Category Archives: Supreme Court

Sitting At The Head Of The Class

soccer
Teacher, Teacher, I need you...

Premise: Obama administration is a troop of gangsters, needs to be investigated to the hilt, and held accountable just like every other administration that has come before. The Obama administration is not entitled to its own dictatorship in the United States of America, no matter who he thinks he is.

Charmer #1: If you can't see that both sides of this political circus act are corrupt and no matter which side gets into the Oval Office at any given time we will get the same result because we allowed the elite bankers to hijack the country via the federal reserve bank of which they are major shareholders.

Charmer #2: I can see one side refused to participate in a program forcing everyone in the nation to eventually change insurance plans, enumerating everyone under the same system, thus ruining healthcare and one-sixth of the US economy; I can see that one side sent guns into Mexico illegally and 300 people were killed including an American border patrol agent; I can see that one side used the IRS illegally to stymie conservative political organizations; I can see that one side lied about a tape being the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, and has refused to allow survivors to testify before Congress; I can see that one side spent $800,000,000,000 that was earmarked for shovel ready projects (infrastructure) and is now calling for $400,000,000,000 for infrastructure because they used to the $800 billion to bankroll Obama-friendly green energy companies that failed rather than spend it on traditional infrastructure; and I can see one side gave organizations billions of that money to support Obamacare so it would pass the Congress with one side's votes. The more I look at both sides the more I see corruption in this administration that the other side had nothing to do with. Since you claim to be sitting at the head of the class, can you see a problem with the people in office now? If so let's deal with it first rather than give them a pass since they are the problem at the moment.

Teacher's question: Where is the snake?

Will The Real Second Amendment Please Cock And Load?

Firearms
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
–Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
Istumbled across this spot-on post by an insightful reader of The Federalist. Hat tip to Cylar.

It's sharply phrased and succinct, so I have chosen to republish it right here, a timely rehash of what we consider the one and only rather obvious interpretation of the personal protection against one's own rogue government as well as other proximity-tested threats to his person, family, property or state.

We suggest this moment in history is especially crucial, for even as we pen this silent outrage against us, the reckless, scheming United Nations and Madame Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, both entities now firmly entrenched in the long range Obama administration strategy of neutralizing America for Pan-Marxist Islamic purposes, continue their assault against our sovereign rights as free democratic republican Americans with their so-called Small Arms Treaty set for signing later this month which calls for the confiscation of all small arms in America (worse case). This is a treaty we the people cannot let stand.

It has always struck me as a bit funny that while nine of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are clearly intended to protect the rights of individuals against government overreach, we still have some (too many, actually) who insist that the 2nd Amendment was inserted so as to confer a right on government itself.

(Sarcasm on.) Because, you know, conferring a collective right on a “militia” (rather than individual citizens) is entirely consistent with the right of free speech (1st), the right against unreasonable search (4th), the right against self-incrimination (5th), and the stipulation that the federal government is prohibited from doing anything NOT expressly authorized by the Constitution (10th). I’m sure Madison and the others paused in the middle of scribbling down these individual rights, and said, “Hang on. We need to make sure everyone understands the police and the army have the right to carry weapons. Just to clear up any confusion.” (Sarcasm off.)

Also, I hate to break this to the gun-grabbers, but “the militia” isn’t a government organization like the National Guard. It’s the whole citizenry, specifically able-bodied males 17 and older. Secondly, “well regulated” means disciplined and trained. It doesn’t mean “covered with lots of laws.”

The 2nd Amendment was clear from the word go, and two SCOTUS rulings have made it even more clear that it applies to individual citizens. Why there is still controversy on this point is a mystery to me.

But try explaining this to some gun grabber, and he’ll produce a strawman like, “So, this means I have the right to mount artillery on my pickup, then?” instead of arguing the point maturely and rationally.

If the framers had meant to say the “states” or the “state militias” in order to convey a collective right then they most assuredly would have, for these men were not lazy thinkers and writers. As pointed out in many a discussion of the topic, the writers used the words “the people” when reconciling this right of the people, first and foremost, just as they did in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments, which have consistently been understood to convey rights to individuals, not the people collectively. The concerns of Madison, Jefferson et al are easily reconciled since the militia clause is explanatory, not limiting. In fact, the majority of SCOTUS said the same thing when they struck down the Chicago gun ban two years ago.

The Supreme Court Speaks on Health Care Law

Obama's Ditch
Obama's Drive Into The Ditch
ALMOST FULLY GROUNDED AGAIN AFTER ALL the zetetic excitement yesterday, I say we take a more serious and sober look at what transpired yesterday, and then again, this morning as Chief Justice John Roberts read for the majority, and we boomeranged all around the Internet seeking solace in our hour of disenchantment. Of all that I have read and seen in video, TV, and slapshot Internet reporting, here is a most convincing snippet from commentator Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard. Cost seems to put the onus on the current administration to act quickly in this snatch and grab of power and policy if they want to salvage the so-called Affordable Health Care Act because a not so shabby portion of it is unconstitutional, and a greater part is vigorously disliked by the citizenry, despite its many wonderful features that heal the sick and raise the dead, or so you would be led to believe by its proponents:

[I]f you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.

First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.

Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.

Politically, Obama will probably get a short-term boost from this, as the media will not be able to read between the lines and will declare him the winner. But the victory will be short-lived. The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.

Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn't think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.
If Obama loses in November, that is...

We have gotten into a bit of editorial trouble on Facebook this morning by reposting what turned out to be one of those overwrought but probably closer to the mark than the original bill's hidden intent has tried to hide, so we will just have to watch for the fall out over the next several months, but chances are Obama and his buddies in Congress are too busy running for re-election to spend too much time on an old toxic bill like this one, but will quietly work behind the scenes implementing all the necessary changes to the health care industry it deems choice and tasty while leaving the iffy parts of the bill to gather dust and excuses. Fundraising and speechifying, yep, he'll be there. And let this health bill interfere with his golf outings? God forbid. We have an absentee president, although I am sure I'm not the first one to notice this.

This Pernicious Affordable Health Care Act

Uncle Sam In Tears
Uncle Sam In Tears
Dear Citizen, and I include ALL my Leftist friends who I saw celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday. Have you even READ the damn thing? Shame on each and every one of you, and if you did, and are still supporting this pernicious bill to stand as the Law of the Land, I guess I have just inherited have a full-blown “enemies list” already built into my own Internet empire, so to speak. I have checked with Scopes on a few on these items, and yes, there is some right wing extrapolation to meet the challenge of left wing sneakiness. All sides will cry foul, but it's worth a perusal. This health bill is just plain awful, if not thoroughly evil, and surprise, surprise, my little darlings, explain to me (AS IF I DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW) why sharia-spirited Muslims and Congress are exempt...

If you have read all 2700 pages of THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT (for reasons of subversion I shall no longer refer to this document as Obamacare), I would not be jumping the shark to surmise that each of you are aware of the following conditions, and now a willing slave in chains and in spirit to Federal government in all its myriad of forms:

Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process).
Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None
Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN).
Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans).
Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens.
Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll.
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."

PLUS: OBAMA'S DARING MARK OF THE BEAST
There's a jarring, startling thing in the Obamacare Bill that 95% of Americans won't like.

The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable." Then on page 1004 it describes what the term "data" means in paragraph 1, section B:

14 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in
15 formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),
16 including claims data, patient survey data, standardized
17 analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of
18 data from disparate data environments, electronic health
19 records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the
20 Secretary."

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see...

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a "implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information." The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as "claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary."

This sort of device would be implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option. With the reform of the private insurance companies, who charge outrageous rates, many people will switch their coverage to a more affordable insurance plan. This means the number of people who choose the public option will increase. This also means the number of people chipped will be plentiful as well. The adults who choose to have a chip implanted are the lucky (yes, lucky) ones in this case.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM = CHIP

Children who are "born in the United States who at the time of birth are not otherwise covered under acceptable coverage" will be qualified and placed into the CHIP or Children's Health Insurance Program (what a convenient name). Children conceived by parents who are already covered under the public option will more than likely be implanted with a chip by the consent of the parent. Eventually everyone will be implanted with a chip. And with the price and coverage of the public option being so competitive with the private companies, the private company may not survive.

What Members Of Congress Think Of Eligibility Question

Constitution2
"We've given you a Republic, if you can keep it..."
WORD IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL eligibility of one Barack Hussein Obama to hold the highest office in our land is being raised in Town Hall meetings all across the country. This should prove interesting. We have no final answers here. We can only read what we read, distill the 2nd and 3rd hand information, only to speculate wildly about what we think is true and what we think is not. However, we're not stupid (apologies to Judge Scalia), and we are not cowed enough to believe that candidate and now President Obama has been in teh least bit properly vetted, despite the useless flow of air issuing from the grit-filled mouths of many our finest men and women who were sent to Washington to represent its citizens in what is, or once was a strong constitutional nation. Among the statements from members of Congress:

U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock: “The Constitution is the starting point for determining eligibility to serve as president. The Constitution requires that to be eligible to serve as president an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least 14 years.” He said candidates are vetted both inside the government and out, and Obama has passed all of the hurdles.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said, “In the run-up to the 2008 federal election and in its aftermath, many Texans have written to express their thoughts and concerns about the electoral process. Some have even raised concerns about the eligibility of candidates to serve in elected office under the Constitution. The courts and the Federal Elections Commission play a central role in determining the eligibility of candidates to serve in the offices they seek. You can be certain that I will continue to be vigilant in making sure that these institutions perform their critical role in overseeing fair and transparent elections.”

Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., The “Constitution of our nation requires natural born citizenship in order to serve as President of the United States of America.” But then she explains that the “Office of Vital Records within the Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed the birth and citizenship of President Obama.” Nowhere in the letter to her constituent does she explain why the confirmation of “citizenship” equates to meeting the requirement for “natural-born citizenship.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., “I believe that President Obama has met all the requirements of citizenship as set forth by the U.S. State Department, and therefore is eligible for the office of the presidency.”

Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., said concerned citizens need to go to court over Obama’s eligibility, even though courts ranging up to the U.S. Supreme Court have refused in dozens of cases already to hear arguments on the merits of the dispute:

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: “Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors.”

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: “Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: “President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.”

U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla.: “The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics.” She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.

Based on these documents, most members of Congress from both parties appear satisfied that the president is a U.S. citizen. That would preclude any effort to remove him through the impeachment process, which requires a majority in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, on the basis of his constitutional eligibility for office. -Lamar Alexander
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: “The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu.”

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: “President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: “I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org. The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president.”

U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: “As you know, some questions were raised about whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case considered before the full court. I further understand that the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu and has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. As you know, the U.S. Congress certified his election on January 8, and he was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. While I may disagree with President Obama on a multitude of issues, he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic. In short, therefore, I do not believe sufficient evidence was brought to light to conclude that President Obama was ineligible for the office.”

U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H.: “President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, above the age of 35, and is therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America. If you would like to view President Obama’s birth certificate, I encourage you to go to the Fight The Smears website .”

We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards … so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering. - Blake Farenthold
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, “The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama’s case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an “application for emergency stay” filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution.”

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.: “On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department’s system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. … Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States.”

U.S. Rep Vic Snyder, D-Ark.: “According to State of Hawai’i officials, the Hawai’i State Department of Health has President-elect Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with that state’s policies and procedures.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.: “The U.S. Constitution is our nation’s supreme law and cannot be circumvented for any reason. It is my understanding that state officials in Hawaii have attested to the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate showing that he was born in that state, which would make him a U.S. citizen. I also have read that both of Hawaii’s major newspapers ran birth announcements in August 1961 documenting President Obama’s birth in Honolulu. Based on these documents, most members of Congress from both parties appear satisfied that the president is a U.S. citizen. That would preclude any effort to remove him through the impeachment process, which requires a majority in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, on the basis of his constitutional eligibility for office.”

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., “As a senator representing Colorado, I want to speak very clearly on this issue. President Barack Obama is a ‘natural born’ citizen of America, and he is eligible to be our nation’s Commander in Chief. The legality of his birth certificate has been verified by numerous federal agencies, third party investigative groups, national media outlets, and primary source documentation. The United States Department of State and the Hawaii Department of Health have both verified the legality of the ‘Certification of Birth’ document provided by President Obama. In addition, highly regarded ‘fact check’ websites such as factcheck.org, snopes.com, and politifact.com support the findings of the federal agencies through their own independent investigations.”

Sen. Mark. R. Warner, D-Va., “The facts have consistently shown that President Obama was born in the United States. As a natural-born American citizen, he is fully eligible to serve as president of our country.”

Tim Walberg said he’s taken on many other urgent issues and then suggested a repair of the Obama presidency is coming soon, in the 2012 election.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., “Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years. President Obama meets these constitutional requirements. If you were not already aware, on April 27, 2011 the White House released a copy of President Obama’s long form birth certificate. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible to be President.

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., “Independent and official investigations as well as legal proceedings have validated President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. The Health Director and Head of Vital Statistics for the state of Hawaii (an official source) has also examined and declared the authenticity of the birth certificate and most recently President Obama released his full birth certificate. If change is to take place it’s likely to come in the form of an election. This is part of the reason everyone needs to make sure we vote for the people who will represent our views correctly. This is also why we must continue to talk to our friends and relatives in other states about their own elected officials and encourage them to let their voices be heard.”

There have been a few who have expressed concern over the situation:

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., in a posting on Canada Free Press by Dean Haskins, “I believe that there should be a more formal process of review and validation as a matter of routine certification of candidates. The office of the presidency is undermined if Americans don’t have confidence that the candidates for the highest office in the land are qualified for the position as required by the Constitution.…“

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., did not tell a questioner the issue of Obama’s eligibility was settled by the April release of the “Certificate of Live Birth” image by the White House. “Regardless of whether the license that he showed is true or fake, I’ve not seen it other than what was portrayed in the news,” Walberg said. But he said he’s taken on many other urgent issues and then suggested a repair of the Obama presidency is coming soon, in the 2012 election.

Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, “Many of the issues, like the birth certificate, are within the jurisdiction of the courts, not Congress. Our power over the president is impeachment for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards … so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering.”


MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
[display-posts]


Florida AG Pam Bondi: How We'll Defeat Obamacare

Pam Bondi
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’s healthcare initiative is the biggest attempt at a government overreach in U.S. history, Pam Bondi, Florida’s attorney general, who is leading the fight against the program, tells Newsmax.TV.

And that is why Bondi is confident the Supreme Court will vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act after three days of hearings next week.

“We’re optimistic that they will rule in our favor because this is so much bigger than healthcare,” said Bondi in an exclusive interview. “It’s the biggest attempt at an overreach in our history. So we have to fight it and we have to stop it.

“That’s why 26 states, along with the National Federation of Independent Business, are challenging this and that’s why we have been given an unprecedented amount of time, six hours, in front of the court.”

The hearing will start on Monday and go through Wednesday. Attorney Paul Clement will argue the states’ case before the nine justices, while solicitor general Donald Verrilli will defend the law.

“The bottom line is this: the Constitution’s limits on the federal power are real and they must be respected, even if they are inconvenient for the Obama administration’s goal to take over one-sixth of our economy,” said Bondi, a Republican.

The states’ main case is that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to insist that citizens buy anything, including health insurance. “If they can force us to do this, they can force us to do anything,” said Bondi.

Part of Bondi’s optimism is that there has already been a bipartisan decision in favor of striking down the law in the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. “People were playing the numbers game … saying we were going to lose because they had two Clinton appointees and a Bush appointee and look at the opinion we got out of it.”

She is confident that all Supreme Court justices will follow the law and not be guided by their own political views. “I believe when they hear our argument that they will know that this is such an overreach by the federal government,” she said.

Bondi said the Supreme Court case will be split into four distinct parts:

Read it all.

Birther Nation: Evidence Of Things Not Seen By Media Types

MUCH DISCUSSION LONG AND WEARY, STRONG AND SCHOLARLY, sane and savage, still cloaking the profound audacity in this cover-up of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate has traded this nation's proud heritage for a handful of sand. The same simple burdens of proof that candidates great and small before him have had to answer still clutter the sandy beachhead along which this man walks three years after stepping into the light for a run at this nation's world's most revered office.

Obama (Above It All)
Obama (Above It All)
Let's review, shall we? Why has this son of a Kenyan and his minions spent millions of dollars stonewalling the cases piling up in courts around the country? Why has every document produced, and provided as proof of his birth place ended up being an easily detected fraud that no one in authority yet questions it, when basically what invalidates his presidency is much simpler and already admitted—he is NOT a natural-born citizen as understood by those that wrote that phrase into the Constitution regardless of where he was born.

The verified requirement for President of the United States as outlined in the Constitution and ratified by the States is the following:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President… ”

The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born". On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:

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.

However, on July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born

Now there are those who choose to obfuscate what the Constitution and its authors has, since its adoption in 1788, defined what the term “natural born Citizen” means, preferring to assume it means born within the physical United States boundaries. Big mistake, and an intentional one.

It is absolutely amazing how a "typical Obama supporter" will swiftly shift his outward demeanor when confronted with this eligibility issue, from winsome cordiality to a vicious attack spirit. I've witnessed it, and have had it directed at me personally, face to face, from a senior State Department anti-terror specialist, a self-professed Scoop Jackson Democrat, and let me assure you, it ain't pretty. It's as if they have suspected all along but cannot admit the truth has not been properly vetted, and have no other choice but to deal with the issue with violent outbursts designed to immediately cease the conversation.

Throughout the Constitution, the writers used the term citizen numerous times but only here did they offer a specific classification of citizen, differentiated even from the naturalized citizen identified elsewhere. The founders would not have inserted into the all-important governing document a quite specific designation, or type of citizen, except to insist upon a specific designation and purpose for its usage.

Admittedly, one of the few shortcomings of our founding document, highlighted by this controversy, is the lack of referential definitions for certain terms. As some terms were thought to be of common knowledge by educated men, it was thought unnecessary to include them. One such definition that has garnered much controversy was the well-regulated Militia; likewise is the term “natural born citizen.”

This document, however, has provided us a methodology and a roadmap to solving certain mysteries. Congress is the bi-cameral body charged with the handling of legislation. Within the Constitution the founders placed guides that may assist us in determining where we may find certain information.

Article 1, Section 8 defines the enumerated powers of Congress and within that we find: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”

In a correspondence between Benjamin Franklin and Charles William Frederic Dumas, Franklin stated, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.”

Ah, yes. Those were the days. Not only where these great men of early America familiar with the “Law of Nations” but they consulted it frequently.

It should not be surprising that within Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Notice the plural use for parentage.

Based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance, the contrary position when a citizen whose father was born outside the US and the son inside the US arises due to a position of dual allegiance between his own birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

The implication that should circumstances place the nation at odds with the nation of a president’s father, the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against that nation which he may empathize on his father's account.

Which brings us to the controversy we seek to resolve—how do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” Given that the Constitution is the basis of our law, and IS LAW, in and of itself, we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.

First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest cause of concern in determining the meaning, since the term is not used in general language today outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, it appears to be of little use.

This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
Second; should the “plain meaning” of a term not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it. This is not always an easy task; as time progresses the nuances of language and even meanings of words change. A prime example is the word “welfare,” when used today most everyone thinks of grants from the government in the form of money, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. But back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s welfare meant simply “Happiness; Success; Prosperity.” (Now read the section in the Constitution that directs government to “promote the general welfare.” Takes on a whole new meaning doesn’t it?)

But having documentation from those who framed the Constitution telling us rather emphatically that they consulted a resource “frequently” and one of the few, if only, use was that of Vattel giving the meaning as that of a singularity of citizenship of the parents, and especially the father, we must (unless we are habitual Leftists) give weight to this meaning.

Third; should the prior two methods not be productive then one must look outside of that to the historical, and contemporary writings of the time to see if anything supports a particular point of view. And though there are very few writings dealing with the term “natural-born citizen” we do have a number of writings dealing with the concept of “dual allegiance” that aligns with Vattel’s definition of “natural-born.”

In 1794 President Washington in a letter to John Adams stated: “the policy…of its [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean settling them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word soon become one people.”

Here we see a distinct ideal of ensuring a nation that was not plagued with divided or dual allegiances that people coming to America should “in a word soon become one people.” This is the exact sentiment that Vattel was driving with the “natural-born citizen,” a single allegiance to the United States. And we know today, with transcontinental transportation and massive illegal immigration that this presumption of assimilation is no longer true.

Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.

If we contrast this with the total lack of evidence to the contrary then this evidence becomes overwhelming that Vattel’s definition must clearly be the defining voice.

So where is the deception you ask? The deception lies in that thousands of politicians and countless government and academic lawyers insist there is no way to determine the meaning of a phrase used by our founders in the Constitution of the United States, the basis of the Law of our Nation, and operative for over two hundred years.

Yet, scores of ordinary citizens, and dare we say—natural born citizens—all around the nation have been screaming this simple truth and no one listens. In truth I totally believe they know exactly what is going on, but it does not serve their pernicious agenda and using Alinsky Rules, the end justifies their means.

Battle Flag
Battle Flag
Politicians astride the government purse do not fear what pockets of citizenry know because they have come to understand that unless an organized rebellion results they can simply dismiss each outcry as a the paucity of conspiracy theorists as in "Who are you going to believe, some kook or your own government?"

Or they simply vilify good people who believe in and wish to return to the United States Constitution, or voice displeasure with abortion, or advocate for gun rights, or belong to a Constitutional militia, or post Ron Paul bumper stickers, or become “natural-born citizen” adherents by depicting all these good American citizens as potential terrorists… oh wait—they’ve already done that!

So don't fret when you attract the typical ad hominem response from the left. Remember they don't examine the facts; they attack the messenger instead. That is how and why the left invented the name "birther" in the first place.

UPDATE: Here's the kicker. People on the left claim to embrace science. They claim to be better educated than their knuckle-dragging conservative opposites. So why not embrace the concept of scientific inquiry? Question everything, even your assumption that there is no way an announcement could be placed in a Hawaiian newspaper unless the event happened in Hawaii. Has anyone ever forged a birth certificate? Are all the birth certificates produced by the state of Hawaii 100% genuine? Has there ever been a state worker in Vital Records who has been willing to do a favor?

We have probable cause here. Obama's bio from 1991 claimed he was born in Kenya (and that bio was only "corrected" in 2007). The birth certificate coaxed out by Donald Trump last fall to be posted at the White House web site has numerous indications that it isn't genuine. This rather unmysterious fact (any first year Photoshop user knows which way the coverup blows) has been much circulated, so there's no reason the Left (and other obtuse career-savvy folks like Bill O'Reilly) should not know of these details. Why will they not put on their "objective" glasses and expose themselves to a little scientific inquiry, and see where that takes them?


MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
[display-posts]