Archive for August, 2009

The Dual Cititzen POTUS Disqualification Issue Stands Alone.

Posted in Uncategorized on August 29, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

DOSdual

Today I received the following question from a reader:

QUESTION FROM READER:

“Yesterday (Aug. 28) Orly Taitz filed suit in federal court in Texas on behalf of one Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D., in which Orly seems to have used wording that would be acceptable to Leo Donofrio:

“(24)        However, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as the president has to spend only one minute of his time to sign a consent form for release of his vital records, showing that he is a Natural Born Citizen, meaning one born in the country to two US citizen parents.”

Come on, Leo, tell us Orly got it right this time.”

I don’t understand the tactical use of the above referenced count.  The dual citizen POTUS disqualification issue stands alone and should be  set forth to stand or fall on its own merit separate from the birth certificate conspiracy theory.  (Of course, conspiracies exist.  But until facts are proved, they remain theories.)

Here is a rough draft of how I would accomplish the goal of setting forth the genuine legal question to stand or fall on its own merit in a complaint:

1.  Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his  “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom.  Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.

2.  Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.

3.  This Honorable Court may take Judicial Notice of the following admissions published by Barack Hussein Obama Jr. [insert all published admissions in books, newspapers, official web sites etc.]  For example:

– Admission #1.  The following statement was published by Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

4. This Honorable Court may also take Judicial Notice of the US State Department’s current policy under the Obama administration with regard to dual citizenship:

“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.  However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.”  (Emphasis added.)

That’s how you separate the issue and set it forth to stand or fall on its own merit.

Obama can’t provide any document which makes him eligible under the legal theory that a person such as him –  a dual citizen owing allegiance to the very monarchy our founding fathers shed their blood to rid themselves of – was not at birth, and therefore can never be – a natural born citizen of the US.

His birth certificate won’t establish eligibility under that legal theory so why lump this issue in with the Birth Certificate issue?  Make the BC issue separate and set your allegations out thereto in separate numbered counts.

Why make it seem as if it’s possible for Obama to produce a document which makes him eligible?

Furthermore, if one wishes to allege that his father is not Barack Sr. (a theory I believe is ridiculous), then one ought to make that allegation in a separate count as well… by pleading in the alternative.  And then follow in suit as to the rest of the complaint – separate numbered counts as to each other claim, BC or otherwise.

If you fail to point out admissions against interest by the defendant, than you’re not really giving your client the best chance of victory.

Furthermore, if any attorneys reading this are influenced to incorporate the tactical approach written above to amend existing complaints or to issue forthcoming complaints, I have no objection whatsoever and require no recognition thereto.

I do not offer the above to condemn the efforts of any attorney nor do I offer the above as legal counsel.  I’m just hypothetically blogging on the issue.

The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles: Mr. Obama and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins

Posted in Uncategorized on August 25, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

grail

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.

owh

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 #1Chester 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 #4Vattell’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 not created by Vattel in his treatise, “Law of Nations.”  That treatise simply discussed the established body of law known as “the law of nations”.  The definition of natural born citizen discussed in Vattel’s treatise was actually the definition established by the body of law known as “law of nations”.

Attorney Collins makes all of this quite clear in the article below.  Now please review Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;

The capital letters are not in reference to Vattel’s treatise, but they are in reference to the body of law Vattel wrote about – the actual “law of nations”.  And that body of law –  according to Attorney Collins as well as Vattell – held that a “natural born citizen” was somebody with connections to the nation for having been born on the soil as well as having been born of citizen parents.  In Article 1, Section 8, we therefore have a direct recognition that the framers respected the law of nations.

DOUBLE ALLEGIANCE TO THE NATION

This is what the framers required for the Commander In Chief.  Any child of immigrants from any nation could become President – as long as his parents became naturalized US citizens before that child was born on US soil.  In their wisdom, the framers sought two generations of US citizenship.  This discriminates against no race at all.

To be an American has nothing to do with race.  It has to do with being a person cloaked in liberty – free from monarchy, free of repression, free forever.

The natural born citizen clause does not establish a superior form of citizenship.  It does establish a national security safeguard against foreign invasion of the White House and takeover of the US Armed Forces.

It makes all the sense in the world that the person who holds the keys to the massive nuclear arsenal in our possession should be born on US soil to parents who were citizens.

If we allow persons born in the US of alien fathers to be President of the US then Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all eligible to have their direct offspring become President of the United States and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces.

That is what you are saying if you think Obama is eligible to be President.

You can’t discriminate based on race or nationality in this country.  If a person whose father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth can become President, then it doesn’t matter what nation that person is a dual citizen of.

This is the main issue and main reason why I have dedicated so much of my time to this situation.  I am no more worried about Obama than I was about Bush or Clinton.  I see all of them as having struck horrific blows against US sovereignty.  But I am seriously worried about who comes next.  Who is being groomed as a Manchurian candidate as we speak?

If Obama is eligible to be President, then the sons of every despicable despot are also eligible.

It’s not like North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Iran are going to let the sons of US citizens lead their countries anytime soon.  Are we really going to allow their sons to lead our nation?  The framers would never have allowed such a horrific situation to exist.  With the natural born citizen clause they protected us against this very scenario.  We must protect the protection.

A legal fraud is being perpetrated upon this nation through ridicule and straight up major media propaganda.

The great weight of authority indicates Obama is not eligible to be President, but we are losing the PR war.

I recognize arguments which take issue with some of the conclusions below.  But the point is urgently made that this issue is not settled and has never been directly adjudicated by a federal court.  Such adjudication is the necessary outcome of this debate.

I hope the following piece of history serves as a wake up call to the snarky sarcasm being leveled at this very serious legal question.  There is nothing funny about this issue. The repercussions for generations to come are potentially disastrous.

And with that I leave you with the Holy Grail of all natural born citizen law review articles:

View this document on Scribd



POTUS Usurper Chester Arthur Forced Military To Salute British Flag.

Posted in Uncategorized on August 19, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

salute_flag_alt

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 BRITISH FLAG

EXECUTIVE ORDER.[2]

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

YORKTOWN, VA., _October 19, 1881_.

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

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

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

CHESTER A. ARTHUR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AP Issues Chester Arthur Propaganda To Protect Obama.

Posted in Uncategorized on August 17, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

chestert

Today the AP issued a story titled “Obama Birthplace Flap Evokes Arthur Debate”. The story makes an analogy between the Obama birth certificate issue and the controversy surrounding Chester Arthur’s birthplace.   The story contains a lie.  It states that Chester Arthur never publicly addressed the issue of Hinman’s allegations that he was born in Canada.  But Arthur did specifically address these issues in the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper.

However, AP and MSNBC won’t tell you that because Arthur was caught lying about his parents heritage in those newspaper interviews.  He was lying to cover up the fact that Hinman was correct – Chester Arthur was a British subject – but for a different reason than where he was born.

AP and MSNBC forgot to mention that Chester Arthur’s father William didn’t become a naturalized citizen of the US until 1843 – 14 years after old Chester was born.  This means that Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen since at the time of his birth he was a subject of Great Britain.  These facts as to Chester Arthur’s failure to meet the Constitutional requirement were first reported at this blog back in December ’08.

Please see that report, Historical Breakthrough – Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was A British Subject At Birth.

No main stream media outlet has reported this historical discovery and as we can see by the AP piece today, objective reporting has been replaced by propaganda.  AP reported as follows:

Never addressed allegation
Democrats, meanwhile, hired a lawyer named Arthur Hinman who sought to discredit Arthur, claiming he was born in Dunham, Quebec, about 47 miles north of Fairfield. Hinman traveled to Vermont and Canada to research Arthur’s past, eventually concluding that Arthur was born in Canada but appropriated the birth records of a baby brother who was born in Fairfield, but died as an infant.

He later incorporated the findings into a book titled “How A British Subject Became President of the United States.”

Arthur, who served from 1881 to 1885, never publicly addressed the allegation.

But Arthur did address the issue.

In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880.  In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland.  He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

This was another blatant lie.   His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23.   William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont.  The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.

On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old.  Another blatant lie.  His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.

In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen.  This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman .

It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim – that Arthur was born abroad – while the more subtle and true eligibility issue  stayed hidden in plain site.

AP just published a story that said Arthur never publicly addressed the issue and the stench of a  propaganda lie fills the air.  We are treading in very dangerous waters, America.  History is being controlled by lies.

“He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future”.  George Orwell.

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

Posted in Uncategorized on August 7, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

founderspostimage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something wicked this way comes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re too late.

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

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

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

CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA.

The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President.

Posted in Uncategorized on August 4, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

precdent

Obama’s father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US.  At birth, Obama was a British citizen. [He’s also been a Kenyan citizen and perhaps a citizen of Indonesia as well.]  Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain.

The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.

For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:

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

This letter was written on July 25, 1787.  It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation.  Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers.  Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.

Contrary to media lies, you will find not one single statute in current US law which uses the words “natural born citizen” in code provisions which grant citizenship.  For no statute can make one a natural born citizen.  It’s a status, not a right.  And that status is necessary for only one purpose under the sun – to be Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.

Any citizen can hold any office in the entire Government of the United States except for Commander In Chief.  And for good reason, as John Jay made clear all those years ago.  This doesn’t mean that immigrants from all nations can’t one day be President.  They can.  But they need to have two generations of US citizenship to do that – not one.

If we decide to ignore the natural born citizen provision, we open the door to the possibility of a person with strong ties to foreign nations – possibly stronger than to our own – to be the sole commander of our military men and women who protect us.  And they also deserve our protection – AT ALL COSTS – from such a treasonous scenario.

We shouldn’t let our Constitutional guard down for the sake of allowing one very popular man to endanger all future generations.  Is it not possible that persons such as Kim Jong Il or Osama Bin Laden might imgregnate a US citizen woman?  And if this woman gives birth on US soil the precedent set by Obama would allow that child to be Commander In Chief.

I’m not worried about Obama as President.  I’m worried about who comes next because of the precedent he sets.  The same fear caused me to challenge McCain on the ballot as well.

This is the issue before the nation –  and it’s right from the mouth of John Jay’s more restrictive requirement that it was “wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The framers wisely provided us with that check.

By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.

Wall Street Journal via James Taranto continue propaganda lies.

Posted in Uncategorized on August 1, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

goebbels2

[Ed. Updated 6:26 AM August 3, 2009. Many of you are asking for analysis of the new alleged Kenyan birth certification.  However, the back to back articles I have written about the Wall Street Journal’s blatant propaganda are too important to move from the front page today.  People need to be made aware they are being lied to by the press.  This new desperation to use big lie propaganda might possibly have something to do with the recent Kenya birth certification information.  But I would just remind my readers that this new Kenyan documentation has come to us in the form of a color copy of a color photograph.  The details in the document – names of Government officials, place of birth etc. – have not been independently verified.  Much more verification should have been done before bringing the document forward.  That being said, if it turns out to be genuine, it will be the single most important story in Presidential history as a Kenyan birth would mean Mr. Obama is not now and never has been a basic US citizen, forget the more difficult requirement of natural born citizen.  My research indicates he can never be a natural born citizen – even if born on US soil – since (he admits) his birth status was governed by Great Britain.]

The Wall Street Journal and James Taranto came under pressure after our article here yesterday revealed propaganda wherein they attempted to convince readers a statute exists which does not exist.

The Wall Street Journal – instead of owning up to the false reporting – has chosen to experiment with further propaganda by repeating the lie again.  And in doing so, they have taken the final leap from journalism to big lie propaganda.  Repeat the lie as often as you can and people will accept it as truth.  This is the tactic employed by the Wall Street Journal and it’s straight out of Jospeh Goebbel’s original playbook:

Goebbels rose to power in 1933 along with Hitler and the Nazi party, and he was appointed propaganda minister. One of his first acts was the burning of books rejected by the Nazis. He exerted totalitarian control over the media, arts, and information in Germany. In that position, he perfected an understanding of the “Big Lie” technique of propaganda, which is based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses.

The original propaganda lie stated by Taranto at the Wall Street Journal was this:

“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. No such law was signed by Ronald Reagan.  It’s a lie.

If it weren’t a lie, the Wall Street Journal would answer by printing statutory code references and text which support its reporting.  But that’s not what happened because no such statute exists.  The Wall Street Journal made it up out of thin air.

And when we called them on it, instead of acknowledging that no such law exists containing the phrase “natural born citizen”, the Wall Street Journal chose to repeat the same lie again.  Here is the second lie.  It appears in yesterday’s follow up by Taranto:

“Other statutes have extended natural-born citizenship to some children born overseas to U.S. citizens.”

There isn’t a single statute in all of US law which extends “natural-born citizenship” to anybody.

No current US statute even uses the words “natural-born citizen”.

It’s shocking to see the Wall Street Journal come so far out of the propaganda closet.  They have taken that final step into fascism – a willing embrace of big lie propaganda.  And Joseph Goebbels would be proud.  The ministry of propaganda is here.