THE VOTING HABITS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC are hardly static, but stunningly dynamic. They must be won like territory in a hot war, but through persuasionthrough explanation, argument, rhetoric, reason, the parsing of life itself sometimes. One must fight for ground; one must be bold; one must penetrate into hostile territory, awe the opposition, and seize what he holds dear. The one thing one should not and can not do effectively is to fight from a holding position. That is, and has been the anemic strategy of the GOP leadership for decades.
As Sun Tzu put it, "If the enemy leaves a door open, you must rush in."
The constitutional side is far too busy trying to find ways to surrender. But it can not be that way; the once significant GOP of Ohio stalwart Robert Taft is philosophically distinct from the Obama/Alinsky nouveau socialists. We must give the America public a clear distinction between failed policies and wishful policies! Constitutional patriots and global Marxists and their sordid friends. And most of all, don't be ashamed of who you are, because ultimately, that steadfastness, that personal command of the tough but honest truth, is what will meaningfully rally people to your side. Are not apples and oranges both fruits? Fruits hanging from a family of trees, fruits falling like perfect guests of planet earth when ready for the harvest?
NEED A FIGHTING CONTRAST between Romney and Obama? The next time someone says that battle ready Mitt Romney is the same as Barack H. Obama...
* Ask them to produce a list of mad terrorists foreign and domestic that squeaky clean Mitt Romney has befriended (and no, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld don't count, for rather obvious reasons).
If they can produce answers to all of those—we’ll procede to round 2. Having gotten that out of our system, we continue to shout, “We’re Impressed! Gingrich/West 2012!”
* Ask them to name an occasion where Mr. Romney has bowed to anyone in a foreign land as a Representative of the United States of America.
* Ask them to produce evidence that Mr. Barack H. Obama's business experience even after four years in the White House is comparable to Romney's.
* Ask them to produce proof that President Obama's charitable contributions are as significant as Governor Romney's.
* Ask them to name a radical anti-American Church or other religious establishment that Romney has attended for over 2 decades.
* Ask them to produce proof that Mitt Romney has illegally used cocaine and marijuana.
* Ask them to name an occasion that Mitt Romney criticized the proper actions of a police officer from high office.
* Ask them to name any associates of Mitt Romney that have been active practicing subversive members of the Communist Party.
* Ask them to produce the identities of any illegal alien Romney family member that he is protecting from deportation.
If they can produce answers to all of thosewe'll procede to round 2.
Meanwhile, all earnest political junkies worth their stars and bars should grab up a Tasty Granny or a Juicy Navel and head over to American Thinker for some of the best American political writing and short commentary on the Internet.
Having gotten that out of our system, we continue to shout, "We're Impressed! Gingrich/West 2012!"
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.
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 admittedhe 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.
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.”
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 resolvehow 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 saynatural born citizensall 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.
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 waitthey’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...
O SAY CAN YOU SEE, by the dawn's early light, and have you ever stopped to take measure of Black Republicans in Congress and other places that have known to represent the power of the people? It's time to get acquainted with one such person, in particular.
Inspired with strong family values, Jennifer Carroll, 51, was born in Trinidad and moved to New York City with her great aunt and uncle when she was 8, just as desegregation was taking hold. On television, she saw reports about civil rights and Martin Luther King's assassination.
Two years after graduating from Uniondale High School in New York state, she enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1979. After serving as an Aviation Machinist Mate (Jet Mechanic), she was selected for Enlisted Commissioning Program, becoming an Aviation Maintenance Officer in 1985. She retired from the Navy in 1999 as a Lieutenant Commander. In 1981, she received an Associate of Arts degree from Leeward Community College. She followed this in 1985 with a Bachelor of Arts in political science from the University of New Mexico. She moved to Florida in 1986. She received a Master of Business Administration degree from unaccredited online diploma mill Kensington University in 1995, and then earned another Master of Business Administration degree online from St. Leo University in 2008
Carroll thus became the first black woman to be a major party candidate for lieutenant governor in Florida's history, and the first black woman on any statewide Republican ticket.
"That was the first time I experienced the conversation regarding race," she said. It wasn't until she graduated from high school and enlisted in the Navy in 1979 as a jet mechanic that she experienced racism firsthand, she said.
"When it really started was when I was appointed as the supervisor in charge of white males," Carroll said. "They felt they should have been in charge rather than me."
She made two unsuccessful bids for the United States House of Representatives in 2000 and in 2002. Following her defeat in the 2000 election, she was appointed as Director of the Florida Department of Veterans Affairs serving in that post until July, 2002. She has been elected successively to the Florida House since winning a special election in April 2003, when she became the first African-American female Republican ever elected to the Florida Legislature.
On September 2, 2010, after winning the Republican primary, Rick Scott named Carroll his running mate in the 2010 Florida gubernatorial election. Carroll thus became the first black woman to be a major party candidate for lieutenant governor in Florida's history, and the first black woman on any statewide Republican ticket.
FATHOM A FEW FACTS about our flipping national debt. LBJ's Great Society and a few other distractionslike the Vietnam warstormed into 1969 and the Nixon era with buckets of deficit spending. Since then, the national debt has grown dramatically each decade, as shown below:
• In the 1970’s, the national debt more than doubled, from $366 billion to $829 billion.
• In the 1980’s, the national debt more than tripled, from $829 billion to $2.9 trillion.
• In the 1990’s, the national debt almost doubled again, from $2.9 trillion to $5.6 trillion.
• In the 2000’s, the national debt is projected to more than double again, from $5.6 trillion to $12.9 trillion (projected national debt at the end of fiscal year 2009).
Just for giggles and lollipops, let's analyze who was in charge of the Spending and Budget AuthorityThe House of Representatives:
In the 1970's the Democrats held the House all 10 years.
In the 1980's the Democrats held the House all 10 years.
In the 1990's the Democrats held the House for 4 and The Republicans for 6 years.
In the 2000's the Democrats held the House for 10 years.
The only time we ever balanced the budget was when the Republicans held the house in the 1990's during the Gingrich Revolution.
The anti-Constitutional Progressives give the credit to Bill Clintonwho was forced to accept the budgets from the Republican-dominated House. In additionClinton only got to a balanced budget by gutting the military and called it the "Peace Dividend" that rather quickly led to a tragic series of missteps that opened the door for 911.
Anyone who blames people who want to balance the budget and make excuses for fools who want to spend money we don't have and then raise taxesis historically ILL-INFORMED and most often always DEMOCRAT to the core.
However, over time even the Republicans began to pitched gobs of cash wherever they could, just to make a good impression on the debtor nation the Democrats were grooming. Gotta keep them national defense and compassionate conservative votes coming, ya know.
THE US CONGRESS SETS a federal budget every year (Before Obama*) in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let’s put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:
* US income: $2,170,000,000,000
* Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)
It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to, so let’s remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family:
* Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
* Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
* Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Amount cut from the budget: $385
So in effect last month Congress, or in this example the Jones family, sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $385 from its annual budget. What family would cut $385 of spending in order to solve $16,500 in deficit spending? It's a start, although hardly an easy solution.
Now after years of this, the Jones family has $142,710 of debt on its credit card (which is the equivalent of the national debt). One would think the Jones family would recognize and address this situation, but it does not. Neither does Congress.
The root of the debt problem is that the voters typically do not send people to Congress to save money. They are sent there to bring home the bacon to their own home state. To effect budget change, we need to change the job description and give Congress new marching orders.
It will be brutally hard, but not impossible, to reverse course and to insist the government stop borrowing money from our children and spending it now. In effect, what we have is a reverse mortgage on the country. The problem is that the voters have become addicted to the money. Moreover, the American voters are still in the denial stage, and do not want to face the possibility of going into rehab…
* Neither Congress nor POTUS have offered up a budget these past two fiscal years, contrary to constitutional and traditional mores.
CONGRESS KNOWS THE TRUTH about Obama. They already know he is a fraud and a criminal usurper. That weight is crushing their ability to govern effectively because it is insanguiating the confidence of their constituencies. Congressional integrity is bleeding out. However, they also are aware, repressively if not consciously, that they are now accountable for the fall of this nation because of their choice to ignore the moment of truth. They failed to uphold the rule of law prescribed in the doctrinal foundations of the Constitution, and now they are left with the teeth-gnashing reality that there are no more available precedents upon which to justify their rank and repulsive derelictions, or their weak attempts at mitigating what they fear.
Ind what do they fear? Black people rioting? Preposterous you say? Surely. But before you dismiss this entire unsavory idea, let us remember that the compelling string of facts, cover-ups, and miscues surrounding the rise and 2008 election of Barack Hussein Obama to the US presidency, creates a rather comprehensive picture of something gone horribly wrong, and that this man should not have never been approved as eligible to stand for election to the highest office in the land, nor should he be allowed to stay in this office.
In fact, the evidence against Obama is voluminous, and is far less circumstantial than the body of evidence that will most likely convict Casey Anthony, she of flared nostrils and pouty lips, of first degree murder in the death of her young child sometime over the next day or two. Unlike the once vigorous candidate-in-waiting from New York, Donald Trump, who somehow lost his usually ample nerve on the issue after his shiny new television deal with NBC was assured, there are those who haven't stopped connecting the dots.
We know well the Marxist and Islamic enemies among us, those who boldly announce their pernicious intentions to thwart the touted American governing system announced to the world with great hopes and cheer by a few good men and women in 1776. But how dare anyoneanyone who can read at what used to be known as high school level, and who also cherishes the proud sovereignty of this nation and the stipulative value of the full fabric of its constitutiondismiss the seriousness of this so-called "birther" issue out of hand. Behavior so egregious to a citizenry already lost without the perspective that freedom always requires defending only invigorates this and other writers who believe that the media blackout has gone on long enough, and we demand the prompt attention of all who play a role in keeping our nation safe from all its enemies, foreign and domestic, and that list includes its voting citizenry, its publicly elected officials, and its wunderkind, or this republic, as Ben Franklin predicted, will not long continue to stand. No more a laughing matter, given the divisive and debilitating nature of this administration's policies, someone in Washington must act, and act now on this question.
We believe those in Washington are hoping that the next election will rid us of this inconvenient public concern. Hardly. Given the community organizer-standards of voter registration irregularity, the odds are too objectional that against all common sense and political decency, the current resident of the White House will find himself the necessary numbers to keep him in office, if that is where he wants to be. The fact that his positive poll numbers still put him in the mid-40s shock many. But there are other considerations.
We urge you to step up and help save the nation from thrusting deeper into the mire of cultural corruption by reading and finally comprehending this meaty consolidation of circulating facts about the man who would be king.
Barring the sentimental idea that nothing this terrible could possibly happen in America, perhaps some cataclysmic event intercedes, nuclear attack, financial collapse, and we are immediately catapulted into crisis, perhaps even martial law is declared by The One, and suddenly the November, 2012 elections are postponed. Highly irregular, but possible we believe, and devastating to the continuing liberty of the American people.
Ir, what about the enormous costs of an after-Obama retirement from office? Secret Service, Presidential pension, et cetera. Should American taxpayers be forced to run a huge lifetime tab for a discredited political hustler, even if this full weight of incriminating evidence is not acted upon until after he has vacated the office, given the usual cowardice of those in Congress who might otherwise be expected to act upon this level of treachery against ever disappearing US sovereignty?
In 1974, the Justice Department ruled that presidents who resign from office before their official terms of office expire are entitled to the same lifetime pension and benefits extended to other former presidents. However, presidents who are removed from office due to impeachment forfeit all benefits.
There are highly disturbing "missing" details from the "official" Obama portfolio, and we should not gloss over the many, highly disturbing "available" details yet not "officially" introduced into this same "official" Obama portfolio. After all, a permanent record is a permanent record.
So, if you haven't carefully inspected the full body of evidence that suggests this man is a usurper upon the American constitutional system of laws and liberty, we have the perfect link for you.
This is the litany of charges the Obama Administration does not dare address point by point, so we ask every unassuming but patriotic Obama supporter now witnessing a crack in the mirrored images of the last campaign, you who supported this candidate from Hawaii, Chicago, Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan, or wherever he really belongs, to do one thing for America. We urge you to step up and help save the nation from thrusting deeper into the mire of cultural corruption by reading and finally comprehending this meaty consolidation of circulating facts about the man who would be king.
Found this sharp stab at political-economical consciousness at the always provocative American Thinker in a few words posted by the self-identified AWARE54397, and from my own current sorry state of economic ruin all I can think to add to the soil is thisDamn. I wish I had written those two paragraphs. The political tick, blood-filled and bulging. Quite a fit description of the body politik...
So let us get on with the rain seeding...
It won't matter if gold and oil are pumped out of the ground in record quantities, there is no recovery, no "rebound". The problem is the same as the Soviets, who despite huge natural resources and a willingness to exploit them much more ruthlessly than we, continued down the road of want, shortage, and economic oblivion. Our problem is political not economic. The political class runs the economy and it is that simple. The political tick is now bigger than the economic dog. Do you think any benefits derived from increased oil production won't be siphoned off by the usual political bandits through the instrument of wealth destruction called government for the enrichment of the favored cronies?
Until the scope and power of government is severely curtailed no amount of wealth will change the worsening economic picture. With more government than we can afford the profit will always go to support it, not us.
Perhaps these also apply:
Mr. Obama is exactly what he has proclaimed he is many times over, and that is a "Citizen of the World"; a Globalist. A Globalist, who is familiar with and identifies more with Muslim culture than Judeo-Christian culture. Those people who refer to themselves as "Citizens of the World", or as "Global Citizens" believe the United Nations should be the sole arbiter for every international solution (i.e. AGW). It is the United Nations Agenda 21 which we are seeing being implemented in this country in a gallop under this administration.
These Globalists are the new NAZI movement except that instead of being nationalists they are internationalists. It is an international socialist movement which embraces the same totalitarian goals which Islamofascists pursue. Both are para-theo-political belief systems and constructs.
The parallel is that the Globalists are the new NAZI Party and the Islamofascists are the new Italian Fascists from WWII. Guess who gets to play the new Jew? The Conservative Constitutionalists, and Judeo-Christians get the role of the European Jew of WWII.
I hope that answered your question. Now have a "rooping" good day.