Monthly Archives: August 2009

What Set America Apart?

When I first began the site, I dove right into the Constitution, however, further study of the Federalist Papers, The Jefferson Manual as well many other historical documents begged me to slow down.

The following video series from The John Birch Society gives an overview of what to expect in the coming weeks.:

“When Benjamin Franklin exited the constitutional convention, a woman asked him, Sir, what have you given us? His immediate response was, a Republic mam, if you can keep it.”

Yet many Americans today have come to believe that America’s governmental system is a Democracy and not a Republic. The difference between these two is essential in understanding Americanism and the American system.

 

Let’s address the confusion about the political spectrum. Many people believe that the political spectrum places groups such as communist on the far left, fascists, or dictators on the far right, and political moderates or centrist in the middle.

However, an accurate political spectrum will show government having zero power on the far right to having 100% power on the far left. At the extreme right, there is no government. The extreme left features total government under such labels as Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, Princes, Potentates, Dictators, Kings, any form of total government.

Those who claim that Nazis and Fascist are right wing never define their terms. This amounts to spreading confusion. The type of government limited to its proper role of protecting the rights of the people is toward the middle of the spectrum. That’s where the Constitution of the United States is. Those who advocate such a form of government are constitutional moderates.

So, let’s analyze the basic forms of government. They are, Monarchy or Dictatorship ruled by one, Oligarchy ruled by a few, Democracy ruled by the majority, Republic ruled by law, and Anarchy which is ruled by no one. A discussion of these five will narrow down the types of government.

Looking first at Monarchy or Dictatorship. This form of government doesn’t really exist. In the practical sense, it’s always a group that puts one of its members up front. A King has his council of nobles or Earls and every dictator has his bureaucrats or commissars, the men behind the scenes. This isn’t rule by one even though one person may be the visible leader. It’s rule by a group. So, let’s eliminate Monarchy Dictatorship because it never truly exists.

Oligarchy, which is rule by a group, is the most common form of government in all history and it is the most common form of government today. A powerful few rule most of the nations of the world and therefore Oligarchy remains.

At the other end, we find Anarchy, which means without government. Some people have looked over history and found that governments committed many of its worse crimes. Therefore, they decided that having no government might be a good idea but this is a mistake because as the ancient Greeks stated, without law there can be no freedom. America’s founding fathers agreed and held that some amount of government is a necessary force in any civilized orderly society. In a state of Anarchy, however everyone has to guard life, liberty, and property and the lives of family members. Movement is severely restricted and arming everyone is necessary to protect ones property at all times. Civilized people have always hired someone to do the guarding, a sheriff, a police force, or some branch of government. Once law enforcement was in place, the people were freer. They could leave their property, work in the fields, and so on. In short, the proper amount of government makes everyone freer.

 

There are some who advocate Anarchy however not because they want no government but because they don’t like what they have. They use Anarchy as a tool for revolutionary change. The condition of Anarchy is very much like a vacuum where something rushes in to fill in. These calculating anarchist work to break down the existing government with rioting, killing, looting, and terrorism. Tragically, the people living in such chaos often go to those best able to put an end to it and beg them to take over and restore order. Who is best able to put an end to the chaos, the very people who started it? The anarchist who created the problem then creates a government run by them, an Oligarchy, where they have total power. This is exactly what happened in Russia that led to Lenin taking total power and in Germany where Hitler’s Brown Shirts created the chaos that brought him to power.

However, Anarchy isn’t a stable form of government; it’s a quick transition from something that exists to something desired by the power hungry. It’s a temporary condition and because it isn’t permanent, we eliminate it as well.

The word Democracycomes from two Greek words, Demos meaning People and Kratein meaning to Rule. Democracy therefore means the rule of the people, majority rule. This of course sounds good but suppose the majority decides to take away ones home or business, or children. Obviously, there has to be a limit. The flaw in Democracy is that the majority is not restrained. Persuading more than half the people to want something in a Democracy means they rule.

What about Republic? Well that comes from the Latin, Res, meaning thing and Publica, meaning public. It means the public thing, the law. A true Republic is one where the government is limited by law leaving the people alone.

America’s founders had a clean slate to write on. They could have set up an Oligarchy. In fact, there were some who wanted George Washington to be their King but the founding fathers knew history and they chose to give us the rule of law in a Republic, not the rule of the majority in a Democracy.

Why? Let’s demonstrate the difference in the setting of the old west. Consider a lynch mob in a Democracy. Thirty five horseback riders chase one lone gunman. They catch him. They vote thirty five to one to hang him. Democracy has triumphed and there is one less gunman to contend with. Now consider the same scenario in a Republic. The thirty five horseback riders catch the gunman and vote thirty five to one to hang him but the Sheriff arrives and he says you can’t kill him; he’s got his right to a fair trial. Therefore, they take the gunman back to town. A jury of his peers hear the evidence and the defense and they decide if he shall hang. Does the jury even decide by majority rule; no, it has to be unanimous or he goes free. The rights of the gunman aren’t subject to majority rule but to the law. This is the essence of a Republic.

Many Americans would be surprised to learn that the word Democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the U. S. Constitution. Nor does it appear in any of the Constitutions of the fifty states. The founders did everything they could to keep us from having a Democracy. James Madison, rightly known as the Father of the Constitution wrote in essay number ten of the Federalist papers, Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Alexander Hamilton agreed and he stated, we are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy. Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, stated, Democracies never last long. It soon waste, exhaust, and murders itself. The founders had good reason to look upon Democracy with contempt because they knew that the Democracies in the early Greek city states produced some of the wildest excesses of government imaginable. In every case, they ended up with mob rule then anarchy and finally tyranny under an Oligarchy.

During that period in Greece there was a man named Solon who urged creation of a fixed body of law not subject to majority whims. While the Greeks never adopted Solon’s wise council, the Romans did. Based on what they knew of Solon’s laws they created the twelve tables of the Roman law and in effect built a Republic that limited government power and left the people alone. Since government was limited the people were free to produce with the understanding they could keep the fruits of their labor. In time, Rome became wealthy and the envy of the world.

In the mist of plenty, however the Roman people forgot what freedom entailed. They forgot that the essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government. When government power grows peoples’ freedom recedes.

Once the Romans dropped their guard power seeking politicians began to exceed the powers granted them in the Roman Constitution. Some learned that they could elect politicians who would use government power to take property from some and give it to others. Housing and welfare programs followed the introduction of agriculture subsidies. Inevitably, taxes rose and controls over the private sector were imposed. Soon, a number of Rome’s producers could no longer make ends meet and they went on the dole. Productivity declined, shortages developed and mobs began roaming the streets demanding bread and circuses from the government. Many traded freedom for security. Evidentially the whole system came crashing down. They went from a Republic to a Democracy and ended up with an Oligarchy under a progression of the Caesars.

Thus, Democracy itself is not a stable form of government. Instead, it is the gradual transition from limited government to the unlimited rule of an Oligarchy.

Knowing this, Americans ultimately have only two choices. We can keep our Republic as Franklin put it or we will inevitably end up with an oligarchy, a tyranny of the elite.

Breaking News: The Media is Challenged

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Breaking News: The Media is Challenged“, posted with vodpod

 

This video was created by Pixel Patriot

Pixel Patriot has a great collection of videos!

Challenge: Define Natural Born Citizen
Exposé detailing how the media is complicit in withholding information about the fraudulent corrupt actions of Barack Hussein Obama AKA Barry Soetoro, the DNC, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean prior to the 2008 Presidential election and continuing today! This is a cover up with monumental consequences.
‘Breaking News: The Media is Challenged’ discloses breaking news about a petition filed in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA seeking a remedy by the convening of a Federal Grand Jury. View this Petition to convene a Federal Grand Jury http://www.phnmedia.com.

This Video is Produced by Pixel Patriot, and features Carl Swensson, Foreman for Georgia’s Citizen Grand Jury (www.RiseUpForAmerica.com) and Patriots Heart Network ( http://www.phnmedia.com and http://www.phnmedia.net.) Listen for the Radio Shows discussing this on Patriot’s Heart Network!

Twitter: patriotsheart Hash Tags: PHNM and DNBC Please add our Twitter Pic to your profile while we wait for the court’s response to the petition to convene a Federal Grand Jury to investigate this critical constitutional crisis!

This video is part of a joint campaign between RiseUpForAmerica.com and PHNMedia.com, calling out to the Media and to all elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution to DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Citizens, if you are not informed, it is time to become informed and to hold elected officials and the media accountable to Define Natural Born Citizen and then to explain why we have a unconstitutional Presidency.

What are the consequences? If Obama is a Usurper as we believe, all Government returns to January 19, 2008. We will have a new election in 2010!

AND NO ONE IS DISCUSSING THIS?

Did you ever wonder why we are called “The United States?”

While researching back to the campaign of ’08 and more background on the 1st ‘out of the closet Marxist’ president, I happened across the site of a retire lawyer, Vincent Gioia. Simply named Vincent Gioia’s Blog, this blog is nothing but simple. Oh, the format of the blog may be, however the content is anything but.

Vincent has a realistic grasp on what this country was founded on, on capitalism and he especially has an astute grasp on DC, it’s inner workings and the oh too real threat we are facing of losing it all if America does not wake up and start working to get government back under the control of the people.

Here is a sampling from last July.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Did you ever wonder why we are called “The United States of America”; I didn’t think about it until I read an article by Jeff Jacoby for the Boston Globe.

We could have been called the United People of America, many of the worlds dictatorships in fact refer to themselves as “The Peoples Republic” of this or that or by similar mislabels. No, instead the founders created a country where an assembly of individual states is brought together under one federal government. The intention was clearly that the national government only be given limited powers because history up to that time had numerous examples of the evils an overpowering central government, and the succeeding centuries bore out this concern.

For the founders the best way to avoid destruction of freedom was to minimize authority of the national government in favor of state’s rights. The reason is that it was expected the people would be better able to have their voices heard at the state level than at the national government far away in the capital city. Of course they had no way of knowing this immensely important aspect of government would be destroyed by an overbearing congress and an uncontrolled judiciary. They expected those inuring to positions in the legislature and the judiciary would be honorable and would practice self restraint; in this they were unfortunately most naive.

The founders also contrived a new way of selecting those who would represent the people. In addition to limiting the national government, they knew it was also very important to prevent “tyranny of the majority.” The framers of the Constitution did not believe that political contests should be decided by majority rule. They rejected “pure democracy,” as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10. In his article Jeff Jacoby wrote: “They knew that with ‘nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual, blind reliance on majority rule can become as great a menace to liberty as any king or dictator”. As Jeff Jacoby says “the term ‘tyranny of the majority’ was coined for good reason”.

The founders went to great lengths to prevent popular majorities from getting their way too easily and dominating the federal government unreasonably. They did not concentrate unlimited power in any single branch of government or in the voters. They divided authority among the three branches of the federal government, and subdivided the legislative branch into two chambers; while reserving all powers not expressly given to the federal government to the states.

One bed rock provision in the constitution does a great deal to try and avoid tyranny by the majority; the creation of the Electoral College for the election of the president and vice president.

More than 700 constitutional amendments to abolish or alter the Electoral College have been proposed during the last two hundred years. None has ever come close to being adopted which indicates that the present system is acceptable to the country.

However to put this in perspective, in only four of the nation’s 54 presidential elections since 1789 has the electoral vote winner not been the candidate who won the popular vote. Moreover, in each case the margin separating the candidates has been very small. (George W. Bush won the presidential election in 2000 in the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote by about 500,000 votes, which was just one-half of one percent of the more than 105 million votes cast.)

Ironically the Senate itself eschews the one-person-one-vote rule. States are represented in the Electoral College roughly in proportion to their population with each state having the same number of electors as it has members of Congress; from just three for the smallest states (and the District of Columbia) to 55 for California. But the founders did this intentionally; they wanted all states to be equal in the senate. This means all voters are not equal; for example, California, with over 14 million registered voters is entitled to the same number of senators as Wyoming which has 265,000 voters. By doing the arithmetic, one voter in Wyoming is 53 times as influential as one voter in California. This may seem unfair to some but this was exactly what the founders had in mind so that just a few large states would not dominate the federal government over smaller states.

The people who wrote and approved the constitution believed that national elections should not be decided by majority rule as in a true “democracy.”

James Madison explained (in Federalist 10) that regarding “Pure democracy,” they knew that with “nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual, blind ‘majoritarianism’ can become a menace to liberty the same as a king or dictator”. “Tyranny of the majority” was of great concern.

To avoid such tyranny, the founders went to great lengths to prevent popular majorities from easily dictating to the minority; so unlimited power was not invested in a single branch of government or in majority of voters. Authority was divided among the three branches of the federal government with the legislative branch being subdivided into two chambers, and all powers not expressly given to congress were reserved to the states.

The founders wanted to preserve the most important role in the country for the states and not the federal government. They did this by establishing the Electoral College. Thus, the country was named “United States of America” to reflect the fundamental limitation of the federal government; that was their deliberate intention. Consequently we are a nation of states having distinct identities and interests, not of autonomous individuals. The founders took great pains to protect the rights of states. Most Americans today either never learned or forgot that the states created the federal government; not the other way around.

Since democratic elections take place in each state, the majority of voting citizens in each state choose the electors to vote there will in the Electoral College. Therefore, elements of democracy are preserved in the Electoral College system.

The losers of the four elections in our history who achieved a national majority vote may complain, but by and large the system works and tyranny by majority is avoided.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68: “If the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”

USPS: United States Physician Services

Priority Flat Rate: A Simpler Way to Provide Healthcare and Ship Packages

 

“America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009’’

A BILL

To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans, alien immigrants & illegal aliens and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes [Socialism].

The Death Book For Veterans

The Death Panels Video

Learn About Services

Services Locator

Need Help?

Division A – Affordable Health Care Choices
Title I – Protections and Standards for Qualified Health Benefit Plans
Subtitle C – Standards Guaranteeing Access to Essential Benefits

SEC. 121. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. – A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved.

SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED. – The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals

DIVISION C—PUBLIC HEALTH AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
TITLE II—WORKFORCE
Subtitle C—Public Health Workforce

SEC. 2231. PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE CORPS

Part D of title III (42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.), as amended by section 2211, is amended by adding at the end the following:

Subpart XII—Public Health Workforce

SEC. 340L. PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE CORPS

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established, within the Service, the Public Health Workforce Corps (in this subpart referred to as the ‘Corps’), for the purpose of ensuring an adequate supply of public health professionals throughout the Nation. The Corps shall consist of—

(1) such officers of the Regular and Reserve Corps of the Service as the Secretary may designate;

and

(2) such civilian employees of the United States as the Secretary may appoint.

Of Usurpers and Mockers…

“The wind blows wherever it pleases” (John 3:8 NIV). Moreover, I need to repent of “mocking” the mockers…

Hence, the following biblical history lesson regarding usurpers and mockers, will be my last post regarding Barack Hussein Obama and the mockers who mock “the truth” (john 14:6 NIV) concerning the threat that SocialIslam poses to our “freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17 NIV).

Of Usurpers and Mockers…

“Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man, of Kabzeel” (2 Samuel 23:20 KJV) was one of the “thirty-seven” (2 Samuel 23:39 NIV) “mighty men” (2 Samuel 23:8 NIV) of David. “Benaiah son of Jehoiada…was as famous as the three mighty men” (2 Samuel 23:22 NIV), “but he was not included among the Three” (2 Samuel 23:23 NIV). Yet, Benaiah “was held in greater honor than any of the Thirty” (2 Samuel 23:23 NIV). Thus, “Benaiah …was a mighty man among the Thirty and was over the Thirty” (1 Chronicles 27:6 NIV).

“Benaiah son of Jehoiada was a valiant fighter from Kabzeel, who performed great exploits” (2 Samuel 23:20 NIV). Benaiah “struck down two of Moab’s best men” (2 Samuel 23:20 NIV), and he “struck down a huge Egyptian” (2 Samuel 23:21 NIV) “who was seven and a half feet tall” (1 Chronicles 11:23 NIV). “Although the Egyptian had a spear in his hand, Benaiah went against him with a club. He snatched the spear from the Egyptian’s hand and killed him with his own spear” (2 Samuel 23:21 NIV). “Such were the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (2 Samuel 23:22 NIV).

Hence, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (2 Samuel 23:20 NIV) was one of David’s mightiest warriors. Therefore, “David put him in charge of his bodyguard” (2 Samuel 23:23 NIV), an elite group of mercenary soldiers, “the Kerethites and Pelethites” (2 Samuel 8:18 NIV). They also served as executioners and couriers. Needless to say, they were battle-hardened warriors. Thus, their leader would need to be someone they respected, someone they would be willing to take orders from, a mighty warrior like “Benaiah the son of Jehoiada” (2 Samuel 23:20 KJV). Thus, “Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Kerethites and Pelethites” (2 Samuel 8:18 NIV).

“Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Chronicles 27:5 NIV) also commanded an army division for David. “The third army commander, for the third month, was Benaiah son of Jehoiada the priest. He was chief and there were 24,000 men in his division” (1 Chronicles 27:5 NIV). Furthermore, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (2 Samuel 23:20 NIV) raised his son, “Ammizabad” (1 Chronicles 27:6 NIV), to become a mighty warrior. Hence, “Ammizabad was in charge of his division” (1 Chronicles 27:6 NIV).

“Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 1:8 NIV) was a faithful and obedient servant of the king. So, when Adonijah attempted to usurp the throne and set himself up as king of Israel, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada, …and David’s special guard did not join Adonijah” (1 Kings 1:8 NIV). “Adonijah conferred with Joab son of Zeruiah and with Abiathar the priest, and they gave him their support. But Zadok the priest, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, Nathan the prophet, …and David’s special guard did not join Adonijah” (1 Kings 1:7-8 NIV).

When David learned of Adonijah’s rebellion, he summoned Zadok, Nathan, and Benaiah, and ordered them to anoint Solomon as king of Israel. “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 1:36 NIV) enthusiastically responded to David’s orders and said, “May the LORD, the god of my lord the king, so declare it. As the LORD was with my lord the king, so may he be with Solomon to make his throne even greater than the throne of my lord King David!” (1 Kings 1:36-37 NIV). “So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites went down and put Solomon on King David’s mule and escorted him to Gihon. Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon. Then they sounded the trumpet and all the people shouted, ‘Long live King Solomon!’ ” (1 Kings 1:38-39 NIV).

When Adonijah learned that Solomon had been anointed as king, and that “the Kerethites and Pelethites” (1 Kings 1:44 NIV), commanded by “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 1:44 NIV), were with Solomon, Adonijah fled to the altar. “Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar” (1 Kings 1:50 NIV) and begged for Solomon not put him “to death with the sword” (1 Kings 1:51 NIV). So, Solomon had mercy on Adonijah, and said, “if he shows himself to be a worthy man, not a hair of his head will fall to the ground; but if evil is found in him, he will die” (1 Kings 1:52 NIV).

Unfortunately for Adonijah, he did not repent of his rebellious ways. Adonijah asked Bathsheba to ask Solomon if Abishag the Shunammite could become his wife, which was tantamount to an attempted coup, for Abishag the Shunammite was considered to be David’s wife, even though David had never slept with her. “When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. So his servants said to him, ‘Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.’ Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no intimate relations with her” (1 Kings 1:1-4 NIV).

Solomon understood Adonijah’s intentions to once more usurp the throne. Thus, Solomon ordered “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 2:25 NIV) to execute Adonijah. So, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 2:25 NIV) “struck down Adonijah and he died” (1 Kings 2:25 NIV) in disobedience.

When Joab heard that Adonijah had been executed, he too “fled to the tent of the LORD and took hold of the horns of the altar” (1 Kings 2:28 NIV), for Joab had “had conspired with Adonijah” (1 Kings 2:28 NIV) to usurp the throne. So, Solomon ordered Benaiah to execute Joab, for David had warned Solomon about Joab’s disobedient ways. David had told Solomon, “Deal with him according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to the grave in peace” (1 Kings 2:6 NIV). Therefore, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up and struck down Joab and killed him, and he was buried on his own land in the desert (1 Kings 2:34 NIV) of disobedience. Solomon then “appointed Benaiah the son of Jehoiada over the army” (1 Kings 2:35 NASB) in Joab’s place. Hence, Benaiah became commander-in-chief of Solomon’s army, the army of Israel.

After dealing with Adonijah, Solomon dealt with Abiathar the priest, who had also conspired with Adonijah to usurp the throne. “To Abiathar the priest the king said, “Go back to your fields in Anathoth. You deserve to die, but I will not put you to death now, because you carried the ark of the Sovereign LORD before my father David and shared all my father’s hardships.’ So Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood of the LORD, fulfilling the word the LORD had spoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli” (1 Kings 2:26-27 NIV).

Solomon now had one person left to deal with, the “Mocker” (Proverbs 21:24 NIV), “Shemei son of Gera” (1 Kings 2:8 NIV), before “The kingdom” (1 Kings 2:46 NIV) would be free from rebellion and “firmly established in Solomon’s hands” (1 Kings 2:46 NIV).

“Shemei” (1 Kings 2:8 NIV) had “called down bitter curses” (1 Kings 2:8 NIV) and had thrown stones at David when David had fled Jerusalem when Absalom had usurped the throne. “David and his men continued along the road while Shimei was going along the hillside opposite him, cursing as he went and throwing stones at him and showering him with dirt” (2 Samuel 16:13 NIV). David spared Shemei’s life after Absalom’s coup was quashed. But, David had instructed Solomon to be wise in dealing with the “mocker” (Proverbs 14:6 NIV), Shemei son of Gera. David told Solomon, “do not consider him innocent. You are a man of wisdom; you will know what to do to him. Bring his gray head down to the grave in blood” (1 Kings 2:9 NIV). So, Solomon ordered Shemei son of Gera, “Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and live there, but do not go anywhere else” (1 Kings 2:36 NIV). Thus, Shemei was placed under house arrest, and was told that if he ever left Jerusalem he would be put to death. Solomon told him, “The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head” (1 Kings 2:37 NIV). Therefore, “Shemei stayed in Jerusalem for a long time” (1 Kings 2:38 NIV). “But three years later, two of Shimei’s slaves ran off to Achish son of Maacah, king of Gath” (1 Kings 2:39 NIV). Although Shemei understood that death would be the consequence of his disobedience, if he ever left Jerusalem, Shemei “maliciously mocked” (Psalm 35:6 NIV) Solomon and “saddled his donkey and went to Achish at Gath in search of his slaves. So, Shimei went away and brought the slaves back from Gath” (1 Kings 2:40 NIV). Therefore, Solomon had Shemei brought before him and said, “You know in your heart all the wrong you did to my father David. Now the LORD will repay you for your wrongdoing” (1 Kings 2:44 NIV). Hence, Solomon “gave the order to Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 2:46 NIV) to execute Shemei. So, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada went out and struck Shimei down and killed him” (1 Kings 2:46 NIV). Thus, Shemei would “mock” (Proverbs 14:9 NIV) no more.

Hence, through the obedient hands of “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (2 Samuel 23:20 NIV), “The kingdom was …firmly established in Solomon’s hands” (1 Kings 2:46 NIV).

So, “Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. All the leaders and the mighty men, and also all the sons of King David, submitted themselves to King Solomon. So the LORD exalted Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed on him such royal majesty as had not been on any king before him in Israel” (1 Chronicles 29:23-25 NKJV).

May you be obedient to “the truth” (John 8:32 NIV), and may “the truth” (John 14:6 NIV) keep the United States “free” (John 8:32 NIV) from the tyranny of SocialIslam.

Shalom,

Benaiah

In The Eyes Of Our Founding Fathers

Let us not lose sight of common sense:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Govern- of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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