Deuteronomy 17:18-20 ~ And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
“America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” Full Text of the 1990 page House Health Care Bill (released 10/29). 10/29 CBO Score of the House Bill. Implementation Outline Detailed Summary Immediate Investments on the Road to Reform Section-by-Section Analysis 10/29 Letter from 40 GOP Senators to Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). 10/29 Letter from Blu […]
Cato Adjunct Scholar Aaron Yelowitz reports: Health care proposals moving through Congress would force most or all Americans to purchase health insurance (an “individual mandate”) and would impose price controls on health insurance (“community rating”) that would limit insurers’ ability to offer lower premiums to low-risk enrollees. Those provisions would dr […]
Unconfirmed, but is said to be from a person who was there and saw what happened (and helped both during and after the actual shooting). Here’s an excerpt: Since I don’t know when I’ll sleep (it’s 4 am now) I’ll write what happened (the abbreviated version…..the long one is already part of the investigation with more [...]
The question of public education funding is very much in the public view these days. South Dakota’s very own school districts are employing the courts in an effort to force the legislature to provide more money–to the end that the education of the state’s citizens is substantially improved. With this as background, I found Schoolhouses, Cou […]
Once again we are reminded of the power of religious fervor. John Knox would no doubt recognize the signs which were evidenced in the perpetrator of the recent mass murder: He considered the war on terror a “war on Islam” and himself a Muslim first and an American second; he thought Muslims had the right to [...]
If you’ve been paying attention, you know that Herseth Sandlin went conservative and stated that she would not be supporting the current health care bill which Pelosi wants to shove through before we all wake up this Sunday morning. In addition, Frank Kratovil (whom you’ve likely never heard about) from Maryland is yet another Democrat representa […]
Herseth Sandlin still doesn’t know her own mind on health care bill. The first Native American president? Because lottery tickets do so much to stimulate the economy, let’s put them in vending machines. Thirteen cases of H1N1 in South Dakota have contributed to the patients’ deaths.
Nidal Hasan was a devout Muslim who reportedly attended mosque daily. His eyes lit up when he spoke of his beloved imam. This weekend his former preacher weighed in on the Ft. Hood massacre. Verum Serum reported this from the news website Anwar al Awlaki Online: Nidal Hassan [sic] is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradicti […]
On Wednesday, November 11, I will be speaking at an event in Normal, Illinois sponsored by the local 9-12 Project. I will be speaking about “Citizen Journalism in the Age of Obama.” Kristina Rasmussen, the Executive Vice President at the Illinois Policy Institute will also be speaking on the the high speed rail project planned for Illinois. The e […]
You’ve got to be kidding. The state-run media thinks were all stupid. TIME, the former news magazine, reported today that “secondary trauma” may have driven Nidal Hasan to massacre 13 US soldiers at Fort Hood. Yahoo republished the report: As an army psychiatrist treating soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, Major Nidal Malik Hasan […]
Sorry Europe. Barack Obama won’t be celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall with you this week. He’s building his own socialist wall back here at home. John Loudon, pictured here at the Berlin Wall, apologizes to our allies in Europe for the absence of our president at this historic event.
I will be sitting in on The Dana Show tonight on 97.1 FM from 8:00 to 10:00 PM CST. We will be talking about the Pelosicare bill that was rammed through last night. Bill Hennessey will join me on the show tonight with Dana Loesch. If you don’t live in the St. Louis area you can listen online by going to the website here.
He was screaming “Allahu Akbar” Janet. Janet Napolitano told an Arab audience today that anti-Muslim sentiment will not be tolerated. FOX News reported: “This was a terrible tragedy for all involved,” Napolitano told reporters in the United Arab Emirates’ capital Abu Dhabi. “Obviously, we object to — and do not belie […]
ANOTHER SEIU BEATING– Ken Hamidi says he was beaten at an SEIU meeting. (CBS13) HotAirPundit found the video report: California SEIU members beat a state worker bloody because he wanted to expost the corruption within the union. CBS13 reported: A state worker is recovering after a bloody brawl at a union hall. He says members of the local SEIU 1000 bea […]
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on November 8, 2009
~ 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.
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.
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:
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
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.
The alleged Fort Hood gunman had revealed a hard-line Islamist streakto 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 killsomeone 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 dissonancebetween 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 articleabout an Afghan mother who tried to stop her radicalizedson 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.
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)
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on November 7, 2009
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.
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.
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?
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…
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on November 6, 2009
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!
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on November 6, 2009
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!
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on November 6, 2009
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!
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,
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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on February 21, 2009
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 1st 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 Foreignersinto 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 Presidentto 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 1stfive 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 14th 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 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.
Thus we are back to: “Why BHO aka BHS cannot be a “natural born” citizen under the 14th 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 14thAmendment 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 14th 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 14th Amendment:
“The word “jurisdiction” under the 14th 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 14th 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 14th 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 14th 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 14th 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 14th, 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 14th 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.
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:
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!”
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”.
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
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 19, 2009
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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 21, 2009
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!!!
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 19, 2009
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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 21, 2009
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.
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.”
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 14th 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 14th Amendment:
“The word “jurisdiction” under the 14th 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 14th 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”
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 25, 2009
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 1st 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 Foreignersinto 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 Presidentto 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 14th 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 14th Amendment:
“The word “jurisdiction” under the 14th 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 14th 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 14th 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 Citizenor 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’.
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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 26, 2009
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
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 13, 2009
…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
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 30, 2009
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?
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 studentsat 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 submissionof 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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 30, 2009
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.
Clickhere 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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 30, 2009
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. ]
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.
§ 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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 2, 2009
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.
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.”
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 3, 2009
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:
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”.
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.”
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:
“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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 3, 2009
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
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 5, 2009
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!
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 5, 2009
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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 6, 2009
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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 7, 2009
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 theLaw 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 Pakistanwith 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.”
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.
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.
“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.
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.)
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.
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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 12, 2009
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!
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
[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.
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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 21, 2009
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 1795and 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.
§ 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 policyof all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councilsand 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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 23, 2009
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 ofConstitutional Interpretation’.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 27, 2009
“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.”
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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 27, 2009
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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on September 3, 2009
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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on September 8, 2009
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’.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on September 9, 2009
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.
” 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, 67th 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.
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.
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.”
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on September 17, 2009
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.
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
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on September 24, 2009
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.
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.
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…
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on September 25, 2009
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.
“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 14th 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 14th 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 14thAmendment 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 14th 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 14th 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.
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on September 27, 2009
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 1st 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 1stthing 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 14th 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.”
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.
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 30th 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!
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on September 27, 2009
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.
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
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on September 28, 2009
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”.
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.
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’.
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 
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.