REMEMBER: ACORN now has been given direct involvement in the census, thus, this proves without a shadow of a doubt we will no longer have fair and free elections if the current administration and their cronies at ACORN are allowed to continue in their take over of the census. Obama cut his proverbial “community organizing baby teeth” through this corrupt crime syndicate and during the campaign, he promised themthat they would have the inside track to the white house and a strong say in how government operates if they got him elected. They did not let him down and now he is paying back that debt.
Back in the day, the poor were represented appropriately, they literally had nothing but the clothing on their backs. Today, the liberal progressives have a different view.
National Review Online sheds some light on the ‘wealth’ of the ‘poor’ that say they can not afford health care:
Today, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual poverty report. The report is expected to show an increase in poverty in 2008 due to the onset of the recession. It is no surprise that poverty goes up in a recession. What is surprising is that every year for nearly three decades, in good economic times and bad, Census has reported more than 30 million Americans living in poverty.
What does it mean to be “poor” in America? For the average reader, the word poverty implies significant physical hardship — for example, the lack of a warm, adequate home, nutritious food, or reasonable clothing for one’s children. By that measure, very few of the 30 million plus individuals defined as “living in poverty” by the government are actually poor. Real hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity.
The average person identified as “poor” by the government has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. According to the government’s own surveys, the typical “poor” American has cable or satellite TV, two color TVs, and a DVD player or VCR. He has air conditioning, a car, a microwave, a refrigerator, a stove, and a clothes washer and dryer. He is able to obtain medical care when needed. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not affluent, it is far from the images of dire poverty conveyed by liberal activists and politicians.
Various government reports contain the following facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau:
Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.
Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.
The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from that of children in the upper middle class. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age were in the late 1950s. They are a full inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy during World War II.
Conventional accounts of poverty not only exaggerate hardship, they also underestimate government spending on the poor. In 2008, federal and state governments spent $714 billion (or 5 percent of the total economy) on means-tested welfare aid, providing cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. (This sum does not include Social Security or Medicare.) If converted into cash, this aid would be nearly four times the amount needed to eliminate poverty in the U.S. by raising the incomes of all poor households above the federal poverty levels.
How can the government spend so much and still have such high levels of apparent poverty? The answer is that, in measuring poverty and inequality, Census ignores almost the entire welfare state. Census deems a household poor if its income falls below federally specified levels. But in its regular measurements, Census counts only around 4 percent of total welfare spending as “income.” Because of this, government spending on the poor can expand almost infinitely without having any detectable impact on official poverty or inequality.
Also missing in most Washington discussions about the poor is an acknowledgement of the behavioral causes of official poverty. For example, families with children become poor primarily because of low levels of parental work and high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing with accompanying single parenthood.
Even in the best economic times, the typical poor family with children has, on average, only 16 hours of work per week. Little work equals little income equals more poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children live in single-parent homes, a condition that has been promoted by the astonishing growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing in low-income communities. When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of American children were born outside marriage; today the number is 39 percent.
President Obama is pursuing his agenda to “spread the wealth” through massive hikes in welfare spending financed by unprecedented increases in the federal debt. Before we further expand the welfare state and pile even greater indebtedness on our children, we need a more honest assessment of current anti-poverty spending and the actual living conditions of the “poor.”
So, according to this report, my husband & I would be classified as ‘poor’. I am not at all happy with this label. We have always considered living within our means, living simply and living happily without government intrusion into our personal life/living choices as being responsible and self reliant.
We also consider ourselves to be very wealthy. We have our faith, our family, our health and our strong determination for self responsibility. Sure we could work longer and harder to have a larger bank account, but we refuse to let monetary/material idolism take precidence over the more important God given aspects of our wealth.
True wealth is given to us by our creator. It is our Faith, Family & Health and this country will never begin to heal unless material selfishness is cast aside for a deeper sense of personal responsibility and a good look at what our true inherent rights are.
It is time to reign ‘big government’ back into the 10 mile radius of DC and back to legislating only on the specific enumerated tasks permitted them under Article 1 of the Constitution.
fast forward to 3:20 for guest speaker Rod Class and 1:13:05 for Joyce Rosenwald
fast forward to 4:25 for guest speaker Joyce Rosenwald
AMERICAN MANIFESTO
My people came to this land to escape oppression in Europe. I was born here and raised in Freedom. Many people arrived here in many ways. Some packed up their meager possessions and sailed across the ocean to seek freedom from oppression, freedom to worship their God in their way. They came as indentured servants. They came on prison ships. Some came as slaves. Some had always been here.
They came to escape the feudal system where they and their children were bound to the land of others and they could own nothing.
Together we built a Republic that was strong and offered opportunity to be all that you could be regardless of the color of your skin, or your ethnic background.
Together we built a nation where freedom flourished. The United States of America grew into the Crown Jewel of nations.
And then, you came for our country. You wanted our wealth, our resources, and our people. Slowly over years you corrupted our people, our money, our law, and our liberty.
We put you in places of honor and trust as our leaders and you betrayed us. We would not, could not, believe that you would work to destroy our Nation.
But now the people know what you have done. Your charade of government has been exposed. The Truth is now known and I as an American am telling you, YOU CAN’T Have MY COUNTRY. You will not take my freedom.
I will not worship government, as God.
I will not ask you for permission to live.
I will no longer be a financial slave to you.
I will not obey your private law.
You will not have my children or my posterity.
You will not give my country away to pay your debt.
I withdraw my allegiance to you.
I owe you nothing.
Let’s see what you are made of when you can no longer hide behind your pretend office.
It’s over for you. Your days of Fascist rule are gone.
I am a citizen of the United States of America, not a corporation and your corporate laws do not apply to me.
I am not a ship at sea. I’m standing on the land of my fore fathers that you have attempted to steal from me.
I can no longer stand quietly by and allow you to dismantle what has taken so many people so long to build.
” When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…………….” These are the words that started a Revolution propelling several English colonies into the nation known as “The United States of America.” This new nation was designed to function under the law of Nature and Nature’s God. The people believed they would never again hear the words of enslavement, i.e.; “under the sovereignty of the King.” Living under the sovereignty of the King made you the King’s chattel. He owned you. You were his property. You could own nothing, not even your children. The King ruled by divine right. The framers of this new nation claimed it was designed to be a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Representatives of this government were to be elected by the people, not born to power. And so, in 1776 the great experiment in freedom, known as “The United states of America” began.
People from each colony fought in the Great War to enable the colony to become a Sovereign Nation State. These States then created a new state, designed to exclusively serve the several Sovereign Nation States. Under this concept the nation of States united was born. Every sovereign Nation State joining the Union had a Constitution. The newly created state received one as well. It was written by the people of the several states and was titled “The Constitution for The united States of America.” This new state was “delegated” 17 authorities by the several states. The people never intended that it should over step it’s delegated authorities.
Some scholars believe the freedom ended before the ink was dry on the contract written between the people and their new government, “The Constitution.” There is some question as to exactly where and when the new nation faltered. Some say it was in 1789, with the Judiciary Act. Others say it was after the Civil War. Still others claim it was in 1913 or 1921 or perhaps in 1933…….History tells us the Supreme Court of the United States government claims it was when the Union itself was formed.
In the case New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New York v. Louisiana and others, (1) it states that:
“all the rights of the States as independent nations were surrendered to the United States. The States are not nations, either as between themselves or towards foreign nations. They are sovereign within their spheres, but their sovereignty stops short of nationality. Their political status at home and abroad is that of States in the united States. They can neither make war nor peace without the consent of the national government. Neither can they, except with like consent, “enter into any agreement or compact with another State.” Art. 1, sec. 10, cl. 3. ” The relation of one of the united States to its citizens is not that of an independent sovereign State to its citizens. A sovereign State seeking redress of another sovereign State on behalf of its citizens can resort to war on refusal, which a State cannot do. The state, having been a sovereign, with powers to make war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and otherwise to act in a belligerent way, resigned these powers into the control of the United States, to be held in trust. ”
In United States v. Chamberlin, (2) the Supreme Court of the United States Decided, to wit:
It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests.
He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named. THE RULE THUS SETTLED RESPECTING THE BRITISH CROWN IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THIS GOVERNMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN APPLIED FREQUENTLY IN THE DIFFERENT STATES, AND PRACTICALLY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SETTLED THAT SO MUCH OF THE ROYAL PREROGATIVES AS BELONGED TO THE KING IN HIS CAPACITY OF PARENS PATRIAE, OR UNIVERSAL TRUSTEE, ENTERS AS MUCH INTO OUR POLITICAL STATE AS IT DOES INTO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.
Under most religious law, the children belong to the parents. It is a moral obligation on the part of the parents to care for and educate their children in their existing social values and morals.
In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act (3) was passed creating birth “registration” or what we now know as the “birth certificate.” It was known as the “Maternity Act” and was sold to the american people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for other purposes. One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. This can now be seen as the first attempt of “government by appointment,” or cooperation of state governments to aid the federal government in usurping the legislative process of the several states as exists today through the federal grant in aid to the states programs.
Prior to 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as “official” records. Since 1921 the american people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state claims an interest in every child within it’s jurisdiction, telling the parents that registering their child’s birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States, thereby making him/her a united states citizen.
In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the act. (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..). (4) The plaintiff, Mrs Frothingham, averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it’s purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them and not granted the federal government, under the Constitution, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States. The complaint stated the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. To wit:
The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.
Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY.
THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.
The act gives all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.
It was further stated in the complaint that “The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. (5) In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. (6) It went on to state:
“The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. (7)
The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. ”
” A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. ” (8)
“The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution.”
“Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States.” (9)
In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the”full faith and credit” of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. “Full faith and credit” clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it’s origin.
That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.
Today the federal government “mandates, orders and compels” the states to enforce federal jurisdiction upon it’s citizens/subjects. This author believes the federal government draws it’s de facto jurisdiction for these actions from the “Doctrine of Parens Patriae.” Patens patriae means literally, “parent of the country.” It refers traditionally to the role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.
Parens patriae originates from the English common law where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as infants.
With the birth registration established, the federal government, under the doctrine of parens patriae, had the mechanism to take over all the assets of the American people and put them into debt into perpetuity. Under this doctrine, if one is born with a disability, the state, (the sovereign) has the responsibility to take care of you. This author believes that the disability you are born with is, in fact, the birth itself. I believe that when you are born, you are born free, a “citizen of the soil,” an American National. Parents, without full disclosure under law, make application for a “birth certificate,” thereby making the child a citizen of the corporate government known as the United States. The government then turns the new citizen into a corporation under the laws of the state. The birth information is collected by the state and is then turned over to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The corporation is then placed into a “trust”, known as a “Cestui Que Trust”. A cestui que trust is defined as: He who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested in another; The beneficiary of another. Cestui que use is : He for whose use and benefit lands or tenements are held by another. The cestui que use has the right to receive the profits and benefits of the estate, but the legal title and possession, as well the duty of defending the same, reside in the other.
The government becomes the Trustee, while the child becomes the beneficiary of his own trust. Legal title to everything the child will ever own is now vested in the federal government. The government then places the Trust into the hands of the parents, who are made the “guardians.” The child may reside in the hands of the guardians (parents) until such time as the state claims that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The state then goes into the home and removes the “trust” from the guardians. At majority, the parents lose their guardianship.
The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. The child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate. “Title” to your child is now owned by the state. The state now directs the trust corpus and provides “benefits” for the beneficiary — the corpus and beneficiary being one and the same — the citizen — first as child, then as adult.
The debt transfers from the death of one corpus to the birth of another through the process know as “Novation.” Novation is defined as “the substitution of a new contract between same or different parties; The substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing one; The substitution of one debtor for another or of one creditor for another, whereby the old debt is extinguished. This author believes the debt of an individual is extinguished at his death, and the same debt is then transfered to a new individual when he/she is born through the registering of the birth, thereby creating a new corpus that will again reside in the hands of the trust.
Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt United States which acts as the “Debtor in Possession.”. We are now designated by this government as “HUMAN RESOURCES,” with new such resources being added (born) continually. The bankruptcy is a receivership, rather than a discharged bankruptcy. The bankruptcy debts are serviced, not paid or discharged. The Human Resources service the debt, which continues to grow with time.
The federal government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-delegates federal parens patriae authority to the state attorney generals. The attorney generals’ can now enforce all legislation involving your personal life , the lives of your children, and your material assets.
In today’s society the government, through the doctrine of parens patriae, has already instituted it’s control of our children through the legislative process. Medical treatments are enforced through the court with threats of loss of your child if the treatment is challenged.
Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusal may result in the loss of your child under the guise of “child neglect” (failure to preserve the trust corpus). If you spank your child or cause him/her any embarrassment or indignities, you are also at risk of having your child taken from you under the guise of child abuse (damaging the trust corpus).
Some states have legislation either pending or passed to give social workers arrest authority. School nurses may now report any suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. Warrantless searches of your home are tolerated by the courts, all in the name of safety for the child.
The Sun Sentinel, a Florida news paper, reported on March 15, 1996 that limits on the ability of divorced parents to relocate when minor children are involved were clarified by the Florida Supreme Court. The high court three years ago approved a policy favoring relocation requests of custodial parents as long as such moves are made in good faith for the well being of parents and children. Also, the justices ruled at that time, moves cannot be made “from a vindictive desire to interfere with the visitation rights of the other parent.” The right of locomotion is held as an element of personal liberty. Restraint upon the right of locomotion was a well-known feature of slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. A first requisite of the right to appropriate the use of another man was to become the master of his natural power of motion. The control by government courts (supra) of an individuals’ freedom of locomotion could be construed as a sign of ownership of the individual, or slavery .
It’s been reported that in California, early in the year, an assembly woman, in regard to education policy, made the statement ” the children belong to the STATE. ”
Parens Patriae legislation covers every area of your personal life. Federal parens patriae legislation can be found in Title 15 of the
United States Code:
TITLE 15
Sec. 15h. Applicability of parens patriae actions
STATUTE-
Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall apply in any State, unless such State provides by law for its nonapplicability in such State.
The primary responsibility of a State is to protect it’s citizens from the tyranny of the federal government. The Federal Constitution claims a citizen can seek redress and protection under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution for any state legislation that brings them an injury by depriving them of a civil right. A state may sue the Federal government for protection for it’s citizens if federal legislation violates the Constitutions of the several states and brings harm to it’s citizens. The 14th Amendment did not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment, but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges. The amendment was intended to provide against state laws, or state action of some kind, adverse to the rights of the citizen secured by the amendment. Such legislation cannot properly cover the whole domain of rights appertaining to life, liberty and property, defining them and providing for their vindication. That would be to establish a code of municipal law regulative of all private rights between man and man in society. It would be to make congress take the place of the state legislatures and to supersede them.
However, the Supreme Court in the above case ruled that: A State may not, as parens patriae, institute judicial proceedings to protect her citizens (who are no less citizens of the United States), from the operation of a federal statute upon the ground that, as applied to them, it is unconstitutional.
The parens patriae power has been recognized and exercised from time immemorial as being under the rule of a tyrant.
Note: The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority outside of Constitutional authority, with the ability to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional and represents taxation without representation. This type of government is in place today and is known as “Regionalism.” The federal government couldn’t fool the people in 1921 into surrendering their sovereignty, but in1933…………………………….
Footnotes:
1. New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New York v. Louisiana and others, 108 U.S. 76, 27 L. Ed. 656, 2 S. Ct. 176, March 5, 1883.
2. United States v. Chamberlin 219 U.S. 250, 55 L. Ed. 204, 31 S. Ct. 155, January 3, 1911
3. Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act, Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, chapter 135.
4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al.. 262 U.S. 447, 67 L.Ed. 1078, 43 S. Ct. 597.
5. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.
6. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.
7. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822; 4 Elliot’s Debates, p. 525; Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.
8. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.
9. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.
Resolution of the Kentucky Legislature on 19 November, 1799 declared:
Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force; that to the contract (the Constitution) each State acceded as a State and is an integral party; that government created by this Contract was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measures of its powers. But, that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well as of in fraction as of the mode and measure of redress.
There are few documents of the early period of this Republic which possess a greater interest than the series of resolutions adopted in Virginia and Kentucky in 1798-99. They were the first official documents expressing the sentiment of the people regarding federal versus State jurisdiction. The resolutions of 1798, and the subsequent confirmation of their doctrines, survived many years and left no shadow of doubt upon them. The events leading to their penning hold as much interest.
Within the national government itself, the principal struggle for power has always been between the executive and legislative departments. The judiciary was hardly more than a spectator of this conflict. For the first fourteen years of its existence, the Supreme Court failed to play the commanding role Hamilton had assigned it in The Federalist. There were no epoch making decisions handed down from that tribunal; not a few Justices resigned in order to accept appointments in the state judiciaries; and on several occasions the office of Chief Justice went begging. In 1800, when John Jay declined reappointment as Chief Justice, he gave as his reason his conviction that “under a system so defective it would not obtain the energy, weight and dignity which was essential to its affording due support to the national government; nor acquire the public confidence and respect which, as the last resort, of the justice of the nation, it should possess.”
In 1798, there was the feeling among the American people that their new government may somehow involve them in the war between Great Britain and France. Having just fought a long, bloody war for their own independence which left the country in debt, the people were not anxious to get involved in someone else’s fight. Newspaper articles attesting to those views with criticism of the Federal government were rampant. In retaliation, the new government passed Alien and Sedition laws restricting comments on the action of government. These laws greatly restricted the First Amendment rights secured to the people by the federal Constitution. There was concern that this action was usurpation by the federal government of delegated constitutional jurisdiction. In every State in the Union the government and its officials were protected by statute or common law against the practices which the Sedition Acts laid under duress. No Federalist was willing to admit that in this regard the states possessed larger powers than did the federal government.
By the end of 1798 some Virginians were speaking of the federal government “as an enemy infinitely more formidable and infinitely more to be guarded against than the French. Among these Virginians were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. As early as 1797, Jefferson referred to the federal government as a “foreign jurisdiction.” As Vice President of the United States, he urged the Virginia legislature to enact a law making liable to punishment citizens of Virginia who attempted to carry cases to the federal courts when those courts did not have clear and uncontested jurisdiction. In Jefferson’s opinion, the Alien and Sedition Acts made it imperative that the powers assumed by the federal government must be curbed if American liberty were to survive. Jefferson feared the theory of federal power upon which these acts were based quite as much as he did the operation of the acts themselves. For, if it were conceded that the federal courts were authorized by the Constitution to take cognizance of all cases arising under the common law, there could be no doubt that the “beautiful equilibrium” established by the Constitution between the States and the federal government would be destroyed and that the federal government would usurp “all the powers of the State governments and reduce the country to a single consolidated government.” The common law, said Jefferson, could become law in the United States only by positive adoption only insofar as American legislatures were authorized to adopt it.
Jefferson called in James Madison for consultation. Madison characterized federal inherent or implied powers as “the creatures of ambition……….Powers extracted from such sources will be indefinitely multiplied by the aid of armies and patronage which, with the impossibility of controlling them by any demarcation, would presently terminate reasoning, and ultimately swallow up the State sovereignties.”
The fruit of Madison’s and Jefferson’s collaboration was the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Jefferson was the author of the Kentucky Resolutions and Madison drew up the statement adopted by the Virginia legislature, but neither man signed them.
These acts marked an important stage in the progress of the theory that ultimately led to the nullification by a State of a federal law. According to Jefferson’s and Madison’s interpretation of the Constitution, it created nothing more than a compact between sovereign States which confided certain narrowly defined powers to the general government while reserving all residual powers to the States. Being the creators of the Constitution, the States were alone capable of judging when infractions of this instrument of government occurred, and they alone were able to devise measures of redress. In effect, the States were called upon to mediate between the people and the federal government, but it was assumed that usurpation would always come from the federal government rather than from the States. Carried to its logical conclusion, the doctrine propounded by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions meant that the compact between the States was a moral rather than a legal obligation and that the preservation of the Union was left to the discretion of the parties concerned. The Kentucky Resolutions were passed in the legislature with a single dissenting voice.
Kentucky Resolutions……..1789-1790
“First. Resolved, That every officer of the federal government, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, is the servant of the people and is amenable and accountable to them. That being so, it becomes the people to watch over their conduct with vigilance, and to censure and remove them as they may judge expedient. That the more elevated the office and the more important the duties connected with it may be, the more important is a scrutiny and examination into the conduct of the officer. And that to repose a blind and implicit reliance in the conduct of any such officer or servant is doing injustice to ourselves.
“Second. Resolved, That war with France is impolitic and must be ruinous to America in her present situation.
“Third. Resolved, That we will at the hazard of our lives and fortunes, support the Union, the independence, the Constitution, and the liberty of the united States.
“Fourth. Resolved, That an alliance with Great Britain would be dangerous and impolitic; that should defensive exertions be found necessary, we would rather support the burden of them alone than embark our interests and happiness with that corrupt and tottering monarchy.
“Fifth. Resolved, That the powers given to the president to raise armies, when he may judge necessary—–without restriction as to number,——and to borrow money to support them, without limitation as to the sum to be borrowed or the quantum of interest to be given on the loan, are dangerous and unconstitutional.
“Sixth. Resolved, That the Alien bill is unconstitutional, impolitic, unjust, and disgraceful to the American character.
“Seventh. Resolved, That the privilege of printing and publishing our sentiments on all public questions is inestimable, and that it is unequivocally acknowledged and secured to us by the constitution of the united States; that all the laws made to impair or destroy it are void, and that we will exercise and assert our just right in opposition to any law that may be passed to deprive us of it.
“Eighth. Resolved, That the bill which is said to be now before congress, defining the crime of treason and sedition and prescribing the punishments thereof, as it has been presented to the public, is the most abominable that was ever attempted to be imposed upon a nation of free men.
“Ninth, Resolved, That there is a sufficient reason to believe, and we do believe, that our liberties are in danger; and we pledge ourselves to each other and our country that we will defend them against all unconstitutional attacks that may be made upon them.
“Tenth. Resolved, That the forgoing resolutions be transmitted to our representative in congress, by the chairman, certified by the secretary, and that he be requested to present them to each branch of the legislature and to the president, and that they also be published in the Kentucky Gazette.
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT……… Architect of American enslavement
Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had been nominated to be named the Man of the Century. The criteria the establishment press uses to judge excellence never ceases to amaze me. If your agenda is to support the socialization of America, what better man to honor than Franklin D. Roosevelt, the idol of President Clinton. I am convinced, as a student of history, that in generations to come Franklin Delano Roosevelt will become known as the father of American Socialism.
In 1930, as Governor of New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed the American tradition when he said:……..The Constitution does not empower the Congress to deal with a great number of vital problems of government such as the conduct of public utilities, of education, of social welfare and a dozen other important features…. and Washington must not be encouraged to interfere in these areas.Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic party Presidential candidate in 1932, ran with the slogan “The New Deal.” Roosevelt’s intention, as told to the American people, was to give them less government. He called for an end to deficit spending and for sound money. The first three planks of the Democratic party platform read as follows:
We advocate:
” 1. An immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus and eliminating extravagance, to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 percent in the cost of the Federal government.
2. Maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced…..
3. A sound currency to be maintained at all hazards.”
Two years later, the newly elected FDR, with the catchy slogan and the blueprint of the program for the socialization of America began his presidency as the “Great Man” at the feet of whom the American people would lay down their liberties.
In his inaugural address, March 4, 1933, President Roosevelt told the American people ..the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no market for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return… Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance….Nature still offers her bounty. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very light of the supply. Primarily this is good, because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed….have admitted their failure and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money-changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of a generation of self-seekers……Yes, the money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit. We cannot go back to the old order.”
The old order, capitalism, became the enemy of the people, thereby making ownership of private property the symbol of those who would put property rights above social rights. Against all the old symbols of individualism and self-reliance was raised the attractive counter symbol of security. What this new president did not tell the American people was that he was about to embark on a program where the American people would be educated to relinquish their liberty for a little security.
The new President further declared that the people had “asked for discipline and direction under leadership”; that he would seek to bring speedy action “within my Constitutional authority”; and that he hoped the “normal balance of executive and legislative authority” could be maintained, and then he said: “But in the event that Congress shall fail…….and in the event that the national emergency is still critical…….I shall ask Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis……..broad executive power to make war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”
A New Speak had not as yet been introduced to the American public. The word “emergency” was understood to mean what the dictionaries said it meant………a sudden crisis; a pressing necessity. Obviously, in retrospect, the word emergency meant much more to the new President. He interpreted it to mean he had the right to declare an emergency, and then cure that same emergency with a total reorganization of the constitutional structure of our government.
The first official act of President Roosevelt was to declare to the American people a contrived bankruptcy of the United States. Before the new Congress convened, on March 9, 1933 he declared bankruptcy, in the form of “A National Banking Holiday,” through Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260. Simply, every bank in America closed. The banks were also forbidden to deal in foreign exchange or in any transfer of credit from the United States to any place abroad.
He then had ex post facto law passed by the Congress, which is forbidden by the national Constitution, stating, “Acts of the President and the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933 are hereby confirmed and approved.” This same act provided that no bank in the federal reserve system could resume business except subject to rules and regulation to be promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury. This act gave the President absolute power over foreign exchange and authorized the Federal government to invest public funds in private bank stock, providing banks new capitol owned by the government. And, that same act authorized the President to require the American people to surrender their gold.
Congress did not write any of these acts. Congress received them from the White House and passed them. It was the first use of Congress as a “RUBBER STAMP” for Executive branch legislation. There is no constitutional authority for the Executive to make law. Under President Roosevelt, America took its first step toward totalitarian rule.
Converting rights to privilege by government was fine tuned in the Roosevelt administration. While in the guise of “Recovery,” Roosevelt’s “NEW DEAL” Presidency succeeded in:
1. repudiation of the gold standard, confiscation of the peoples gold, debasement of the currency, deliberate inflation, monetization of debt
2. creating the authority and power of executive government to rule by decrees and rules and regulations of its own making;
3. strengthened its hold upon the economic life of the nation;
4. extended its power over the individual;
5. degraded the parliamentary principle;
6. impaired the great American tradition of an independent, Constitutional judicial power;
7. weakened the power of private enterprise, the power of private finance, the power of state and local government;
At the end of President Roosevelt’s first year, in his annual message to the Congress, January 4, 1934, he said, “It is to the eternal credit of the American people that this tremendous readjustment of our national life is being accomplished peacefully.” This tremendous readjustment of our national life has, in retrospect, been recognized as the beginning of intrusion and the attempt at controlling every aspect of an individuals life by federal government.
Roosevelt created the doctrine of a planned economy. It included a scheme of taxation, class subsidies and Federal grants-in-aid designed to redistribute the national wealth for social justice, and it calculated to reduce millions of citizens to subservience.
He created in the Executive a principle of supreme government with extensive new powers, including the power to make its own laws by simply publishing in the Federal Register from its newly created administrative agencies rules and regulations having the force of law, with disobedience punishable by fine or imprisonment. Without a whimper from the American people, Roosevelt replaced the once great American Republic with the welfare state. Under Roosevelt we lost our wealth, we lost our law, and we took a giant step toward the loss of our liberty and freedom.
In 1938, distinguished newspaperman, author and editorial writer for the Saturday Evening Post, Garet Garrett, published an essay, “The Revolution Was.” In the opening paragraph, he said: “There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.”
This is the congressional testimony of how a Saudi terrorist (that was captured on the battlefield) was granted US citizenship. It is time to start swamping our elected officials in DC with letters asking them to take back their responsibility and close up this imaginary loop-hole for good.
This is a matter of national security and economic survival. We have no time to waste here folks, grab those pens, keyboards & phones and let’s get crackin’.
For all of my life I was taught that Congress, especially the Congressional Finance/Oversight Committees were the ultimate ‘go-to’ boards that were put in play to oversea America’s treasures/treasuries. SILLY ME, SILLY YOU…if you held the same belief.
It would seem that on October 12, 1917, President Wilson signed Executive Order that turned the control of the American Treasury completely over to the Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve. What went on from there over the next several decades is nothing short of disgusting and stomach turning.
The congressional hearings you watch on C-Span are nothing more than a ‘dog and pony’ show put on to keep up the facade that our Constitutional Republic still exists in some form. Didn’t it ever occur to you how a crook/tax cheat could be put in charge of the treasury? A crook/tax cheat that to this very day has NOT been made to pay the back taxes for because of his authority, they no longer exist and have been written off the books.
It has bothered me daily and now I have all the answers and historical documentation to back it up. The crooks have been in charge since the beginning, including Alexander Hamilton who changed his name to hide his heritage. Hamilton was the instigator in forming the initial National Bank & U.S. Federal Corporation of the District of Columbia.
I do not know what to call the form of government we have right now. A democracy under mob rule of the corporate elite? Are we in anarchy without a true form of government or have we slid silently into some form of totalitarian type of nazi/marxist/facist/socialist government? These are the questions that we MUST get answered. Are we electing corporate officers or are we electing representatives? My guess it is the latter former since it seems to not matter what we as a people want anymore. They have decided we no longer matter, we are nothing more than mere slaves to labor for their political/monetary gain. They have numbered us to keep track of us and if we do not fall in line to their elitist rule, we will be hauled off, put in lock-up until we are re-trained into submission.
So here is the key to the scheme, of the enslaving of Americans, that the banking & political elitist have manged to keep going for nearly a century. Will you submit or will you join us in a peaceful, judicial movement to bring all these crooks to justice and return the ‘Republic of the United States of America’ back to the ‘We the People’ or would you rather let them continue to pass even more Orwellian pieces of legislation to further enslave the people to the elitists. They need these bills to keep their coffers fluid otherwise why would it be manditory? Why would we be punished with exorbitant taxes/fines if we do not comply?
The fact is, they(the elitist) need to keep us enslaved to continue their rule over us, but we DO NOT need them. It is time to take the garbage out folks!
I wish to thank my new kindred patriots at AIB Radio on talkshoe.com. You have opened my eyes to the true corruption of our government. Through your decades of dedication, fact finding and study of history & law, all Americans now have the opportunity to see for themselves, what you have brought to me and with that, I share with my readers the 1st installment.
Special thanks to Jeanette at AIB for steering me onto this great work written by Australian, James Franklin Montgomery
America is there any hope of your waking up, why must you be hit over the head over and over with truth? Still you make bogus claims in the courts, just to have the judges admonish you for your foolishness? Do you have to go to jail before you say “Damn, something is not right here, things are not as they appear, black is white, white is black”? As long as you don’t know the enemy, nor the weapons used against you in this warfare, how in God’s name do you think anything will change? Much of America, the Christians are waiting for Jesus Christ to come back and take care of the problem. Christians unless you can figure a way to force Christ off His Throne, before His enemies are destroyed, thereby forcing Him to violate His Word, you are going to have a very long wait, and continue to go down the crapper while you wait. Why the strong admonishment, because I’m tired of America accepting a lie, to acquiesce for the easiest path, rather than facing up to the facts of their legal and financial enslavement, because only when you face up to a problem will you do anything about it. As long as you wish to accept voluntary slavery, which is legal, the remedy will never be learned or used. I have said all the above to say this, there is a way to change this, and I am not talking of armed rebellion or insurrection. In fact, it is the only way of reaching the level of freedom we seek, and what we have a right to demand, thereby removing the yokes from around our necks. The answer does not lie in a civil remedy, as I stated several times above in dealing with mans physical attempts to do it his way. Our Freedom has to do with a Trust granted by our Father in Heaven, I am working on a short paper, that will explain how we can regain our freedom through His knowledge, thereby exercising our rights provided in our Trust, as the legitimate heirs of Christ’s Kingdom, the neat thing is, just as with the worldly kings system, no one has access to our Trust, except the heirs of Christ, until then keep the faith.
A Country Defeated in Victory — Part I
To understand the title of this paper you must be made aware that the country I refer to is the United States. Very few Americans are aware of the defeat of which I am obliged to inform you. President Lincoln very wisely said and, I might add, correctly, that:-
“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher.”1
Thomas Jefferson said:
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”2
These patriarch’s of our country understood the dangers of banking and the men that controlled the banking institutions. The enemy that defeated this country from the very beginning was the debt created by the use of paper money instead of gold and silver coin. The use of differing weights and measures caused this country to fall prey to the international bankers. Prior to the Constitution being written the States printed paper money to finance the Revolutionary War. At the end of the war the new United States found itself bankrupted by a huge debt. Our forefathers made it clear because of their experience and those of other countries that we should never use paper money again.
When I first began the site, I dove right into the Constitution, however, further study of the Federalist Papers, The Jefferson Manual as well many other historical documents begged me to slow down.
The following video series from The John Birch Society gives an overview of what to expect in the coming weeks.:
“When Benjamin Franklin exited the constitutional convention, a woman asked him, Sir, what have you given us? His immediate response was, a Republic mam, if you can keep it.”
Yet many Americans today have come to believe that America’s governmental system is a Democracy and not a Republic. The difference between these two is essential in understanding Americanism and the American system.
Let’s address the confusion about the political spectrum. Many people believe that the political spectrum places groups such as communist on the far left, fascists, or dictators on the far right, and political moderates or centrist in the middle.
However, an accurate political spectrum will show government having zero power on the far right to having 100% power on the far left. At the extreme right, there is no government. The extreme left features total government under such labels as Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, Princes, Potentates, Dictators, Kings, any form of total government.
Those who claim that Nazis and Fascist are right wing never define their terms. This amounts to spreading confusion. The type of government limited to its proper role of protecting the rights of the people is toward the middle of the spectrum. That’s where the Constitution of the United States is. Those who advocate such a form of government are constitutional moderates.
So, let’s analyze the basic forms of government. They are, Monarchy or Dictatorship ruled by one, Oligarchy ruled by a few, Democracy ruled by the majority, Republic ruled by law, and Anarchy which is ruled by no one. A discussion of these five will narrow down the types of government.
Looking first at Monarchy or Dictatorship. This form of government doesn’t really exist. In the practical sense, it’s always a group that puts one of its members up front. A King has his council of nobles or Earls and every dictator has his bureaucrats or commissars, the men behind the scenes. This isn’t rule by one even though one person may be the visible leader. It’s rule by a group. So, let’s eliminate Monarchy Dictatorship because it never truly exists.
Oligarchy, which is rule by a group, is the most common form of government in all history and it is the most common form of government today. A powerful few rule most of the nations of the world and therefore Oligarchy remains.
At the other end, we find Anarchy, which means without government. Some people have looked over history and found that governments committed many of its worse crimes. Therefore, they decided that having no government might be a good idea but this is a mistake because as the ancient Greeks stated, without law there can be no freedom. America’s founding fathers agreed and held that some amount of government is a necessary force in any civilized orderly society. In a state of Anarchy, however everyone has to guard life, liberty, and property and the lives of family members. Movement is severely restricted and arming everyone is necessary to protect ones property at all times. Civilized people have always hired someone to do the guarding, a sheriff, a police force, or some branch of government. Once law enforcement was in place, the people were freer. They could leave their property, work in the fields, and so on. In short, the proper amount of government makes everyone freer.
There are some who advocate Anarchy however not because they want no government but because they don’t like what they have. They use Anarchy as a tool for revolutionary change. The condition of Anarchy is very much like a vacuum where something rushes in to fill in. These calculating anarchist work to break down the existing government with rioting, killing, looting, and terrorism. Tragically, the people living in such chaos often go to those best able to put an end to it and beg them to take over and restore order. Who is best able to put an end to the chaos, the very people who started it? The anarchist who created the problem then creates a government run by them, an Oligarchy, where they have total power. This is exactly what happened in Russia that led to Lenin taking total power and in Germany where Hitler’s Brown Shirts created the chaos that brought him to power.
However, Anarchy isn’t a stable form of government; it’s a quick transition from something that exists to something desired by the power hungry. It’s a temporary condition and because it isn’t permanent, we eliminate it as well.
The word Democracycomes from two Greek words, Demos meaning People and Kratein meaning to Rule. Democracy therefore means the rule of the people, majority rule. This of course sounds good but suppose the majority decides to take away ones home or business, or children. Obviously, there has to be a limit. The flaw in Democracy is that the majority is not restrained. Persuading more than half the people to want something in a Democracy means they rule.
What about Republic? Well that comes from the Latin, Res, meaning thing and Publica, meaning public. It means the public thing, the law. A true Republic is one where the government is limited by law leaving the people alone.
America’s founders had a clean slate to write on. They could have set up an Oligarchy. In fact, there were some who wanted George Washington to be their King but the founding fathers knew history and they chose to give us the rule of law in a Republic, not the rule of the majority in a Democracy.
Why? Let’s demonstrate the difference in the setting of the old west. Consider a lynch mob in a Democracy. Thirty five horseback riders chase one lone gunman. They catch him. They vote thirty five to one to hang him. Democracy has triumphed and there is one less gunman to contend with. Now consider the same scenario in a Republic. The thirty five horseback riders catch the gunman and vote thirty five to one to hang him but the Sheriff arrives and he says you can’t kill him; he’s got his right to a fair trial. Therefore, they take the gunman back to town. A jury of his peers hear the evidence and the defense and they decide if he shall hang. Does the jury even decide by majority rule; no, it has to be unanimous or he goes free. The rights of the gunman aren’t subject to majority rule but to the law. This is the essence of a Republic.
Many Americans would be surprised to learn that the word Democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the U. S. Constitution. Nor does it appear in any of the Constitutions of the fifty states. The founders did everything they could to keep us from having a Democracy. James Madison, rightly known as the Father of the Constitution wrote in essay number ten of the Federalist papers, Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Alexander Hamilton agreed and he stated, we are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy. Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, stated, Democracies never last long. It soon waste, exhaust, and murders itself. The founders had good reason to look upon Democracy with contempt because they knew that the Democracies in the early Greek city states produced some of the wildest excesses of government imaginable. In every case, they ended up with mob rule then anarchy and finally tyranny under an Oligarchy.
During that period in Greece there was a man named Solon who urged creation of a fixed body of law not subject to majority whims. While the Greeks never adopted Solon’s wise council, the Romans did. Based on what they knew of Solon’s laws they created the twelve tables of the Roman law and in effect built a Republic that limited government power and left the people alone. Since government was limited the people were free to produce with the understanding they could keep the fruits of their labor. In time, Rome became wealthy and the envy of the world.
In the mist of plenty, however the Roman people forgot what freedom entailed. They forgot that the essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government. When government power grows peoples’ freedom recedes.
Once the Romans dropped their guard power seeking politicians began to exceed the powers granted them in the Roman Constitution. Some learned that they could elect politicians who would use government power to take property from some and give it to others. Housing and welfare programs followed the introduction of agriculture subsidies. Inevitably, taxes rose and controls over the private sector were imposed. Soon, a number of Rome’s producers could no longer make ends meet and they went on the dole. Productivity declined, shortages developed and mobs began roaming the streets demanding bread and circuses from the government. Many traded freedom for security. Evidentially the whole system came crashing down. They went from a Republic to a Democracy and ended up with an Oligarchy under a progression of the Caesars.
Thus, Democracy itself is not a stable form of government. Instead, it is the gradual transition from limited government to the unlimited rule of an Oligarchy.
Knowing this, Americans ultimately have only two choices. We can keep our Republic as Franklin put it or we will inevitably end up with an oligarchy, a tyranny of the elite.
“Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man, of Kabzeel” (2 Samuel 23:20 KJV) was one of the “thirty-seven” (2 Samuel 23:39 NIV) “mighty men” (2 Samuel 23:8 NIV) of David. “Benaiah son of Jehoiada…was as famous as the three mighty men” (2 Samuel 23:22 NIV), “but he was not included among the Three” (2 Samuel 23:23 NIV). Yet, Benaiah “was held in greater honor than any of the Thirty” (2 Samuel 23:23 NIV). Thus, “Benaiah …was a mighty man among the Thirty and was over the Thirty” (1 Chronicles 27:6 NIV).
“Benaiah son of Jehoiada was a valiant fighter from Kabzeel, who performed great exploits” (2 Samuel 23:20 NIV). Benaiah “struck down two of Moab’s best men” (2 Samuel 23:20 NIV), and he “struck down a huge Egyptian” (2 Samuel 23:21 NIV) “who was seven and a half feet tall” (1 Chronicles 11:23 NIV). “Although the Egyptian had a spear in his hand, Benaiah went against him with a club. He snatched the spear from the Egyptian’s hand and killed him with his own spear” (2 Samuel 23:21 NIV). “Such were the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (2 Samuel 23:22 NIV).
Hence, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (2 Samuel 23:20 NIV) was one of David’s mightiest warriors. Therefore, “David put him in charge of his bodyguard” (2 Samuel 23:23 NIV), an elite group of mercenary soldiers, “the Kerethites and Pelethites” (2 Samuel 8:18 NIV). They also served as executioners and couriers. Needless to say, they were battle-hardened warriors. Thus, their leader would need to be someone they respected, someone they would be willing to take orders from, a mighty warrior like “Benaiah the son of Jehoiada” (2 Samuel 23:20 KJV). Thus, “Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Kerethites and Pelethites” (2 Samuel 8:18 NIV).
“Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Chronicles 27:5 NIV) also commanded an army division for David. “The third army commander, for the third month, was Benaiah son of Jehoiada the priest. He was chief and there were 24,000 men in his division” (1 Chronicles 27:5 NIV). Furthermore, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (2 Samuel 23:20 NIV) raised his son, “Ammizabad” (1 Chronicles 27:6 NIV), to become a mighty warrior. Hence, “Ammizabad was in charge of his division” (1 Chronicles 27:6 NIV).
“Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 1:8 NIV) was a faithful and obedient servant of the king. So, when Adonijah attempted to usurp the throne and set himself up as king of Israel, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada, …and David’s special guard did not join Adonijah” (1 Kings 1:8 NIV). “Adonijah conferred with Joab son of Zeruiah and with Abiathar the priest, and they gave him their support. But Zadok the priest, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, Nathan the prophet, …and David’s special guard did not join Adonijah” (1 Kings 1:7-8 NIV).
When David learned of Adonijah’s rebellion, he summoned Zadok, Nathan, and Benaiah, and ordered them to anoint Solomon as king of Israel. “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 1:36 NIV) enthusiastically responded to David’s orders and said, “May the LORD, the god of my lord the king, so declare it. As the LORD was with my lord the king, so may he be with Solomon to make his throne even greater than the throne of my lord King David!” (1 Kings 1:36-37 NIV). “So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites went down and put Solomon on King David’s mule and escorted him to Gihon. Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon. Then they sounded the trumpet and all the people shouted, ‘Long live King Solomon!’ ” (1 Kings 1:38-39 NIV).
When Adonijah learned that Solomon had been anointed as king, and that “the Kerethites and Pelethites” (1 Kings 1:44 NIV), commanded by “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 1:44 NIV), were with Solomon, Adonijah fled to the altar. “Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar” (1 Kings 1:50 NIV) and begged for Solomon not put him “to death with the sword” (1 Kings 1:51 NIV). So, Solomon had mercy on Adonijah, and said, “if he shows himself to be a worthy man, not a hair of his head will fall to the ground; but if evil is found in him, he will die” (1 Kings 1:52 NIV).
Unfortunately for Adonijah, he did not repent of his rebellious ways. Adonijah asked Bathsheba to ask Solomon if Abishag the Shunammite could become his wife, which was tantamount to an attempted coup, for Abishag the Shunammite was considered to be David’s wife, even though David had never slept with her. “When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. So his servants said to him, ‘Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.’ Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no intimate relations with her” (1 Kings 1:1-4 NIV).
Solomon understood Adonijah’s intentions to once more usurp the throne. Thus, Solomon ordered “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 2:25 NIV) to execute Adonijah. So, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 2:25 NIV) “struck down Adonijah and he died” (1 Kings 2:25 NIV) in disobedience.
When Joab heard that Adonijah had been executed, he too “fled to the tent of the LORD and took hold of the horns of the altar” (1 Kings 2:28 NIV), for Joab had “had conspired with Adonijah” (1 Kings 2:28 NIV) to usurp the throne. So, Solomon ordered Benaiah to execute Joab, for David had warned Solomon about Joab’s disobedient ways. David had told Solomon, “Deal with him according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to the grave in peace” (1 Kings 2:6 NIV). Therefore, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up and struck down Joab and killed him, and he was buried on his own land in the desert (1 Kings 2:34 NIV) of disobedience. Solomon then “appointed Benaiah the son of Jehoiada over the army” (1 Kings 2:35 NASB) in Joab’s place. Hence, Benaiah became commander-in-chief of Solomon’s army, the army of Israel.
After dealing with Adonijah, Solomon dealt with Abiathar the priest, who had also conspired with Adonijah to usurp the throne. “To Abiathar the priest the king said, “Go back to your fields in Anathoth. You deserve to die, but I will not put you to death now, because you carried the ark of the Sovereign LORD before my father David and shared all my father’s hardships.’ So Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood of the LORD, fulfilling the word the LORD had spoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli” (1 Kings 2:26-27 NIV).
Solomon now had one person left to deal with, the “Mocker” (Proverbs 21:24 NIV), “Shemei son of Gera” (1 Kings 2:8 NIV), before “The kingdom” (1 Kings 2:46 NIV) would be free from rebellion and “firmly established in Solomon’s hands” (1 Kings 2:46 NIV).
“Shemei” (1 Kings 2:8 NIV) had “called down bitter curses” (1 Kings 2:8 NIV) and had thrown stones at David when David had fled Jerusalem when Absalom had usurped the throne. “David and his men continued along the road while Shimei was going along the hillside opposite him, cursing as he went and throwing stones at him and showering him with dirt” (2 Samuel 16:13 NIV). David spared Shemei’s life after Absalom’s coup was quashed. But, David had instructed Solomon to be wise in dealing with the “mocker” (Proverbs 14:6 NIV), Shemei son of Gera. David told Solomon, “do not consider him innocent. You are a man of wisdom; you will know what to do to him. Bring his gray head down to the grave in blood” (1 Kings 2:9 NIV). So, Solomon ordered Shemei son of Gera, “Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and live there, but do not go anywhere else” (1 Kings 2:36 NIV). Thus, Shemei was placed under house arrest, and was told that if he ever left Jerusalem he would be put to death. Solomon told him, “The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head” (1 Kings 2:37 NIV). Therefore, “Shemei stayed in Jerusalem for a long time” (1 Kings 2:38 NIV). “But three years later, two of Shimei’s slaves ran off to Achish son of Maacah, king of Gath” (1 Kings 2:39 NIV). Although Shemei understood that death would be the consequence of his disobedience, if he ever left Jerusalem, Shemei “maliciously mocked” (Psalm 35:6 NIV) Solomon and “saddled his donkey and went to Achish at Gath in search of his slaves. So, Shimei went away and brought the slaves back from Gath” (1 Kings 2:40 NIV). Therefore, Solomon had Shemei brought before him and said, “You know in your heart all the wrong you did to my father David. Now the LORD will repay you for your wrongdoing” (1 Kings 2:44 NIV). Hence, Solomon “gave the order to Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (1 Kings 2:46 NIV) to execute Shemei. So, “Benaiah son of Jehoiada went out and struck Shimei down and killed him” (1 Kings 2:46 NIV). Thus, Shemei would “mock” (Proverbs 14:9 NIV) no more.
Hence, through the obedient hands of “Benaiah son of Jehoiada” (2 Samuel 23:20 NIV), “The kingdom was …firmly established in Solomon’s hands” (1 Kings 2:46 NIV).
So, “Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. All the leaders and the mighty men, and also all the sons of King David, submitted themselves to King Solomon. So the LORD exalted Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed on him such royal majesty as had not been on any king before him in Israel” (1 Chronicles 29:23-25 NKJV).
May you be obedient to “the truth” (John 8:32 NIV), and may “the truth” (John 14:6 NIV) keep the United States “free” (John 8:32 NIV) from the tyranny of SocialIslam.
Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). In other words, Obama has been a life-long British citizen to the present and a Kenyan citizen from age 2 to 21. It should also be noted that Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship because he renounced it but only because the Kenyan Constitution caused him to lose it. This is important given that with citizenship and allegiance, affirmative acts and results should count more than those to which we default. Also, Obama’s political acts in Kenya as a U.S. Senator and the title and picture on the cover of his book, Dreams from My Father, show something about where his heart is.
The Founders allowed one to be President at age 35. Not only has Obama had multiple citizenships and allegiance for his whole life, but has had them during his formative years (British from birth to 21 and which continues to date and Kenyan from 2 to 21). Additionally, using 35 as a benchmark, that would make Obama a British citizen for his whole life as he is still today (35 out of 35) and a Kenyan citizen for 54 percent of a 35-year life (19 out of 35).
In the eyes of our Founders, can their “natural born Citizen” clause include someone of Obama’s citizenship and allegiance background? The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States and who has had multiple citizenships and allegiances for most of his life to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military.
“Unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child’s (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.”
Given the profound differences between the citizenship rules associated with the English common law and those connected with American national citizenship, it is evident that the Founders did not use English common law to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is but rather used the law of nations for that purpose.
To the extent that the English common law was relied upon in the colonies and States, that law was at the time that the Constitution was adopted “to a greater or less extent, recognized as the law of the States by which the Constitution was adopted.” The English common law would, however, be applied to determine questions of citizenship only if the written law was silent, i.e., there was no statute or federal or state court decision on the subject. Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). But the Founders did not rely upon the English common law to define the new national United States citizenship that they created for the new Constitutional Republic. Rather, the Founders displaced the English common law with the law of nations which became the new U.S. federal common law and the law of the federal government.
The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-known by civilized nations. Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. Upon independence from Great Britain, the United States “were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. 199, 281 (1796). There are other numerous authorities that state that the law of nations became the national law of the United States. Even William Blackstone recognized the importance of the law of nations which he considered “universal law” and the life blood of a nation wanting to be part of the “civilized world.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 67 (1769). Hence, the law of nations, when not codified into any Act of Congress, became the common law of the United States.
The Founders believed that the common law was discoverable by reason and was forever present, a “discoverable reflection of universal reason.” Sosa. So since the Constitution did not define “citizen” or “natural born Citizen,” “resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations” found in the law of nations, as defined by scholars, jurists, and commentators of the time who devoted “years of labor, research and experience” to the subject. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700(1900).
We know from the historical record and from the way the Constitution is framed that the Founders relied heavily upon E. Vattel and his treatise, The Law of Nations, as a crucial and fundamental guide in knowing what the law of nations was. The Founders knew that the law of nations as per Vattel defined a “citizen” simply as any member of society. They also knew that a “natural born Citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents. That is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401. It should be noted that during the Founding and throughout American history, there has always been a distinction between a general “citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born citizen” on the other. The law of nations did not make any specific requirements for one to be a “citizen” of a nation, for such a person was basically just a member of the civil society. Before and after the revolution, the Founders considered anyone who resided in the colonies or States and who adhered to the revolutionary cause to be a “citizen,” regardless of place of birth or condition of the parents. But the law of nations did provide for a strict definition of a “natural born citizen,” i.e., the child born in the country of citizen parents. And the Founders also adopted that stricter definition for an Article II “natural born Citizen” which applied only to one wanting to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
The Founders also understood what “natural allegiance” was. They knew that “liegance, and faith and truth, which are her members and parts, are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.” (p. 76). Calvin’s Case (7 Coke, 1, 6 James I.) They understood that an English “natural born subject” residing out of the kingdom or jurisdiction of the king still owed allegiance to the king of England. Id. Hence, they understood that “natural allegiance” or “allegiance by birth” does not depend upon locality or place; that it is purely mental in its nature, and cannot, therefore, be confined within any certain boundaries. . .” Ludham, 26 N.Y. at 363. They understood that natural allegiance or allegiance by birth did not depend upon boundaries or place but rather upon parentage. Id. at 364. The Founders understood that “as long as the parents continue to owe allegiance to the crown of England, so long will their children, by the rules of the common law, whether born within or without the kingdom, owe similar allegiance, and be entitled to the corresponding rights of citizenship.” Id. at 365. Finally, the Founders also understood that even though a child may be born on U.S. soil, if he was born of a British father, the Crown of England owed that child the same protection that it owed the father. Id. at 370-71.
Simply stated, the definition of “natural born subject” as found in the English common law simply did not work for the Founders. Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a Constitutional Republic. Great Britain did not have a President to be democratically elected by the people but the new nation did. Great Britain was not concerned with foreign influence making its way into the hereditary monarchy but the Founders were concerned about the Office of President being attacked from within and without with foreign influence infecting not only the voters but also the political leaders themselves. The Founders understood that citizenship and allegiance went together. The born-in-country-to-two-U.S.-citizen- parents formula was the best way for them to assure that only a person with undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This test was not tied to the physical territory alone, which the Founders understood and which Lord Coke confirmed did not assure anyone’s natural allegiance. Rather, this test combined both the soil with the allegiance of the child’s parents into the child at the time of birth. For the Founders, this was the best way to assure sole and absolute allegiance in the new-born child.
The Founders knew that the States had their own laws on how they defined citizens and how they naturalized aliens. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 791 (1866). They also knew that these laws were not uniform. The Founders in Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 gave Congress the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization. The Founders also wanted a uniform definition of “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” The law of nations provided them with those definitions which were also accepted by other civilized nations and which allowed them to establish a national standard for citizenship that would be incorporated and become part of U.S. national law.
Further proof that the Founders in defining citizenship did not accept English common law but rather the law of nations which was based on natural law can be found in the Congressional debates concerning the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. When commenting on the proposed amendment on May 30, 1866, Senator Howard said:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Govern- of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, P. 2890, col. 2. The doctrine that children, if legitimate, follow, in regard to their political rights and duties, the condition of their fathers, is founded on natural law. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. at 368. Note that Senator Howard said that the amendment was only declaratory of “natural law” which became “national law” which in turn became the “law of the land.” The Senator is telling us that citizenship was defined by federal law which under Article VI of the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. He did not refer to any British common law or individual state law as being the basis for how citizenship was defined. Rather, his reference to “natural law” connects to the law of nations which was based on “natural law.” And the law of nations, as incorporated into the laws of the new Republic, did become the new national law of the United States. Moreover, in providing the list of those parents who would disqualify children born on U.S. territory from becoming a citizen, Senator Howard included parents who were foreigners, aliens, ambassadors, or foreign ministers. Note that the list included “foreigners” and “aliens.” Hence, the exclusion was not only for the children of ambassadors and enemy aliens, as was the rule of the English common law, but also for the children of “foreigners” and “aliens.” This exclusion was also repeated by Senator Johnson who stated that the child would have to be born on U.S. soil to “parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
Furthermore, everything that the Founders established about citizenship in the United States is not consistent with British common law that treats the subject. The English common law did not use the concept of “natural born subject” as a means to protect the head of the military and civilian government of Great Britain from foreign influence. Rather, the British were very liberal in granting “natural born subject” status so as to create for its monarchy-based empire as many subjects as possible. We saw an extreme of this policy when Great Britain insisted on impressing American sailors into its military which practice lead to the War of 1812. But John Jay, in writing to General George Washington on July 25, 1787, was very specific that the Commander in Chief of the military would have to be a “natural born citizen” (underlining born in the original) so as to assure that no foreigner would hold that office. The Founders accepted Jay’s recommendation and included in Article II the “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, Americans were very cautious in granting “natural born Citizen” status because they had a democratically elected President and Commander in Chief of the Military and representative form of government which they needed to protect from foreign influence. This was consistent with the law of nations.
The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic. But we know that the Founders considered a naturalized citizen to be only a “citizen” (able to be President under Article II’s grandfather clause and Senator or Representative under Article I) and not a “natural born Citizen” (which status was required of a would-be President for births after 1789). This was consistent with the law of nations. The 14th Amendment also made the same recognition. Not being a “natural born Citizen,” the Founders did not permit naturalized citizens to be President. But again, the Framers, after 1789 (when the grandfather clause expired and Article II required a child to be a “natural born Citizen” and not only a “citizen”) would not have allowed such children to be President, for they would have been naturalized “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.”
English common law did not distinguish between “natural born subject” and “subject.” The Founders, the framers of the 14th Amendment, all Congresses in their Acts, and virtually all courts in their decisions have treated “natural born Citizen” and “citizen,” as two separate and distinct terms. This dichotomy is consistent with the law of nations which did make such a distinction. This distinction shows that “citizens” could be created by the Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts but an Article II “natural born Citizens” could only be created by satisfying the natural law standard as expressed in the law of nations (place of birth and parentage).
Unless they were ambassadors/diplomats or alien enemies, the English common law considered irrelevant the citizenship of the child’s parents when determining whether a child born on English soil was a “natural born subject.” The Founders knew from the law of nations that in England, the “single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Vattel, Sec. 214. This would have been consistent with the monarchy’s desire to make as many “natural born subjects” as possible for its growing empire. The U.S. common law went beyond these two exceptions and did consider relevant the condition of the child’s parents when determining whether the child was to be afforded U.S. citizenship at birth. See the cases cited above. Under the law of nations, such a child born in the country to foreign parents was considered to have been naturalized under English law. But again, the Framers would not have allowed such a naturalized child to be considered a “natural born Citizen,” for they permitted the latter to be President but not the former. The maxim that was applied in this connection is recognized in the law of nations and was partus sequitur patrem (the child follows the condition of the father). Shanks v. Dupont, Barry v. Mercein, 46 U.S. 103 (1847); Ludlam, 26 N.Y. at 376; Ex parte Reynolds, and United States v. Ward.
The English common law had no concern for whether a person consented to be declared a “natural born subject.” This phenomenon was made much worse by the British not allowing any “natural born subjects” to expatriate and forcing them to be bound to the King for life through their perpetual natural allegiance. The English common law provided for perpetual natural allegiance which a subject could never renounce (once a British subject always a British subject). The English common law did not allow for a “natural born subject” to elect upon becoming of age another citizenship. English common law did not recognize a “natural born subject” as losing his or her allegiance to the King through the act of naturalizing in another country. But U.S. common law and statutes provided that an alien or U.S. citizen could expatriate and become a different citizen from that which he/she was born. For the Founders, consent was the foundation of citizenship. It was through that consent that the Founders expected U.S. citizens to give their absolute and sole allegiance to the U.S. This consent which was expressed as a transfer of allegiance to the U.S. was also critical to an alien becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. It was expatriation that allowed foreigners to come to America, naturalize, and procreate a child on U.S. soil, which allowed that child to be born with sole allegiance and loyalty to the U.S. and eligible to be President. The Founders’ knowledge of consent as the basis for citizenship and acceptance of expatriation and election of citizenship upon becoming of age, had their source in the law of nations and not in the English common law which did not involve itself with these concepts.
While the English common law recognized that “the king cannot reckon upon the full and absolute obedience” of persons who were either born with or voluntarily chose to have a dual allegiance, the English were not concerned in the least that their notion of “natural born subject” created, in not taking into consideration the citizenship of the child’s parents, dual allegiance problems. Reeve, History of the English Law. But American courts recognized that U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil to foreign parents or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents had double allegiance which significantly affected that person’s allegiance and political and military rights. U.S. law explicitly warns about the dangers and problems of dual allegiance. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 344-48 (1939); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723-26, 733-36 (1952). America even went as far as passing curfew and exclusion laws during World War II which deprived freedom of movement and association to 14th Amendment American “citizens” of Japanese descent (their mothers and fathers were Japanese nationals) because of “pressing public necessity” and the need to provide America with every possible protection against espionage and sabotage which jeopardized America’s survival. Please note that this government action was justified because the “segregation of the disloyal from the loyal” within American 14th Amendment “citizens” of Japanese descent was not possible. See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1945). In other words, we could not place at risk the survival our country for the sake of trying to determine who was loyal or disloyal to the cause. Our nation took the drastic action that it did against 14th Amendment “citizens” of Japanese descent because they were dual nationals and children of aliens or foreigners. Hence, even though these persons were 14th Amendment citizens, we still considered and treated them as being subject to a foreign power. Can we just imagine what would have happened if President and Commander in Chief Truman would have been a 14th Amendment “citizen” with Japanese parents. To be consistent, I guess our nation would have had to place him in a concentration camp too with the rest of the other 14th Amendment citizens of Japanese descent. Would our hypothetical President Truman have dropped the bomb on Japan? Would he have if his Japanese parents lived in Japan?
Pre-revolutionary English statutes that provided that the foreign born children of British “natural born subjects” were deemed “natural born subjects” did not require that the parents had to reside in Great Britain at or prior to the time of the child’s birth. U.S. statutes, on the contrary, required that the father had to be a resident of the U.S. at the time of the child’s birth in order for the father to be able to transmit his U.S. citizenship to his foreign born child. These statutes also attached importance to when the child was born, for they were made only retrospective until changed many years later. The Naturalization Act of 1790 declared these children to be “natural born Citizens,” and later in the Naturalization Act of 1795 just “citizens,” but only retrospectively. It was not until the act in 1885 that Congress declared these foreign-born children to be “citizens,” both retrospectively and prospectively. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927). Hence, U.S. law, in these foreign born children cases, attached just as much importance to the actual U.S. residence of the father and when the child was born than it did to the foreign born child descending from the U.S. citizen parents. Also, American statutes considered these children only “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.” This limitation was contrary to the English statutes which deemed these children “natural born subjects.” As an aside, consider that the Senate in formulating Resolution 511 relied in part upon the Naturalization Act of 1790 to declare McCain a “natural born Citizen.” This was error for two reasons: (1) the act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the “natural born” language and just kept in “citizen;” and (2) Congress declared the foreign born children of U.S. citizens to be “natural born Citizen” only retrospectively. In other words, only those children already born at that time were so declared, not children to be born in the future like McCain.
That Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark was willing to disregard the correct meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” and make Wong a U.S. citizen does not prove in any way that the Founders used English common law to define “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark did not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, it only declared Wong a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment (a member of American society), under the unique facts of that case and by disregarding well-established case law and the 14th Amendment’s and Civil Rights Act of 1866’s framers’ intent and clear instructions on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction.”
Hence, we can see that it is not reasonable to maintain that the meaning of “natural born Citizen” can be found in the English common law. Rather, that definition may be found in the law of nations as commented on by E. Vattel. All aspects of the citizenship laws during the Founding era and the adoption of the 14th Amendment were consistent with the law of nation’s definition of citizenship.
It was also the law of nations that defined a “natural born citizen” as one that is born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens. It is this definition which became incorporated into federal common law and which Obama cannot satisfy because his father was a British subject/citizen and not a U.S. citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen by descent when he was born. Obama’s British citizenship, which continues in effect today, also allowed him to gain Kenyan citizenship from the age of 2 to the age of 21. Obama is therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Daniel 5: 21-24 ~ “He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.
~ “And not with you alone I am making this covenant and this oath, but with him who stands here with us today before YHWH our Elohim, as well as with him who is not here with us today." ~ “Set your heart on all the words with which I warn you today, so that you command your children to guard to do all the Words of this Torah. For it is not a worthless Word for you, because it is your life," ~ "for Mosheh commanded us a Torah, an inheritance of the assembly of Jacob (Israel)"
~ "Listen to Me, O coastlands, and hear, you peoples from afar! YHWH has called Me from the womb, from My mother’s belly He has caused My Name to be remembered. 2 And He made My mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow of His hand He hid Me, and made Me a polished shaft. In His quiver He hid Me.” And He said to Me, ‘You are My servant, O (Yeshua) Israel, in whom I am adorned.’ And I said, ‘I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for emptiness, and in vain. But my right-ruling is with YHWH, and my work with my Elohim.’ ” And now said YHWH – who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, to bring Jacob back to Him, though Israel is not gathered to Him, yet I am esteemed in the eyes of YHWH, and My Elohim has been My strength – and He says, “Shall it be a small matter for You to be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to bring back the preserved ones of Israel? - And I shall give You as a light to the gentiles, to be My deliverance to the ends of the earth!”
Constitutionally Speaking 