiance, and be entitled to the corresponding rights of citizenship.” Id. at 365. Finally, the Founders also understood that even though a child may be born on U.S. soil, if he was born of a British father, the Crown of England owed that child the same protection that it owed the father. Id. at 370-71.

Simply stated, the definition of “natural born subject” as found in the English common law simply did not work for the Founders. Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a Constitutional Republic. Great Britain did not have a President to be democratically elected by the people but the new nation did. Great Britain was not concerned with foreign influence making its way into the hereditary monarchy but the Founders were concerned about the Office of President being attacked from within and without with foreign influence infecting not only the voters but also the political leaders themselves. The Founders understood that citizenship and allegiance went together. The born-in-country-to-two-U.S.-citizen- parents formula was the best way for them to assure that only a person with undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This test was not tied to the physical territory alone, which the Founders understood and which Lord Coke confirmed did not assure anyone’s natural allegiance. Rather, this test combined both the soil with the allegiance of the child’s parents into the child at the time of birth. For the Founders, this was the best way to assure sole and absolute allegiance in the new-born child.

The Founders knew that the States had their own laws on how they defined citizens and how they naturalized aliens. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 791 (1866). They also knew that these laws were not uniform. The Founders in Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 gave Congress the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization. The Founders also wanted a uniform definition of “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” The law of nations provided them with those definitions which were also accepted by other civilized nations and which allowed them to establish a national standard for citizenship that would be incorporated and become part of U.S. national law.

Further proof that the Founders in defining citizenship did not accept English common law but rather the law of nations which was based on natural law can be found in the Congressional debates concerning the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. When commenting on the proposed amendment on May 30, 1866, Senator Howard said:

“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 Govern- of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, P. 2890, col. 2. The doctrine that children, if legitimate, follow, in regard to their political rights and duties, the condition of their fathers, is founded on natural law. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. at 368. Note that Senator Howard said that the amendment was only declaratory of “natural law” which became “national law” which in turn became the “law of the land.” The Senator is telling us that citizenship was defined by federal law which under Article VI of the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. He did not refer to any British common law or individual state law as being the basis for how citizenship was defined. Rather, his reference to “natural law” connects to the law of nations which was based on “natural law.” And the law of nations, as incorporated into the laws of the new Republic, did become the new national law of the United States. Moreover, in providing the list of those parents who would disqualify children born on U.S. territory from becoming a citizen, Senator Howard included parents who were foreigners, aliens, ambassadors, or foreign ministers. Note that the list included “foreigners” and “aliens.” Hence, the exclusion was not only for the children of ambassadors and enemy aliens, as was the rule of the English common law, but also for the children of “foreigners” and “aliens.” This exclusion was also repeated by Senator Johnson who stated that the child would have to be born on U.S. soil to “parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

Furthermore, everything that the Founders established about citizenship in the United States is not consistent with British common law that treats the subject. The English common law did not use the concept of “natural born subject” as a means to protect the head of the military and civilian government of Great Britain from foreign influence. Rather, the British were very liberal in granting “natural born subject” status so as to create for its monarchy-based empire as many subjects as possible. We saw an extreme of this policy when Great Britain insisted on impressing American sailors into its military which practice lead to the War of 1812. But John Jay, in writing to General George Washington on July 25, 1787, was very specific that the Commander in Chief of the military would have to be a “natural born citizen” (underlining born in the original) so as to assure that no foreigner would hold that office. The Founders accepted Jay’s recommendation and included in Article II the “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, Americans were very cautious in granting “natural born Citizen” status because they had a democratically elected President and Commander in Chief of the Military and representative form of government which they needed to protect from foreign influence. This was consistent with the law of nations.

The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic. But we know that the Founders considered a naturalized citizen to be only a “citizen” (able to be President under Article II’s grandfather clause and Senator or Representative under Article I) and not a “natural born Citizen” (which status was required of a would-be President for births after 1789). This was consistent with the law of nations. The 14th Amendment also made the same recognition. Not being a “natural born Citizen,” the Founders did not permit naturalized citizens to be President. But again, the Framers, after 1789 (when the grandfather clause expired and Article II required a child to be a “natural born Citizen” and not only a “citizen”) would not have allowed such children to be President, for they would have been naturalized “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.”

English common law did not distinguish between “natural born subject” and “subject.” The Founders, the framers of the 14th Amendment, all Congresses in their Acts, and virtually all courts in their decisions have treated “natural born Citizen” and “citizen,” as two separate and distinct terms. This dichotomy is consistent with the law of nations which did make such a distinction. This distinction shows that “citizens” could be created by the Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts but an Article II “natural born Citizens” could only be created by satisfying the natural law standard as expressed in the law of nations (place of birth and parentage).

Unless they were ambassadors/diplomats or alien enemies, the English common law considered irrelevant the citizenship of the child’s parents when determining whether a child born on English soil was a “natural born subject.” The Founders knew from the law of nations that in England, the “single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Vattel, Sec. 214. This would have been consistent with the monarchy’s desire to make as many “natural born subjects” as possible for its growing empire. The U.S. common law went beyond these two exceptions and did consider relevant the condition of the child’s parents when determining whether the child was to be afforded U.S. citizenship at birth. See the cases cited above. Under the law of nations, such a child born in the country to foreign parents was considered to have been naturalized under English law. But again, the Framers would not have allowed such a naturalized child to be considered a “natural born Citizen,” for they permitted the latter to be President but not the former. The maxim that was applied in this connection is recognized in the law of nations and was partus sequitur patrem (the child follows the condition of the father). Shanks v. Dupont, Barry v. Mercein, 46 U.S. 103 (1847); Ludlam, 26 N.Y. at 376; Ex parte Reynolds, and United States v. Ward.

The English common law had no concern for whether a person consented to be declared a “natural born subject.” This phenomenon was made much worse by the British not allowing any “natural born subjects” to expatriate and forcing them to be bound to the King for life through their perpetual natural allegiance. The English common law provided for perpetual natural allegiance which a subject could never renounce (once a British subject always a British subject). The English common law did not allow for a “natural born subject” to elect upon becoming of age another citizenship. English common law did not recognize a “natural born subject” as losing his or her allegiance to the King through the act of naturalizing in another country. But U.S. common law and statutes provided that an alien or U.S. citizen could expatriate and become a different citizen from that which he/she was born. For the Founders, consent was the foundation of citizenship. It was through that consent that the Founders expected U.S. citizens to give their absolute and sole allegiance to the U.S. This consent which was expressed as a transfer of allegiance to the U.S. was also critical to an alien becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. It was expatriation that allowed foreigners to come to America, naturalize, and procreate a child on U.S. soil, which allowed that child to be born with sole allegiance and loyalty to the U.S. and eligible to be President. The Founders’ knowledge of consent as the basis for citizenship and acceptance of expatriation and election of citizenship upon becoming of age, had their source in the law of nations and not in the English common law which did not involve itself with these concepts.

While the English common law recognized that “the king cannot reckon upon the full and absolute obedience” of persons who were either born with or voluntarily chose to have a dual allegiance, the English were not concerned in the least that their notion of “natural born subject” created, in not taking into consideration the citizenship of the child’s parents, dual allegiance problems. Reeve, History of the English Law. But American courts recognized that U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil to foreign parents or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents had double allegiance which significantly affected that person’s allegiance and political and military rights. U.S. law explicitly warns about the dangers and problems of dual allegiance. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 344-48 (1939); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723-26, 733-36 (1952). America even went as far as passing curfew and exclusion laws during World War II which deprived freedom of movement and association to 14th Amendment American “citizens” of Japanese descent (their mothers and fathers were Japanese nationals) because of “pressing public necessity” and the need to provide America with every possible protection against espionage and sabotage which jeopardized America’s survival. Please note that this government action was justified because the “segregation of the disloyal from the loyal” within American 14th Amendment “citizens” of Japanese descent was not possible. See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1945). In other words, we could not place at risk the survival our country for the sake of trying to determine who was loyal or disloyal to the cause. Our nation took the drastic action that it did against 14th Amendment “citizens” of Japanese descent because they were dual nationals and children of aliens or foreigners. Hence, even though these persons were 14th Amendment citizens, we still considered and treated them as being subject to a foreign power. Can we just imagine what would have happened if President and Commander in Chief Truman would have been a 14th Amendment “citizen” with Japanese parents. To be consistent, I guess our nation would have had to place him in a concentration camp too with the rest of the other 14th Amendment citizens of Japanese descent. Would our hypothetical President Truman have dropped the bomb on Japan? Would he have if his Japanese parents lived in Japan?

Pre-revolutionary English statutes that provided that the foreign born children of British “natural born subjects” were deemed “natural born subjects” did not require that the parents had to reside in Great Britain at or prior to the time of the child’s birth. U.S. statutes, on the contrary, required that the father had to be a resident of the U.S. at the time of the child’s birth in order for the father to be able to transmit his U.S. citizenship to his foreign born child. These statutes also attached importance to when the child was born, for they were made only retrospective until changed many years later. The Naturalization Act of 1790 declared these children to be “natural born Citizens,” and later in the Naturalization Act of 1795 just “citizens,” but only retrospectively. It was not until the act in 1885 that Congress declared these foreign-born children to be “citizens,” both retrospectively and prospectively. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927). Hence, U.S. law, in these foreign born children cases, attached just as much importance to the actual U.S. residence of the father and when the child was born than it did to the foreign born child descending from the U.S. citizen parents. Also, American statutes considered these children only “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.” This limitation was contrary to the English statutes which deemed these children “natural born subjects.” As an aside, consider that the Senate in formulating Resolution 511 relied in part upon the Naturalization Act of 1790 to declare McCain a “natural born Citizen.” This was error for two reasons: (1) the act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the “natural born” language and just kept in “citizen;” and (2) Congress declared the foreign born children of U.S. citizens to be “natural born Citizen” only retrospectively. In other words, only those children already born at that time were so declared, not children to be born in the future like McCain.

That Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark was willing to disregard the correct meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” and make Wong a U.S. citizen does not prove in any way that the Founders used English common law to define “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark did not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, it only declared Wong a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment (a member of American society), under the unique facts of that case and by disregarding well-established case law and the 14th Amendment’s and Civil Rights Act of 1866’s framers’ intent and clear instructions on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction.”

Hence, we can see that it is not reasonable to maintain that the meaning of “natural born Citizen” can be found in the English common law. Rather, that definition may be found in the law of nations as commented on by E. Vattel. All aspects of the citizenship laws during the Founding era and the adoption of the 14th Amendment were consistent with the law of nation’s definition of citizenship.

It was also the law of nations that defined a “natural born citizen” as one that is born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens. It is this definition which became incorporated into federal common law and which Obama cannot satisfy because his father was a British subject/citizen and not a U.S. citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen by descent when he was born. Obama’s British citizenship, which continues in effect today, also allowed him to gain Kenyan citizenship from the age of 2 to the age of 21. Obama is therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

**************************************************************************************************************************** 

Daniel 5: 21-24  ~  “He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed.  After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

 

In The Eyes Of Our Founding Fathers

Let us not lose sight of common sense:

 
Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). In other words, Obama has been a life-long British citizen to the present and a Kenyan citizen from age 2 to 21. It should also be noted that Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship because he renounced it but only because the Kenyan Constitution caused him to lose it. This is important given that with citizenship and allegiance, affirmative acts and results should count more than those to which we default. Also, Obama’s political acts in Kenya as a U.S. Senator and the title and picture on the cover of his book, Dreams from My Father, show something about where his heart is.

The Founders allowed one to be President at age 35. Not only has Obama had multiple citizenships and allegiance for his whole life, but has had them during his formative years (British from birth to 21 and which continues to date and Kenyan from 2 to 21). Additionally, using 35 as a benchmark, that would make Obama a British citizen for his whole life as he is still today (35 out of 35) and a Kenyan citizen for 54 percent of a 35-year life (19 out of 35).

In the eyes of our Founders, can their “natural born Citizen” clause include someone of Obama’s citizenship and allegiance background? The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States and who has had multiple citizenships and allegiances for most of his life to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military.

Americans Sold Into Slavery, The History of the Federal Reserve

I wish to thank my new kindred patriots at AIB Radio on talkshoe.com. You have opened my eyes to the true corruption of our government. Through your decades of dedication, fact finding and study of history & law, all Americans now have the opportunity to see for themselves, what you have brought to me and with that, I share with my readers the 1st installment.

Special thanks to Jeanette at AIB for steering me onto this great work written by Australian, James Franklin Montgomery

America is there any hope of your waking up, why must you be hit over the head over and over with truth? Still you make bogus claims in the courts, just to have the judges admonish you for your foolishness? Do you have to go to jail before you say “Damn, something is not right here, things are not as they appear, black is white, white is black”? As long as you don’t know the enemy, nor the weapons used against you in this warfare, how in God’s name do you think anything will change? Much of America, the Christians are waiting for Jesus Christ to come back and take care of the problem. Christians unless you can figure a way to force Christ off His Throne, before His enemies are destroyed, thereby forcing Him to violate His Word, you are going to have a very long wait, and continue to go down the crapper while you wait. Why the strong admonishment, because I’m tired of America accepting a lie, to acquiesce for the easiest path, rather than facing up to the facts of their legal and financial enslavement, because only when you face up to a problem will you do anything about it. As long as you wish to accept voluntary slavery, which is legal, the remedy will never be learned or used. I have said all the above to say this, there is a way to change this, and I am not talking of armed rebellion or insurrection. In fact, it is the only way of reaching the level of freedom we seek, and what we have a right to demand, thereby removing the yokes from around our necks. The answer does not lie in a civil remedy, as I stated several times above in dealing with mans physical attempts to do it his way. Our Freedom has to do with a Trust granted by our Father in Heaven, I am working on a short paper, that will explain how we can regain our freedom through His knowledge, thereby exercising our rights provided in our Trust, as the legitimate heirs of Christ’s Kingdom, the neat thing is, just as with the worldly kings system, no one has access to our Trust, except the heirs of Christ, until then keep the faith.

A Country Defeated in Victory — Part I

To understand the title of this paper you must be made aware that the country I refer to is the United States. Very few Americans are aware of the defeat of which I am obliged to inform you. President Lincoln very wisely said and, I might add, correctly, that:-

“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher.”1

Thomas Jefferson said:

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”2

These patriarch’s of our country understood the dangers of banking and the men that controlled the banking institutions. The enemy that defeated this country from the very beginning was the debt created by the use of paper money instead of gold and silver coin. The use of differing weights and measures caused this country to fall prey to the international bankers. Prior to the Constitution being written the States printed paper money to finance the Revolutionary War. At the end of the war the new United States found itself bankrupted by a huge debt. Our forefathers made it clear because of their experience and those of other countries that we should never use paper money again.

Click For The Full Expose’ of “A Country Defeated in Victory”

Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11

This is the congressional testimony of how a Saudi terrorist (that was captured on the battlefield) was granted US citizenship. It is time to start swamping our elected officials in DC with letters asking them to take back their responsibility and close up this imaginary loop-hole for good.

This is a matter of national security and economic survival. We have no time to waste here folks, grab those pens, keyboards & phones and let’s get crackin’.

Eastman Law Review om Birthright citizenship

View this document on Scribd

The PDF of the congressional hearing seems to have been scrubbed from the House of Reps, but thanks to American Patriots, it is never gone forever!

 born_in_the_usa_congressional_testimony_by_eastman

Also see Sen Johnson’s appeals during the U.S. Congressional Documents from the Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session

 

Wake Up America: The Rosenwald Papers Parts 1, 2, 3 & 7

 fast forward to 3:20 for guest speaker Rod Class and 1:13:05 for Joyce Rosenwald

fast forward to 4:25 for guest speaker Joyce Rosenwald

 

AMERICAN MANIFESTO

My people came to this land to escape oppression in Europe. I was born here and raised in Freedom. Many people arrived here in many ways. Some packed up their meager possessions and sailed across the ocean to seek freedom from oppression, freedom to worship their God in their way. They came as indentured servants.  They came on prison ships. Some came as slaves. Some had always been here.

They came to escape the feudal system where they and their children were bound to the land of others and they could own nothing.

Together we built a Republic that was strong and offered opportunity to be all that you could be regardless of the color of your skin, or your ethnic background. 

Together we built a nation where freedom flourished. The United States of America grew into the Crown Jewel of nations.

And then, you came for our country. You wanted our wealth, our resources, and our people. Slowly over years you corrupted our people, our money, our law, and our liberty.

We put you in places of honor and trust as our leaders and you betrayed us.  We would not, could not, believe that you would work to destroy our Nation.

 But now the people know what you have done. Your charade of government has been exposed. The Truth is now known and I as an American am telling you, YOU CAN’T Have MY COUNTRY. You will not take my freedom.

I will not worship government, as God.

I will not ask you for permission to live.

I will no longer be a financial slave to you.

I will not obey your private law.

You will not have my children or my posterity.

You will not give my country away to pay your debt.

I withdraw my allegiance to you.

I owe you nothing.

Let’s see what you are made of when you can no longer hide behind your pretend office.

It’s over for you. Your days of Fascist rule are gone.

I am a citizen of the United States of America, not a corporation and your corporate laws do not apply to me.

I am not a ship at sea. I’m standing on the land of my fore fathers that you have attempted to steal from me.

I can no longer stand quietly by and allow you to dismantle what has taken so many people so long to build.

So, come on. Let’s see what you are made of.

Try and take my country from me.

Copyright 1996 Joyce Rosenwald

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Government as Parent

Parens Patrei

” When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…………….” These are the words that started a Revolution propelling several English colonies into the nation known as “The United States of America.” This new nation was designed to function under the law of Nature and Nature’s God. The people believed they would never again hear the words of enslavement, i.e.; “under the sovereignty of the King.” Living under the sovereignty of the King made you the King’s chattel. He owned you. You were his property. You could own nothing, not even your children. The King ruled by divine right. The framers of this new nation claimed it was designed to be a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Representatives of this government were to be elected by the people, not born to power. And so, in 1776 the great experiment in freedom, known as “The United states of America” began.

People from each colony fought in the Great War to enable the colony to become a Sovereign Nation State. These States then created a new state, designed to exclusively serve the several Sovereign Nation States. Under this concept the nation of States united was born. Every sovereign Nation State joining the Union had a Constitution. The newly created state received one as well. It was written by the people of the several states and was titled “The Constitution for The united States of America.” This new state was “delegated” 17 authorities by the several states. The people never intended that it should over step it’s delegated authorities.

Some scholars believe the freedom ended before the ink was dry on the contract written between the people and their new government, “The Constitution.” There is some question as to exactly where and when the new nation faltered. Some say it was in 1789, with the Judiciary Act. Others say it was after the Civil War. Still others claim it was in 1913 or 1921 or perhaps in 1933…….History tells us the Supreme Court of the United States government claims it was when the Union itself was formed.

In the case New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New York v. Louisiana and others, (1) it states that:

“all the rights of the States as independent nations were surrendered to the United States. The States are not nations, either as between themselves or towards foreign nations. They are sovereign within their spheres, but their sovereignty stops short of nationality. Their political status at home and abroad is that of States in the united States. They can neither make war nor peace without the consent of the national government. Neither can they, except with like consent, “enter into any agreement or compact with another State.” Art. 1, sec. 10, cl. 3. ” The relation of one of the united States to its citizens is not that of an independent sovereign State to its citizens. A sovereign State seeking redress of another sovereign State on behalf of its citizens can resort to war on refusal, which a State cannot do. The state, having been a sovereign, with powers to make war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and otherwise to act in a belligerent way, resigned these powers into the control of the United States, to be held in trust. “

In United States v. Chamberlin, (2) the Supreme Court of the United States Decided, to wit:

It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests.

He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named. THE RULE THUS SETTLED RESPECTING THE BRITISH CROWN IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THIS GOVERNMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN APPLIED FREQUENTLY IN THE DIFFERENT STATES, AND PRACTICALLY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SETTLED THAT SO MUCH OF THE ROYAL PREROGATIVES AS BELONGED TO THE KING IN HIS CAPACITY OF PARENS PATRIAE, OR UNIVERSAL TRUSTEE, ENTERS AS MUCH INTO OUR POLITICAL STATE AS IT DOES INTO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.

Under most religious law, the children belong to the parents. It is a moral obligation on the part of the parents to care for and educate their children in their existing social values and morals.

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act (3) was passed creating birth “registration” or what we now know as the “birth certificate.” It was known as the “Maternity Act” and was sold to the american people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for other purposes. One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. This can now be seen as the first attempt of “government by appointment,” or cooperation of state governments to aid the federal government in usurping the legislative process of the several states as exists today through the federal grant in aid to the states programs.

Prior to 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as “official” records. Since 1921 the american people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state claims an interest in every child within it’s jurisdiction, telling the parents that registering their child’s birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States, thereby making him/her a united states citizen.

In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the act. (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..). (4) The plaintiff, Mrs Frothingham, averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it’s purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them and not granted the federal government, under the Constitution, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States. The complaint stated the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. To wit:

The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY.

THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.

The act gives all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.

It was further stated in the complaint that “The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. (5) In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. (6) It went on to state:

“The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. (7)

The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. “

” A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. ” (8)

“The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution.”

“Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States.” (9)

In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the”full faith and credit” of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. “Full faith and credit” clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it’s origin.

That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.

Today the federal government “mandates, orders and compels” the states to enforce federal jurisdiction upon it’s citizens/subjects. This author believes the federal government draws it’s de facto jurisdiction for these actions from the “Doctrine of Parens Patriae.” Patens patriae means literally, “parent of the country.” It refers traditionally to the role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.

Parens patriae originates from the English common law where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as infants.

With the birth registration established, the federal government, under the doctrine of parens patriae, had the mechanism to take over all the assets of the American people and put them into debt into perpetuity. Under this doctrine, if one is born with a disability, the state, (the sovereign) has the responsibility to take care of you. This author believes that the disability you are born with is, in fact, the birth itself. I believe that when you are born, you are born free, a “citizen of the soil,” an American National. Parents, without full disclosure under law, make application for a “birth certificate,” thereby making the child a citizen of the corporate government known as the United States. The government then turns the new citizen into a corporation under the laws of the state. The birth information is collected by the state and is then turned over to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The corporation is then placed into a “trust”, known as a “Cestui Que Trust”. A cestui que trust is defined as: He who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested in another; The beneficiary of another. Cestui que use is : He for whose use and benefit lands or tenements are held by another. The cestui que use has the right to receive the profits and benefits of the estate, but the legal title and possession, as well the duty of defending the same, reside in the other.

The government becomes the Trustee, while the child becomes the beneficiary of his own trust. Legal title to everything the child will ever own is now vested in the federal government. The government then places the Trust into the hands of the parents, who are made the “guardians.” The child may reside in the hands of the guardians (parents) until such time as the state claims that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The state then goes into the home and removes the “trust” from the guardians. At majority, the parents lose their guardianship.

The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. The child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate. “Title” to your child is now owned by the state. The state now directs the trust corpus and provides “benefits” for the beneficiary — the corpus and beneficiary being one and the same — the citizen — first as child, then as adult.

The debt transfers from the death of one corpus to the birth of another through the process know as “Novation.” Novation is defined as “the substitution of a new contract between same or different parties; The substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing one; The substitution of one debtor for another or of one creditor for another, whereby the old debt is extinguished. This author believes the debt of an individual is extinguished at his death, and the same debt is then transfered to a new individual when he/she is born through the registering of the birth, thereby creating a new corpus that will again reside in the hands of the trust.

Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt United States which acts as the “Debtor in Possession.”. We are now designated by this government as “HUMAN RESOURCES,” with new such resources being added (born) continually. The bankruptcy is a receivership, rather than a discharged bankruptcy. The bankruptcy debts are serviced, not paid or discharged. The Human Resources service the debt, which continues to grow with time.

The federal government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-delegates federal parens patriae authority to the state attorney generals. The attorney generals’ can now enforce all legislation involving your personal life , the lives of your children, and your material assets.

In today’s society the government, through the doctrine of parens patriae, has already instituted it’s control of our children through the legislative process. Medical treatments are enforced through the court with threats of loss of your child if the treatment is challenged.

Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusal may result in the loss of your child under the guise of “child neglect” (failure to preserve the trust corpus). If you spank your child or cause him/her any embarrassment or indignities, you are also at risk of having your child taken from you under the guise of child abuse (damaging the trust corpus).

Some states have legislation either pending or passed to give social workers arrest authority. School nurses may now report any suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. Warrantless searches of your home are tolerated by the courts, all in the name of safety for the child.

The Sun Sentinel, a Florida news paper, reported on March 15, 1996 that limits on the ability of divorced parents to relocate when minor children are involved were clarified by the Florida Supreme Court. The high court three years ago approved a policy favoring relocation requests of custodial parents as long as such moves are made in good faith for the well being of parents and children. Also, the justices ruled at that time, moves cannot be made “from a vindictive desire to interfere with the visitation rights of the other parent.” The right of locomotion is held as an element of personal liberty. Restraint upon the right of locomotion was a well-known feature of slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. A first requisite of the right to appropriate the use of another man was to become the master of his natural power of motion. The control by government courts (supra) of an individuals’ freedom of locomotion could be construed as a sign of ownership of the individual, or slavery .

It’s been reported that in California, early in the year, an assembly woman, in regard to education policy, made the statement ” the children belong to the STATE. “

Parens Patriae legislation covers every area of your personal life. Federal parens patriae legislation can be found in Title 15 of the

United States Code:

TITLE 15

Sec. 15h. Applicability of parens patriae actions

STATUTE-

Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall apply in any State, unless such State provides by law for its nonapplicability in such State.

The primary responsibility of a State is to protect it’s citizens from the tyranny of the federal government. The Federal Constitution claims a citizen can seek redress and protection under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution for any state legislation that brings them an injury by depriving them of a civil right. A state may sue the Federal government for protection for it’s citizens if federal legislation violates the Constitutions of the several states and brings harm to it’s citizens. The 14th Amendment did not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment, but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges. The amendment was intended to provide against state laws, or state action of some kind, adverse to the rights of the citizen secured by the amendment. Such legislation cannot properly cover the whole domain of rights appertaining to life, liberty and property, defining them and providing for their vindication. That would be to establish a code of municipal law regulative of all private rights between man and man in society. It would be to make congress take the place of the state legislatures and to supersede them.

However, the Supreme Court in the above case ruled that: A State may not, as parens patriae, institute judicial proceedings to protect her citizens (who are no less citizens of the United States), from the operation of a federal statute upon the ground that, as applied to them, it is unconstitutional.

The parens patriae power has been recognized and exercised from time immemorial as being under the rule of a tyrant.

Note: The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority outside of Constitutional authority, with the ability to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional and represents taxation without representation. This type of government is in place today and is known as “Regionalism.” The federal government couldn’t fool the people in 1921 into surrendering their sovereignty, but in1933…………………………….

Footnotes:

1. New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New York v. Louisiana and others, 108 U.S. 76, 27 L. Ed. 656, 2 S. Ct. 176, March 5, 1883.

2. United States v. Chamberlin 219 U.S. 250, 55 L. Ed. 204, 31 S. Ct. 155, January 3, 1911

3. Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act, Public Law 97, 67^th Congress, Session I, chapter 135.

4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al.. 262 U.S. 447, 67 L.Ed. 1078, 43 S. Ct. 597.

5. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.

6. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.

7. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822; 4 Elliot’s Debates, p. 525; Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.

8. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.

9. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

Copyright 1996 Joyce Rosenwald

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY

 Resolution of the Kentucky Legislature on 19 November, 1799 declared:

 

Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force; that to the contract (the Constitution) each State acceded as a State and is an integral party; that government created by this Contract was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measures of its powers. But, that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well as of in fraction as of the mode and measure of redress.

 

     There are few documents of the early period of this Republic which possess a greater interest than the series of resolutions adopted in Virginia and Kentucky in 1798-99. They were the first official documents expressing the sentiment of the people regarding federal versus State jurisdiction. The resolutions of 1798, and the subsequent confirmation  of their doctrines, survived  many years and left no shadow of doubt upon them. The events leading to their penning hold as much interest.  

    Within the national government itself, the principal struggle for power has always been between the executive and legislative departments. The judiciary was hardly more than a spectator of this conflict. For the first fourteen years of its existence, the Supreme Court failed to play the commanding role Hamilton had assigned it in The Federalist. There were no epoch making decisions handed down from that tribunal; not a few Justices resigned in order to accept appointments in the state judiciaries; and on several occasions the office of Chief Justice went begging. In 1800, when John Jay declined reappointment as Chief Justice, he gave as his reason his conviction that “under a system so defective it would not obtain the energy, weight and dignity which was essential to its affording due support to the national government; nor acquire the public confidence and respect which, as the last resort, of the justice of the nation, it should possess.”

     In 1798, there was the feeling among the American people that their new government may  somehow involve them in the war between Great Britain and France. Having just fought a long, bloody war for their own independence which left the country in debt, the people were not anxious to get involved in someone else’s fight. Newspaper  articles attesting to those views with criticism of the Federal government were rampant. In retaliation, the new government passed Alien and Sedition laws restricting comments on the action of government. These laws greatly restricted the First Amendment rights secured to the people by the federal Constitution. There was concern that this action was usurpation by the federal government of delegated constitutional jurisdiction. In every State in the Union the government and its officials were protected by statute or common law against the practices which the Sedition Acts laid  under duress. No Federalist was willing to admit that in this regard the states possessed larger powers than did the federal government.
 

By the end of 1798 some Virginians were speaking of the federal government “as an enemy infinitely more formidable and infinitely more to be guarded against than the French. Among these Virginians were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. As early as 1797, Jefferson referred to the federal government as a “foreign jurisdiction.” As Vice President of the United States, he urged the Virginia legislature to enact a law making liable to punishment citizens of Virginia who attempted to carry cases to the federal courts when those courts did not have clear and uncontested jurisdiction. In Jefferson’s opinion, the Alien and Sedition Acts made it imperative that the powers assumed by the federal government must be curbed if American liberty were to survive. Jefferson feared the theory of federal power upon which these acts were based quite as much as he did the operation of the acts themselves. For, if it were conceded that the federal courts were authorized by the Constitution to take cognizance of all cases arising under the common law, there could be no doubt that the “beautiful equilibrium” established by the Constitution between the States and the federal government would be destroyed and that the federal government would usurp “all the powers of the State governments and reduce the country to a single consolidated government.” The common law, said Jefferson, could become law in the United States only by positive adoption only insofar as American legislatures were authorized to adopt it.

Jefferson called in James Madison for consultation. Madison characterized federal inherent or implied powers as “the creatures of ambition……….Powers  extracted from such sources will be indefinitely multiplied by the aid of armies and patronage which, with the impossibility of controlling them by any demarcation, would presently terminate reasoning, and ultimately swallow up the State sovereignties.”

The fruit of Madison’s and Jefferson’s collaboration was the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Jefferson was the author of the Kentucky Resolutions and Madison drew up the statement adopted by the Virginia legislature, but neither man signed them.

These acts marked an important stage in the progress of the theory that ultimately led to the nullification by a State of a federal law.  According to Jefferson’s and Madison’s interpretation of the Constitution, it created nothing more than a compact between sovereign States which confided certain narrowly defined powers to the general government while reserving all residual powers to the States. Being the creators of the Constitution, the States were alone capable of judging when infractions of this instrument of government occurred, and they alone were able to devise measures of redress. In effect, the States were called upon to mediate between the people and the federal government, but it was assumed that usurpation would always come from the federal government rather than from the States. Carried to its logical conclusion, the doctrine propounded by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions meant that the compact between the States was a moral rather than a legal obligation and that the preservation of the Union was left to the discretion of the parties concerned. The Kentucky Resolutions were passed in the legislature with a single dissenting voice.

 

Kentucky Resolutions……..1789-1790

 

“First. Resolved, That every officer of the federal government, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, is the servant of the people and is amenable and accountable to them. That being so, it becomes the people to watch over their conduct with vigilance, and to censure and remove them as they may judge expedient. That the more elevated the office and the more important the duties connected with it may be, the more important is a scrutiny  and examination into the conduct of the officer. And that to repose a blind and implicit reliance in the conduct of any such officer or servant is doing injustice to ourselves.

“Second.  Resolved,  That war with France is impolitic and must be ruinous to America in her present situation.

“Third. Resolved, That we will at the hazard of our lives and fortunes, support the Union, the independence, the Constitution, and the liberty of the united States.
 

“Fourth. Resolved, That an alliance with Great Britain would be dangerous and impolitic; that should defensive exertions be found necessary, we would rather support the burden of them alone than embark our interests and happiness with that corrupt and tottering monarchy.

“Fifth. Resolved, That the powers given to the president to raise armies, when he may judge necessary—–without restriction as to number,——and to borrow money to support them, without limitation as to the sum to be borrowed or the quantum of interest to be given on the loan, are dangerous and unconstitutional.

“Sixth. Resolved, That the Alien bill is unconstitutional, impolitic, unjust, and disgraceful to the American character.

“Seventh. Resolved, That the privilege of printing and publishing our sentiments on all public questions is inestimable, and that it is unequivocally acknowledged and secured to us by the constitution of the united States; that all the laws made to impair or destroy it are void, and that we will exercise and assert our just right in opposition to any law that may be passed to deprive us of it.

“Eighth. Resolved, That the bill which is said to be now before congress, defining the crime of treason and sedition and prescribing the punishments thereof, as it has been presented to the public, is the most abominable that was ever attempted to be imposed upon a nation of free men.

“Ninth, Resolved, That there is a sufficient reason to believe, and we do believe, that our liberties are in danger; and we pledge ourselves to each other and our country that we will defend them against all unconstitutional attacks that may be made upon them.

“Tenth. Resolved, That the forgoing resolutions be transmitted to our representative in congress, by the chairman, certified by the secretary, and that he be requested to present them to each branch of the legislature and to the president, and that they also be published in the Kentucky Gazette.

Copyright 1996 Joyce Rosenwald

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The headline you=ll never see……

 

 FRANKLIN  DELANO ROOSEVELT……… Architect of American enslavement

 

Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had been nominated to be named the Man of the Century.  The criteria the establishment  press uses to judge excellence never ceases to amaze me. If  your agenda is to support the socialization of  America, what better man to honor than  Franklin D. Roosevelt, the idol of President Clinton. I am convinced, as a student of history, that in generations to come  Franklin Delano Roosevelt  will become known as the father of  American Socialism.

 In 1930, as Governor of  New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed the American tradition when he said:……..The Constitution does not empower the Congress to deal with a great number of  vital problems of government such as the conduct of public utilities, of  education, of social welfare and a dozen other important features…. and Washington must not be encouraged to interfere in these areas.Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic party Presidential candidate  in 1932, ran with the slogan “The New Deal.” Roosevelt’s intention, as told to the American people, was to give them less government. He called for an end to deficit spending  and for sound money. The first three planks of the Democratic party platform read as follows:

We advocate:

 ” 1. An immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus and eliminating extravagance, to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 percent in the cost of the Federal government.

   2. Maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced…..

   3. A sound currency to be maintained at all hazards.”

Two years later, the newly elected FDR, with the catchy slogan and the blueprint of the program for the socialization of  America began his presidency as the “Great Man” at the feet of whom the American people would lay down their liberties.

In his inaugural address, March 4, 1933, President Roosevelt told the American people ..the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no market for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return… Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance….Nature still offers her bounty. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very light of the supply. Primarily this is good, because the rulers of  the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed….have admitted their failure and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money-changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of a generation of self-seekers……Yes, the money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit. We cannot go back to the old order.”

The old order, capitalism, became the enemy of the people, thereby making ownership of private property the symbol of those who would put property rights above social rights. Against all the old symbols of  individualism and self-reliance was raised the attractive counter symbol of security. What this new president did not tell the American people was that he was about to embark on a program where the American people would be educated to relinquish their liberty for a little  security.
 

The new President further declared that the people had “asked for discipline and direction under leadership”; that he would seek to bring speedy action “within my Constitutional authority”; and that he hoped the “normal balance of executive and legislative authority” could be maintained, and then he said: “But in the event that Congress shall fail…….and in the event that the national emergency is still critical…….I shall ask Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis……..broad executive power to make war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

A New Speak had not as yet been introduced to the American public. The word “emergency” was understood to mean what the dictionaries said it meant………a sudden crisis; a pressing necessity. Obviously, in retrospect, the word emergency meant much more to the new President. He interpreted it to mean he had the right to declare an  emergency, and then cure that same emergency with a total reorganization of the constitutional structure of our government.

 The first official act of  President Roosevelt was to declare to the American people  a contrived bankruptcy of the United States. Before the new Congress convened, on March 9, 1933 he declared bankruptcy, in the form of “A National Banking Holiday,” through Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260. Simply, every bank in America closed. The banks were also forbidden to deal in foreign exchange or in any transfer of credit from the United States to any place abroad.

He then had ex post facto law passed by the Congress, which is forbidden by the national Constitution, stating, “Acts of the President and the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933 are hereby confirmed and approved.” This same act provided that no bank in the federal reserve system could resume business except subject to rules and regulation to be promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury. This act gave the President absolute power over foreign exchange and authorized the Federal government to invest public funds in private bank stock, providing banks new capitol owned by the government. And, that same act authorized the President to require the American people to surrender their gold.

 Congress did not write any of  these acts. Congress received them from the White House and passed them. It was the first use of Congress as a “RUBBER STAMP” for Executive branch legislation. There is no constitutional  authority for  the Executive to make law.  Under President Roosevelt, America  took its first step toward totalitarian rule.

Converting rights to privilege by government was fine tuned in the Roosevelt administration. While in the guise of  “Recovery,”  Roosevelt’s “NEW DEAL” Presidency  succeeded in:

1. repudiation of the gold standard, confiscation of the peoples gold, debasement of the currency, deliberate inflation, monetization of debt

2. creating the authority and power of executive government to rule by decrees and rules and regulations of its own making;

3. strengthened its hold upon the economic life of the nation;

4. extended its power over the individual;

5. degraded the parliamentary principle;

6. impaired the great American tradition of an independent, Constitutional judicial power;

7. weakened the power of private enterprise, the power of private finance, the power of state and local government;
 

At the end of   President Roosevelt’s first year, in his annual message to the Congress, January 4, 1934, he said, “It is to the eternal credit of the American people that this tremendous readjustment of our national life is being accomplished peacefully.” This tremendous readjustment of our national life has, in retrospect, been recognized as the beginning of  intrusion and the  attempt at controlling  every aspect of an individuals life by federal  government.

Roosevelt created the doctrine of a planned economy. It included a scheme of taxation, class subsidies and Federal grants-in-aid designed to redistribute the national wealth for social justice, and it calculated to reduce millions of citizens to subservience.

He created in the Executive a principle of supreme government with extensive new powers, including the power to make its own laws by simply publishing in the Federal Register from its newly created administrative agencies  rules and regulations having the force of law, with disobedience punishable by fine or imprisonment.  Without a whimper from the American people, Roosevelt replaced the once great American Republic with the welfare state. Under Roosevelt we lost our wealth, we lost our law, and we took a giant step toward the loss of our liberty and  freedom.

In 1938, distinguished newspaperman, author and editorial writer for the Saturday Evening Post, Garet Garrett,  published an essay, “The Revolution Was.” In the opening paragraph, he  said: “There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of  Depression, singing songs to freedom.”

“Liberty is to Faction What Air is to Fire” James Madison, 1787

Today is Constitution Day. It was on this day, September 17, 1787, that the Constitution emerged for the first time from the convention in Philadelphia, Pa. Our blessed Constitution that was written not by men of all the same political faction, however, a coalition of men of many political factions, working together to “Form A More Perfect Union” and it was up to ‘We the People” to ensure its long lasting existence.

Fast forward 222 years…

When political factions collide, there is bound to be discontent of some sort on one side or the other. Political factions also can be very dangerous to liberty if abused such as they are today. However, given time, the oppressing faction will soon be diminished in numbers if true liberty is let to run its natural course.

The Federalist Papers, a series of essays that the framers published in newspapers across the colonies, are the blue print to the Constitution. Hamilton & Madison wrote extensively on divide between political factions and the need for them to ensure liberty under the Constitutional Republic. In Federalist #10, Madison gives us a ‘right in your face’ clue as to the importance of keeping one political faction from taking over another:

“By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united in and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community…

…Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires…

…As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.”

Today, the debate between the divides is at a critical crossroads. On one side, we have the progressive/socialist faction; who are seeking to extinguish the flame of liberty of the conservatives. Helping the socialistic faction are those in the middle who are content to remain oblivious until the day, they too, will wake up to liberties lost.

To wake up the sleeping centrists, we must turn to education. The education of our history and how the wheels of liberty are suppose to be turning in Washington.

For this we shall start back in 1772. 

On November 20, 1772 in Boston, Ma., the colonists ratified the very first ‘Rights of the Colonists’. In correspondence to the Monarchy in Great Britain, the colonists also included a laundry list of violations of their individual rights. Reading the list of violations is like reading the laundry list of violations of the Declaration of Independence. This is no coincidence. I believe the original “Rights of the Colonists’ paved the way to the Revolution.

Here are a few snippets from that fateful correspondence:

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule… 

…It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it on the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights when the great end of all civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection and defence of those rights: the principal of which as is before observed, are life, liberty and property. If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave…

…The absolute rights of all free men, in or out of Civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty and private property…

…The Legislative has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people.”

I could go on further, however, I leave you with the link for further reading. This was absolutely mind blowing to me to see in written word, several years before the revolution that the seeds of independence were sprouting amongst the colonists. The similarities of what happened those 237 years ago, when the colonists first wrote to Great Britain, to what is happening today is nothing short of a shout out to Americans today of what will come if we do not get the governments in our states and in DC under control and off the path of tyranny.

Returning back to the Federalist Papers, we again see the correlation of then and now when Madison speaks out in essay #84 of the dangers of an all intrusive central government into the most personal aspects of our lives.

“It is evident therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions, professedly founded upon the power of the people and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations, ‘We the People of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, so ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America… 

… a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns…

…There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS… 

…This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of the bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to in a variety of cases in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not found in the work of the convention.”

Indeed, a limited government that has no power to circumvent the natural rights of man by passing legislation that would assume control over the most private aspects of our lives. I ask, is not the control over our physical well being not the most personal and private aspect of our God given inalienable rights? Where is it in the enumerated rights of Congress listed in Article I of the Constitution, that “We the People” gave up our right to make the most personal decisions of our lives? Was there an amendment passed that we do not know about?

What is happening today is nothing short of tyranny, however, the progressive / socialists try to pass it off as liberty. To them, liberty through tyranny is acceptable; because in their minds, they truly believe, they are liberating us from what they have now deemed an undue financial burden which ironically was created by none other than themselves, our elected representatives.

These representatives use trickery with words in which the founding fathers frequently refer to as ‘mischief’. They use lobbyists and lawyers to write legislation that is so obscenely obtrusive and of gigantic length to hide from the public, and themselves, the true dastardly ramifications of its contents. This problem is not limited to the progressive/socialistic faction; the so-called conservatives are just as guilty when it comes to kowtowing to political lobbyists.

In Federalist # 62, Hamilton calls out this problem of allowing such obscure and lengthy legislation to be passed.

“It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust…

…The eternal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws are so voluminous that they can not be read, or so incoherent that they can not be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or under go such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” 

What else did the founding fathers have to say of the contents of such tyrannical legislation you ask? What of the effects of legislation that excludes certain body politic from having to comply? 

Again, Madison expounds on the tendency of the elected few to elevate themselves at the expense of the masses. 

“I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will have not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.” 

Never has it been more true than today, that we can unequivocally say that political elitists have usurped their duty to represent ‘WE the PEOPLE’. They were elected on false pretense and have now been exposed.

They are working to reduce our God given physical beings into nothing more than chattel. To them we are just another commodity to regulate for their own personal political and financial gain. 

If such Orwellian legislation with mandates into the most intimate aspect of our personal lives passes, they shall have achieved the ultimate tyranny against God’s free people.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2 Peter 2:18-20 (King James Version)  ~  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

Hawaii Five Uh-Oh…

Leo Donofrio is on the case helping Hawaii’s newest patriot [PI] fighting crime, Ms Tickly aka TerriK, who has caught the Hawaiian officials red handed in covering up vital facts of Obama’s birth records and his ineligibility for POTUS:

Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.

Posted in Uncategorized on September 21, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

I will be assisting one of my readers in filing litigation in Hawaii state circuit court pursuant to her ongoing request for public information denied by Hawaii officials. (Readers of my blog will recognize her as MissTickly aka TerriK.)

Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.

I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH).

click here for the complete article at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Hawaii Five “Uh-Oh” Investigation Part I

Part I of the investigation is in and Leo is holding nothing back:

Everything will now be turned upside down. ..(snip)… We’re putting some light on the Hawaii disclosure laws and I like what I see. I believe we will force the public disclosure of these documents and put this past us as we move towards the genuine legal issue of his British birth. Now that we know how to operate within the various statutes, they won’t be able to keep everything hidden.

 

INTRODUCTION

The entire Presidential eligibility movement has been ridiculed as a fringe “conspiracy theory” by main stream media, members of Congress and even Judges speaking directly from the bench.  This ridicule is largely due to public statements made by Hawaii Department of Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (see below) which testify that she has seen vital records maintained by her office which prove President Obama was born in Hawaii and that he has an original birth certificate on file there.

The ridicule has been broad, extending even to public investigators like myself who believe that President Obama was actually born in Hawaii.  But reliance on Director Fukino and her Communications Director Janice Okubo are sadly misplaced.  They are guilty of misdirecting the public away from vital records information made expressly available by statute where no privacy exceptions apply.

These accusations are not a matter of conjecture.  They are a matter of fact and shall be proved.  This, Part 1 of the full report, will illustrate multiple instances of misdirection.

Following reports in the days ahead will detail various information requests made by TerriK and their eventual resolution.  The resolution involves official responses which – according to statutory application – admit the existence of amendments and/or corrections to President Obama’s vital records despite the continuing pattern of misdirection.

BACKGROUND

The state of Hawaii enacted the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) as a means by which the public may have free and open access to all information maintained by the Government.  While some information is obviously restricted to protect the privacy of individuals, the intent of the statute is clear; to help the public access government held information.

Page 9 of the UIPA Manual states:

Given this direction that the UIPA be interpreted to promote open government, any doubt regarding disclosure of a record should likely be resolved in favor of access.

continue here for the full report

Also, stay tuned throughout the next week as Leo has promised:

They can do what they like, but the beauty of this investigation here and now is that by their own statutes, Opinion Letters, AG letters, emails and case law, their responses to UIPA requests are mandated and each response triggers the statute as to what that response MUST contain… in the next part, which will be short and punchy, you are going to really learn something…

Senator Johnson says: “Newsweek & Bill Ayer’s Annenberg Foundation” Not “The Supreme Court” Are Now The Official Sources For Constitutional Interpretation Of Our Laws

Leo, this one is for you, we can now add “Newsweek” to the list of sources our elected officials use for interpreting the law of our land and presidential qualifications.

According to South Dakota’s senior Senator, Tim Johnson, court rulings and historical documentation no longer have ‘Standing” to interpret our laws, the lame steam media & liberal leftist internet sites are charge of these duties now.

Yep, you read that right and I am just beside myself at this point after reading the latest correspondence/political rhetoric from Johnson’s office. No where did they even attempt to address/refute the historical references I provided them with proper corresponding historical/factual findings.

Nope, Na Da, go away sucker because we are ABOVE the rule of law and you can’t touch us.

Well, sorry to burst their bubble, as I did in an immediate phone call to his office, but they can not continue to make claims without factual, historical references to back their claims and they have been called on their ineptness in upholding the Constitution & the Rule of Law.

In ALL of my correspondence, I supplied Sen. Johnson & his staff with congressional records & numerous hitoricaldocuments along with Supreme Court Justice opinions and commentaryand this is what they come back at me with:

“Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet rumors, I appreciate hearing from you.”

after I sent him this:

But, even if he had renounced those citizenships when he came of age in 1979, under the definition, he could have never held any other US citizenship, other than that of, “citizen by way of birth on the soil only” under the 14^th Amendment which we will get to shortly.

Citizenship at birth can never be changed. History and research are very clear on this point. However, the actions of the person once they become of age, come into play as to qualifications for any elected office, thus the reason for the 14 year requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause V.

Thus we are back to: “Why BHO aka BHS cannot be a “natural born” citizen under the 14^th Amendment”.

Historical Fact #6: According to the US Legislature, the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else”. Therefore, that rule prevents us from interpreting “natural born” under the 14^thAmendment because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance. Remember, BHO aka BHS held dual allegiances at birth. He, himself has publically acknowledged the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of BHO’s birth, therefore he, himself was also a British subject at birth.

The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, it was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons naturalized or born to citizens of the United States as citizens.

The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (elected as a Whig to the Twenty-seventh Congress (March 4, 1841-March 3, 1843); elected as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Kinsley S. Bingham; reelected in 1865 and served from January 17, 1862, to March 3, 1871), said during the drafting:

“The word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the Executive, or by the Judicial Department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States.”

In 1866, under Sec. 1992 of the revised statutes, the same Congress confirmed and adopted as law the principle in regards to determining citizenship at the time of birth:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be “citizens” of the United States.”[note the word citizen, not “natural born citizen”]

Essentially, what this means is that in order to be a “citizen” under the 14^th Amendment, one must renounce any other allegiances so that their US citizenship is solely under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. In fact, controversy at the time due to dual allegiances was so great that Congress, in a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 said:

                “The United States have not recognized double allegiance”

Rep. Bingham commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between ‘natural born” and ‘born” citizenships under the 14^th Amendment:

“It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of “parents” [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a “natural born” citizen.”

 

Then, Sen. Johnson & his staff conveniently leave out the fact that just last year, the Senate voted unanimously that it took 2 American parents for a citizen to be natural born. Atleast, that is what they said when that determined McCain eligible when they passed Senate Resolution 511. And they also did not go to the DOJ as many Senators & Congressmen have claimed. Read the Senate committee minutes for yourself. They went to director of Homeland Security, Chertoff for their interpretation as to NBC:

Mr Leahy speaking: Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge…

I ask, what was their problem in going to the current DOJ? Why would they use a Homeland Security director to interpret the law?

But more importantly, why now, all of a sudden when it comes to interpreting Obama’s eligibility one only needs 1 parent to be American? Geez, will they make up their minds already!

They also cast aside that pesky ’subject to the jurisdiction’ clause of American citizenship under the 14th Amendment which would require birth to be on US soil.

Senator Johnson & his staff have a lot of explaining to do to try and dig their way out of this one and I will be waiting patiently for their reply to my many questions that are now in their hands.

Also, I am confident that I can now conclude that to Senator Johnson, our blessed Constitution is nothing more than an Internet rumor to be cast aside and having no relevance to our laws today. He obviously sides with Bush’s interpretation of it a few years back when he called it:

“Just a GD piece of paper”

 Here is Johnson letter in it’s original form as I recieved it. I will report all further correspondence from him as it comes in. It should be getting very interesting, especially in the light of Leo’s lastest litigation.

 

Breaking Down Sen. Johnson’s Letter Point By Point

Permit me to address Senator Johnson’s letter one more time in detail. Let’s take it line by line.

First of all, Sen. Johnson thanks me for contacting him regarding Internet rumors.

“Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet rumors. I appreciate hearing from you.”

Could he have been any more condescending? Here is the openning of all my previously written correspondence on this subject after my initial letter right after the election in Nov:

RE: Confirmation of 2008 Presidential Electoral College Votes

Dear XXX

            I can not begin to say how Senator Johnson’s response to my previous letter pertaining to this year’s election has me even more concerned and I now know personally why the general public for the 1^st time in American History has given our elected officials in Congress the lowest approval rating ever. It is because of the lack of respect for the following oath that all of you have taken that leads us to begin work to explore our options under the Constitution to turn this country around and get it back to a truly Free Constitutional Republic and away from the Socialist Democracy path you all have been taking us. 

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” 

Obviously, this oath is just words, as according to Senator Johnson’s letter & others I have received in the past from all of you, you really have not read the Constitution for a very long time and thus have forgotten what responsibilities & restrictions it places on you to protect and defend the Constitution and We the People whom you are obligated to serve honorably, responsibly and lawfully without reservation. Please allow me a bit of your time to reply to Senator Johnson’s letter and correct some most important Constitutional Laws that seem to have mistakenly been brushed off as internet rumors as most Elected Officials have done nationwide to their constituents this election year.

The 1^stthing I will take issue with is your perception of the role of the internet. I do agree that it can be a vast source of misinformation, but if used properly & responsiblyas I did and verified sources beyond the internet for credibility, the internet can be a vast source of good. Obviously Sen. Johnson or his staff just read my letter and saw the references and neither he nor his staff took the time to verify as I did. If they had, they would not have had the audacity to spurn my use of the internet, yet they themselves have relied on 2 internet sources for their facts instead of the Constitution, US laws and legal government documents as I have. Also, their reference to reputable sources is in itself an oxymoron when you consider that fact that those sources have deep ties to the candidates, especially Barack Obama.

1995 Ayers makes Obama Chairman of Annenberg Challenge

Johnson’s letter goes on to say:

“While accurate information is often made available to those willing to look for the truth, it is often true that factual information does not spread through cyberspace nearly as quickly as the scurrilous damaging misinformation that fuels public anger or outrage.”

Here I adamently disagree. Yes, damaging factual information does spread like wild fire on the Internet thus fueling public anger and outrage and for GOOD reason. “We the People” are tired of government cover-up of government corruption! Especially when elected officials uses sources connected to the most dishonest, lying radical president of all time instead of historical documentation from past congresses and supreme court rulings to make his interpretations of the Rule of Law. Is it too late for him to get his money back for his law education?(out of line and overly sarcastic)

Next we come to my call to his office that spurred this particualr correspondence from Sen Johnson’s office. In his reply he states:

“Based on the comments you made to my office, you have apparently come across some Internet rumors suggesting President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.”

So, my comments regarding the fact the Obama was British at birth due to the fact that his father was a foreigner, and, how can a United States natural born citizen’s citizenship status be governed by the British Crown at birth; automatically meant that I was referring to a birth off of US soil? They must have not had their listening ears on that day. I guess I also should have refaxed my original reply from Dec ‘08 when asking for an investigation before confirming the votes of the electoral college:

2^.I never claimed in my letter that Barack Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii and I am insulted that a Senator would put words in my mouth and make assumptions based on what is obviously their opinion, not mine. The Constitution is very clear as to the qualifications for POTUS, and there is no birth certificate of Barack Obama that would make any difference. The fact that he had dual citizenship at birth proves he was not a “Natural Born” citizen. He is a citizen under the 14^th amendment which defines citizens born to parents when one parent is not a US citizen.

So let’s continue with this bit of misinformation in Sen. Johnson’s letter:

“Such rumors overlook the fact that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States regardless of the location of his birth. President Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States, and children of American citizens are conferred citizenship at birth, meaning Barack Obama was born a citizen of this country. The same is true for Senator McCain, whose birth in the Panma Canal Zone has led to similar, equally false allegations of ineligibility.”

This is it, just a statement, no legal or historical references but I do have a few for him. Under current 7FAM of the foreign affairs manual it clearly states:  http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/c22712.htm

Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual at 7FAM1116.1-4(c) 

“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

and the current foreign affairs manual also states this:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency. 

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible for the Office of President,”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”.

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … 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.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.

 So, this debunks Sen Johnson & his staff’s interpretation of McCain (Alinsky tactic, change the subject, throw the reader off topic to lead them away from the real truth, the real crime), but let’s get back to Obama.

Disreagarding my actual question and imposing the typical political rhetorical answer that all have been getting out of DC, Senator Johnson says that since Obama’s mother was a US citizen, it matters not where on the globe Obama was born. WRONG AGAIN! At the time of his birth, Obama’s mother was not old enough to confer her American citizenship to her newborn son had he been born abroad. We again refer to the foreign affairs manual in:

7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “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.(this correction, however, was not retroactive to the time Obama was born)

Thus, Sen. Johnson continues by saying:

“It should be noted that President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii and has released the birth certificate issued by that state.”

Oh, really? And where is the proof of that? This is what we have been told:

In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org.

Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.

In June 2008, Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, released the initial short-form Obama COLB to various newspapers including the Los Angeles Times declaring, “This is Sen. Obama’s birth certificate.”

This short-form Obama COLB was released as a .jpg Internet image, displaying no signs of having been folded or of carrying an official State of Hawaii embossed seal.

If Senator Johnson has a published statement from Hawaii to the contrary, it should be released immediately! This would end the birth certificate cover-up that Obama is using to cover-up the real fraud, his British citizenship at birth, just as Chester Arthur used in 1880 when he sent Hinman on a wild goose chase. Also, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with race, it is about National Security.

Finally, Senator Johnson goes on to refer to a Supreme Court case. He does not specify which one, he only states one was turned down. Well, we all know there were several and they are not completely dead. They were left in a state that would allow for further action should the plaintiff’s wish to pursue them. This is hardly case dismissed as Senator Johnson would have you believe, but is his lawyer legalese trying to cover-up his political indiscretions.

Thus, you now have concrete, substantiated evidence that Sen. Johnson, nor his office staff have any regard as to the law; let alone taking the time to actually refer to it before responding to a constituent’s constitutional questions addressed to them for clarification and asking them to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Here is the conclusion to the 30 page rebutle of the very 1st reply I got from Senator Johnson in regards to the fraudualnt election of 2008.

I have laid out your duties as written in the Constitution so there is no mistake what they actually are. It is your duty under that oath of office that you took to make sure WE THE PEOPLE have a fully qualified President & Vice President and our military have a qualified Commander in Chief.

 I have presented you with irrefutable evidence based on reputable sources and US & State Government documents & laws. I have given you more than enough credible evidence that should leave you with great pause to stand firm and order that a Congressional Committee be formed to investigate Barack Obama, John McCain and the Democratic & Republican Committee Chairman for their crimes they have committed in causing this election to fall into such an unconstitutional state that it could forever do irreparable harm to our country and it’s people faith in their elected officials. The election needs to be returned to a Constitutional State and returned to the People for justice to be done and we will not rest until it is done and those responsible are held accountable for their crimes against the Constitution.

It is a sad day when “We the People” whom you have sworn to serve honorably have such little trust that we have to go to such lengths to help you do your duties which you should know. It should be the duty of each elected official to know the Constitution and their responsibilities and restrictions are under it. I will save the restrictions for another time, but rest assured, it will not be long before you here from me in great length again, as I now know I have to spell everything out in detail as not to leave it for you to assume my requests. Nor will I ever assume you are doing your job and verifying my reputable resources that confirm the facts I present to you in my letters.

Respectfully,

This 30^th day of December, 2008

 So, in January, both the US Senate and the House of Representatives certified illegal election results and allowed a Usurper to enter the White House. All for their personal political gains which will, in the end, become the final nails in the coffins of their political careers and any remaining respect their constituents may hold for them.

 “Thanks again for contacting me, and please keep in touch! Sincerely, Tim Johnson (TPJ/kcr)”

You can bet your political hyde I will keep in contact! We will NOT be silenced!

‘We The People’, ‘The Sleeping Giant’, is Sleeping No More

Hawaii Five Uh-Oh Part II

I trust Leo knows exactly where he is going with this UIPA Investigation and this newest report brings more government deceit, clues and questions. The most compelling question in my mind right now is:

“Will Hawaii comply with its own open government laws?”

Click on the photo for the entire report:

The UIPA at 92F-3 explicitly defines “government records” as follows:

“Government record” means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form.

When a state agency in Hawaii is faced with a request for government records, the Office of Information Practices Administrative Rules govern all responses to such a request.  State agencies may not issue a response which doesn’t conform to the OIP Administrative Rules.

Agencies must answer every request for government records within the four following types of response:

1.  the agency has the record and will provide it to you

2. the agency does not maintain/possess the record

3.  the agency has the record but you are denied access to it

4. the agency needs more information from you to understand your request

These are examples of the four basic responses available to a state agency.  For example, an agency may not tell a person that the agency refuses to say whether they possess a certain record.

This very issue was discussed  in OIP Opinion Letter 97-08, wherein a staff attorney for the Corporation Counsel was faced with a UIPA request concerning a legal memo.  The staff attorney refused to acknowledge whether the legal memo existed by citing attorney client privilege.

The requestor appealed to the OIP and the staff attorney was then required to submit to an investigation by the OIP into whether the memo existed.  The staff attorney had to cooperate with the OIP investigator.  He admitted that the memo did not exist and the requestor was informed of that fact.

When an agency “denies” access to a government record, the denial has a very explicit effect in that it operates as a statutory admission by the agency that they do maintain (possess) the requested record.

An agency can only deny access to a record it does actually maintain.

If the agency does not have the record, then the agency must notify the requestor that the record is not maintained by the agency.

TerriK’s UIPA REQUESTS

TerriK assumed that President Obama had amended his vital records and simply asked for the amended records and all applications by Obama to amend or correct his vital records.  TerriK also requested all records of fees paid by Obama to amend the records.

The DoH was required to answer TerriK’s UIPA requests within one of the four responses discussed above.  And they never responded thereto by alleging that the amendment records she requested were not maintained by the DoH.

Instead, the DoH responded by denying TerriK access to the requested records citing the privacy protections of Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(b).

Obviously, there is no privacy right to a record which does not exist.

The DoH has therefore admitted that they maintain amended birth records for President Obama.

Hawaii Five Uh-Oh URGENT UPDATE!

naturalborncitizen Says:

ATTENTION….

I want as much focus on this blog as possible when I publish Part 3 of the TerriK Investigation Report, subtitled:

STATE OF HAWAII LAW DEMANDS THAT VITAL RECORDS INFORMATION FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ALONG WITH ALL RECORDS PERTAINING TO DoH DIRECTOR FUKINO’S JULY 27, 2009 PRESS RELEASE.

Not only has Obama waived privacy interests, the state waived them as well. More important is the fact that state law governs that no privacy interest exception applies when the information requested is required to be released under the UIPA at 92F-12.

The only question is whether Hawaii will obey its own laws.

I will publish this report late tonight or early tomorrow morning.

This comment was issued by Leo C. Donofrio on September 27, 2009 at 12:41PM ET

Please repost far and wide.

To Be An American Has Nothing To Do With Race ~ It Has To Do With Being A Person Cloaked In Liberty ~ Free From Monarchy, Free Of Repression, Free Forever

While we wait on word from Hawaii so we can put an end to the fake rabbit aka birth certificate, let’s revisit a previous article by Leo Donofrio and what is probably the MOST important historical legal finding on US Citizenship & Natural Born Citizen uncovered by Leo’s research team, “The Undead Revolutionists”.

Why is this so important you ask?

Because our National Security hinges on having a Commander in Chief that has held no other allegiance to any other nation than that of the United States of America. The influences of foreign powers are too great a risk to take.

Have you listened to then news lately? How Obama puts off sending reinforcements for our soldiers, all the while turning his back on our allies and yucking it up with dictators and leaders of nations who harbor terrorists. While these rogue regimes talk of building their nuke arsenals, all Obama wants to do dismantle ours, leaving our country vulnerable to an inevitable attack.

Just what country is he representing? What country is he protecting? Isn’t it his MAIN job to secure our borders and maintain OUR national security?

Oh, and lets not forget the $400k he has just promised to Gaddafi’s cronies? What right does Obama have to give our hard earned money to rogue dictators and their cronies who harbor terrorists who kill Americans and who rejoice over it?

Keep this all in mind while you read this. I also urge you to read it more than once and be sure to read all pertaining links for further knowledge as to the grave danger this Usurper is imposing on this nation and its citizens.

Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point.  But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times.  But that’s exactly what has happened this week.  A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN.  They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION.

They have been sending me good stuff for quite a while now.  A wonderful contributor to comments at this blog – Kamira – is part of that team.  This group is preparing the mother of all natural born citizen research reports based upon their unique historical document discoveries.  It will be guest blogged by them right here when it’s ready for public consumption.

But for now, and as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds.  It’s an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884.  The American Law Review was a premier legal journal -  the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.

This was not a law school publication.  It was considered to be the state of legal art which utilized the most esteemed attorneys of the period.

The article I am about to show you was published in The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq.  Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association.  His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.

The article I am excited to bring you is titled:

ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?

The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.

The article is written in a clear and concise manner, easily understood by lawyers and lay persons alike.  I will now introduce each relevant issue confronted in this article and then present the article in full for your review.

OBAMA POTUS ELIGIBILITY MYTHS DESTROYED BY MR. GEORGE COLLINS

MYTH #1:  Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.

This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President.  Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins.  This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.

Chester’s father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born.  This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December 2008.

It has been argued that Chester Arthur’s occupation of the White House set a legal precedent for Obama since both Chester and Barack were born of British fathers.  But the public – at the time Chester was running for VP and later when he became POTUS – never knew that Chester Arthur was a British subject since he successfully lied to the public about his parental heritage.

The law review article goes into great detail concerning the issue of who exactly rises to the level of natural born citizen.  It discusses law cases and legal precedent in its analysis, but it does not even mention the current President – Chester Arthur – even though Attorney Collins steadfastly denies that a person born on US soil to an alien father could be a natural born citizen.

If Attorney Collins – esteemed lawyer, Secretary of the Bar Association and nationally known legal journalist – had thought his current President at the time this article was published – Chester Arthur – was a British subject at birth, then the article would have required a discussion of that point.

But the article does not mention President Chester Arthur because Chester Arthur managed – through blatant deceit - to cover that issue up.  He successfully concealed his British birth from the American people.  This law review article is proof of that conclusion.

MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.

Despite the fact that state court cases have absolutely no legal weight of authority in federal court, Obama eligibility supporters cite this case often.  Attorney Collins tears the decision to shreds and exposes its faulty conclusions.

MYTH #3: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.

Attorney Collins takes this on directly and establishes clearly that there is no common law in the United States.  He also explains that natural born citizens are in no way, shape or form, the same as natural born subjects.

MYTH #4:  Vattell’s definition of a natural born citizen was not considered by the framers.

Attorney Collins discusses Vattel in great detail.  And Collins agrees that to be a natural born citizen one must be born on the soil of parents who were themselves citizens.  Collins quotes Vattell.

But more important is the fact that Collins makes it clear Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” was not actually Vattel’s definition.

This is very important.

The definition of “natural born citizen” was notcreated by Vattel in his treatise, “Law of Nations.”  That treatise simply discussed the established body of law known as “the law of nations”.  The definition of natural born citizen discussed in Vattel’s treatise was actually the definition established by the body of law known as “law of nations”.

Attorney Collins makes all of this quite clear in the article below.  Now please review Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;

The capital letters are not in reference to Vattel’s treatise, but they are in reference to the body of law Vattel wrote about – the actual “law of nations”.  And that body of law -  according to Attorney Collins as well as Vattell – held that a “natural born citizen” was somebody with connections to the nation for having been born on the soil as well as having been born of citizen parents.  In Article 1, Section 8, we therefore have a direct recognition that the framers respected the law of nations.

“DOUBLE ALLEGIANCE TO THE NATION”

This is what the framers required for the Commander In Chief.  Any child of immigrants from any nation could become President – as long as his parents became naturalized US citizens before that child was born on US soil.  In their wisdom, the framers sought two generations of US citizenship.  This discriminates against no race at all.

To be an American has nothing to do with race.  It has to do with being a person cloaked in liberty – free from monarchy, free of repression, free forever.

The natural born citizen clause does not establish a superior form of citizenship.  It does establish a national security safeguard against foreign invasion of the White House and takeover of the US Armed Forces.

It makes all the sense in the world that the person who holds the keys to the massive nuclear arsenal in our possession should be born on US soil to parents who were citizens.

If we allow persons born in the US of alien fathers to be President of the US then Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all eligible to have their direct offspring become President of the United States and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces.

That is what you are saying if you think Obama is eligible to be President.

You can’t discriminate based on race or nationality in this country.  If a person whose father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth can become President, then it doesn’t matter what nation that person is a dual citizen of.

It’s not like North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Iran are going to let the sons of US citizens lead their countries anytime soon.  Are we really going to allow their sons to lead our nation?  The framers would never have allowed such a horrific situation to exist.  With the natural born citizen clause they protected us against this very scenario.  We must protect the protection.

A legal fraud is being perpetrated upon this nation through ridicule and straight up major media propaganda.

The great weight of authority indicates Obama is not eligible to be President.

I recognize arguments which take issue with some of the conclusions below.  But the point is urgently made that this issue is not settled and has never been directly adjudicated by a federal court.  Such adjudication is the necessary outcome of this debate.

I hope the following piece of history serves as a wake up call to the snarky sarcasm being leveled at this very serious legal question.  There is nothing funny about this issue. The repercussions for generations to come are potentially disastrous.

And with that I leave you with the Holy Grail of all natural born citizen law review articles:

View this document on Scribd

Hear Our Prayer, Oh Lord: UPDATED

 The Obama cult is finally come ‘out of the closet’. WOW, that only took 8 months.

As I originally reported back in February, I have had an ill feeling since last summer and Obama’s world ‘presidential’ campaign where he gave his ‘global citizen’ speech in Germany.

His constant spewing, that we all must become “global citizens” in his agenda to “re-make America” and save the world, sent shivers down my spine and into full throttle mode digging for information on this enigma that had swept so many citizens off their feet like they were at a “Jim Jones revival”.

 As I watched the following video I wondered, is this a sign from God of his return? A prominent sign that it is time to get our house/country in order? Is this a message to us, like it was to the Israelites, after Moses descended from Mt. Sinai to find that many of God’s chosen people had fallen to the prey of false prophets? God’s chosen people worshipping false gods & idols?

done

1st ascension: The next Sunday is Pentecost and Moses ascends Mt. Sinai (1st) and returns with the first installment of the law (Ex 19:3-6). He returns to the camp and asks the people if they will keep the law. The people reply yes. This is not the ten commandments, but other Laws of God. It must be disheartening for Seventh-day Adventists and other Sabbath keepers, to learn that the Ten Commandments were not even given to Moses until after he had ascended the mountain the 6th time and after spending 40 days after the 6th ascension. Apparently the statues of the law were more important than the 10 commandments. The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week (Saturday). The first time in history anyone kept the Sabbath is in the Wilderness of Sin. The word Sabbath is not even found in the Book of Genesis. The weekly Sabbath was abolished and nailed to the cross. Col 2:14-16 On Monday, Moses ascends Mt. Sinai (2nd) to give God the people’s “yes” answer. God says to be ready on the third day (Wednesday) when he will descend on the Mountain in fire: Ex 19:7-14. The people are told to walk to the base of the mountain from their camp and be ready for God’s coming. God tells Moses to set up boundaries around the mountain so the people cannot break through, climb the mountain and die.

2nd ascension: On Monday, Moses ascends Mt. Sinai (2nd) to give God the people’s “yes” answer. God says to be ready on the third day (Wednesday) when he will descend on the Mountain in fire: Ex 19:7-14. The people are told to walk to the base of the mountain from their camp and be ready for God’s coming. God tells Moses to set up boundaries around the mountain so the people cannot break through, climb the mountain and die.

As the Israelites waited as instructed the third day, for God to descend on Mt. Sinai, they suddenly looked due north 100 km and saw God in the wilderness of Paran. God “dawns from Seir” like a sunrise in its glory, until He is hovering directly over Mt. Sinai. The Israelites watched in wonder and were amazed at the beauty and splendor of God as He came closer and closer to them where they stood. One of the most interesting facts about the Wilderness of Paran, is its connection with God’s appearing at Mt. Sinai. When Israel was encamped at the foot of Mt. Sinai (Mt. Al-Lawz), God thundered, in a volcanic level display that terrified the Israelites. But three verses explicitly tell us that God dawned from the north like a sunrise, or like Elijah’s small cloud the size of a man’s fist in the distance that became a storm (1 Kings 18:44). God dawned from Mt. Seir until he came to Mt. Sinai and made the mountain turn to fire before Israel. They were terrified. The four key verses that describe “dawning from the north” are: Deut 33:2; Isa 63:1-2; Judg 5:4; Hab 3:3-7. 40 years later, when Israel was at Mt. Seir, God gave the “go ahead” to finally start their way to the promised land by the command, “Now turn North”. In fact Mount Seir is absolute due south of Jerusalem and absolute due north of Mt. Sinai in modern Saudi Arabia. There are several passages that repeat this pattern of God coming “from the North”. Most notably is Ezekiel’s vision where God came from a distant storm in the North finally to overshadow him. (Ezekiel 1:4) Job describes God as coming from the North in golden splendor. (Job 37:22-23) Lucifer, the king of Babylon describes God’s throne as being in the far north. (Isaiah 14:13-14) Psalm 48:1-2 describes Jerusalem as being located in the “far north”. Further detailed study. After God descends on Mt. Sinai and calls Moses to climb the mountain (3rd). Ex 19:20 God tells Moses to go back down and warn the people again to stay away from the mountain so they will not die, then come up again (4th) with Aaron. Ex 19:21

3rd ascension: After God descends on Mt. Sinai and calls Moses to climb the mountain (3rd). Ex 19:20

4th ascension: God tells Moses to go back down and warn the people again to stay away from the mountain so they will not die, then come up again (4th) with Aaron. Ex 19:21

Moses and Aaron hear the Ten Commandments andvarious other laws. God tells Moses to descend andreturn with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel. Moses goes back down and tells the people what God has said. Deut 24:1-3

Moses writes down the words in the book of the law, which will eventually be placed on the side of the ark. Ex 24:4

Moses builds an alter with 12 pillars at the foot of the mountain for the twelve tribes. He then sprinkles the alter with blood. Ex 24:4-6

Moses read the book of the law to the people and after they agreed, he sprinkled the people with blood of the covenant. Ex 24:8 Moses now returns to the mountain (5th) with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel. After seeing God andeating the group descend to the foot of the mountain. Ex 24:9-11

5th ascension: Moses now returns to the mountain (5th) with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel. After seeing God andeating the group descend to the foot of the mountain. Ex 24:9-11

God then calls Moses up with Joshua to the mountain to receive the two tablets of stone with the ten commandments written by the finger of God. Ex 24:12 Moses spends 40 days on the mountain (6th) where God reveals the plan for the tabernacle. Ex 24:18.

6th ascension: Moses spends 40 days on the mountain (6th) where God reveals the plan for the tabernacle. Ex 24:18.

After 40 days, Aaron makes the golden calf as Moses was on the mountain for 40 days. In one of the most fascinating interaction between a man and God in the Bible, God tells Moses He will kill all the Hebrews who sinned and make Moses into a great nation. Moses pleads for the people. Then God changes his mind and says he won’t kill them. Moses goes down and rebukes Aaron and grinds up the golden calf and makes them drink the gold dust. Then Moses command the Levites to kill about 3000 of the idol worshippers. Ex 32:7-29 The next day, Moses climb Mt. Sinai (7th). God tells Moses is to take them into the promised land with God’s angel as protection, but God himself will not go with them. Moses goes down the mountain. God strikes down a number of the Hebrews who sinned. Ex 32:30-35

7th ascension: The next day, Moses climb Mt. Sinai (7th). God tells Moses is to take them into the promised land with God’s angel as protection, but God himself will not go with them. Moses goes down the mountain. God strikes down a number of the Hebrews who sinned. Ex 32:30-35

When the people hear that God’s angel will lead them but God himself will not go with them, the people get sad and they remove all their jewelry. Ex 33:2-6

Moses continues to plead with God for the people and says, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” God says He will show Moses his Glory on the Mountain. Ex 33:18-23 God tells Moses to cut out two replacement tablets and God calls Moses back up to Mt. Sinai (8th), where God passes by while Moses was in the cleft of the rock. Again Moses asks God to join them on the journey to the promised land. God changes his mind finally and tells Moses he will lead them to the promised land. Moses spends forty more days on the mountain, then returns. God said he would perform new miracles and Moses face is shining in view of the people so he puts a veil over his face. Ex 34:1-9; 2 Cor 3.

8th ascension: God tells Moses to cut out two replacement tablets and God calls Moses back up to Mt. Sinai (8th), where God passes by while Moses was in the cleft of the rock. Again Moses asks God to join them on the journey to the promised land. God changes his mind finally and tells Moses he will lead them to the promised land. Moses spends forty more days on the mountain, then returns. God said he would perform new miracles and Moses face is shining in view of the people so he puts a veil over his face. Ex 34:1-9; 2 Cor 3.

Our blessed America that was founded by men who revered the word of God. These men knew of the tyranny of false prophets. They knew of the history of a nation falling into the prey of these false prophets and the immorality that they preached.

Oh, Hear Our Prayer, Oh Lord

UPDATE: WND has reported some interesting bacground information of the Chicago-based community organizing group called the Gamaliel Foundation :

Officials with the Gamaliel Foundation did not return a message left by WND requesting a comment.

But according to the organization’s website, its type of community organizing began in Chicago in 1938.

“Saul Alinsky created the ‘Back of the Yards Community Council,’” the site says. “The organization operated in the shadow of Chicago’s stock yards. The community was beset with poverty, political corruption, gangs, disease, deteriorating housing and inadequate schools; but most of all it was beset with a sense of powerlessness. The organization successfully engaged people to change the conditions of the community.”

The foundation says it was set up in 1968 to support “an African American organization fighting to protect homeowners on Chicago’s Westside who had been discriminated against by banks and saving and loan institutions.”

It was relaunched in 1986 “as an organizing institute.”

Others, such as Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, also have been clear in their nearly religious adoration of Obama. As WND reported, Farrakhan declared last year that when Obama talks, “the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

CLICK for the entire articel at WND.

Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof

Earlier in the week, I brought back an article by Leo to refresh the readers memories and to also educate new readers as to the importance that there shall be “NO” foreign influence on the office of the Executive. Today I do the same.

Let’s talk ’subject to the jusrisdiction thereof’ and its relevance to US citizenship & naturalization/immigration laws and… 

“Where did it all go wrong?”

 In 1895, after answering Hinman’s letterregarding the ineligibility of Chester Arthur, Thomas F. Bayard who was then Sec. of State under Grover Cleveland, finally made a formal ruling on the subject of children born in the US to foreigners:

In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ “.

Leo’s article goes on to state the irrefutable facts of this significant ruling as it pertains to Obama:

It’s important we note Bayard’s concern that the German subject was, “on his birth subject to a foreign power“.  That’s the key.  “On his birth”, Chester Arthur was born subject to a foreign power.  “On his birth”, Barack Obama was born subject to a foreign power.  Also, this official ruling concerned only the issue of whether the person was a “citizen” of the US, never mind “natural born”.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution  requires that the President be a natural borncitizen.  The word “born” refers to the status of the President at the time of his birth, not any other time.  Barack Obama and Chester Arthur were born to fathers who were not US citizens at the time each was born.  Therefore, neither Obama nor Arthur should legally be President under the Constitution.

Here is the full “The ‘Nation” article regarding Hinman’s original request of clarification as it was originally printed in 1894, “A question of Citizenship” begins on page 134 of “The Nation” (pg 3 of the scribd doc)

View this document on Scribd

 

 

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part I : A ‘Tribe’-ute to DC Liberal Activism

This will be a multi-part series that focuses on Congresses knowledge of the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ and how they have purposely side stepped the constitution & the intent of the founding fathers regarding US citizenship by using ‘baby steps’ to achieve their ultimate goal:

“An Amendment to the Constitution to make eligible for the office of President any person who has been a US citizen for (X) amount of years”

I use (X) because there are several versions, all with differing views as to the number of years the citizen must be a continual resident prior to running for office.

‘Hope-n-Change’ Floats 

“The written Constitution ‘floats’ in a vast and deep – and, crucially, invisible – ocean of ideas, propositions, recovered memories, and imagined experiences…The Invisible Constitution is not simply a mask for imposing a particular ideology on the Constitution, which is what people sometimes think.”…”What I am hoping is that people will come to see that we’re all engaged in the same game and that the political reality of the Constitution, which is not confined to the written text, is an equal-opportunity reality.”

Laurence H. Tribe (The Invisible Constitution) 2008

This folks is the view of every liberal progressive ideologue on capital hill today.

Laurence Tribe’s roots to the progressive movement span decades. Tribe graduated from Harvard Law in 1966, immediately clerked for Trobiner in the Ca Supreme Court for a year, then moved to DC where he clerked for Stewart for a year. Not having any real world experience, Tribe then joins Harvard as an assistant professor in 1968 and after 4 years, he received his tenure from Harvard in 1972.

Sounding familiar? Let’s continue on…

Laurence Tribe is the co-founder of the liberal activist “American Constitution Society”, a law and policy organization formed to breed and pit young activist lawyers, like himself, against originalism and constitutional jurisprudence. Tribe is considered as a demigod at Harvard and the cast of characters surrounding him over the years sounds like a who’s who of liberal activism progressive style. We have Aharon Barach, chief justice of Israel who believes in letting unrepentant genocidal terrorists roam free; Doris Kearn Goodwin, liberal revisionist historian; Akhil Amar, liberal law professor at Yale; Nina Totenberg, liberal legal correspondent for NPR. Most notably in Tribe’s cast of contributing characters, we find none other than Cass Sunstein, Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) & Barack Obama. The one I shall take note of today is Barack Obama.

While studying at Harvard, Obama became a research assistant to Tribe on his book – “Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes” (1990) and in turn, during Obama’s candidacy, Tribe did a political commercial congratulating Obama and publically supporting the Obama campaign.

During the campaign last year, Ellis Washington wrote this of Tribe:

‘Tribes judicial philosophy would be right up there with the most radical leftists of the Supreme Court, like Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and many other enemies of the original intent of the framers.”

Tribe’s Congress

Tribe wrote his initial commentary on the Constitution in 1978 call “American Constitutional Law”. With this initial commentary, Tribe ascended to the throne and since has been the liberal’s commandant in their efforts to over throw capitalism and our Republic’s Judeo Christian heritage through backdoor congressional activist legislation.

In 1987, Michael Greve of the ‘Reason Magazine’ wrote a review of Scalia’s book, A Matter of Interpretation. Scalia’s book expounds on the ‘textualist’ theory and his qualities as a judicial ‘statesman’. Neither of which is Tribe.

Greve writes that Tribe is [n]otorious for urging judges to go boldly where none have gone before and that [T]ribe’s pretenses are a thin cover for their effort to mobilize the Constitution for left-liberal causes.

Enter Liberal Left Election Activism Through Legislation

Of Tribe’s most notable influences on congressional committee hearings are those during the Nixon & Clinton impeachment hearings, The Gore/Bush election & most currently the judiciary committee hearings on S. Res. 511:

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

There are many more areas where tribe’s activist views have been sought to pass radical legislation, however, for the purposes of this series, we shall stick to the topic at hand.

I can not say with certainty when it all began; but the legislative moves to forever redefine/remove the term ‘natural born citizen’ as it exists in the founding documents of the United States of America, have been going on far longer than I had thought.

Not only have they moved to redefine/remove it from the Constitution, they have actively been bestowing ‘natural born’ citizenship status on individual citizens for decades through ‘private’ laws. 

A search of Thomas.gov revealed that since 1973. Congress has bestowed ‘natural born’ citizenship 13 times through this ‘private law’ practice. I was only able to retrieve the basics, as I assume, the fact that they are ‘private law’ bills, the contents are sealed, and therefore not available to the public. This is as specific as they get, no congressional committee minutes are available through Thomas.gov:

Title: A bill for the relief of Phillip Harper. Became Private Law No. 98-39 (1983) 

In 1987, a bill was introduced which was entitled, ‘The overseas American Children’s Human Right’s Act of 1987’. The summary concludes that children born outside of the US to mixed parents (one being an alien) shall be a U.S. citizen at birth and then goes on to grant US national and natural born citizen status to any person born, whether in or out of wedlock, to a US citizen parent outside the United States.

This bill as far as I can tell never made it out of committee. A similar bill appeared in 1989 that met the same demise.

Were these bills a precursor for the currently behind closed committee door activism in Congress? Were they Congresses initial ‘baby steps’ towards the ultimate destruction of the ‘natural born’ citizen?

From 1973 – current, attempts have been made to remove ‘natural born’ from Article II of the Constitution. Additional attempts have also been made to formally define/change the meaning of ‘natural born’, therefore opening the door for any and all citizens to be able to run for President, regardless of their type of citizenship.

Committee minutes from the earlier days are nil, thus lending me to believe no merit was given to the early attempts. However, the sponsor of the earliest 6 amendments from 1973-77 was Rep. Jonathan B. Bingham (NY). Jonathan Bingham was a Connecticut Bingham and I do not know at this time if there is a direct relation to Rep. John A Bingham who was one of the founders of the 14th Amendment that left this famous quote which is recorded in congressional records for all time:

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Coincidence? I think not. To believe that a representative with the same family surname, a surname of a long historical list of politicians dating back to the revolution, was not aware or had studied the congressional records during the drafting of the 14th Amendment would be naïve.

These early attempts, that are still available to be retrieved online at Thomas.gov, also coincide with the appearance of Laurence Tribe onto the scene that had this to say about natural born citizen:

“The Framers substituted the word ‘citizen’ for ‘subject’ to reflect the shift from a monarchy to democracy”

Well, had the Framers actually adopted a Constitution for a Democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic, Tribe may have been right. This is also just one tiny example of his influence on Congress over the past several decades of Constitutional abuse.

From 1973 – current, there have been 15 silent secret attempts to remove the words ‘natural born’ from the Constitution and replace them with just citizen. It is the ideology of the leftist-liberals that the words ‘natural born’ are discriminatory and therefore keep naturalized citizens and those born with dual citizenship from their imaginary right to be president.

Part II to come: Breaking down of the most current secret legislation proposed from 2000-08.

Part III will focus specifically on S. Res. 511 and Tribe’s extensive influence in Congresses cover-up of ineligible presidential candidates that continues to this day.

Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher

http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part II: Shocked, Outraged or Ambivalent?

What would your reaction be if you heard that Congress was set in 2007 to bestow ‘natural born’ citizenship on ALL anchor babies through their Immigration Reform legislation. (110^th Congress) S. 1348

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if you heard that Congress was moving to change Immigration & Naturalization laws so the every child born overseas to 1 citizen parent & 1 foreign parent would forever be deemed a ‘natural born’ citizen. (101^st Congress) H.R. 1380, (99^th Congress) H.R. 2535,

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if Congress had a bill waiting to come out of committee in February of 2008 that would change the citizenship laws of all children born to US parents serving in the military abroad(off US & US Territory soil) so that those children would now become natural born citizen at birth, but instead of following through with it, Congress sets the bill aside and passes a public resolution that holds one former military personnel’s citizenship in higher regard than all the others that are currently serving as if this person had some supremacy over the others. S. 2678

Shocked, Outraged? Ambivalent?

What if there was evidence of a bill introduced to Congress in 2004 to specifically change the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ from what the Framers meant it to be at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. S. 2128

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

What would your reaction be if you heard that there have been numerous attempts to remove the words ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II of the constitution in regards to Presidential qualifications so that ALL anchor babies could someday become President, regardless if their parents are still here illegally? (93^rd Congress)HJ Res 325, HJ Res 880, HJ Res 890, HJ Res 896, HJ Res 993, HJ Res 1051, (94^th Congress) HJ Res 33, HJ Res 86 (95^th Congress) HJ Res 38 (106^th Congress) HJ Res 88 (108^th Congress) HJ Res 59, HJ Res 67, HJ Res 104 (109^th Congress) HJ Res 2,HJ Res 15, HJ Res 42 

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

And what if ALL these prior efforts were retroactive to ALL children born, that are alive today in the US and abroad.

Shocked? Outraged? Ambivalent?

Of all these permanently recorded Congressional proposals, the ones that give us more in-depth testimony/summary are H.R. 1380, H.J. Res. 88, S. 2128, S. 1348 & S. 2678.

H.R. 1380 was a bill to amend the Immigration & Nationality Act to grant US national & ‘natural born’ citizen status to certain persons born outside the United States. Alexander’s bill would have granted a child born with dual nationality ‘natural born’ citizenship status and it also addressed the issue of children born to US military personnel overseas. Summing up the bill, Alexander said: 

“My bill would also insert the term ‘natural born’ into section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, thus clearing up any question as to whether a child born abroad as an American citizen qualifies under the Constitution to run for President when he or she grows up.” 

Kennedy’s aka ‘Fast Eddie’s’ bill, S. 1348, went a bit further and it was quite clever of him to slip those 2 little yet powerful words ‘natural born’ into the bill. Reading the summary was quite laughable. This is where Kennedy tries to claim that children(anchor babies) born to nonimmigrant illegal aliens are ‘natural born’, however he does not stop there, he goes on to call adopted children of nonimmigrant illegal aliens as natural born once the aliens acquired the new Z-visa that would have been created by the immigration reform act. 

In 2000, Rep. Barney, I can’t “Frank”ly understand why Ma. keeps reelecting him, introduced H.J. Res. 88, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for Office of the President a person who has been a citizen for twenty years. This is the 1^st bill introduced where we have extensive testimony on the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ before the Subcommittee of the Constitution because Barney does [n]ot favor putting obstacles on the ability of the people to choose who they wish] to elect. 

Mr. Candy who is chairing the subcommittee opens by stating: 

“The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.” 

And Mr. Candy is quite right. The qualification was put in place specifically for national security & sovereignty reasons. It was put in place to protect the citizens of the newly formed Republic from ever becoming ‘subjects’ to foreign sovereigns or an all powerful central Monarchy. Mr. Candy has done his homework and thus is the reason I believe that this never made it out of committee. However, let’s review a bit more testimony. 

We shall start with the testimony from an immigrant, Balint Vazsonyi, of the Center for American Founding who immigrated in 1959. 

“The Constitution, which created a country unlike any other, also brought forth a Nation populated by people who are unlike any other. It is as if an umbrella had been erected over this country inviting all the people of the world to come here and become something else than they were in the moment of arrival…Indeed, Americans are different. I noticed this soon after I had arrived in this country 41 years ago. I daresay, I have spent a great deal of my life trying to understand, first of all, in what way Americans are different and why, but the fact remains that they are…So when the framers of the Constitution made this provision, perhaps they were already aware of the fact, as indeed perhaps instinctively or through inspiration they were aware of so many other things, that already then Americans were different because they did something nobody else had done before them…One of the best examples of that is precisely Congressman Frank’s resolution. It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency…I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust—to be able to run for President is not a right. It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution.” 

Continuing on about foreign influences & national security, Vazsonyi states: 

“I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for…Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with…The question of foreign influence has already been discussed. I would just like to add that having grown up in Hungary, I would find it very difficult to make decisions—not so much affecting Hungarians, but those toward whom Hungarians hold an animus. What if somebody of a certain birth would have to just express an opinion about immigration quotas from a country with which the native land had been at odds? This is just a tiny example. Of course, the matter of being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is much more important…To say that the world is a more peaceful place today is a very temporary condition. It can turn into something else tomorrow or the day after. The constitutional provisions are not there to serve this week or next week. They have served this country for over 200 years, and I hope and we all hope that they will continue to do so…So I would like to conclude with a general comment on constitutional amendments. I believe they are rarely necessary, hardly ever justified, and perhaps entirely untimely right now, when Americans seem to be considering even the very nature of this country, whether it is a Republic or a democracy. Therefore, with due respect to the proposal, I would like to cast a vote for rejecting it.” 

In the Vazsonyi’s written testimony turned over to the committee, Vazsonyi further address the importance of the ‘natural born’ qualification in regards to foreign influences and national security: 

“It is well known that the Founding Fathers were mindful in the extreme of foreign influences, and the dangers therefrom to the Republic. While experience has shown that a native-born Chief Executive is not necessarily immune to foreign influence, the odds are certainly more favorable if the president is an American plain and simple, who has never been, and is not at the time of taking office, anything else…Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to ”take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Mr. Chairman, it is an incontrovertible fact that the inhabitants of most countries are not only unfamiliar with what we call the Rule of Law, but find the concept virtually incomprehensible. Again, it is a miracle that so many immigrants are able to operate within the American system of laws, contracts, and agreements on a handshake…Equally of concern is the new appetite for, and silent acceptance of, dual citizenship. It would be naive at best to believe that neither has any bearing on what used to be unconditional loyalty and commitment to America…Those who favor the proposed amendment will no doubt point to exceptional persons of their acquaintance who, in their view, would fulfill any and all expectations with regard to the office of president, though being of foreign birth. Yet the laws of this country never have been written with the exceptions in mind. Among other things, the Framers of the Constitution distinguished themselves by writing few laws, and employing language at once broad and concise, so as to be applicable to all circumstances at all times.” 

Another to testify and submit written testimony was Forrest McDonald, historian and professor of history at the U of Alabama. McDonald starts out by agreeing with Chairman Candy then goes on to cite supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his testimony: 

“Debates about electing the President raged until early September, less than 2 weeks before the Convention adjourned. Then Pierce Butler, an Irish-born delegate, came up with a cumbersome plan that overcame the objections to all earlier proposals. This was the electoral college system. The system was so diffuse that it would be virtually impossible, given the primitive communications then available, for foreign agents to corrupt it. But for good measure Butler’s proposal included the restrictive language, ”no person except a natural-born citizen…To appreciate the significance of the Constitution’s restriction of presidential eligibility to natural born citizens, it is useful to place the requirement in historical perspective. Americans of the founding generation were extremely distrustful of executive authority because experience with colonial governors had convinced them that executive power was inherently inimical to liberty, because they felt betrayed by George III, and because they considered a strong executive to be incompatible with the republicanism they embraced when they declared their independence in 1776. As a consequence, their revolutionary state constitutions provided minimal executive branches, and the first national constitution, the Articles of Confederation, established no executive arm…By the time the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, difficulties undergone during and after the war for independence had convinced most public spirited men that an energetic national executive was necessary, but they approached the problem cautiously, and at least a third of the delegates to the Convention favored a plural executive in the interest of safety. The others endorsed a single executive, not least because all understood that George Washington, whom everybody trusted, would be the first occupant of the office…But Washington could not serve forever, and the delegates groped almost desperately to devise a suitable way of choosing his successors. The search took up more of the debates than any other subject the Convention faced. Most delegates favored having Congress elect the president, but that would make the executive department dependent upon the legislative unless the president were ineligible for reelection, but ineligibility would necessitate a dangerously long term—six or seven years being the common suggestion. The greatest fear was of corrupt influences upon the election, particularly from abroad…That language was adopted without a single dissenting voice, nor did anyone speak in its support. Its meaning and rationale went without saying. As Joseph Storey later explained in his famous commentaries, the phraseology ”cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office and interposes a barrier against . . . corrupt interferences of foreign governments…Now, the question before the subcommittee is not the original purpose of the clause, but whether it has outlived its usefulness. The circumstances that prevailed at the time of the founding have changed. Yet it seems to me on balance that conditions in the foreseeable future warrant a continuation of the caution shown by the framers…Take the matter of the possible corruption in the electoral process. The system is still structurally diffuse, but in practice it might as well be centralized, given modern techniques of communication and the instant portability of money, the most potent corrupting influence. Presidential candidates spend scores of millions of dollars. Just consider the prospective influence of a few billion dollars, a sum well within the means of a number of countries, any one of which, while unwilling to risk such a sum on a natural-born American, might be eager to support a candidate who had been born and raised in their country…The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak Presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of Presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable is the President’s power as Commander in Chief…Let us consider a few scenarios, starting with an extreme example. The espionage agencies of some countries have occasionally employed agents under deep cover who might not be activated for decades. It is not difficult to imagine such an agent being elected to an office of trust, but a Senator is 1 of 100, and a Representative is 1 of 435. What check is there on a President who is 1 of 1, except for the constitutional restriction?… In the role of Commander in Chief, it is not enough to be above reproach. One must be above the suspicion of reproach…In conclusion let me say that on this as on other constitutional questions, we are best guided by the wisdom and prudence of the Founding Fathers. The amendment process is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be used for political or electioneering purposes. The structure created by the Constitution has stood the test of time and continues to stand as the truest foundation for our freedom.” 

Of course the committee heard from 2 other witnesses for the progressive view; one for adoptive parents of foreign children and the other a civil rights activist for immigrants. You are welcome to read their bloviating testimony online as it is not relevant to defining ‘natural born’. 

After H.J. Res. 88 failed to make it out of committee, Sen. Nickles (OK) along with Landrieu (LA) and Inhofe (OK) brought forward S. 2128 in 2004, a bill to define the term ‘natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President. 

Sen. Nickles, in his speech when introducing the S. 2128, announced that: 

“There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of a judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what ‘natural born’ means. 

And then concludes by stating: 

“This bill ensures that children born abroad to or adopted by American parents have claim to the full meaning of the American dream…they can also have the freedom to choose to run for president.” 

I was taken aback by Nickles proclamation that Congress had never defined ‘natural born citizen’. Had he just gone to the congressional records from 1866, when the 14^th Amendment was drafted and subsequently ratified, he would have found this from Rep. John A. Bingham:

“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”

And yet again repeating myself, we know that the term ‘natural born citizen’ exists exclusively in one place in the Constitution itself. Article II, Section I, Clause V:

“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.”

Sen. Inhofe made note of the repealed Immigration & Naturalization Act of 1790 as some sort of fact that Congress had defined what ‘natural born’ meant, as if it has always pertained to naturalized citizens or citizens by statute, and uses the argument that in the absence of any judicial interpretation, Congress, per the 1790 Act, has the authority to make such interpretation. And let it be noted, Inhofe per his speech, is the grandfather of an internationally adopted child, thus did not have pure intentions when signing onto this bill. 

There was no objection, the bill was recorded and met the same demise of all previous other attempts to alter presidential qualifications. 

All these attempts, all these secret bills quietly kept out of earshot of the public at large, are verified proof that Congress has for decades been trying to usurp the original intent of the founding fathers of this great nation further risking our sovereignty & national security. An agenda that Washington warned about in his farewell address:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…

Part I: The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part I : A ‘Tribe’-ute to DC Liberal Activism

Part III: the conclusion. I purposely held back the review & summary of S. 2678 as it pertains directly to S. Res. 511 and including it here would spill the beans so to speak. But rest assured, it will be published no later than Thursday evening.

Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher

http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part III: McCain & S. Res. 511 Were Meant To Sanitize Obama’s Ineligibility to Be President [correction/important addition in blue]

Leo, this ones for you. “Thank You” for your dedication that lit a fire underneath me while educating me at the same time.

With persistence & perseverance, a researcher will inevitably come across the “ONE” document that brings full circle his/her research to a specific conclusion. Sometimes the conclusion backs the researcher’s theory and sometimes it does not.

I give you my final research to judge for yourself. Parts I & II with all the Congressional actions to eliminate ‘natural born’ from Article II, Sec I Clause V of the Cosntitution from 1973 forward can be found here.

Gasoline & Fire Do Not Mix

This is not a new concept in DC, yet it would seem these days that it has become the norm. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t as in the case of S. 2678, a bill [To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become president].

The bill was sponsored by Sen. McCaskill (MO) and introduced in the Senate on February 28, 2008. After having been read twice, the bill was then referred the Judiciary committee. On February 29^thSen. Obama (IL) signed on as a co-sponsor and then on March 3^rdSen. Menendez (NJ) & Sen. Clinton (NY) were added as co-sponsors to the bill. By March 4^thSen. McCaskill & team had recruited a Republican, Sen. Coburn (OK) to join the ticket to usurp the constitution.  

Now, this particular bill was also 2 fold, its 1^st point was to declare all children born to military ‘natural born’ citizens. The 2^nd mission of the bill was to expand on the defininition of ‘natural born’ by including the following which is what jumped right out at me:

“Congress finds and declares that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: ‘Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces’.”(emphasis added)

So if we take McCaskill’s words ‘shall include’ and the singular use of ‘citizen’  we can conclude that Congress was aware of the Congressional history of the term ‘natural born’ and was looking for an out for McCain. But Obama, seizing his opportunity to ride the wave, rushed right over to McCaskill’s office and requested to be assigned as a co-sponsor of the legislation the very next day. Or was McCaskill the ‘fall gal’ all along? Did Obama & the Democratic elite know ahead of time of Obama’s ineligibility problem and used McCaskill or did she sign on to the corruption of her own volition? This we may never know.

Beginning sometime in 2007, the blogosphere was a buzz with a former Washington Post article from 1998  titled “McCain’s Panama Problem’ that had resurfaced and the search into the Panama Canal history took off at rocket speed. Questions regarding McCain’s eligibility continued to plague McCain & the RNC. The public announcement of S. 2678 on February 28, 2008 was like pouring gasoline onto an already burning fire.

A quick search of Internet archives shows that the issue was quite a ‘hot’ topic  however I was not paying too much attention to it at the time which I will forever regret. But someone else was paying very close attention. A certain someone, who has remained very close to Obama since his years at Harvard, was quietly working the backrooms of college campuses for the Obama campaign.

Obama’s “Tribe”

On January 16, 2007, Lynn Sweet of the Sun Times breaks with the scoop  that [L]aurence Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, calls Obama “one the two most talented students I’ve had in 37 years in teaching…When I look at my kids and grandkids and ask what makes me hopeful about the future-one thing is Barack Obama.]

Now, while this is not a full out in the open endorsement, it does give the initial opening for a future endorsement which seems to come in June of 2007  when Tribe appears in a campaign TV ad  for Obama, that kicked off in Iowa. Also in June, Tribe gives an interview to The Harvard Crimson  in which he states that although [h]e would back Hillary if she won the Democratic Party’s nomination, he has always championed Obama’s cause.]

On September 17, 2007 the Chicago Tribune publishes  an extensive list of Obama’s Policy team and listed under domestic policy is ‘Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law Professor). Then on November 19, 2007 MSNBC reports  that the first Obama campaign mailing had been sent out to NH voters and inside the mailer is a quote from Tribe. In addition to the endorsement in the campaign mailers, Tribe spent quite a bit of time that November touring New Hampshire campaigning for Obama.

Moving on into December of 2007, Tribe’s former endorsement is officially listed at Obama’s my.barackobama.com  by Eddie Lee, Obama Staff.

For some readers, this is where you may want to switch from coffee to a stiffer drink.

The “Fix” Is In

On January 31, 2008 Professor Tribe gives a persuasive talk  with the main argument on electability. In his talk, Tribe openly states that

he [c]onsidered it highly probable the John McCain will be the Republican candidate] and also that [h]e is convinced that Hillary is unelectable]. Tribe finishes his persuasive by talking about the importance of voting in the primaries, the importance that a candidate not win by a small margin and how there was no room for complacency.]

This pretty much wraps it up for me as to why Obama signed onto S. 2678 so quickly and why the wheels shifted so swiftly from S. 2678 to S. Res. 511. With Tribe already on Obama’s policy team, you can bank on the fact that discussions were already had that S. 2678 would have to be resubmitted as an amendment to the constitution, however there was a much swifter and less ovbious way to proceed that would sanitize Obama’s eligibility problem through McCain. With the help of the 2 most prominent/influential constitutional lawyers known to the DC circuit, they would use a non-binding, but publically accepted backdoor method called a Resolution.

Already laying out the background on Laurence Tribe, we must now look at Theodore Olson. Olson was born in Chicago; however he grew up in the same liberal stomping grounds of the San Francisco valley as Tribe. He received his law degree at Berkley in 1958 & is a member of The Federalist Society. While serving under Reagan & Bush Jr., Olson championed conservative & constitutional causes, though his actions out of public office lean more to the liberal progressive causes. After retiring from Solicitor General in 2004, Olson returned to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher at their DC office. Olson had previously worked for Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles (beginning in 1965) as an associate where he eventually made partner. Soon after the 2008 elections, Olson jumps the conservative ship & joins David Boies, (lead council for Gore in Bush v. Gore & an invited guest to Olson’s nuptials to Booth in Napa Valley, Ca in 2006) in Boies’s lawsuit to overturn Prop 8 in California.

Thus the question begs to be answered, why would a member of the Federalist Society, co-write an analysis that is in complete conflict to what the Federalist Society’s review of natural born citizen is? Is his membership for decoration purposes only? Maybe, however I believe Olson finally released his inner ‘liberal civil rights activist’ that has been pent up for decades.

Note must also be taken that Olson’s wife, Lady Booth is very active in the liberal activist realm & was a staunch supporter of Obama during the 2008 campaign. Thanks to commenter ‘royll’ for bringing this to my attention.

The Two Views Become One

As I stated earlier, the change from S. 2678 to S. Res. 511, a resolution [R]ecognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen] moved curiously swiftly.

I will also not go into all the ‘whereas’, as I have already covered this. You can read them here, along with my commentary. What I will do is pick a couple of them apart that pertain to Olson & Tribe’s analysis, as well as the testimony/analysis of Olson & Tribe. I will also place special emphasis on Tribe who is on record as officially endorsing Obama as well as a current member of Obama’s domestic policy team well before S. Res. 511 was introduced. I do believe Olson’s part, for the most part, was pure decoration for the benefit of the GOP to get them to go along with the scheme. I’ll let you judge for yourself by reading this article from the ‘World Socialist Website’. There could be no better cover-up, than to put a so called conservative constitutional lawyer who is loathed by the liberal left, but also happens to be a closet liberal civil rights activist in bed with a progressive one.

First let’s begin with the written analysis/testimony that was permanently recorded in the congressional record on April 30, 2008 but was officially sent to the Senate on April 8^ththrough the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The analysis which begins by citing that the Constitution does not define ‘natural born’ citizen & that Congress has never given a definituion either can be argued against. Some argue otherwise, however the best place to find the definition would be in the 39^th Congress records of 1866 when the 14^th Amendment was being drafted. They then go on to cite Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 which is a 1983 Supreme Court case on freedom of religious speech. While this had me baffled for a day or so, it suddenly hit me. Maybe they were not using the deciding opinion of the case. Maybe they went to the dissenting opinion. BINGO! Justice Brennan dissenting wrote:

“Finally, and most importantly, the argument tendered by the court is misguided because the Constitution is not a static document whose every meaning on every detail is fixed for all time by the life experience of the Framers. We have recognized in a variety of constitutional contexts that the practices that were in place at the time any particular guarantee was enacted in to the Constitution do not necessarily fix forever the meaning of that guarantee…”

So basically what they did was take Brennan’s dissenting opinion and use it as precedent to usurp our guarantee, our national security protection under the Rule of Law that the person attaining to the highest office of land, the Commander of our military forces would have no foreign influences or intrigues. But let us not stop there with this opinion, Brennan goes on to write:

“Our primary task must be to translate “the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century…”

And there we have it, that big ‘it’s my constitutional right to be president some day’ analogy thrown right in our faces. Framers be damned!

So now that we have an initial grasp of the view of the Constitution these two men hold, let’s look further into their true interpretation of who they believed the Framers to be. You know, those men who were our founding fathers and who also fought a bloody war. A war to end America’s ties to an all powerful Monarchy and put in the hands of the people, the power to govern themselves by drafting a Constitution & establishing a Republic.

Next, Tribe & Olson brings up the subject of common law at the time of the founding and also reference Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). If this surprises you, then you have not been paying attention because it is the premise to all their legal analysis. Tribe has written, lectured extensively, as well as teaches in depth Blackstone’s English Common Law as the guide to interpreting our Constitution. In the analysis sent to the Senate Judiciary, they write:

“These sources ALL confirm that the phrase ‘natural born’ includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within the nation’s territory and allegiance.” (emphasis added)

Oh, really?

Tribe & Olson go on to mis-cite the specific part of Wong Kim Ark they are relying on for their conclusion, and they also do not cite the case Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 which we know for a fact, from extensive research done by Leo Donofrio & team, was the guiding case for the Wong Kim Ark decision.

“In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”.  And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett.  The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

 ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.” (Emphasis added)

Look at that, you have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of  natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc .

In Minor,they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama.  As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.“

Now, why, would the Supreme Court be relying on the Law of Nations if in fact, as Tribe & Olson claim, the Framers relied on English common law. The same law that kept them oppressed while under the rule of the English Monarchy. The fact is they didn’t. In the 1^st commentaries on the Constitution written by Supreme Court Justice Wilson (who was appointed by George Washington, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and was as member of the Continental Congress), Wilson specifically refers to the law of nations as the guiding force behind our Constitution and it interpretation.

“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”

Clear, concise & truthfully spoken. This is also one of the most inspirational commentaries on our Constitutional law & patriotism I have read. If you have not read James Wilson, Of the Law of Nations, Lectures on Law (1791) as of yet, I encourage you to do so.

So, putting Wilson’s ‘Lectures on Law’ to task, we can say with confidence that Tribe is completely misguided and flat out wrong when he claimed:

“British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for example, that children born abroad to parents who were ‘natural born Subjects’ were also ‘natural-born Subjects…to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever…The Framers substituted the word ‘citizen for ‘subject’ to reflect the shift from a monarchy to democracy…”(emphasis added)

For supposed constitutional scholars, Tribe & Olson really miss the mark on this one. They also make reference that we are a democracy which is just an out right lie. The Framers wrote a Constitution for a Republic with citizens as sovereigns who are superior to the government institution itself, not Subjects to some Democracy who are ruled by a central government put in place by mob rule and where individual rights are only those given to you by the government. Democracies rarely last, they either give cause for revolution or they ascend to a Monarchy or Dictatorship.

Hitting More Pay Dirt 

In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory  written by Professor Lawrence B Solum  of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.

[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.

To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]

[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King's protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]

[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.

The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject.”For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.

In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.

The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of  ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

Thus, wrapping up on British Justice Blackstone, I refer you to another writing of his that pertains to what was on the minds of our founding fathers when they declared independence from the king:

“The king is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness.”

To believe that the Framers held onto this logic and thus held onto the common law definition of subjects for the newly emancipated citizens, would be to believe there was never a bloody revolution to escape it. The truth is Blackstone was a Kings Knight. He loved his dear England and was faithful to the end and to the Monarchy who he adored just as much. Blackstone was also noted for contradicting himself, which I believe is the reason for such confusion in interpreting his commentaries.

Moving on to the real truth of which law guided the Framers, we turn to another early Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, who was also the main founder of Harvard law School. Story gives a very distinct conclusion to the Law of Nation & the law of nature as the guiding force behind the Framers definition of ‘natural born’ citizen when he wrote this of the qualifications for President in one of his early commentaries.

Volume 3, Section 73: § 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. (emphasis mine)

Story specifically calls the founding fathers ‘naturalized’ citizens, and rightly so.

Tribe & Olson’s analysis is all over the place. They bring in the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 and in light of Wilson’s 1^st ‘Commentary on the Constitution’; we can put to rest the reason as to why that Act was repealed. Congress was not invested with the powers of declaring anyone a ‘natural born’ citizen. The only powers regarding citizenship they had were those of naturalizing alien immigrants. A ‘natural born’ citizen is clearly defined in the laws of nations as well as the Congressional records of 1866.

“Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following: § 212. Citizens and natives: 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.” 

“Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”(emphasis added) 

Tribe & Olson also refer to several statutes pertaining to citizenship, however, the Constitution trumps statutes, thus using them to define ‘natural born’ citizen is grossly incompetent in light of all the historical and legal references that date back to the revolution. Leo Donofrio gives an excellent run down  of how McCain is a citizen by statute and according the most current version of the US Foreign Affairs Manual, it has yet to be determined whether children born abroad are eligible for President.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

In one of Leo’s latest articles  on McCain he wrote:

“According to the birth certificate  and COLB  of John McCain, McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama.  While the BC states at the top that it is from the “Canal Zone”, the document also states that McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon.  The city of Colon and the hospital were not in the Canal Zone.

The common story you hear is that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but these documents posted online do not testify to that.  Furthermore, there is no official document that has ever surfaced which states that McCain was born in the Canal Zone.

There is a birth announcement in the Panama American newspaper  which states that McCain was born in the “submarine base hospital”.  I don’t know what the submarine base hospital is.”  

Permit me to dispel  that Panama newspaper birth bit, Leo. It would seem that there is NO record of John McCain in the August 1936 birth registry of the Canal Zone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, no index record there, but I’ll bet you can find it in the August birth registry of the Republic of Panama since McCain was actually born off base in Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama. The media propaganda machine also covered for McCain by claiming that it was a clerical mistake that McCain is not listed in the August 1936 Canal Zone index registry. And as if that wasn’t enough, they tried to claim a different doctor than the one that signed the birth certificate, actually delivered McCain. Thanks to the lame stream propaganda media who stepped right up and said the visible, certified official records are wrong, the general public was kept in the dark as to the truth.

This also goes to show that it doesn’t matter how decorated you are and how many years your family has served honorably, eventually those who spend too much time in politics will fall to the intrigue and corruption of power.

So what does this all have to do with Obama?

Olson & Tribe conclude their analysis by reiterating their delusional rhetoric and false reporting of Kansas & Arizona as just territories. Kansas & Arizona were Sovereign Territories that had been operating under the complete law of the U. S. Constitution and jurisdiction of the United States and thus their citizens were under complete jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States and were considered for all legal and political purposes to be the same as that of statehood citizens.

“Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860–one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.”

Olson & Tribe consistently refer back to the 14^th Amendment & its interpretation that a citizen born to an immigrant is none the less a citizen and therefore under English common law, the founders considered them to be same as a ‘natural born’ citizen in all sense of the words. They did this purposely to confuse the issue knowing that Congress never really reads anything, anyways. However, I think I can confidently claim that I, along with the help of some great patriots out there, have blown that smoke filled theory right back where it came from…right up the ‘you know what’ of the liberal progressive ideologues who believe we are Subjects to some all powerful central government.

We are NOT Subjects, Nothing could be further from the TRUTH and the TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS!

Thus it was not surprising to find this recent review  of Laurence Tribe’s most current thesis ’The Invisible Constitution’

“Tribe’s legal philosophy is antithecal to the original intent of the Constitution’s Framers and is insufficient as a legitimate theory of Constitutional Law. At its foundation, Tribe’s ideology is secular, Marxist, socialist legal philosophy.”

Then put Theodore Olson next to Tribe in a Senate Judiciary hearing and what you have is the ultimate ‘white-wash’ of political corruption.

Therefore, with all the above evidence, I conclusively report that:

‘Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or ANY Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving their country’s President; (emphasis added)

Sorry, busted.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President;

Again, busted.

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:

Also BUSTED by McCain’s own original vital records and the index birth records kept by the Canal Zone.

Was it a coincidence that Obama quickly signed onto S. 2678? I think NOT!

Was it also a coincidence that Tribe gave that political persuasive talk on Jan. 31, 2008? I think NOT!

And it certainly was no coincidence that Tribe was selected to co-write the analysis that would sanitize McCain & Obama’s ineligibility. After all, persuasive speeches seem to be his forte’. You had just better make sure you are wearing pretty high boots if you ever attend one.

And as if all this is not enough to prove that our government and our election process is totally corrupt to the core, Roger Calero, a green card holding alien from Nicaragua  and member of the Socialist Workers Party (communist party) was on the Presidential ballots in 5 states where he received 7,209 votes. He originally was on the ballot in 12, however was removed from 7 and replaced by another SWP member James Harris who received 2,424 votes. The states that allowed Calero, a Nicaraguan National, to remain on the ballot despite complaints to the Secretary of State in those states prior to the election were: CT, DE, MN, NJ, NY & VT.

There are 535 members of Congress who know the truth. Will they step up to the Constitution and hold themselves accountable by returning the election to the people so that we may have a legitimate presidential election in which we have eligible candidates to vote for?

I’m not holding my breath for that to happen because I do not think there is a true Patriotic spine in the lot.

 What I will do is make a guarantee to keep researching and expose every speck of corruption I dig up.

God Bless America and God Bless Our Brave Service men & women who serve honorably and are NOT afraid to uphold their oath of office and defend this great nation from enemies foreign & DOMESTIC.

Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher

http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

McCain’s Law : Updated

“When applying the law the role of judges is not to impose their own view as to best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law.” 

John Sidney McCain III

 

Mario Apuzzo puts out a rather compelling argument that according to Vattel, McCain could be classified as a ‘natural born’ citizen. Let’s take a look…

Under Sec. 217 of The Law of Nations transcribed by Vattel is reference to children born out of country but in the armies of the state. Apuzzo gives much weight to the phrase “reputed born”. What does this mean in legal terminology? I do not know, I am not a lawyer, and Apuzzo gives no definition of it (of which there are several for it at the time of the adoption of the constitution) in his article that he uses as the basis for his claim.

What I do know is that in the current FAM (foreign affairs manual), it clearly states that all children born in the Canal Zone, as well as the Republic of Panama are citizens by statute, Act of August 4, 1937, Sec. 1, 50 Stat. 558, codified at INA: 

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1403

§ 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

303(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

303(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

We also know for fact that McCain’s birth certificate was filed with the Panama Railroad Company. If the natural born citizen were to apply, McCain’s birth would have been directly recorded with the permanent resident state of his parents at the time he was born.

As McCain said, judges have to faithfully apply the law that is already in place. Policies and personal choices are not to be legislated from the bench, therefore my conclusion of McCain’s ineligibility to be President stands as reported.

Well documented in Part II of my series ‘The Congressional Natural Born Citizen”, McCain had known of this problem decades before the 2008 election. There were numerous attempts to amend Article II as well as change the INA codified laws. They ALL failed and for good reason. Those in Congress, who held the gavel at the time, knew of the potential threat to our national security if the qualifications for President & Commander in Chief were open to those with dual citizenship.

As much as I sympathize with those who admire McCain for his service to our country (I am one of them), that admiration CAN NOT usurp the law. By trying to do so puts those people in the same corrupt circle of thinkers who pick & choose law at will for their personal benefit.

McCain has brought dishonor to himself by his own volition. It was his choice not ours and he will have to live with it every day for the rest of his life. He will also have to live with the irreparable harm that resulted from his willingness to skirt the law for personal political power which is in complete conflict of the opening quote of this article.

Leo weighs in regarding a request I had made to him regarding this issue. This response pertains to the UIPA requests that have been sent to Hawaii and Hawaii’s  responses thus far:

[ed. ... I will post a report next week which makes the truth clear and which establishes that an AG Opinion was rendered and is now being kept secret by the AG - and his office has personally informed me that they are invoking attorney client privilege thereto. The general public is now being guided away from paying attention to that AG opinion because the opinion must be disclosed by law. And if they can make the public lose focus then they might be able to keep the report hidden. If the public makes enough noise and does not lose focus on the AG report, then it is VERY hard for the AG to not cough it up. So, if you all want to see the AG opinion then don't fall for the Seussian hooplah telling you that it does not exist. It does exist.]

Smart Girl Politics Finally Gets It

Now, when will the rest of the so-called conseravtive pundits show some political bravery and stand with us in the fight to uphold the ‘Rule of Law” which is the Constitution of the United States?

Hannity Probes Not Constitutionally Qualified Jindal about Presidential Run

Hannity is still pushing the liberal’s global agenda by calling on ‘NOT” constitutionally qualified Jindal to run for President in 2012.

Jindal may have been born on US soil, however, niether of Jindal’s parents were citizens when he was born.

Being ‘natural born’ is only one requirement for president and NOT all natural born citizens may run, so get over any feelings of being president as some sort of right. One can be 32 and natural born, however that person is not qualified to run for president. One can be 35, a natural born, but not lived in the country for the 14 years prior to the election thus making that person ‘NOT’ qualified. Making sure the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces is ‘natural born’, born on US soil to parents(both) who are US citizens, is a national security measure written into the Constitution and adopted by ALL states to guard against foreign influence & intrigue that we are now seeing with Obama.

Jindal was raised on US soil by parents who practiced & taught Jindal the influences of their home country of India. You can NOT disolve those influences in ones own lifetime & the founding fathers knew it.

 

 

more about “Hannity Probes Not Constitutionally Q…“, posted with vodpod

The U.S. Constitution Does “NOT” Authorize Congress To Force Americans To Buy Health Insurance

Being under the weather and feeling the pressure of supplying new material here at ConstitutionallySpeaking along with the pressure I am now feeling of getting everything on my Christmas list completed as I am also a quilter & seamstress, it helps when an article such as this comes along. Thanks to Publius Huldah of Canada Free Press  for all your hard work and due diligence in compiling this for us.

I now CHALLENGE ALL my readers to copy and send this to ALL your US Senators & Reps in DC as well as your state Senators & Reps.

‘General Welfare’ Clause: Defending The Constitution From It’s Domestic Enemies.

By Publius Huldah  Friday, October 23, 2009

CNSNews.com recently posted an article, “Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance”.  In the article, Steny Hoyer(Democrat House Majority Leader) said Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase health insurance, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare”.

Oh my!  Does Steny Hoyer not know that his view was thoroughly examined and soundly rejected by our Founders?

The Truth is that Congress is NOT authorized to pass laws just because a majority in Congress say the laws promote the “general welfare”!  As shown below, James Madison, Father of The Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton, author of most of The Federalist Papers, expressly said The Constitution does not give a general grant of legislative authority to Congress! Rather, ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers  only. If a power isn’t specifically granted to Congress in The Constitution, Congress doesn’t have the power. It really is that easy – and our beloved Madison and Hamilton prove it.

1. Let us look at the so-called “general welfare” clause:  Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…

Immediately thereafter, follows an enumeration of some 15 specific powers which are delegated to Congress. If you will spend 20 minutes carefully reading through the entire Constitution and highlighting the powers delegated to Congress, you will find (depending upon how you count) that only some 21 specific powers were delegated to Congress. This is what is meant when it is said that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers!

2. But Steny Hoyer and his gang of statists claim that the “general welfare” clause is a blank check which gives them power to pass any law they want which they say promotes the “general welfare”. Further, they claim the power to FORCE their view of such on us.

3. Let us analyze this. Since words change meaning throughout time [200 years ago, “nice” meant “precise”], we must learn what the word, “welfare”, meant when the Constitution was ratified. “Welfare”, as used in Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1, meant:

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil govern-ment (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).

But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief—on welfare.  Dependent on public relief”. Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for original meanings?  Or when the words of The Constitution are treated as if they have no meaning at all except that which the statists assign to them?

4. Both Madison and Hamilton squarely addressed and expressly rejected the notion that the “general welfare” clause constitutes a general grant of power to Congress. In Federalist No. 41  (last 4 paras), Madison denounced as an “absurd” “misconstruction” the notion that

…the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare….

In refuting this “misconstruction”, Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. Madison also said:

…Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…

Madison was emphatic: He said it was “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; and to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” to provide for “the common defense and general welfare”, is “an absurdity”.

In Federalist No. 83  (7th para), Hamilton said:

…The plan of the [constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended… [italics added]

5. And what else did Madison and Hamilton say about the “enumerated” powers of the federal government?  In Federalist No. 45  (9^th para), Madison said:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…[emphasis added]

Madison said it again in Federalist No. 39  (3rd para from end):

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects….” [emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 14  (8th para), Madison said:

… the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...[emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 27  (last para), Hamilton said:

…It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…[caps in original]

6. Now, let’s look at the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, we can understand the true meaning of the “general welfare” clause: OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society and civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited and restricted in what it was given power to do!

7. So!  How did we get to the point where the federal government claims the power to regulate every aspect of our lives, including forcing us to buy health insurance? Consider Prohibition:  During 1919, everyone understood that the Constitution did not give Congress authority to simply “pass a law” banning alcoholic beverages!  So the Constitution was amended to prohibit alcoholic beverages, and to authorize Congress to make laws to enforce the prohibition (18th Amdt.).

But with Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the federal government abandoned our Constitution:  FDR proposed “New Deal” schemes; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court opined (generally 5 to 4) that “New Deal” programs were unconstitutional as outside the powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving New Deal programs (generally 5 to 4).

Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach Supreme Court opinions which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that the “general welfare” clause, along with the “interstate commerce” and the “necessary and proper” clauses, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

Roger Pilon  of the Cato Institute nailed it in his recent post on Politico.com:

Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don’t? Absolutely—if we lived under the Constitution. But we don’t. Today we live under something called “constitutional law”—an accumulation of 220 years of Supreme Court opinions—and that “law” reflects the Constitution only occasionally.

Now you see how the statists justify the totalitarian dictatorship they are attempting to foist upon the American People.  The statists and the brainwashed products of our law schools go by U.S. Supreme Court opinions which reject Our Constitution!(But Publius Huldah goes by The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers).

8. But is the Supreme Court the ultimate authority on the meaning of our Constitution? NO!  Hamilton said the people are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, and he called upon us to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (Federalist No.16,  next to last para). Madison (or Hamilton) said that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “..the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance” (Federalist No. 49,  3^rd Para).

Folks! Your duty is clear:  Study The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Federalist Papers. Live up to the expectations of Hamilton and Madison; and throw off the chains which the usurpers are forging for you and Our Posterity.

My reply to Senator Johnson. I am still waiting for one from a similar letter sent a few weeks ago now that also pointed out the Federalist Papers, the Framers & early SCOTUS decisions.

Dear Senator Johnson,

I am still waiting for that reply to my previous constitutional questions sent to you regarding all the unconstitutional legislation that you and those on the left in Congress are trying to shove down our throats.

And while I do respect the office you serve, I can not and will not support your actions since getting re-elected and the following is why.

Please dear Sir, take some time to reflect on your position as a “PUBLIC SERVANT” to those whom you represent and the limitations of your office. You are treading on treacherous ground and ‘We the People’ are tired of you turning your back on us.

As Usual..Liberal Politco Scrubs Their Mistake: Calls Their Own Unscrupulious ACORN/SEIU Thugs, Conservative Tea Party Protesters: Correction in RED

In true liberal journalism, Politico US-PRAVDA Journalism has completely scrubbed clean their error in brashly claiming Tea Party Protesters were arrested this morning. Via FreeRepublic:

Tea partiers hit Capitol
Politico ^

Posted on Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:39:09 AM by Sub-Driver

Tea partiers hit Capitol By: Daniel Libit and Martin Kady II November 5, 2009 11:14 AM EST

Capitol Police arrested nine protesters Thursday morning in the Hart Senate office building as thousands of Tea Party activists descended on the Capitol building to protest the trillion dollar health care bill and government spending.

The gathering was organized by local Tea Party groups around the country, who are arriving in Washington this morning by the busload. Conservative leaders in Congress, led by Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), have taken to the airwaves to encourage the activists to show up on the Capitol steps and demand meetings with members of Congress. The crowd is expected to grow into the thousands by noon, when Bachmann has promised to lead some protesters to a press conference inside the Capitol to express their opposition to the health care bill in person to members of Congress.

Speaking on conservative talker Laura Ingraham’s radio show this morning, Bachmann encouraged people listening to show up on the West Front steps, but she said they should show up with “cameras” instead of “pitchforks.”

A Capitol Police spokeswoman confirmed to POLITICO that nine activists were arrested in the Hart building, and they are being processed at police headquarters. All the buildings in the Capitol complex remain open for now.

The protesters, who are occupying the patch of grass only a few yards from where Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, are chanting “you work for us!” Many are holding signs that echo their distrust of Obama and their belief that he is pursuing socialist policies.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com …

Politico, in its truest form, jumped the gun and now when you click on the politico link, instead of correcting the error, Politico has completely re-written the article!

YEP…This is the kind of propaganda pushing PRAVDA/ALINSKY style journalism the Obama administration is wanting to bailout/take over next.

Here is who actually was arrested…ACORN/SEIU Code Pinko  Thugs trying to take-over Lieberman’s office chanting, “people not profits, health care for all” & “health care is a human right, single payer health care for all”.

I will have the video of today’s rally on the Capital steps uploaded later. I am working on converting the video now. I believe the downloader caught almost all of it. There were a few snafoo’s due to streaming, but the sentiment is ALL There! Take to the phone lines and let us NOT give up this most important fight of our lives & our freedoms!

done

Tragedy at Ft Hood, Narcissist in Chief Must First ‘Thank-His-Peeps’ as a Pre-Curser to His Statement About The ‘Horrific Outburst’ (UPDATED w/ New Video Interview)

  Yet another tragic teaching moment:

As another tragic event unfolds, a tragedy where US soldiers are once again the target of Islamic Jihadists leaving atleast 12 dead and 31 wounded, Obama once again shows his true inability to be ‘Commander in Chief’.

 

The narcissist in chief takes time for ‘himself’ by calling out to his ‘peeps’ by giving them their claim to fame before addressing the country about today’s tragedy. This will definitely be on the top of the contenders list for the ’Obamateurism‘  of the week.

  

  

Here are a few excerpts from Washington’s farewell address. When reading them keep in mind that the Obama administration has let terrorists go free, terrorists that have killed American citizens. They plan to bring more terrorists  on to US soil  and they have dropped ALL charges against the Black Panthers  which is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic Jihadist group who used thuggish tactics to scare off voters and keep them from voting in the 2008 election:

 The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. 

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. 

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it.

Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. [emphasis added]

  

 UPDATE: Ret. Col. Terry Lee who worked closely with Hasan speaks out. Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan, a life long Muslim, was ‘AGAINST’ the war and praised the shooter  that killed Pvt. William Andrew Long outside a recruiting center  in Arkansas this past June.

UPDATE 2: Cousin speaks out, calls for sympathy for the Hasan, uses the usual muslim claim of harassment for Nidal Hasan’s insidious beliefs and actions against the US Military. Typical response..,I refer you to this part of Washington’s farewell address:

 As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. 

It is the call of the Islamic Jihadist and it is written in the ‘Quran’ that ALL infidels(non-muslims) must either convert or be killed. That is ’ORDER’ of Allah.

done

UPDATE 3: “ALLAH AKBAR”

done

Ft Hood Shooter Was a Member of Obama’s Homeland Security Transition Team

 I can forgive tax cheats, but when a person on Obama’s Homeland Security Transition team PLANS and MURDERS innocent military personnel, it clearly tells of the Narcissist in Chief’s lack of any common sense, let alone any logical Homeland Security judgement.

More importantly, it PROVES he does not have the skills or the moral compass to remain as the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces!

Via Freepers via Bob McCarty:

Incredibly, it appears that Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan, the alleged shooter in the massacre that resulted in at least 12 dead and 31 wounded at Fort Hood today, served on the Homeland Security Policy Institute’s presidential transition task force between April 2008 and January 2009 when Barack Obama was inaugurated as the nation’s 44th president.

Major Hasan’s name appears on the page numbered 29  (page 32 of the pdf) of the document,

And then this via AP via YahooNews:

By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE, Associated Press Writer Brett J. Blackledge, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – His name appears on radical Internet postings. A fellow officer says he fought his deployment to Iraq and argued with soldiers who supported U.S. wars. He required counseling as a medical student because of problems with patients.

There are many unknowns about Nidal Malik Hasan, the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Most of all, his motive. But details of his life and mindset, emerging from official sources and personal acquaintances, are troubling.

For six years before reporting for duty at Fort Hood, Texas, in July, the 39-year-old Army major worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center pursuing his career in psychiatry, as an intern, a resident and, last year, a fellow in disaster and preventive psychiatry. He received his medical degree from the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001.

While an intern at Walter Reed, Hasan had some “difficulties” that required counseling and extra supervision, said Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was the training director at the time.

Embracing Radical Islamic Ideology…The Story Of Obama’s Connection to Hasan & His Muslim Roots

Originally reported on 7-2-2008 at “gunboards“:

Can the United States of America sober up from its Obama intoxication to question Obama’s categorical claim that he NEVER practiced Islam?

What has happened to the healthy skepticism once the hallmark of American journalism? Like the Pastor Wright issue, this matter of Obama’s claim to never practicing Islam has not been properly aired by the press, save Paul Watson and The Los Angeles Times.

Thus, the questions beg to be finally answered by Obama ‘HIMSELF’:

Why would you, as a college student from Occidental college in Los Angeles, California, visit two hot bed cities of fundamentalist Islamic doctrine in 1981 unless the you embraced radical Islamic ideology?

Why did you not spend that time with your mother in Djakarta, rather than in Karachi and Hyderabad cavorting with the radical Hasan (Chandoo) brothers who enjoy western vices, but support radical political causes?

The following facts that were discovered from Barack Obama’s previously unrevealed trip to Karachi, Pakistan and Hyderabad, India in the Summer of 1981 in the “private” San Francisco fundraiser of early April 2008 that gave rise to the “Bittergate” controversy exposed on the Huffington Post and Hannity & Colmes, among others.

According to the report of Larry Rohter of April 10, 2008, in The New York Times, the Obama campaign staff, when questioned about the revelation of Obama’s 1981 trip to Karachi, stated:

“Mr. Obama visited Pakistan in 1981, on the way back from Indonesia, where his mother and half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, were living. Obama spent ‘about three weeks’ there“, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton, said, “staying in Karachi with the family of a college friend, Mohammed Hasan (Chandoo), but also traveling to Hyderabad, in India.”

That information is significant for two reasons. First and foremost is the fact that Mohammed Hasan (Chandoo) is a radical Muslim who with his relatives operate a website that is anti-Semitic and anti-American and supports radical Islamic politics.

The full expose’ can be read HERE

INTERESTINGLY, THE “CHANDOO.COM” WEBSITE, THAT WAS AVAILABLE JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO, HAS NOW BEEN DISABLED AND THREATENS THAT ANY E-MAILS OF DEFAMATION OF ISLAM WILL BE REPORTED TO THE FBI AS WELL AS THE DOJ & WILL BE PROSECUTED. THEY ARE ALSO COLLECTING IP ADDRESSES OF ALL VISITORS TO THE SITE, SO SUFER BEWARE!

HMMMM..MORE INTENTIONAL SCRUBBING WITH THREATS. WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?

And then we have this re-visit to Atlas Shrugs that helps to connect even more of the dots:

Key Witness in Presidential Passport Tampering Case Murdered in 2008, No Arrests

The connections run very deep…it is a MUST read.

BREAKING NEWS: 14 Deaths Now Reported at Ft Hood

Fox just broke the news that one of the victims of Hasan’s jihad, that had just returned from Iraq, was pregnant.

Referencing historical archives, I refer you to Supreme Court Justice James Wilson:

The 1st Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson wrote, taught and advocated for natural rights. The rights that are detrimental to all human existance. Wilson was also a main framer of the Declaration and the Constitution. His influence & knowledge was 2nd only to James Madison.

Here is what one of the most prominent, yet forgotten, Framers of our Constitution had to say regarding the right to life:

“Man, fearfully and wonderfully made, is the workmanship of his all perfect Creator, the right to life must always be respected…With constistancy, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

Wilson was very critical of ancient societies for the practices of exposing and killing of unwanted infants.

I am thinking that SCOTUS never even looked to the founders when they decided Roe v Wade. Wilson’s are the very 1st Commentaries on American Law & our Constitution. They were published for the 1st time in 1790 & 1791 respectively. There are 3 volumes, well worth every minute of every American citizens time. Read, study & learn them and teach them to all future generations. Our Republic and Christian heritage depends on teaching these works to all future generations!

The Works of James Wilson, vol I, II, III

BREAKING: Herseth-Sandlin To Oppose PelosiCare

THANK YOU Stephanie! Please continue to do ALL you can to keep this ‘KILLER’ bill from getting passed!

Arab Street in Muslim Occupied Jerusalem is Rejoicing at the Slaughter of US Soldiers

Vis Atlas Shrugs: The word on the so-called Arab street is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan should be admired because he stood up for fellow Muslims overseas, against U.S. “aggression,” and that his anger, disappointment, and presumed sense of betrayal over U.S. President Barack Obama’s failure to end the Afghan and Iraq conflicts is understandable, especially in light of Obama’s own Muslim heritage…In Hamas-ruled Gaza, sources say, the reaction is overwhelmingly in support of the shooter. He would clearly be given a hero’s welcome there.

Hasan’s parents are Palestinian emigrants from this occupied territory in Jerusalem that Obama openly sympathises with over the US’s obligations to our ally, Isreal. Obama is pouring billions into the middle east for the cause of these radical jihadist supporters, symapthizers & jihadist terrorists!

FOLLOW MY LEAD & CALL WASHINGTON & DEMAND THAT ALL FUNDS BE CUT OFF TO THESE MURDERERS!

Don’t Fall For the LameStream Media’s Claim of “Harrassment” of Hasan Because He Was Muslim

The American Muslim Veterans Affairs Council chimes in:

Abdul-Rashid Abdullah, deputy director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, told FoxNews.com that the nonprofit group has not received a single report recently of a U.S. soldier being harassed “simply because he was Muslim.”

“That kind of report is inconsistent with what we’ve heard,” Abdullah said prior to a press conference in Washington to denounce Thursday’s shooting at Fort Hood, Texas…

Time To Re-Evaluate Military Recruitment Protocol

I wonder how long it will take the lame stream media, which, for this day so far,  includes FOX news to start covering this.

When it comes to what is happening with radical muslims…the UK is the front runner in keeping the public informed.

They know 1st hand what it is like to have their freedoms and lives taken over by these radicals and if Americans do not wake up soon, we too will writing about “what coulda, shoulda, woulda been”.

WAKE UP FOLKS…We Are Not In Kansas Anymore!

9-11 was the final warning and unfortunately, our leaders have not taken the proper action to keep it from happening on a grander scale in the very near future!

Click on the photo to continue reading the complete article.

God’s Grace & Peace Be With All the Families & Troops of the Victims of the Ft Hood Massacre

Photo by Getty Images

The fatal victims of the Ft. Hood shooting, as released by the Department of Defense on Saturday

• 1. Lt. Col. Juanita Warman, 55, Havre de Grace, MD
• 2. Maj. Libardo Caraveo, 52, Woodbridge, VA
• 3. Cpt. John P. Gaffaney, 54, San Diego, CA
• 4. Cpt. Russell Seager, 41, Racine, WI
• 5. Staff Sgt. Justin Decrow, 32, Plymouth, IN
• 6. Sgt. Amy Krueger, 29, Kiel, WI
• 7. Spc. Jason Hunt, 22, Tillman, OK
• 8. Spc. Frederick Greene, 29, Mountain City, TN
• 9. PFC Aaron Nemelka, 19, West Jordan, UT
• 10. PFC Michael Pearson, 22, Bolingbrook, IL
• 11. PFC Kham Xiong, 23, St. Paul, MN
• 12. Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, Chicago, IL
• 13. Michael G. Cahill, Cameron, TX [civilian]

Associated Press list of victims.

 

Fellow Muslim From Hasan’s Mosque: “He Was a Typical Fundamentalist Muslim.”

Via the Daily Beast:

The alleged Fort Hood gunman had revealed a hard-line Islamist streak to acquaintances in the Muslim Community Center that he made his mosque. The Daily Beast’s Asra Q. Nomani reports.

Not long ago, inside the quiet library of the Muslim Community Center here in Silver Spring, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C., Golam Akhter, a local Bangladeshi-American civil engineer, 67, got into a fierce debate with a young Muslim doctor over how to interpret the concept of “jihad” within Islam. Akhter argued, “Jihad means an inner struggle, fighting against corruption and injustice.”

The young doctor responded. “That’s not a correct interpretation. Jihad means holy war. When your religion isn’t safe, you have to fight for it. If someone attacks you, you must fight them. That is jihad. You can kill someone who is harming you.” (snip)

The conversation would be just another theological debate, interesting but irrelevant, except that the doctor was Maj. Nidal Hasan, 39…a closer look behind the doors of the mosque and inside the conversations between the engineer and the doctor reveal a more complex picture of a young first-generation American Muslim man living a life of dissonance between his identity as an American and his ideology as a Muslim who had accepted a literal, rigid interpretation of Islam…He used to hate America as a whole. He was more anti-American than American…He was a typical fundamentalist Muslim. (snip)

In the midst of the many conversations he had with Hasan, Akhter stood outside the Muslim Community Center, distributing photocopies of a Washington Post article about an Afghan mother who tried to stop her radicalized son from carrying out a suicide bombing; the bomb exploded in the family’s home, killing the mother, her son and her three other children. In a later email to mosque members, he urged them, “Let us wake up,” and take note of who are “potential terrorists, who are fanatics, who are fundamentalists” in the community.

No one in the mosque responded with concerns about Hasan’s extremist views. Rather, when he had distributed the newspaper article, Akther said, a member of the mosque yelled at him, charging him with causing “fitna” in the ummah.

read the complete article from Asra Q. Nomani

Asra Q. Nomani  is the author of Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam. She is co-director of the Pearl Project, an investigation into the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Her activism for women’s rights at her mosque in West Virginia is the subject of a PBS documentary, The Mosque in Morgantown. She can be found on Facebook, and reached at asra@asranomani.com

fitna: The word fitna comes from an Arabic verb which means to “seduce, tempt, or lure.” There are many shades of meaning, mostly referring to a feeling of disorder or unrest. Variations of the word fitna are found throughout the Qur’an to describe the trials and temptations that may face the believers. The term has also been used to describe divisions which occurred in the early years of the Muslim community.

In modern usage, it is used to describe forces that cause controversy, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord within the Muslim community, disturbing social peace and order. (in other words, don’t buck the radical Muslim system lest you seek the same fate as the infidel(non-muslim/non-conformist)

 ummah: Islamic community or Islamic nation

America’s “Jihadi Denial Syndrome”

~ James 1:25 ~ But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it ~ he will be blessed in what he does.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

While American leaders continue to be hell bent on ignoring the immediate danger to the US; and the US lamestream media continues to be complicit in their cover-up of the very REAL DANGER of just how far spread home grown terrorism is here in the USA…

…I now continue to seek the advise of the wise from across the pond:

Today, via the UK Spectator, Melanie Phillips gives a very good & CHILLING account of what we now call ‘Jihadi Denial Syndrome:

 After the 7/7 London transport bombings woke at least some people up to the phenomenon of British ‘sleeper’ Islamic terrorism – and, equally important, to the way this was continuing to be denied by the British establishment – the reaction across the pond was, to say the least, complacent. (snip) Americans were particularly astounded that Islamists were even being recruited to serve in the British police and other parts of the establishment.

The fact was, however, as I have written and said on a number of occasions, America was going in a similar direction, albeit more slowly and with a quite different demographic. While the vast majority of its Muslim citizens appeared to be people who really had come to the US to get a slice of the good life and had signed up to American values, there was a growing element amongst US Muslims which was becoming steadily radicalised. Worse still, the FBI and other counter-terrorism agencies had been influenced by their appeasement-minded British cousins in the security world peddling their wholly false analysis of Islamic terrorism as having nothing to do with religion, encouraging US officials similarly to downplay or passively allow the rise of US radicalisation. (See for example this storyabout the silence over a Hizb ut Tahrir conference in Chicago.)

Now we have seen the horrific outcome – the Fort Hood attack which left 13 people dead and dozens more injured by army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who reportedly screamed the jihadi battle cry ‘Allahu akhbar!’ before he opened fire. There can be no doubt whatever that this was a jihadi attack upon America, not least from the evidence that has now surfaced of Major Hasan’s attitudes for months before his rampage – evidence that the US authorities simply ignored.

And now this ‘BREAKING NEWS’ from the UK Telegraph:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America’s Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.

It was the latest in a series of “red flags” about his state of mind that have emerged since the massacre at Fort Hood, America’s largest military installation, on Thursday. (snip) Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a “Muslim first and American second.”

One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints. (snip) click on link above for the full article

Don’t look for anything to come out of Washington, especially from the White House, on this any time soon; as Obama has already set his agenda regarding radical Muslims:

HebrewOnline (April 2009): U.S. President Barack Obama met with members of Egypt’s Islamist opposition movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, earlier this year, according to a report in Thursday editions of the Egyptian daily newspaper Almasry Alyoum.

The newspaper reported that Obama met the group’s members, who reside in the U.S. and Europe, in Washington two months ago. According to the report, the members requested that news of the meeting not be publicized. (snip) The Muslim Brotherhood is considered a Sunni-dominated fundamentalist Islamic organization that has spawned numerous factions across the Arab world that have engaged in terrorist activity, including the Palestinian rejectionist group Hamas.

JihadWatch (April 2009): Muslim who called for engagement with Muslim Brotherhood to advise White House. (snip) The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated, in its own words, to “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ’sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated

NationalReviewOnline (Nov 2008): Fears confirmed as Obama appoints Holder who fixed the pardons of FLAN terrorists during the Clinton administration.

WSJ (Aug 2009) White House silent while Lockerbie bomber is released.

I also reported in June: Obama’s “War against Christianity” where Obama declared he had not visited all the “57″ states yet and he also sent chills down the spine of the reporter when he recited the Islamic mornign call to prayer in “perfect” Arab dialect.

And then let us not forget  Obama’s campaign proclamation that his 1st speech overseas  would be given in a Muslim country and his very 1st foreign interview was given to Al-Arabiya television  which began his ‘World Apology Tour’.

Finally, let’s talk GITMO  & the release of Islamic terrorists who have killed American civilians as well as American soldiers. This one act alone tells the tale of Obama’s radical Muslim roots:

Breaking News: Obama Sides With Al Quida Terrorist, USS Cole Mastermind Set To Go Free Next Week

ConstitutionallySpeaking Posted on February 20, 2009

From ABC: Just 2 weeks after meeting with the families of the soldiers killed in the attack on the USS Cole and families of victims of 9/11, Obama has decided to release without any conditions, the top Al Quida terrorist, Binyam Mohamed.

And finally, “America Gets Punked“, Obama’s NOT Christian after all grandmother, Sara Obama & Kenyan family are VERY Muslim

From USA Today [1]: Sarah Hussein Obama, 2008

Sarah Hussein Obama, grandmother of U.S. senator Barack Obama, when asked on Wednesday about recent attacks on her grandson that include the spreading of rumors that he is secretly a Muslim:

“Untruths are told that don’t have anything to do with what Barack is about,” she said in the local Luo language … “In the world of today, children have different religions from their parents,” she said. She, too, is a Christian.

From the NewsVine: Barack Obama’s Kenyan grandmother ‘Mama Sarah’ is undertaking the Muslim Hajj pilgrimage this year along with her son Syeed Obama.This is being reported by the Dubai-based publication Arabian Business.
The Obama mother and son were apparently invited by an UAE property tycoon, it is being reported by the Dubai-based publication Arabian Business. see

‘Mama Sarah’, as she is popularly known in Kenya, will go to Mecca for Islamic pilgrimage as required by the Qu’ran.

Sponsored by United Arab Emirates property tycoon and UN Ambassador.

Yes, America is deeply entrenched in ‘Jihadi Denial Syndrome’ and the ‘Narcisissist in Chief’ is the leader of the pack to keep it alive and further entrenched in the minds of the kool-aide drinking Americans.

WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC

done

Jefferson’s ‘Quran & The Killing & Enslaving of Americans By Islamic Radicals in 1785

Before we get into today’s lesson on the TRUE account of history as to why Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the ‘Quran in his library, I want to take a brief moment & urge all of my readers to contact their members of the US Senate and urge them to stand with Lieberman in calling for hearings on the terrorist act that has now left 14 dead at Ft Hood.

Sen. Thune is on the Armed Forces Personnel committee, so please do as I did this morning and call: 1-866-850-3855 and urge him to call for the immediate review of the Armed Forces recruiting methods and personnel reviews before any/all promotions, especially of those who are currently practicing Islam and the teachings of the ‘Quran, are approved. The time of ‘Political Correctness’ must come to a ‘HALT NOW’!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How Thomas Jefferson & the early American military were able to defeat the “mujahiddin”: Muslims who proclaim themselves warriors for the faith. Its Arabic singular, mujahid, was not an uncommon personal name from the early Islamic period onward. However, the term did not gain popular currency as a collective or plural noun referring to “holy warriors” until the 18th century in India, where it became associated with Muslim revivalism.

From Joseph Farah, 2004: No More Appeasement

Most Americans probably think the Islamic terrorists declared war on the United States Sept. 11, 2001.

Actually, it started a long time before – right from the birth of the nation.

In 1784, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were commissioned by the first Congress to assemble in Paris to see about marketing U.S. products in Europe.

Jefferson quickly surmised that the biggest challenge facing U.S. merchant ships were those referred to euphemistically as “Barbary pirates.”

They weren’t “pirates” at all, in the traditional sense, Jefferson noticed. They didn’t drink and chase women and they really weren’t out to strike it rich. Instead, their motivation was strictly religious. They bought and sold slaves, to be sure. They looted ships. But they used their booty to buy guns, ships, cannon and ammunition.

Like those we call “terrorists” today, they saw themselves engaged in jihad and called themselves “mujahiddin.”

Why did these 18th-century terrorists represent such a grave threat to U.S. merchant ships? With independence from Great Britain, the former colonists lost the protection of the greatest navy in the world. The U.S. had no navy – not a single warship.

Jefferson inquired of his European hosts how they dealt with the problem. He was stunned to find out that France and England both paid tribute to the fiends – who would, in turn, use the money to expand their own armada, buy more weaponry, hijack more commercial ships, enslave more innocent civilians and demand greater ransom.

This didn’t make sense to Jefferson. He recognized the purchase of peace from the Muslims only worked temporarily. They would always find an excuse to break an agreement, blame the Europeans and demand higher tribute.

After three months researching the history of militant Islam, he came up with a very different policy to deal with the terrorists. But he didn’t get to implement until years later.

As the first secretary of state, Jefferson urged the building of a navy to rescue American hostages held in North Africa and to deter future attacks on U.S. ships. In 1792, he commissioned John Paul Jones to go to Algiers under the guise of diplomatic negotiations, but with the real intent of sizing up a future target of a naval attack.

Jefferson was ready to retire a year later when what could only be described as “America’s first Sept. 11″ happened.

America was struck with its first mega-terror attack by jihadists. In the fall of 1793, the Algerians seized 11 U.S. merchant ships and enslaved more than 100 Americans.

When word of the attack reached New York, the stock market crashed. Voyages were canceled in every major port. Seamen were thrown out of work. Ship suppliers went out of business. What Sept. 11 did to the U.S. economy in 2001, the mass shipjacking of 1793 did to the fledgling U.S. economy in that year.

Accordingly, it took the U.S. Congress only four months to decide to build a fleet of warships.

But even then, Congress didn’t choose war, as Jefferson prescribed. Instead, while building what would become the U.S. Navy, Congress sent diplomats to reason with the Algerians. The U.S. ended up paying close to $1 million and giving the pasha of Algiers a new warship, “The Crescent,” to win release of 85 surviving American hostages.

It wasn’t until 1801, under the presidency of Jefferson, that the U.S. engaged in what became a four-year war against Tripoli. And it wasn’t until 1830, when France occupied Algiers, and later Tunisia and Morocco, that the terrorism on the high seas finally ended.

France didn’t leave North Africa until 1962 – and it quickly became a major base of terrorism once again.

What’s the moral of the story? Appeasement never works. Jefferson saw it. Sept. 11 was hardly the beginning. The war in which we fight today is the longest conflict in human history. It’s time to learn from history, not repeat its mistakes.

From Christopher Hitchens, published in the Spring 2007 issue of ’CITY’ magazine: Jefferson versus the Muslim Pirates 

America’s first confrontation with the Islamic world helped forge a new nation’s character.

When I first began to plan my short biography of Thomas Jefferson, I found it difficult to research the chapter concerning the so-called Barbary Wars: an event or series of events that had seemingly receded over the lost horizon of American history. Henry Adams, in his discussion of our third president, had some boyhood reminiscences of the widespread hero-worship of naval officer Stephen Decatur, and other fragments and shards showed up in other quarries, but a sound general history of the subject was hard to come by. When I asked a professional military historian—a man with direct access to Defense Department archives—if there was any book that he could recommend, he came back with a slight shrug.

But now the curious reader may choose from a freshet of writing on the subject. Added to my own shelf in the recent past have been The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World, by Frank Lambert (2005); Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror 1801–1805, by Joseph Wheelan (2003); To the Shores of Tripoli: The Birth of the U.S. Navy and Marines, by A. B. C. Whipple (1991, republished 2001); and Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation, by Joshua E. London (2005). Most recently, in his new general history, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, the Israeli scholar Michael Oren opens with a long chapter on the Barbary conflict. As some of the subtitles—and some of the dates of publication—make plain, this new interest is largely occasioned by America’s latest round of confrontation in the Middle East, or the Arab sphere or Muslim world, if you prefer those expressions.

In a way, I am glad that I did not have the initial benefit of all this research. My quest sent me to some less obvious secondary sources, in particular to Linda Colley’s excellent book Captives, which shows the reaction of the English and American publics to a slave trade of which they were victims rather than perpetrators. How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780? We dimly recall that Miguel de Cervantes was briefly in the galleys. But what of the people of the town of Baltimore in Ireland, all carried off by “corsair” raiders in a single night?

Some of this activity was hostage trading and ransom farming rather than the more labor-intensive horror of the Atlantic trade and the Middle Passage, but it exerted a huge effect on the imagination of the time—and probably on no one more than on Thomas Jefferson. Peering at the paragraph denouncing the American slave trade in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, later excised, I noticed for the first time that it sarcastically condemned “the Christian King of Great Britain” for engaging in “this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers.” The allusion to Barbary practice seemed inescapable.

One immediate effect of the American Revolution, however, was to strengthen the hand of those very same North African potentates: roughly speaking, the Maghrebian provinces of the Ottoman Empire that conform to today’s Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. Deprived of Royal Navy protection, American shipping became even more subject than before to the depredations of those who controlled the Strait of Gibraltar. The infant United States had therefore to decide not just upon a question of national honor but upon whether it would stand or fall by free navigation of the seas.

One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or “tyranny,” let alone “terrorism.” He resists any comparison with today’s tormenting confrontations. “The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology,” he writes. “Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of America’s War of Independence.”

Let us not call this view reductionist. Jefferson would perhaps have been just as eager to send a squadron to put down any Christian piracy that was restraining commerce. But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)

Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman did not fail to mention the size of his own commission, if America chose to pay the protection money demanded as an alternative to piracy. So here was an early instance of the “heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma, in which the United States is faced with corrupt regimes, on the one hand, and Islamic militants, on the other—or indeed a collusion between them.

It seems likely that Jefferson decided from that moment on that he would make war upon the Barbary kingdoms as soon as he commanded American forces. His two least favorite institutions—enthroned monarchy and state-sponsored religion—were embodied in one target, and it may even be that his famous ambivalences about slavery were resolved somewhat when he saw it practiced by the Muslims.

However that may be, it is certain that the Barbary question had considerable influence on the debate that ratified the United States Constitution in the succeeding years. Many a delegate, urging his home state to endorse the new document, argued that only a strong federal union could repel the Algerian threat. In The Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton argued that without a “federal navy . . . of respectable weight . . . the genius of American Merchants and Navigators would be stifled and lost.” In No. 41, James Madison insisted that only union could guard America’s maritime capacity from “the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians.” John Jay, in his letters, took a “bring-it-on” approach; he believed that “Algerian Corsairs and the Pirates of Tunis and Tripoli” would compel the feeble American states to unite, since “the more we are ill-treated abroad the more we shall unite and consolidate at home.” The eventual Constitution, which provides for an army only at two-year renewable intervals, imposes no such limitation on the navy.

Thus, Lambert may be limiting himself in viewing the Barbary conflict primarily through the lens of free trade. Questions of nation-building, of regime change, of “mission creep,” of congressional versus presidential authority to make war, of negotiation versus confrontation, of “entangling alliances,” and of the “clash of civilizations”—all arose in the first overseas war that the United States ever fought. The “nation-building” that occurred, however, took place not overseas but in the 13 colonies, welded by warfare into something more like a republic.

There were many Americans—John Adams among them—who made the case that it was better policy to pay the tribute. It was cheaper than the loss of trade, for one thing, and a battle against the pirates would be “too rugged for our people to bear.” Putting the matter starkly, Adams said: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”

The cruelty, exorbitance, and intransigence of the Barbary states, however, would decide things. The level of tribute demanded began to reach 10 percent of the American national budget, with no guarantee that greed would not increase that percentage, while from the dungeons of Algiers and Tripoli came appalling reports of the mistreatment of captured men and women. Gradually, and to the accompaniment of some of the worst patriotic verse ever written, public opinion began to harden in favor of war. From Jefferson’s perspective, it was a good thing that this mood shift took place during the Adams administration, when he was out of office and temporarily “retired” to Monticello. He could thus criticize federal centralization of power, from a distance, even as he watched the construction of a fleet—and the forging of a permanent Marine Corps—that he could one day use for his own ends.

At one point, Jefferson hoped that John Paul Jones, naval hero of the Revolution, might assume command of a squadron that would strike fear into the Barbary pirates. While ambassador in Paris, Jefferson had secured Jones a commission with Empress Catherine of Russia, who used him in the Black Sea to harry the Ottomans, the ultimate authority over Barbary. But Jones died before realizing his dream of going to the source and attacking Constantinople. The task of ordering war fell to Jefferson.

Michael Oren thinks that he made the decision reluctantly, finally forced into it by the arrogant behavior of Tripoli, which seized two American brigs and set off a chain reaction of fresh demands from other Barbary states. I believe—because of the encounter with the insufferable Abd Al-Rahman and because of his long engagement with Jones—that Jefferson had long sought a pretext for war. His problem was his own party and the clause in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war. With not atypical subtlety, Jefferson took a shortcut through this thicket in 1801 and sent the navy to North Africa on patrol, as it were, with instructions to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them. Our third president did not inform Congress of his authorization of this mission until the fleet was too far away to recall.

Once again, Barbary obstinacy tipped the scale. Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli, declared war on the United States in May 1801, in pursuit of his demand for more revenue. This earned him a heavy bombardment of Tripoli and the crippling of one of his most important ships. But the force of example was plainly not sufficient. In the altered mood that prevailed after the encouraging start in Tripoli, Congress passed an enabling act in February 1802 that, in its provision for a permanent Mediterranean presence and its language about the “Tripolitan Corsairs,” amounted to a declaration of war. The Barbary regimes continued to underestimate their new enemy, with Morocco declaring war in its turn and the others increasing their blackmail.

A complete disaster—Tripoli’s capture of the new U.S. frigate Philadelphia—became a sort of triumph, thanks to Edward Preble and Stephen Decatur, who mounted a daring raid on Tripoli’s harbor and blew up the captured ship, while inflicting heavy damage on the city’s defenses. Now there were names—Preble and Decatur—for newspapers back home to trumpet as heroes. Nor did their courage draw notice only in America. Admiral Lord Nelson himself called the raid “the most bold and daring act of the age,” and Pope Pius VII declared that the United States “had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages.” (In his nostalgia for Lepanto, perhaps, His Holiness was evidently unaware that the Treaty of Tripoli, which in 1797 had attempted to formalize the dues that America would pay for access to the Mediterranean, stated in its preamble that the United States had no quarrel with the Muslim religion and was in no sense a Christian country. Of course, those secularists like myself who like to cite this treaty must concede that its conciliatory language was part of America’s attempt to come to terms with Barbary demands.)

Watching all this with a jaundiced eye was the American consul in Tunis, William Eaton. For him, behavior modification was not a sufficient policy; regime change was needed. And he had a candidate. On acceding to the throne in Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli had secured his position by murdering one brother and exiling another. Eaton befriended this exiled brother, Hamid, and argued that he should become the American nominee for Tripoli’s crown. This proposal wasn’t received with enthusiasm in Washington, but Eaton pursued it with commendable zeal. He exhibited the downside that often goes with such quixotic bravery: railing against treasury secretary Albert Gallatin as a “cowardly Jew,” for example, and alluding to President Jefferson with contempt. He ended up a supporter of Aaron Burr’s freebooting secessionist conspiracy.

His actions in 1805, however, belong in the annals of derring-do, almost warranting the frequent comparison made with T. E. Lawrence’s exploits in Arabia. With a small detachment of marines, headed by Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon, and a force of irregulars inevitably described by historians as “motley,” Eaton crossed the desert from Egypt and came at Tripoli—as Lawrence had come at Aqaba—from the land and not from the sea. The attack proved a total surprise. The city of Darna surrendered its far larger garrison, and Karamanli’s forces were heavily engaged, when news came that Jefferson and Karamanli had reached an understanding that could end the war. The terms weren’t too shabby, involving the release of the Philadelphia’s crew and a final settlement of the tribute question. And Jefferson took care to stress that Eaton had played a part in bringing it about.

This graciousness did not prevent Eaton from denouncing the deal as a sellout. The caravan moved on, though, as the other Barbary states gradually followed Tripoli’s lead and came to terms. Remember, too, that this was the year of the Battle of Trafalgar. Lord Nelson was not the only European to notice that a new power had arrived in Mediterranean waters. Francis Scott Key composed a patriotic song to mark the occasion. As I learned from Joshua London’s excellent book, the original verses ran (in part):

In conflict resistless each toil they endur’d,
Till their foes shrunk dismay’d from the war’s desolation:
And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscur’d
By the light of the star-bangled flag of our nation.
Where each flaming star gleamed a meteor of war,
And the turban’d head bowed to the terrible glare.
Then mixt with the olive the laurel shall wave
And form a bright wreath for the brow of the brave.

The song was part of the bad-verse epidemic. But brushed up and revised a little for the War of 1812, and set to the same music, it has enjoyed considerable success since. So has the Marine Corps anthem, which begins: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.” It’s no exaggeration to describe the psychological fallout of this first war as formative of the still-inchoate American character.

There is of course another connection between 1805 and 1812. Renewed hostilities with Britain on the high seas and on the American mainland, which did not terminate until the Battle of New Orleans, might have ended less conclusively had the United States not developed a battle-hardened naval force in the long attrition on the North African coast.

The Barbary states sought to exploit Anglo-American hostilities by resuming their depredations and renewing their demands for blood money. So in 1815, after a brief interval of recovery from the war with Britain, President Madison asked Congress for permission to dispatch Decatur once again to North Africa, seeking a permanent settling of accounts. This time, the main offender was the dey of Algiers, Omar Pasha, who saw his fleet splintered and his grand harbor filled with heavily armed American ships. Algiers had to pay compensation, release all hostages, and promise not to offend again. President Madison’s words on this occasion could scarcely be bettered: “It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none.” (The expression “the United States is” did not come into usage until after Gettysburg.)

Oren notes that the stupendous expense of this long series of wars was a partial vindication of John Adams’s warning. However, there are less quantifiable factors to consider. The most obvious is commerce. American trade in the Mediterranean increased enormously in the years after the settlement with Algiers, and America’s ability to extend its trade and project its forces into other areas, such as the Caribbean and South America, was greatly enhanced. Then we should attend to what Linda Colley says on the subject of slavery. Campaigns against the seizure of hostages by Muslim powers, and their exploitation as forced labor, fired up many a church congregation in Britain and America and fueled many a press campaign. But even the dullest soul could regard the continued triangular Atlantic slave trade between Africa, England, and the Americas and perceive the double standard at work. Thus, the struggle against Barbary may have helped to force some of the early shoots of abolitionism.

Perhaps above all, though, the Barbary Wars gave Americans an inkling of the fact that they were, and always would be, bound up with global affairs. Providence might have seemed to grant them a haven guarded by two oceans, but if they wanted to be anything more than the Chile of North America—a long littoral ribbon caught between the mountains and the sea—they would have to prepare for a maritime struggle as well as a campaign to redeem the unexplored landmass to their west. The U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean squadron has, in one form or another, been on patrol ever since.

And then, finally, there is principle. It would be simplistic to say that something innate in America made it incompatible with slavery and tyranny. But would it be too much to claim that many Americans saw a radical incompatibility between the Barbary system and their own? And is it not pleasant when the interests of free trade and human emancipation can coincide? I would close with a few staves of Kipling, whose poem “Dane-Geld” is a finer effort than anything managed by Francis Scott Key:

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbor and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

Kipling runs briskly through the stages of humiliation undergone by any power that falls for this appeasement, and concludes:

It is wrong to put temptation in the pathof any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

It may be fortunate that the United States had to pass this test, and imbibe this lesson, so early in its life as a nation.