OPINERLOG

Just Who are the Domestic Terrorists?

2012-02-09T16:28:00.000-08:00

It's been reported that in a recent memo to all law enforcement agencies, the FBI counter-terrorism unit associated those who referenced "Constitution", "the Bible", "US Supreme Court decisions", and "treaties with foreign governments" as part of a "domestic terrorist movement". You can't make this stuff up, folks.

You will recall that in 2009, Homeland Security issued a report on "Right Wing Extremism" labelling those who used terms like "Constitutionalist", "Patriot" or "linking their belief system to the [ideals of the]American Revolution" were also potential national security threats. And, yes, lumped in with these threatening domestic elements were returning American veterans. Folks, this is beyond stupid and offensive. This is scary.

Of course, the Occupy Wall Street "useful idiots", the darlings of the radical left, Soros, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, are nothing but grassroots, highly principled moral paragons of American virtue who are merely trying to peacefully right fundamental wrongs in our depraved capitalist society. But, how do our Progressive overseers explain the thousands of OWS arrests for violence, trespassing, attacks on policemen, and the wanton destruction of private and public property? Well, they don't explain because no one is making them accountable. Remind you of the formative years of the Nazi movement? It should.

Boy, are we on a downward spiral into the bowels of tyranny! And if you can't see that, better consult a physician because you're deaf, dumb and hopelessly blind.

But, just so the FBI and HS don't miss me on their intrusive radar: I love the Constitution and am sworn to defend it on my life. I am a Veteran, a Tea Partier and a Patriot to boot. Opponent of Obama's Utopian America, you betcha'. Defender of our Founders' America, absolutely on my life!

Notwithstanding Obama's recent attack on the freedom of religion, add to all this the Administration's relentless assault on our 2nd Amendment rights by its "Fast & Furious" gangsters, aka their so-called "Dept of Justice", the Democrats' open support of the Occupy Wall Street thuggery, both the Democratic Socialist Party's and the American Communist Party's OPEN support for Obama and his Progressive minions, and Obama's insidious class warfare strategy to pit Americans against Americans, races against races, economic classes against economic classes, and we have a powder keg on our hands. Could that be Obummer's intention? To the clear-eyed among us, and at the risk of being politically incorrect, it sure as hell looks that way to me.

On top of this, for some time now I have been monitoring the globalist efforts of Obama's Progressive handmaiden, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who has been quietly pushing the following loathesome treaties which she hopes Obama will shove down the Senate's throat, a chamber, by the way, currently dominated by Progressives who share Hillary's and Barack's obscene globalist goals.

And here are those damnable treaties:

1) the authority of the International Criminal Court would be expanded by adding a new crime, that being "aggression", which, in effect, is waging war without the United Nation's approval. This would empower the International Court to prosecute Americans who have not violated any American laws and would give Russia and China veto power over US military actions. (There goes American sovereignty, which is, of course, the globalist goal of these treasonous vermin.)

2) The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST for short): requires that the US contribute half its royalties from offshore drilling to an international entity of 160 members and would allow that body a free hand to distribute those funds in any manner and to any nation they please. The US would be out-numbered 1- 160. Without compensation, LOST would also obligate the US to share its offshore drilling technology with any other nation who asks for it.(Leveling the playing field and redistributing wealth on a global basis,)

3) Small-Arms Control: in the work for some time now, Clinton is negotiating a treaty which would require that each signatore to this treaty implement domestic measures to stop the exportation of all small arms and to register all ammunition in order to track its source.(If Fast & Furious fails to undermine our 2nd Amendment, then this intrusive Small Arms Control Treaty will. These statists never give up.)

4) Outer Space Code of Conduct: this code would ban activities which are likely to generate debris in outer space. On the surface, EU-endorsed effort is an innocuous international anti-litter campaign in space. How very, very green. HOWEVER, this could very easily lead to prohibiting America's deployment of anti-missile platforms in space. (Not a good idea.)

5) Rights of the Child: And just who wouldn't support the rights of children? But at the needless risk of jeopardizing our sovereignty, Comrade Clinton is pushing for the establishment of a 14-member court which would oversee the international distribution of funds for shelter, food clothing and education for children in poor nations. This could mean that the court would be able to successfully challenge the United States if, in the court's opinion, Americans weren't forking over enough. (Totally unnecessary and inane. The United States Agency for International Development doesn't need to be told how to distribute America's foreign aid. Again, a Progressive attack on our sovereignty.)

The disturbing reality is that America's sovereignty, our freedom, our liberties, our Constitution, our constitutional republic are of little consequence to the self-serving and shortsighted Progressive ideologues now ruling our lives and transforming our republic out of existence.

And if I hear one more time how much better off the country would be with Hillary rather than Barry at the helm, I will implode! These Progressives are ALL dangerous, destructive of our way of life, and disloyal alien-oriented fruitcakes of the first order who must be STOPPED!

On the treaty issue, I recommend that readers pass this list on to their congressperson, Senators, the Senate Minority Ldr and the Speaker of House and pray they are still on America's side. Tell them NOT to allow the further undermining of either our Constitution or our sovereignty by the Senate's misguided passage of these outrageously offensive treaties.

So, if the goal of terrorism is to instill fear, disorder and instability in order to facilitate fundamental political change, and aside from some imported and homegrown conniving Jihadis and a handful of weirdo "militia" groups, who else among us is a clear and present danger to our lives, our liberties and our God-given right to pursue happiness? Now think hard. I'm sure you'll get it.

Yup! You got it. The PROGRESSIVES! Dangerous to a person, these unprincipled vermin now dominate the once venerable Democratic Party and infect many in the Republican rank and file as well. We call them RINOs. So, don't be fooled by "Democrat" or "Republican"--high-sounding and patriotic labels, but it's subterfuge, plain and simple. It's well past time to call a spade a spade and to hold these brigands accountable for their faithlessness.

Judge Malihi's Ruling Grossly Incompetent

2012-02-06T13:31:00.000-08:00

Having read Judge Malihi's embarrassingly flawed opinion as well as Atty Mario Apuzzo's thoughtful analysis of that opinion, to the best of my humble abilitylet me try to reasonably summarize the latter for your consideration.

For even the acolyte, the uninitiated, the layman, an objective reading of the Constitution and pertinent caselaw clearly and unambiguously defines "natural born citizen" as a person born of two US Citizen parents. Defenders of Obama and the willfully ignorant may scream, rant, rave and hurdle ad hominems 'til they're blue in the face, but this is incontrovertible FACT and LAW--not opinion.

Gratuitously adjudging Obama has having been born in the United States and that he is, therefore, a "natural born citizen", Judge Malihi violated the rules of evidence by failing to rely upon the evidence presented by plaintiffs at the hurried January 26th hearing. In effect, by "considering" Obama born in the US, what evidence DID he rely upon to reach this whole cloth opinion? Certainly not the plaintiffs' evidence, and most certainly not the evidence which was NOT submitted by Obama's absent defense. No, he relied upon a terribly flawed state decision, Ankeny v Governor of Indiana.

The grossly incompetent and insupportable Ankeny v Governor of Indiana ruling gratuitously defined "natural born citizen" quite apart from original Constitutional meaning, a ruling which, in any event, has no binding sway beyond the State of Indiana. Only SCOTUS can render such a uniformly binding ruling. And, yet, Ankeny and Malihi relied upon their own trumped up definition of "natural born citizen" and not upon the original intent and meaning conveyed to that word of art by our framers and corroborating caselaw.

Central to the framers' and founders' meaning of NBC was the framers' reliance upon de Vattel's Law of Nations (1758) which defined NBC as being one who is born in the country of parents who are citizens. Note: the Natualization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802 show that only children born in the United States of US Citizens can be Art II "natural born citizens" and that children born of aliens in the US are aliens themselves.

Citing and misreading Minor v Happersett (1875), Ankeny erroneously opined that Happersett left in question whether or not a child born in the US of alien parents was a NBC. Not so. Where doubt was expressed in that ruling was on the question of whether or not a person born of alien parents in the US is even a "citizen". In fact, Happersett, correctly relying upon de Vattel and American common law, and not English common law, left NO DOUBT that a NBC is a child born in the country of two US Citizen parents.

Relying upon the Wong Kim Ark ruling in 1898 which dealt only with the issue of US Citizenship and not natural born citizenship, Ankeny errantly cited this ruling as demonstrating who a NBC is. Huh? In fact, Wong Kim Ark never contested Happersett with respect to the meaning of NBC per de Vattel's Law of Nations. In effect, Ankeny misrepresented the Wong Kim Ark holding by gratuitously ruling that Wong was a NBC, when, in fact, Wong Kim Ark ruled that Wong was a US Citizen--not an Art II NBC. IN FACT, the Wong Kim Ark distinguished between a child born to one or more alien parents and a child born to citizen parents, noting that only the latter can be described as a "natural born citizen"!

Thus, being a US Citizen is NOT the same as being a "natural born citizen". NBCs are citizens per natural law; others are statutory citizens.

In effect, Ankeny, upon which Malihi relied for his opinion, errantly relied upon flawed or misinterpreted caselaw as well as English common law to define NBC, this despite the fact that all SCOTUS cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, relied upon American common law.

What is especially disturbing is that Judge Malihi's reliance upon Ankeny's "advisory opinion" mysteriously led him to the unwarranted conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he was, therefore, a NBC. However, Ankeny never actually RULED that Obama was a NBC or that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. Never mind that Ankeny blew the constitutional definition of NBC, Obama's birth place was never even examined by Ankeny and defense never admitted any evidence to that effect. As an advisory opinion, therefore, Ankeny cannot be relied upon as proof of Obama's birth place, much less his status as a "natural born citizen". Even in footnote 15 of that advisory opinion, the Ankeny court cautioned that "while the question of whether someone born out of the United States can be a NBC was not before it, its decision should not be interpreted to mean that being born in the US is the only way someone can be a NBC".

Exhausted or boiling yet?

Incorrectly concluding that since Wong was a US Citizen that he was also a NBC is a judicial leap into never-never land. For in the same opinion, Ankeny differentiated between citizen and NBC and admitted that the Wong ruling did NOT discuss NBC.

Willfully tortured obfuscation or woeful judicial incompetence? You decide.

Point: relying on natural law and Law of Nations, the founders were adamant and clear that to prevent usurpation of the Presidency by a person of dual alliegiance, that person must have been born of two US Citizen parents. PERIOD!

SO, SCOTUS has been crystal clear as to who is a NBC: a child born in the US of two US citizen parents, whether naturalized or by birth. Thus, all natural born citizens are citizens of the US, but not all citizens of the US are natural born citizens.

The burden of proof rests upon Obama to prove his elibility without a shadow of doubt, but Malihi ignored that burden of proof, instead conjectured that Obama may be "considered"--not ruled--to have been born in the US and, therefore, a NBC. Again, birth place ALONE is insufficient to meet the Art II NBC requirement.

We can only hope that the GA Sec. of State's due diligence and objective and courageous defense of the Constitution and the Rule of Law will hold sway. Since that's not likely, let the appeal process go forward with all deliberate speed.

(For those readers interested in a more detailed analysis of this subject, I urge you to carefully read Mario Apuzzo's commentary in legal opposition to Malihi opinion. Very astute and clear-headed. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html)

Georgia's Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Rule of Law is Dead.

2012-02-03T15:44:00.000-08:00

Ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is no longer on life support. It is D E A D. To believe otherwise is sheer idiocy and monstrously delusional.

Today, Judge Michael Malihi, a name which will live in infamy, "ruled"--something effete judges love doing--AGAINST plaintiffs, rendering Barack Obama ballot-eligible in Georgia on the basis of his being born in Hawaii and, therefore, a natural born citizen.

The ignorance demonstrated by that conclusion is breathtaking and the ruling itself utterly contrived and absurb. Judicial historians will have a veritable heyday with this one. Every legal treatise and case I have rad many times over clearly compels precisely the opposite finding.

What this means is that ANYONE born in the United States of illegal aliens, Legal Permanent Residents, one US Citizen parent--and never mind there's no irrefutably authoritative proof that s/he was actually born within US jurisdiction--is now eligible to be our President. As far as I can see, this may well mean Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Gov. Schwartzenegger, Sen. Rubio and the "anchor baby" of that illegal alien down the street can some day be our President. No effective rules, no constitutional constraints. The possibility of dual allegiances irrelevant.

So much for original meaning and intent of the Constitution's and the 14th Amendment's framers .

In effect, the Constitution's Presidential Clause, de Vattel's Law of Nations and Minor v Happersett, et. al. are now heaps of meaningless words--and wholly irrelevant at least in Georgia.

Scrambling on January 26th to diligently submit a mountain of evidence against Obama during the rushed hearing, plaintiff attorneys took the fall for their patriotic effort and due diligence, and both Obama and his attorneys who showed nothing but contempt for the court and who failed to submit one scrap of authoritative evidence to refute plaintiff claims have, without lifting as much as a finger, prevailed with impunity.

Folks, we are no longer a nation of laws. We are nation of ignorant, Progressive, anti-Constitution nihilists. And when I think of all the past lives and limbs lost on our nation's battlefields in defense of this Republic and the rule of law, I could, quite literally, cry.

My stomach in knots, I am so digusted and enraged, I could spit bullets.

(Postscript: just spoke with Carl Swensson, plaintiff, who firmly voiced his intention "not to give up". The ruling is on expedited appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Since evidence of Obama's ineligibility is already a matter of public record, a full hearing of evidence is anticipated. In passing, and for whatever it's worth, Carl noted that Judge Malihi is a Muslim Iranian.)

Stop it, Hannity! Your Shining Star, Sen. Rubio, is NOT Eligible.

2012-02-01T16:14:00.000-08:00

Talking heads and politicians often have a problem keeping their brains and their mouths, their hearts and their minds in proper sync. Listening, Hannity? O'Reilly? Beck?

On the issue of Senator Marco Rubio's becoming either Romney's or Newt's VP--and both candidates, pandering to the Hispanic voters in Florida, alluded to their interest in a Rubio VP slot--here's a flash: RUBIO IS NOT ELIGIBLE!

To be eligible for VP, per the 12th Amendment (1804), Rubio must also be eligible to be President.

Per the 14th Amendment (1868), Mr. Rubio is a US Citizen, but to be eligible for President, per Art II, Sec 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution, Mr. Rubio must be a "natural born citizen", meaning that he must have been born in the United States of two US Citizen parents who were US Citizens either by birth or through naturalization.

Got that, Mittens, Newt et. al. GOP political panderers and opportunists? Geez!

Mario Rubio, Marco's father, didn't petition to become a naturalized US Citizen and renounce his allegiance to Cuba until 11/05/1975, four years AFTER Marco's birth in May 1971. In short, Marco's parents were Legal Permanent Residents--not native born or naturalized US Citizens--when Marco Rubio was born. (Drill that into your unreceptive brains and direct your legions of well-paid researchers to confirm this info with the National Archives (NADA) and the Constitution.)

As Sirius XM's Andrew Wilkow would say, "this argument cannot be broken." Period.

I won't bother to again rehash the natural born citizenship issue here. For an in-depth legal constitutional analysis of the meaning and requirements of "natural born citizenship", interested readers are encourged to go to http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born- citizen-clause-requires.html, art2superpac.com, thenationalpatriot.com, federalistblog, US Justice Foundation, and a host of other authoritative sites.

Wouldn't it be an inspiring act of selfless public service were Sen. Rubio to publicly confirm that he is constitutionally ineligible to be VP or President?

Can you imagine the firestorm which would grip the DNC machine, and the abject horror which would pervade the White House whose current occupant is also constitutionally ineligible to serve as Chief Executive? (Obama's mother was a US Citizen, but his purported father, Obama Sr., was a Kenyan national, a British subject at the time of Barack's birth in 1961.)

If Mr. Rubio is the venerable and articulate defender of the Constitution he has appeared to be, then why has he been so studiously silent on this issue. Why has he and his staff avoided answering any questions from me and many other enquiring minds regarding the status of his constitutional eligibility. His silence has been defeaning, and one can only reasonably speculate that Mr. Rubio is more concerned about his political ambitions than he is about the sacrosanctity of the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong. I love this guy. He's a breath of fresh air in that God-awful beltway. But, I have to wonder if, like so many of his political compatriots, his patriotism and his love of the Constitution stops at the water's edge.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The Constitution is not a toy to be conveniently interpreted or knowingly circumscribed merely to advance one's political or ideological agenda. Nothing honorable or redeeming about that.

I will try to obtain a reply on this matter from either Sen. Rubio or his Senatorial staff. Will keep you posted.

"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way." Thoams Jefferson

"Law and liberty cannot become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge." James Wilson (1790)

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." Thomas Jefferson

Obama's Economy: Sunshine and Roses at Last!

2012-01-31T09:22:00.000-08:00

Yup! Not to worry, folks. Obamaland's economy is on the upswing!

By Obama's objective estimates, the economy of the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America is on an upward trajectory. We've so much to crow about! Wowee! Break out the champagne!!! There's light at the end of the tunnel!!! Whoopee!!!

Regaling us with assurances that since his takeover in 2009 millions of jobs have been "saved" and the number of "created" jobs has been steadily increasing, the breathlessly exuberant Obamabot spinmeisters have been deftly persuading the essentially walking dead among us that Obama's profligate Keynesian top-to-bottom big government approach to recovery is working just splendidly. I mean, come on, folks. You'd have to be a hopelessly partisan dolt not to see the truth and join in the celebration.

Ah...just one tiny wrinkle in Obama's rosy take on the economy: it's ummitigated drivel. A lie!

This week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the budget deficit for 2012 wil hit $1.08T, the jobless rate for 2012 will climb to 8.9%, and in 2013 the unemployment rate will soar to 9.2%.

But, don't let that get you down. The gloom-and-doomers are always raining on our parade. I mean, come on. Whom do you trust? The CBO or Obama? Obviously, the CBO folks are vile racists in the bag for the GOP. Conspiracists, each and every one. They can't be trusted.

And let's not forget Obama's winning toothy smile, his impeccable teleprompter skills and his engaging, polished manner. Afterall, let's remember that Obama wants nothing more than to make sure everyone equally shares in this country's bounty. No filthy rich, no poor. Like, what could possibly be wrong with that?

The only sensible way forward is for us to "collectively" and faithfully put our trust, our hopes, our lives and our fortunes in Obama's hands. He'll take care of us.

Obama Ineligibility: Salient Points to Keep in Mind

2012-01-30T12:07:00.000-08:00

Going forward--and without getting too deeply into the weeds--it is important to keep the following points clearly in mind:

Per existing constitutional law, to be eligible for President or VP one must be a natural born citizen, meaning that, at a minimum, one must have been born of two US Citizen parents. As Obama's purported father was not a US Citizen, Obama is ineligible to serve as President. (Primary references: Art II, Sec 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution; unanimous opinion in Minor v Happersett -1875 regarding the definition of natural born citizen; et. al. cases)

1. Judge Malihi will rule on either Feb 1st or 2nd on whether or not the evidence of Obama's ineligibility presented at the hearing on January 26th is sufficient to warrant his recommending to the GA Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, to keep Obama's name off the state ballot. (Having spoken with plaintiff attorney Carl Swensson today, there is the highest confidence that both Malihi and Kemp will, in fact, rule against Obama, and such a ruling would establish a solid legal precedent for similar lawsuits to go forward around the country.)

2. If Sec. of State Kemp does, in fact, decide on Feb 2nd to keep Obama's name off the ballot, Obama could appeal the action to the US Supreme Court.

3. If Obama does appeal the Secretary's action, the evidence of ineligibility presented at the January 26th hearing would need to be contested in court by Obama. This means he would need to present authoritative documentation to effectively refute that ineligibility evidence already on the record, something Obama and his attorneys have doggedly avoided.

4. If the Supreme Court does review the case, and if Obama loses, his eligibility to hold the office of President, his entire administration, and all laws and executive orders issued under his signature, and his Supreme Court appointees will be rendered retroactively illegitmate, null and void. (For this reason alone, the sense of the plaintiff attorneys is that Obama will NOT appeal the GA decision. By not contesting the GA decision, Obama will be denied Georgia's 17 electoral votes in November, electoral votes he most likely wouldn't have won anyway in a "red" state.)

5. With the Georgia ruling as solid legal precedent, judges around the country will be compelled to hear ineligibility suits in their states as well. (Currently, there are at least 6 similar suits underway around the country--AZ, IL, NH, NC, TN, AL. And with a Georgia judgement against Obama, the number would likely grow.)

Note: It is speculated that Obama might opt to either ignore any and all state rulings on his ineligibility (unless the aggregate electoral votes denied him around the country are too large in number for him to prevail in an election), or he would resign before November in favor of another Democratic candidate. (A Hillary Clinton candidacy has been seriously and publicly pushed by Democratic apparatchiks.) There has also been speculation about a desperate Obama's imposing martial law, but it is generally believed that military and police forces would not cooperate. (Napolitano's Homeland Security has already branded veterans as "potential terrorists", so even Obama understands that the vast majority of vets would not support such an extra-constitutional action.) Not yet fully fleshed out is when criminal actions would be brought against those persons in the Democratic hierarchy who may have knowingly been a party to this fraud. Also not yet fully thrashed out are the nature and extent of likely felony charges against Obama for, at the minimum, birth certificate, social security and other ID fraud.

Keep your ear to the ground. This historical drama has only begun.

Are All Conservatives Willing to Defend the Constitution?

2012-01-29T15:54:00.000-08:00

Not on your life!

Mr. Carl Swensson, one of the plaintiff attorneys at the 1/26/12 Obama eligibility hearing in Atlanta, reported that none other than conservative radio talk show host Neal Boortz "berated" the hearing, callling both GA Sec. of State Kemp and Judge Malihi "backwoods hicks who are going to initiate a race war."

So far, I haven't been able to confirm if it was Boortz who leveled this attack, or if one of his guests did, but in an interview with Pastor James David Manning (atlah.org) on January 27th, Mr. Swensson attributed the derisive comment and scare-mongering to Neal Boortz himself. Go to YouTube to view the interview for yourselves (www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hxx33V4WuY).

Tragically, I understand conservative icon, Eric Erickson, also cavalierly disparaged the proceedings in Atlanta.

When so-called conservatives either fear or are demonstrably unwilling to defend the Constitution and, instead, attack those who do with dire predictions of gloom and doom, in this case "race wars", this Republic is more than merely teetering on the brink. It's no longer on life support. It's in a coma.

I don't know what scares me more, the threat I see, that being Obama and his neo-Marxist minions, or the vipers slithering silently within our own ranks. Let me hasten to answer my own question: I fear the elusive snake in the grass more, and so too should we all.

(See 01/30/12 Update below.)

“When the people rise in masses in behalf of the Union and the liberties of their country, truly may it be said, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against them." - Abraham Lincoln

01/30/12 UPDATE:

I tried reaching Neal Boortz this morning. Was only able to speak to his screener who told me that "he knew nothing about it." I also scoured the audio archives of his radio show and couldn't find anything. So, I'm thinking it was caller, not Neal Boortz himself, who derisively characterized Kemp and Malihi as "backwoods hicks."

I then emailed Pastor Manning who, at the end of his show, repeated what may have been an erroneous attribution to Neal Boortz for those words. Awaiting a reply.

I then called Carl Swensson who actually took the call. He readily admitted that his report was second hand and that he couldn't verify if, in fact, Neal Boortz had made that statement. We spoke for 10 minutes and I have to tell you he is one of the most sincere, soft-spoken, genuinely patriotic and evenhanded man with whom I've ever had the pleasure of speaking. Not once did I detect anything but thoroughly authentic humility.

I extended my heartfelt thanks to him for his "heroism", likening him to the Founders who were also on the outs with their friends for their principled stand. He was a tad forlorn by the "friends" who had abandoned him, but, like the Founders, he is determined to "walk the walk" and to do the right thing in order to restore our country to greatness. He described his experience as very humbling and more than once thanked me and others who have called and donated to the effort for their encouragement and support, without which his lonely struggle would be much more difficult, both procedurally and personally.

I ask that you please go to his website (www.riseupforamerica.com) and send a much-needed donation to the cause. A phonecall to buoy his spirits might be helpful as well (678-438-6138).

He is a man of stellar character and grace. Simply a great American.

As for the words attributed to Boortz, I can do no more. Still can't absolutely determine one way or the other if Neal made that statement, or, as said, if a caller did. If I hear anything, I will add a clarifying update to this post.

Newt Must Climb Out of the Muck & Mire to WIN !!!

2012-01-28T10:19:00.000-08:00

Newt must return to the straight and narrow. He should do what he does best: talk straight and substantively, and stick to the facts and to solutions alone.

No ad hominems, no more silly, often specious, boneheaded, wasteful and self-destructive attack ads which Romney, who has desperately committed his last six years to winning the prize, has shown over and over again he is able to deflect or, to Newt's chagrin, altogether neutralize. In short, Newt's endorsing inaccuracies, exaggerations and mischaraterizations about Romney or any other candidate brings Newt down to the level of unprincipled political pit viper, surely an unenviable place to be if one aspires to a loftier purpose. He needs to listen to his heart and head, not his "political consultants".

Newt should unwaveringly zero in on Romney's political record, his stated policy positions, and not upon easily refutable political ads. A guy can't run away from his rancid liberal record or his words--especially if the record and his words are accurate and fully in context. Yes, I know PACs are independent of the candidates, but, plainly and simply, candidates DO have influence over the PAC ads' overall content, quality and focus and we all know it.

Because I'm convinced Newt is a commonsense solutions-driven man whom both the Democrat and GOP establishments loathe--a surefire testiment to his more conservative cred--I'm a Newt supporter. Yes, like us all he has blemishes, no doubt, but he's fearless and, for me, has convincingly evolved away from some questionable political positions he himself has errantly espoused in the past like elements of cap and trade, bailouts and health mandates.

That said, when he is pigeonholed about those faulty positions he needs to fearlessly and unabashedly explain why he espoused those positions then and what learning experiences have caused him to change his mind. Doing this will blunt the attacks from conservatives, RINO Romney, Romney supporters and GOP establishment types alike, and, what's most important, doing so will earn the admiration and support of an ever-expanding voter base thirsting for a return to fearless integrity in DC.

Short of cash and and hamstrung with a lousy ground game going forward, Newt must be the Newt I had always thought he was: a straight shooter unafraid and firmly committed to returning to small government, fully reinvigorating free enterprise, and restoring constitutional order and individual liberty.

There is a reason bonafide conservatives like Laffer, Watts, Norris, Sowell and, yes, Palin, support him. Now it's entirely up to Newt not to disappoint us or the country.

Newt needs to reset the tone before it's too late.

FINALLY: Evidence of Obama INeligibility Under Court Review!!!!!

2012-01-27T10:06:00.000-08:00

Further to my previous post, good news, America!

For some time now, I have deliberately avoided discussing the eligibility issue. Why? With so many legal developments on so many fronts, it was simply too daunting to keep up with, and the dead ends and disappointments were so painful. I also believed that, in time, the truth would have its day in court. And so it has!

Art2superpac.com live streamed the court proceedings which took place on January 26th. Though the audio was often garbled and unintelligible, I watched and listened with a mixture of foreboding and vindication and monitored what few authoritative after action reports I could find on the internet.

In a fairly packed court on January 26th, the OSAH court in Atlanta was gravelled to order by Judge Malihi @9:33AM. Having been informed on January 25th by Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, that neither Obama not his attorney would appear at the hearing, in a pre-hearing with plaintiff attorneys Taitz, Hatfield and Irion, Judge Malihi signaled he would enter a "default judgement" against Obama. Delighted but cautious, plaintiff attorneys requested that for the first time ever the actual evidence of Obama's ineligibility be entered into the record. Judge Malihi agreed and allowed for a relatively speedy hearing (aprox 2 hrs).

Note: this is the first time a court has allowed arguments and evidence on the merits of the controversy over Obama's eligibility. Heretofore, the evidence was never allowed to see the light of day by sitting judges. And this: only matters of law--not the evidence itself--may be appealed. Clearly, the Obama machine stumbled big time when it arrogantly failed to appear. Since they didn't take the time to refute the arguments, the evidence is, for all practical purposes, unassailable--the evidence presented at the hearing cannot now be disputed later on appeal. A major victory!!!

With the help of expert witnesses flown in from all over the country, the attorneys cogently, calmly, substantively, albeit hurriedly, discussed the constitutional meaning of "natural born citizen" (relying upon an amicus brief from Leo Donofrio and an analysis of the 1875 Minor v Happersett ruling on the subject), the illegitimacy of Obama's Birth Certificate, and Obama's fraudulent use of a Social Security number assigned to a deceased person born in 1890.

Following the testimony and presentation of evidence, Judge Malihi ordered all attorneys to file briefs and a summary of "facts and points of law" to him by February 5th. At that time, he will review the evidence and, per Georgia law, render a "recommendation" to the Georgia Sec. of State as to whether or not Obama's name should appear on the Georgia presidential ballot in 2012.

From all reports, Mr. Kemp, Sec. of State, has agreed that he will act in accordance with the Judge's recommendation. Of course, how soon after his review of the evidence and facts of law on February 5th Judge Malihi will actually submit a recommendation to Mr. Kemp uncertain. In any event, my hope is that his decision will, at long last, be just and timely. And at this juncture, and despite a possibly vengeful Obama whose ruthless sycophants are capable of considerable mischief, there is nothing to persuade me that the judge will be anything but judicious, forthright and fair. He is to be roundly commended for his unprecedented courage and integrity, and I urge all readers to contact him thank him for his extraordinary service.

Note: I scoured the internet for evidence of media coverage of this seminal development. Except for Druge and American Thinker, NADA. I was able to view one telecast of an Atlanta WST-TV newscast about the hearing, but, true to form, it pooh-poohed the hearing and erroneously reported that plaintiffs were trying to prove once again that Obama is not a "US Citizen". Another insidious example of the media's willful ignorance or calculated dissembling, or both. Notable too was the disturbing silence of "we're watching out for you" O'Reilly and "question with boldness" Beck. Hiding under their beds, to be sure. Frauds!

I cannot overstate how monumentally important this hearing has been. Evidence of Obama's ineligibility is now part of the judicial record and cannot be expunged or otherwise ignored.

Finally, and on a more sobering note, what my abiding concern is the possibly tumultuous effect this will have on the country. Can we properly manage a painful constitutional crisis of this magnitude and all the legal and political ramifications such a crisis will surely entail? Will ruthless remedies be relied upon by darker forces at work to nullify this historic turn of events? Frankly, I am no longer sure that most Americans--and most certainly not our entrenched political elite--are up to the challenge of peacefully, fearlessly and properly restoring constitutional order. But, come what may, we can all be proud and buoyed by the fact that the Constitution and the Rule of Law won a resounding victory yesterday. Now let's pray that Judge Malihi and Sec. of State Kemp do their jobs judiciously and forthrightly.

Stay tuned. I would strongly suggest your monitoring Citizen Wells, TalkWisdom, and the Post and Email for authoritative and credible analyses and updates.

God Bless America! And God Bless those few Americans who refused to surrender in the face of derision, threats and lies. Let's keep on marching forward to a better day for America!

Georgia Court Subpoenas Obama

2012-01-25T16:39:00.000-08:00

Despite years of court hearings which disallowed a discussion of the actual evidence of whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as President, and despite unending and costly legal obstructionism on the part of Obama's legal team to deny a proper vetting of Obama's eligibility, the so-called "birther movement" may soon be vindicated for its perseverance. Either he is not eligible, or his father of record was not his real father at all.

For years, millions of concerned Americans have maintained that Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and that, in accordance with Art II, Sec 1, para 5 (Presidential Clause), he is, therefore, ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States. (For more substantive analysis of this constitutional issue, please refer to other posts on this and other sites.)

The founders believed that only "natural born citizens", i.e. persons born of two US Citizen parents, are eligible to be President or Vice President. Since Obama confirmed that his father, Obama Sr, was a Kenyan national--not a US Citizen--many Americans have, of course, seriously questioned his constitutinal eligibility to serve as President, often referring to him as the "putative President", the "Usurper-in-Chief", etc, and condemning those on both the left and right who have so derisively belittled and cavalierly dismissed the "birthers" for their justifiable concerns. (Note: Minor v Happersett (1875) corroborated the founders understanding of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" and Obama doesn't fit that definition. So, were these justices screwy conspiracists as well?)

On Thursday, January 26th, a Georgia Court has subpoened Obama to prove why he is eligible to be on Georgia's 2012 presidential ballot. For those with at least a modicum of interest in this proceeding, go to www.TPATH.org or art2skuperpac.com/livevideo.html for gavel to gavel coverage beginning 9:00 AM. For Obama sycophants and willful disbelievers, it will be, at the very least, mildly entertaining.

For my part, and pending irrefutably authoritative documentation that Obama is, in fact and without reservation, fully qualified to serve as President, I have asked our Secretary of State, Mr. Perales, in Albany, NY to disallow Obama's name on the 2012 NYS presidential ballot. Copy of the email and letter below:

January 26, 2012

TO: Mr. Cesar A. Perales

       Secretary of State
       NY Department of State
       99 Washington Avenue
       1 Commerce Plaza (6^th Floor)
       Albany, NY 12231

FROM: (my name and address)

Re: NYS 2012 Presidential Ballot

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Unless he can prove that both his parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth, I respectfully request that Barack Obama be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot in NYS.

Per Article II, Sec 1, para 5, aka the “Presidential Clause”, of the U.S. Constitution, because he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States, Barack Obama does not meet the Presidential eligibility requirement to be a presidential contender.

The founders understood "natural born citizen" to mean a person born of two US Citizen parents, and an 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v Happersett) clearly corroborated that understanding.

By his own admission, Barack Obama's Kenyan father, Barack Obama Sr, was Kenyan national on a student visa to the United States. He was clearly not a US Citizen.

As our founding fathers intended, it is the States which are empowered, and which are duty-bound, to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates in accordance with both US and State constitutional law.

Again, I ask that you carefully examine Barack Obama’s eligibility against the requirements of the law, and that unless he authoritatively substantiates his eligibility with irrefutable evidence that he qualifies as a “natural born citizen” under the law, that his name be removed from the presidential ballot in 2012.

I would appreciate a response from you as to your views and intentions in this extremely important matter.

Respectfully,

James P. Delaney

NYS and US Citizen

Call me a crank, a wild-eyed conspiracist, a ninny, a blinded partisan. Whatever floats your boat. But, let's get to the bottom of this seminal issue once and for all. It's time to settle this fairly, squarely and authoritatively. Let's stop all the hand-wringing, misinformation, ignorance, obstructionism, derision, conspiracy of silence, bitterness and, yes, fear. The Constitution--or what's left of it--is FAR FAR more important than our benign neglect or fear of censure and embarrassment. In truth, our just going along to get along and the apparently widespread and insidious desire on the part of many not to rock the boat are, without question, utterly unredeeming, unpatriotic and cowardly.

Dare we do the right thing anymore? Or has that too been bred out of us. Let's insist upon full disclosure. The dishonesty and obstruction of justice have gone on long enough.

Recess Appointments Conundrum

2012-01-12T14:45:00.000-08:00

This is a brief follow-up to my 1/8/12 post entitled Obama AGAIN Violates the Constitution.

POST SCRIPT: On 01/12/12, I contacted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office regarding his position on this matter. And while his position is at variance with highly credible sources such as ACLJ (American Cntr for Law & Justice), here's what went down today:

While McConnell too is deeply frustrated by this unprecedented circumvention of Senate rules--rules which had been successfully applied by Sen. Reid in 2007 to block Bush appointments--whether or not Obama's action was, in the strictest sense of word, unconstitutional, is questionable. While Obama did violate long accepted and honored "proforma session" Senate rules, technically speaking he probably didn't violate the Constitution. Thus, a law suit is probably out of the question.

What McConnell's spokeswoman did confirm is that funding for both the Consumer Bureau and the NLRB has already been authorized, and that only a special act of Congress, which most likely would not pass muster in the Democratic-controlled Senate, could withhold that funding. She also confirmed that since these appointments were, in the view of the President, "recess appointments", a formal confirmation process wasn't required, rendering the appointments a fait accompli.

So, we are, in effect, stuck with a presidential breach of trust--again!

Upshot: going forward, and thanks to the hypocrisy and double-standards of the Democrats, the heretofore generally accepted "proforma session" procedure will never again be relied upon by either party to prevent recess appointments. A new, ugly precedent has been established by the ruthless left, and on Capitol Hill both honor and and integrity are, indeed, on life support.

Lesson learned: compromising with libs is suicidal; trusting a lib is delusional.

(For a detailed legal analysis of this issue, go to "recess appointments, ACLJ")

Obama AGAIN Violates the Constitution

2012-01-08T10:49:00.000-08:00

"If Congress won't act, I will!"

And with those imperious words, last week Comrade Obama again circumvented Congress and violated the Constitution. By announcing four "recess appointments" while Congress was in proforma session--NOT in recess--Obama blatantly violated his oath of office and committed an impeachable offense.

To Obama, a hard-boiled, narcissistic Statist, the ends always justify the means, our obsolete Constitution and pesky Rule of Law be damned. The litany of Executive usurpations since he took office in 2009 is, to say the very least, breathtaking, and the relentless advancement of his "fundamental transformation of the United States of America" remains very much on course. Frankly, I shudder in anticipation of what other breaches of trust await us before Inauguration Day 2013.

When I heard about this abuse of power, and after fully reviewing the matter, I immediately telephoned Speaker Boehner's office urging the Speaker to warn the President that he should either immediately withdraw the appointments or face impeachment. While the spokesman acknowledged the receipt of many similar calls on this matter, I sensed a decided lack of urgency on his part. Reminding him that Boehner's oath of office to uphold the Constitution should take priority over party politics, I courteously and firmly repeated my concern and my request for action. He assured me that a written reply from Speaker Boehner would be forthcoming. At that point, I identified myself as a member of the Monroe County Republican Committee, and indicated to him that the Speaker's reply would be shared with my fellow Committee members.

I also emailed my Democratic representative urging her to either co-sponsor or introduce Articles of Impeachment, and requested a reply as to what, if any, actions she planned to take.

Coupled with a request that my fellow committee members also register their concern with Speaker Boehner, I provided the Committee with a copy of my email communications with both Boehner Rep. Hochul.

Following these communications, I quickly submitted the following editorial to the local Democrat & Chronicle:

"In the sole interest of advancing his political fortunes, last week the President arrogantly circumvented Congress and flouted the Constitution.

To many of us, this latest example of executive usurpation lays bare a particularly troubling pattern of Presidential disdain for the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Against the advice of his own Justice Department, the President illegally named four “recess appointments”, three to the National Labor Relations Board and one to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this while Congress was in proforma session—an unprecedented and clearly impeachable abuse of power.

Particularly distressing too was the shameless and reckless chorus of approval for this brazen breach of trust from many of his political allies.
How many more blatant Executive violations of the Constitution and the Rule of Law will be tolerated by Congress and so cavalierly ignored by the media? For better or for worse, that’s the burning question which afflicts an increasingly irritated and distrustful electorate.

On November 6^th, let’s pray fidelity to the Constitution and the Rule of Law is restored."

While I hope my actions are productive, I am still awaiting evidence of actions taken by Boehner, my representative and my Committee colleagues. My fear is that if Congress believes no one cares or no one is watching, this insidious mischief will be ignored with impunity.

At the next GOP Committee meeting, I will enquire of the membership as to any actions taken by them. And if no action was taken, I will resign. When my own political associates become part of the problem--become witting or unwitting parties to the Constitution's subversion--then that party can no longer avail itself of my support or service, and I will promptly register as a member of the Conservative Party.

I don't know what else I can do. And while I am hoping for the best, recent experience has taught me to expect the worse.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." James Madison, Federalist No 48.

"Those who refuse to participate in politics shall be governed by their inferiors." PLATO

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." Deitrich Bonhoeffer

"If the respresentatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense." Alexander Hamilton

Quick Summary of GOP Candidate Positions 12/10/11

2011-12-19T07:28:00.000-08:00

Taking into account that candidates’ positions both evolve and are often dictated by the varying political exigencies at any given time/circumsance, here are abbreviated highlights of the GOP candidates’ policy positions as of 12/10/12 (Source--Southern New Hampshire 912 Project). As you will see, a surprisingly mixed bag:

1. Supports 2^nd Amendment: without qualification, all support except Romney who supported Brady Bill and signed into law a permanent ban on many semi-automatic firearms

2. Strict interpretation of Constitution: Gingrich, Paul, Santorum; Bachman (except for her support of the Patriot Act); Huntsman (except for his support of hate crime legislation); Perry (supports UN’s Agenda 21, bi-nat’l healthcare with Mexico, hate crime legislation); Romney (supports Agenda 21, MA Climate Protection Plan, Cap & Trade Agreement w/ 10 N.E. states)

3. Supports repeal of Patriot Act: None support except Paul; Hunstman (unknown).

4. Against referring to international laws in US Courts: Bachman, Gingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum; Huntsman favors Doha Roundtrade protocols (WTO) and Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP); Perry (Texas Islamic Court established, Halal law recognized)

5. Supports 9^th & 10^th Amendments: Bachman, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Santorum; Perry & Romney (both believe fed law requires states to care for illegal education & healthcare, but Romney believes Obamacare infringes upon state’s rights

6. Will nominate only strong Constitutional conservative judges: All except Romney, Perry; Huntsman (unknown)

7. Will close the Dept of Education: All except Gingrich, Huntsman, Romney, Santorum

8. Favors transferring education system to the states/local gov’t: All except Romney

9. Will close Dept of Agriculture: All except Ginrgrich, Perry, Santorum; Huntsman (unknown)

10. Will close Dept of Energy: All except Gingrich, Huntsman, Romney, Santorum

11. Wants to close IRS: All except Gingrich (reduce size), Huntsman (reform IRS), Perry, Romney, Santorum; Bachman (unknown)

12. Supports privatization of TSA: Gingrich, Paul; remainder unknown

13. Supports privatization of Post Office: Gingich, Paul; remainder unknown

14. Support term limits: Gingrich, Paul, Romney; Perry does not support; remainder unknown

15. Promises to reduce business regulations: All except Romney (shaped Regional Cap & Trade, promoted MA Climate Protection Plan regs, would consider mandating auto efficiency); Hunstman, Perry unknown

16. Will eliminate Czars: Gingrich, Paul, Santorum; Huntsman Bachman, Perry; Romney unknown

17. Wants to repeal 16^th Amendment: All except Bachman, Gingrich, Santorum; Hunstman, Romney unknown

18. Supported TARP: All except Bachman, Paul, Santorum; Huntsman unknown

19. Supported Stimulus 2009: Huntsman, Perry; Romney (unclear); remainder did not support

20. Supports audit of Federal Reserve: All except Romney; Hunstman unknown

21. Supports shutting down the Fed Reserve: Paul; Perry unsure; Huntsman unknown; remainder opposed

22. Supports Balanced Budget: All except Perry; Romney, Huntsman unknown

23. Pledges NOT to raise taxes: All; Huntsman unknown

24. Will not vote “yes” to raise debt ceiling: All except Perry, Romney, Santorum; Huntsman unknown

25. Supports Cap & Trade: None except Gingrich, Huntsman, Romney to some extent

26. Supports lowering taxes for businesses: All

27. Supports a Flat Tax: All except Huntsman, Santorum; not fully embraced by Romney (see #15)

28. Oppose bank bailouts: All except Huntsman; with reservations Perry, Romney

29. Supports amnesty for illegals currently in USA: Huntsman, Perry; Romney (supported amnesty 2005); Gingrich supports legalization (not citizenship) for long-stayers

30. Would deport all illegals currently in USA: All except Gingrich (see above), Huntsman, Perry, Santorum; Romney doesn’t fully embrace

31. Supports border fence along southern border: All except Gingrich, Perry

32. Supports border security: All

33. Supports states rights to curb illegals: All except Perry; Huntsman & Paul unknown

34. Supports In-State tuition for illegals: Perry; Huntsman, Paul unknown; Romney partially supportive

35. Supports sanctuary cities for illegals: Perry, Romney partially; all others oppose

36. Stop all taxpayer support for illegals: All yes except Huntsman, Perry; Romney & Gingrich unclear

37. Supports defunding/repeal of Obamacare: All

38. Believes in man-made climate change/global warming: All except Bachman, Paul, Perry, Santorum

39. Anti-abortion in all cases: All except Gingrich, Romney (unclear); Huntsman, Perry (w/exceptions)

40. Anti-abortion except rape, incest, harm to mother: Gingrich, Perry, Santorum; Paul (state issue),

41. Supports gay marriage: Romney (before 2005); Paul (state issue); Perry (unclear)

42. Supports hate crime legislation: Huntsman, Perry, Romney

43. Supports English as national language: All support except Perry (unknown), Romney (inconsistent)

44. Supports Right to Work laws: all except Santorum who believes it is a state issue

45. Will open up drilling for Oil/Gas-in Gulf: All yes

46. Will open up drilling-Alaska: All yes

47. Will open up drilling-continental US: All yes

48. Supports coal energy (currently 45% of US electric power): All yes

49. Will seek 100% energy independence: All yes

50. Supports ethanol subsidies: All opposed except Gingrich, Romney

51. Expressed concerns re Sharia law in America: All concerned except Paul, Perry, Romney

52. Sympathetic to Muslim orgs like CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood: All unsympathetic, except Perry (unclear)

Since this is but a thumbnail sketch of candidates’ positions as December 10, 2012, readers are encouraged to conduct their own research. I will be posting additional abbreviated position sketches as time permits, but will likely focus on frontrunners only.

One thing is crystal-clear: there is no “perfect” candidate, no knight in shining armor, no sainted ideological purist among them.

What's Really With the Drone?

2011-12-13T13:42:00.000-08:00

Something doesn't add up.

When I first heard that Obama was politely requesting Teheran to return our high-tech drone to us, my first reaction was "Is this guy totally bonkers?" (Of course, with or without this incident, on that score the jury is still out.)

If the drone's trove of intelligence is that critical to our national security interests, then Obama was constitutionally duty-bound to immediately take it out with a surgical airstrike. (Question: if our intervention in Libya was in our national security interests, then why wouldn't safeguarding the secrets contained in the drone be as well?)

While I'd like to think that we were somehow able to electronically neutralize the intelligence value of the drone, that's not what we've been consistently hearing from the Administration or the Pentagon. First, the intelligence value was reportedly neutralized, then apparently it wasn't. Actually, we've heard nothing by way of substantive clarification one way or the other from either quarter. Why? Because neither "can discuss intelligence matters in public". Really. I thought they already had. Or was that deliberate obfuscation for some deep, dark, national security interest? Got me.

If the technological know-how and intelligence contained in the drone was effectively neutralized, then why was Barry concerned that destroying it on the ground in Iran would be "construed as an act of war" if bombing it was clearly unnecessary to protect the drone's secrets which had already been erased?

And if the drone's intelligence was intact after the drone "strayed" and landed (crashed?) in Iran--if, in fact, it really did stray--was not this straying into Iranian air space already an act of war? And, if so, why wouldn't the US have taken the next logical step by immediately destroying it?

And if we had destroyed it with an airstrike, just what would the Revolutionary Guard have done about it anyway? What could they have done? Effectively speaking, nothing! So, what's this about Obama's apparent concern about precipitating a war with Iran?

So, if this isn't yet another illustration of Obama's hopeless leadership and incompetence, then I think there's more to this muddle than meets the eye. A cover-up? To what end? A deliberate downplaying of what could be a huge and embarrassing intelligence blunder?

In any event, I'm hoping the drone proves to be of no real intelligence or technological value to Iran, Russia or China. One way or the other, I guess we'll find out soon enough.

My Quick Take on the ABC Debate

2011-12-12T11:30:00.000-08:00

The ease with which Newt deflected attacks from all sides was especially noteworthy, suggesting to me that he actually believed what he was saying (refreshing) and that he had amply reflected on the subject of those statements well before uttering them, e.g. the moon base, the need for children learning the work ethic, and legalizing the status of well-established illegal aliens who've peacefully and productively acculturated. (Hispanic voters must have been encouraged by the latter.)

The conventional media buzz was that Newt's shoot-from-the-hip statements amounted to little more than debilitating gaffes, a clear sign of indiscipline and the seeds of his self-destruction. So much for conventional "media wisdom". In fact, he didn't back off those statements and either repeated or elaborated on them.

I also thought many of the attacks on Newt came across as rehearsed, desperate and contrived; but, as said, he handily parried those largely innocuous assaults.

I thought Perry redeemed himself, but not sufficiently to make any real difference. He's out.

Santorum and Bachman, among my faves, are also out.

Paul will ride the crest of Libertarian jubilance to the end, but also to no avail.

So, unless there is a major faux pas on Newt's part, or unless his lack of a ground organization does him in (which remains a real possibility), my guess is that Newt will be nominated and will go on to clean Obama's clock, thus eliminating any real hope of an Obama re-election. And we can all thank God for that.

Just a thought: how about a Newt-Paul ticket? Or is that a tad avant-garde? Such a team would certainly serve to keep both players under control, more realistic, but closer to the Constitution and with a firmer commitment to seriously reducing the size of gov't and the national debt. And, except for his fairyland foreign policy inclinations, Ron Paul's stepping into a presidential role in a clinch wouldn't scare me at all. Quite the contrary.

In any event, I'd like to see Ron Paul as Treasury Secretary (love his economic policies and integrity), Bachman as HHS Secretary, Romney at Commerce and Santorum at Interior. Of course, Bolton at State would be an excellent choice. Lincolnesque (keeping your friends close, but your political challengers closer)? Or would such a mix be naive and unworkable? Anyway, just thinking outside the proverbial box.

Finally, I don't know if others feel the same way, but I thought the ABC moderators, Sawyer and Stephanopoulous) did a pretty good job of it. They allowed everyone sufficient time to respond to questions and criticisms without that God-awful 30-second restriction. Of course, with only 6 candidates (vs 8) on stage, the exercise was far more manageable this time around. And as time goes by and the field is reduced in size, the time restriction will be less onerous and primary voters will increasingly benefit.

Is "The Newt" a Chameleon?

2011-12-08T09:51:00.000-08:00

Given the widespread angst over Newt's apparent betrayals of conservative principles, I've begun the process of researching for myself Newt's current and past policy positions and voting record.

Yes, I have lingering concerns about the consistency of his conservative record, but I also understand that being an evolving and very much engaged politician--a political practitioner who was often in the rough and tumble front lines of legislation--doesn't always easily lend itself to achieving the appearance of absolute philosophical purity. There are times when, as a practical politician, one must bend to achieve one's core legislative agenda. Thus the likely misleading appearance of apostasy.

As for some of the more questionable positions he's taken in the past, these items beg for an explanation. Do they really represent hidden Progressive, aka neo-Marxist, inclinations, or, more realistically, were they merely political expediencies. Here are some of those troubling positions into which we must all do some objective delving:

1. Co-sponsored the Fairness Doctrine which was mercifully vetoed by Pres. Reagan in 1987. (So far, I cannot determine if he actually voted for it.)
2. Supported the GATT Treaty thereby granting increased sovereignty to the UN. (11/94)
3. Voted for the single largest increase in federal education spending--$3.5B. (04/96) (Question: will he actually eliminate the Dept. of Education?)
4. Supported fed taxdollars for abortions. (04/95)
5. Supported Bush's proposal for mandatory carbon caps. (02/07)
6. LIke other conservatives, said he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout. (09/08)
7. Lobbied for ethanol subsidies. (01/11)
8. Suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans. (01/11)
9. Wrote book saying he believes in man-made climate change. (02/11)

If Newt is able to explain these positions within the context of political expediency, misrepresentation, misstatement, or momentary addlepation then his conservative credentials would appear to be intact. I emailed these concerns to Newt's campaign and am hopeful of a timely reply. I am also exploring how best to channel these items of concern to upcoming debate moderators Donald Trump and FOX News as well.

The question is were those inconsistencies and/or faux pas and/or political expediencies indicative of Newt's foundational philosophical bearings. At this juncture and pending further research, I think not.

At this point, I've tentatively concluded that Newt is, in all likelihood, a bonafide conservative with clearly defined and very aggressive conservative solutions. I am especially heartened by his "21st Century Contract with America" and am especially impressed by the 9th and 10th points of that Contract which, respectively, call for effectively clipping the wings of our runaway, activist judiciary and for beginning an orderly transfer of power and responsibility back to the States. For me, these two initiatives are at the heart of any real solution which seriously aims to restore constitutional order.

So, yes, I will be sending another donation to his campaign today. But, I will also continue to research and to keep my eyes and my options wide open.

Will the Union Survive?

2011-11-22T10:18:00.000-08:00

(Published Democrat & Chronicle 12/2/11)

For me, the failure of the so-called “super committee” sharply illustrates the

overwhelming and disturbing reality that this country is, indeed,
irreconcilably divided rendering political compromise virtually impossible.

Many years in the making, this increasingly irreparable ideological divide
separates socialism and capitalism, statism and individual liberty.

And no matter how hard we try, like oil and water these competing ideologies can
never, ever mix.

Deeply ideologically divided, the unsettling reality is now patently obvious: we
are now and have been for some time a nation headed for political dissolution.
The November 2012 elections may delay that disintegration, but only temporarily.
Like our Constitution, our union too is on life support.

Gone are the simpler, more wholesome times in the past when Americans shared
first principles, divided only by relatively innocuous political gamesmanship
rather than fiercely opposing ideological convictions.

In the face of these severely divergent political viewpoints, sustaining an
“indivisible union” may, in the longer term, be but a pipe dream.

Well, it was a great ride while it lasted.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell.

SCOTUS Must be Reigned In!!!

2011-11-16T10:18:00.000-08:00

I tremble with fear every time a serious constitutional question is put to the “Supreme Court”.

Obvious to all but the willfully ignorant or ideologically blind, over the years SCOTUS has evolved into an essentially unbridled power unto itself. Guided by the principle of "judicial supremacy" vs "constitutional supremacy", and tainted by politics, ideology and a sinister proclivity for social engieneering, it has morphed into an unelected, unaccountable, black-robed judicial "Oligarchy of Nine", America's Privy Council, whose constitutional moorings have long ago been abandoned.

I can still recall the devastating words of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the 30′s when he dropped all pretense of judicial faithfulness to the Constitution by haughtily proclaiming that “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Whoa, baby! Just let those insidious words sink in for a moment. Rather imperious, wouldn't you say? Just who made these mere mortals Gods? Most certainly NOT the founders and most certainly NOT We the People. But thanks to an overreaching and arbitrary Marbury v Madison (1803) ruling which vested exclusive authority in the Supreme Court for divining what is and what is not constitutional, the judicial tyranny has continued unabated ever since.

Clearly, we are seriously in need of a constitutional amendment to reign in our runaway courts, most particularly the Supreme Court. No less than Thomas Jefferson warned us against the encroaching, indeed despotic, power of the Supreme Court. Tragically, his warnings have been ignored, and we are now paying the awful price for having failed to properly and effectively challenge the sacrosanctity of Marbury v Madison and the boundless "Supreme Court" it--and our own neglect--has imposed on the Republic.

That said, if SCOTUS “rules” in favor of Obamacare's individual mandate, should We the People yet again obediently and robotically yield because the Oligarchy of Nine ruled that we must? NOT ON YOUR LIFE--OR MINE!!!!

Per the 9th and 10th Amendments, We the People and our immediate fiduciary agents, the States, must be fully prepared to summarily nullify such a ruling. And that remedial action should only be the first step in a determined grassroots effort to reign in the runaway courts and the mortal jurists who populate them. Our founders and our progeny would expect nothing less of us.

As originally intended, We the People, the final arbiters, the “highest tribunal”, are duty-bound to assert our constitutional authority when the “supreme court”--or any branch of the federal government--oversteps its original constitutional authority, failing which we deserve the cesspool of statism and tyranny which will surely ensue.

OWS Deserves Our Support

2011-11-13T12:32:00.000-08:00

Rousingly addressed recently in Chicago by John Bachtell of the Communist Party USA, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protest has, unfortunately, been nagged by thefts, rapes, murders, shootings, brawlings, illicit drugs, and arrests for both public disorder and trespassing.

But, gee, what can you expect of a big crowd? There are bound to be bad apples. Were those Tea Partiers any better?

Anointed by big labor, openly supported by high-minded public figures like Roseanne Barr and Michael Moore, by high profile and thoughtful Democratic Party leaders like Rep. Nancy Pelosi , and with the encouragement of the Democratic Socialists of America , how can anyone seriously believe that OWS is anything but an admirable mirror image of the Tea Party?

With many marching OWS protesters donning CPUSA T-shirts and unfurled red flags in Chicago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avG4LgTF0ho), I can’t imagine why so many Americans are misjudging these civic-minded American citizens who have consistently espoused nothing but peaceful protest and honest, intelligent debate.

And to you right wing nuts, this: unfairly dubbing them “useful idiots” of the radical far left is grossly irresponsible and intentionally incendiary. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Frankly, OWS patriots burst my buttons with pride.

GOP Immigration Debate Relied on False Premise

2011-10-19T12:56:00.000-07:00

During the immigration give and take at last night's GOP debate in Las Vegas, CNN's Anderson Cooper somewhat patronizingly asserted that the 14th Amendment conferred US Citizenship upon anyone born in the US, clearly challenging the candidates not to question the absolute rightness of that well-established assertion. And, sadly, the candidates all dutifully and unknowingly fell into line like good little boys and girls.

Though it turned my stomach, I can't really fault the candidates for their ignorance on this issue. My guess is that neither they nor their handlers ever delved into the 14th Amendment to know any better. And, afterall, they can't be expected to be fully conversant on every possible topic that comes up.

But, the tragedy for me was that they proceeded with their immigration discussion utterly clueless to the reality that Anderson's premise was based upon incompetent and revisionist case law, totally at odds with the 14th's framers. Most disturbing of all is that the audience too fell victim to this misrepresentation as well.

For a very long time now, the conventional "wisdom" has been that, in fact and in law, any person born on US soil is automatically entitled to US citizenship. Well, folks, that's simply not true! It's a fanciful urban legend of the first order!

I can only hope the candidates and/or their staffers get up to speed on this subject before the next go-round and actually challenge that premise should it rear its ugly head again. How refreshingly sweet that would be. Of course, whether they would dare to knowledgeably challenge the premise at all remains to be seen. Sometimes it's more politically expedient to simply yield to politically correct assumptions so as not to ruffle feathers. But, who knows. Perhaps there is some spine and principle on that political stage afterall. We can certainly hope so anyway.

For those readers not interested in pursuing this topic, I will spare you a laborious rehashing of my research on this subject here. But, for those of you who wish to know the truth, I am referring you all to the following two posts at Opinerlog.blogspot.com: "Birthright Citizenship: Politics v Rule of Law" (8/14/10), and "Birthright Citizenship and Judicial Incompetence" (3/7/11). Both shed much needed light on this deliberately mangled and tragically misunderstood subject.

Constittution first! Information is power!

Let's Get REALLY Serious About Restoring the Constitution

2011-10-18T07:15:00.000-07:00

"Are you serious? Are you serious?" a ruffled Speaker Pelosi disdainfully responded to a reporter when she was asked if Obamacare's individual mandate was constitutional.

Then there was Rep. Clyburn who dismissively asserted that "there's nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do."

And, not to be outdone, the especially offensive assertion by Rep. Pete Stark that "the federal government can, yes, do most anything in this country."

Like any American who reveres the Constitution and heard these odious statements, I was incensed and, frankly, sick to my stomach.

I thought I was beyond being shocked and dismayed by the Progressives' arrogance and vacuity. But, like all determined leftist ideologues, their alien agenda and blind ideology ALWAYS trump the Constitution.

That said, in the interest of fair-and-balanced, what happened to the GOP's 2010 "Pledge to America"? Specifically, is the Pledge's requirement that "every bill contain a citation of Constitutional authority" being consistently and properly honored? Does anyone know? More importantly, are GOPers empty-headedly basing their citations through the murky prism of corrosive case law vs original meaning and intent? In short, has this portion of the Pledge turned out to be yet another charade, a cynical or otherwise careless ruse perpetrated on an unwitting American public still acutely afflicted with a dangerous case of attention disorder?

What that painfully ignorant Pelosi outburst and the shameless litany of other repellent statements from Progressives in Congress underscores is this: we've strayed dangerously far afield from the original meaning and intent of the Constitution. And unless we take meaningful and determined action to restore first principles, the statists which dominate our current ruling elite in DC will surely "fundamentally transform the United States of America", and in doing so will quickly relegate our constitutional republic to the dustbin of history.

We can argue whether Obama and his Progressive cohorts are merely misguided Socialists or Social Democrats, Statists or neo-Marxists, but the acutely disturbing reality is that for many years now the Progressives have been incrementally transforming the US into an authoritarian welfare state--or much worse--meaning that both our liberties and our economic well-being are being destroyed.

So, how do we more assertively, more meaningfully, and more effectively reverse the years of unrestrained government overreach and restore the dynamism and strength of our constitutional republic? Can we rely upon our enlightened political class to reverse our tailspin into authoritarianism? Though there are some solidly conservative Constitution-first representatives in DC these days, their minority status in the DC power structure remains a nearly insuperable obstacle to real reform. So, something much more compelling, more vigorous, more high-profile, more focused, more determined is needed to get this done--and soon.

Short of open rebellion or secession--which may still be in the offing--I am hopeful there is another less tumultuous way forward. Toward that end, and like many other concerned Americans, I've been mulling at least the general shape of a solution to this problem. So, while the actual process to achieving this goal requires some further reflection and discussion, here's what I've come up with so far. Nothing profound, but it is, I hope, the beginning of a serious discussion:

1. An Article V Constitutional Convention (convened by the States) to repeal the 17th Amendment and to devise a joint federal-state process to reign in a runaway and dangerously politicized Supreme Court. (And with the majority of State houses currently in GOP control, chances are better than even that reason and probity vs parochial political agendas and liberal excesses would motivate the majority of participants.) Of course, a determined, well-organized and widespread grassroots effort at the State level would be required to move the states in this direction.

2. A serious national campaign by grassroots patriotic organizations to urge States to reassert their co-equality with the federal government by unilaterally nullifying any and all unconstitutional federal usurpation, whether those encroachments are well-established or more recently imposed. This would necessarily require States' nullifying manifestly arbitrary judicial rulings, overreaching federal laws and executive orders A - Z. (Justification: the key to quickly achieving genuine constitutional order is by fully re-establishing co-equality between the States and the federal government and to strictly limit the feds to Art 1 Sec 8 powers as originally conceived. Nullification can easily accomplish that goal.) Again, a herculean and determined grassroots effort would be needed to see this to fruition.

3. A "National Commission to Restore Constitutional Order" (In a real sense, a modern day Constitutional Convention, but the least desirable option at this time.)

Comprised of 50 respected luminaries drawn from the business world, constitution advocacy organizations, jurists, political scientists, constitutional scholars and historians, all of whom must be demonstrably independent of government influence, and, to provide clout and further credibility, one representative from each State in the union, a "Commission to Restore Constitutional Order" should be immediately convened by Congress with a year-long mandate to transparently, rigorously and comprehensively study all laws, edicts, rulings, executive orders and government structures to objectively determine which do and do not fully comport with the original meaning, intent and scope of the Constitution as clearly understood by both the Constitution's framers and ratifiers.

To achieve this level of objectivity, the Commission would be enjoined to consult ONLY the original founding documents, the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, founders' correspondence, as well as applicable dictionaries and relevant political discourses of the day in order to accurately shape their conclusions respecting the constitutionality of the various subjects before them! Those unwilling to faithfully submit to this restrictive interpretation requirement would be excepted from participation. Of course, for the commissioners already tainted by decades of errant case law and political bias, this constraint will, no doubt, pose the greatest challenge to the efficacy of the Commission; thus, luminary appointments must be carefully vetted by Congress AND the Commission's State representatives to better ensure their single-minded commitment to this necessarily restrictive mandate. Most importantly, the People must be solidly behind such an effort.

Moreover, since the Supreme Court, its appointment process, rules of tenure and its very rulings, will also be under intense scrutiny, the Supreme Court will have absolutely NO authority or oversight in this exercise. (Notably absent from the commission's composition will be practicing attorneys-at-law whose training and and predispositions are generally more directed at simply winning legal arguments than to upholding the clear meaning of the Constitution.)

Fullest public access to these proceedings must be encouraged, and feedback from the public should be continuously elicited, reviewed, and carefully considered for incorporation into the Commission's recommendations to Congress. A complete, unexpurgated record of Commission discussions and public feedback must be fully accessible to all Americans 24/7.

The Commission, headed by a chairperson chosen by and from the Commissioners themselves, would number 100 and its period of public service would be limited to one year unless otherwise extended with the approval of a majority of the Commission's State representatives OR by a majority of both houses of Congress. Learned witnesses from all walks of life would be invited to testify before the Commission.

To eliminate the more egregious examples of federal overreach, the Commission would be urged to prioritize and to submit those highest priority items to Congress within 3 months of its convening. Where an outright rescission of any one of those high-priority items by congressional vote alone may not be constitutionally feasible, then an expedited amendment process must be implemented within 30 days of the Commission's submission of those items to Congress. (For example, when there exists general agreement among the Commissioners that the state appointment of senators should be restored, that the income tax amendment must to revised or repealed, that the Dept of Education must be phased out or summarily shut down, that the process of appointing/removing federal judges must be amended, or that a system should be established to enable the States to overrule federal judicial rulings, then Congress--or the States--must initiate an expedited amendment process within 30 days of submission of those items to Congress.) And if any items are generally regarded as especially violative of the Constitution, then States might be encouraged to simply nullify those offending items, thus effectively and more quickly eliminating their relevance in our national life and discussion.

The remainder of the list of constitutionally questionable laws, edicts, judicial rulings, orders, fiats, governmental processes and structures must be submitted to Congress for review within 9 months of the commission's convening. As said, if laws/rulings/orders are particularly egregious and outside the scope of legislative authority to eliminate same, States would be encouraged to simply assert their 10th Amendmenet nullification authority thus rendering offending items null and void and of no force in their respective States. With this latitude, Congress and the Commissioners might well be more motivated to intelligently, honestly, and efficiently deal with these items without needless delay, the point being that the speed of this restoration process must be accomplished deliberately, not glacially. We've waited long enough.

Obviously, the overriding objective of this year-long constitutional restoration exercise would be to ensure that laws, rules and regulations fully comport with the Constitution and to eliminate those which are clearly unconstitutional; to restore "constitutional supremacy" vs "judicial supremacy; to reduce the size, scope, cost and inefficiency of the federal government; to restore a clearly defined separation of powers within the federal government in keeping with original design; and to restore co-equality of the States with the federal government. Obvious too is the fact that the strong support of Congress would be essential to getting the ball rolling. Herculean grassroots lobbying would be essential as well.

Clearly, the Article V Constitutional Convention may well be the least onerous, but such a convention would likely run the risk of inviting corrupting ideological excesses. This is why I'm leaning toward a highly transparent joint Congressional-State convention approach with a clearly defined and clearly focused constitutional mandate. And though many progressive-dominated states may threaten to obstruct the process by withholding their participation, the specter of the Commission's acting without their input might well incentivize their participation. But with or without those delegates, the Commission's work must proceed unencumbered and with all deliberate speed.

Too aggressive? Too far-reaching? Do-able? Overwhelming? Too onerous? Too bureaucratic? Fraught with peril? Or, in the minds of the We the People and its representatives in DC and the various state capitals, is the Constitution already an irrelevant relic worthy of little more than our benign neglect and wishful thinking? (Note: as I see it, a resounding Republican sweep November '12 AND the real possibility that the "super congressional committee" might actually accomplish something creditable and bi-partisan might well present our last great opportunity to restore first principles. But, of course, to do so we must ensure the unwavering commitment of the GOP elite. A tall order, for sure.)

Obviously, this is but a rough outline, I know, and much massaging, streamlining, and clarifying are clearly needed. But, I think we can all agree that we really do need to get deadly serious about drastically changing course and restoring first principles. And for those--like me--who are understandably concerned about a possibly reckless corruption of this restorative process by statists in our midst, then perhaps the aggressive implementation of #2 alone is the preferred approach AND/OR, as a first step, limiting the exercise to a well-publicized study and recommendation regimen only. In any event, I am absolutely convinced that something serious must be done soon to get us back on track. To continue wringing our hands and fearfully sitting on our hands hoping for the best is not an answer. It's a recipe for failure and self-destruction.

Finally, this: if a peaceful return to constitutional order proves to be but an unachievable pipe dream, then all bets are off and less attractive and more...assertive and unsettling...alternative remedies may well be unavoidable. If the current union proves to be unwilling to commit itself to first principles, then it is a certainty that the union's dissolution is inescapable. And in the final analysis, perhaps its break-up might well be in the interest of those Americans and States who are genuinely committed to restoring and defending first principles.

To my way of thinking, there is absolutely nothing redeeming about "unity at any price". Absent the congealing foundations of liberty and republicanism, a union is but a habitat for fools and slaves. Time is running out.

"Where [the Constitution] thrives, everything thrives." Dr. Larry Arnn, President, Hillsdale College, 2011.

"The Constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other enlarged, that should be adopted which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution." Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833.

Time to Re-Focus on the Eligibility Issue

2011-10-08T13:43:00.001-07:00

I believe it's well past time for us all to re-focus like a laser on what could well be a constitutional issue of calamitous historical proportions. Toward that end, I have carefully written this post. And please note that this is not an Obama witchhunt. Not at all. It is nothing less nor more than a battle for the Constitution itself.

Despite my 22 years of immigration counseling experience, trying to accurately, briefly and clearly summarize the issue of Obama's eligibility--or ineligibility--for the Presidency has been especially challenging and time-consuming. Though I have managed to compact much within this summary, I apologize in advance for the unavoidable length. I hope it proves to be a useful exercise and that it will stir wider, fearless and more objective discussion of the subject. Why? Nothing less than what remains of our Constitution is at stake.

CONTENTION: Obama, born in 1961 of a US Citizen mother and a British Citizen (born in Kenya), was born a "US Citizen" by virtue of his mother's US Citizenship; however, since Obama's father was not a US Citizen, thus not "attached to the US", Obama, even if born of a US Citizen mother within the jurisdiction of the US, is not, by definition and Constitutional intent, a "natural born citizen" as is specifically required by Artile II, Sec 1 (Presidential Clause) of the US Constitution, and is, therefore, ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

British citizenship was conferred to Obama at birth by act of British law. Thus, he is born of dual citizenship.

Art II, Sec 1 of the Constitution, the so-called Presidential Clause, stipulates that "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Within the context of the Framers' actual meaning (letter of the law) and the Framers' express purpose (intent of the law), being a "natural born citizen" requires that citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law (see Law of Nations by E. Vitel-1758 which which profoundly influenced the Framers' intent when fashioning the Constitution) which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one's father's citizenship. To wit, Vatel stated that "natives", or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens", and that "as society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their right." Again, the accent is on the father's citizenship status at the time of the child's birth.

The intent of the Framers with respect to the meaning of "natural born citizen" (vs "born in the US" or US Citizen") within the context of the Presidential Clause specifically takes into account the father's allegiance and citizenship at the time of a child's birth. Thus, the father's citizenship and, thus, his "attachment to the US" at the time of the child's birth, carried more weight than merely the geographic location of the child's birth. Why? Still reeling from British rule, the Framers, as represented by the words of John Jay in a July 1787 letter to George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, wanted to avoid dual citizenship or dual loyalties of any future Commander-in-Chief by declaring expressly "that the Commander-in-Chief...shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen", this to insure future leadership's freedom from foreign influences.

This correspondence directly influenced how Art II, Sec 1 was subsequently written, which holds that "no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President." (Notice the distinction.)

The first Nationality Act in 1790 declared that "the children of citizens [plural]of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." (Notice what appeared to be the central importance of the father's statu--even if both parents were US Citizens at the time of the child's birth.)

However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 stated that children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the United States but are not legally considered "natural born citizens" of the United States. ( A more exclusionary definition which adds the geograhic requirement as well.)

Also, we should note that the primary author of the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard, declared that the citizenship clause of the Amendment was, again, by virtue of "natural law" and not by "act of law." (This would mean that a child born to a US Citizen father was "natural born.)

In 1871, Rep. John Bingham, a Framer of the 14th Amendment, stated that a child is a US Citizen if born of naturalized parents inasmuch as a naturalized father as part of the naturalization oath "absolutely renounces and abjure all allegiance and fidelity" to other sovereignties, thus establishing his firm "attachment to the United States" as well.(So, born of US Citizen parents within the jurisdiction are the overriding factors in determining "natural born citizenship.")

Note too that US Title 8 Sec 1401 provides that US Citizenship alone is not sufficient to qualify one for President or Vice President, the clear inference being that he or she must be natural born.

In 1800, Charles Pinckney, a Framer of the Constitution and, later, the S.C. Governor, said that the Presidential Clause was designed to firmly "insure attachment to the country." (No dual loyalties on the part of either parent.)

Art IV, Sec 2 provided that no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual states citizens of the US; only State Legislatures had authority to grant State citizenship which, in turn, conferred upon them US Citizenship.

Further, in Savage vs Umphries (TX) 118 S.W. 893, 909, the court ruled that "as a man is a citizen of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it is incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter is not a citizen of the US to show that such voter's father was not a citizen thereof during his son's minority."

In 1820, Rep. A. Smith (VA), stated that "when we apply the term citizens to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."

And what does the 14th Amendment have to say about this?

The primary author of the citizenship clause in the 14th, Sen. Jacob Howard, declared that the citizenship clause of the Amendment was, again, by virture of "natural law" and not by "act of law". This would mean that a child born to a US Citizen father is, therefore, "natural born".

In 1866, per the 14th Amendment, the terms "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" was defined as meaning "not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty." In the same year, Sec 1992 of US Revised Statutes declared that "all persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power, exluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the US."

In 1871, Rep. John Bingham, a framer of the 14th, stated that a child is a US Citizen if born of naturalized parents inasmuch as a naturalized father as part of the naturalization oath "absolutely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity" to other sovereignties, thus establishing his firm "attachment to the United States" as well. So, it would seem that born of US Citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the US are the overriding and defining factors in determining "natural born citizenship".

On Sec. 1992, Rep. John Bingham, stated that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents [plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." (Very definitive for purposes both of the 14th Amendment and the Presidential Clause.)

*See Perkins vs ELG, US 325 (1939) ruling which provides the two criteria expressed by Rep. John Bingham must exist before one can be called a "natural born citizen."

On June 22, 1874, Congress issued a joint resolution that stated the "United States has not recognized a double allegiance."

Of contemporaneous interest is that according to the US State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency), "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute ["natural born citizen" and "by statute" is incongruous) does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes." The incongruity created by the statement's use of "natural born citizen" and "by statute" notwithstanding, it appears that a naturalized citizen (by law/statute) is not eligible to assume the office of the President, but it seems to be generally agreed that children born within the jurisdiction of the US of naturalized parents are considered to be "natural born citizens" since that child's parents are, as part of the naturalization process, required "to renounce and abjure any allegiance or fidelity to any foreign sovereignty" and, thus, are, at the time of the child's birth, "attached to the US." Similary, and more obviously, a child born within US jurisdiction of two US citizen parents is also considered a "natural born citizen".

So, it appears that there is no better way to insure "attachment to the US" then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship from his US Citizen father or, at the very least, from both his parents. The Framers' rationale for this would be that any child born in the US of an alien father, or a father of dual allegiance, can be removed by their father to be raised in another country only to be returned later in life bringing with him/her foreign influences. Thus, for purposes of complying with the Presidential Clause, a person born of dual citizenship/allegiance cannot be said to be a natural born citizen. Again, and within the context of the Presidential Clause, the child inherits natural born citizenship from the father alone because, through the laws of nature, the child inherits the condition of the father.

Within the meaning of the Presidential Clause, one can accurately say that there are essentially two types of citizenship: 1) "natural born citizenship" meaning one who, by operation of nature (descent), was born of an American citizen father, or, as further expanded upon in successive legislation and opinion, was born of two US Citizen parents, and 2) a "US Citizen" meaning one who, through operation of law (statutory) was granted citizenship through naturalization, either automatically at time of birth or voluntarily some time after birth. (See John Bingham opinion above.)

The recent Wrotnowski vs Bysiewica stay request which was denied by SCOTUS on 12/15/08 asserts that Pres. Chester A. Arthur's father was a British citizen at the time of Chester's birth--and the facts appear to clearly substantiate that assertion--and that, therefore, Chester A. Arthur was ineligible under Art II, Sec 1 to assume the office of President. And since the facts of the Arthur case were very similar to that of Obama's, it was plantiff's hope to force the Court to review Obama's eligibility to be President as well.

So, even if Obama verifies his birth within the jurisdiction of the US, he is a US Citizen by virtue of his mother's American citizenship, but he is not a natural born citizen because he was born of an alien father and is, therefore, not, by definition and intent of the Presidential Clause, a natural born citizen.

And if Pres. Chester A. Arthur was ineligible to be President because his father was a British citizen at the time of Chester's birth, should the Supreme Court rule Chester Arthur's breach of law a defensible precedent for granting Presidential eligibility to Obama since his father too was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth in 1961? On this question, the Framers' method for repairing the breach is per constitutional amendment. Clearly, the Framers did not want a President at birth to be born of dual citizenship. As someone much smarter than I said, "making errors in the past does not mean that we need to repeat them in the future."

From this summary of law, I think it can be most reasonably concluded that since a child derives his attachment to the US from his US Citizen parents, a child born of US Citizen parents within the jurisction of the US, inclusive of those US parents who were naturalized US citizens at the time of the child's birth, is very clearly a "natural born citizen".

Finally, this form Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Judge Wm. Johnson in 1823: "On every question of construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probably intent in which it was passed."

And this from Pres. George Washington in his Farewell Address in 1796: "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular way wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by ursurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governements are destroyed."

Absent the Electors' denying Certification of the Election or individual lawmakers demanding verification of a presidential candidate's eligibility, it is properly left to SCOTUS or the amendment process to determine the constitutional eligibility of anyone who wishes to assume the Office of the President. Allowing this constitutional issue to fester will surely have unintended and very unsettling consequences for our country in the future. For if the Constitution is to be ignored or cavalierly misinterpreted, our Republic is irretrievably doomed.

Despite the fact that the political elite and our politicized judicial system have, so far, effectively dodged this issue and Obama devotees and fearful media talking heads on the left and the right have successfully shut down honest public discussion of this issue by their dismissive and derisive attacks on the so-called "birthers", this issue is simply not going away. Nor should it. From my perspective as a retired INS-accredited immigration counselor, it is a serious, fundamental constitutional issue which screams for objective and judicious scrutiny and resolution. And until this issue is authoritatively, constitutionally and satisfactorily resolved, the very soul of this constitutional republic remains in serious jeopardy.

Finally, this: if my analysis is correct--and I sincerely believe it is--then I ask that we not exacerbate this constitutional quandary or otherwise further muddy the waters by our urging Sen. Rubio to run for either the Presidency or Vice Presidency. While Mr. Rubio is a stellar and principled patriot and leader for whom I have nothing but the deepest of respect and admiration, it is my understanding that he was born on US soil, yes, but born of permanent resident alien parents--not of US citizens. So, unless SCOTUS renders a ruling--God-willing in keeping with the clear meaning and intent of the framers for a change--that "natural born citizenship" does, indeed, apply to children born of non-citizens on US soil, then, sadly but properly, Sen. Rubio is clearly ineligible. And unless someone has better information than I, I believe Gov. Jindal of Louisiana is likewise ineligible.

So, let's keep it simple, on point and void of emotions. No matter how we want to slice and dice, no matter what our political leanings may be, one plus one must always equal two. SCOTUS, we need a rigidly constitutional ruling.

Feds Usurp State Immigration Authority

2011-10-03T09:38:00.000-07:00

Being an 'ole immigration counselor, and having perfunctorily accepted the general notion that the feds are, in fact, pre-eminent in the area of immigration, I decided to research the matter for myself. Lesson learned yet again: ALWAYS question the feds ANY TIME they claim primacy on ANY issue. Why? Chances are they've overstepped their Art 1 Sec 8 enumerated powers. And, indeed, on the matter of immigration law they have grossly violated the constitution with impunity, proving once again that all the feds require in order to expand their powers is a submissive State and an uninformed citizenry. But, a ray of hope: on the matter of immigration, and illegal aliens specifically, Alabama is successfully reasserting its rightful constitutional authority over immigration. The lingering concern for me, of course, is whether or not Alabama will eventually back down if the imperious and overreaching federal judicial system once again thwarts the Constitution by trampling on State sovereignty.

On September 28th, US District Judge Sharon Blackburn upheld most of Alabama's recently enacted immigration law, arguably the toughest immigration law passed by any State to date. Horror of horrors!!! And, of course, the bleeding hearts and open border simpletons among us are in an uproar! Oh, the indignity!!!

Essentially, Blackburn ruled that Alabama's law enforcement officers may check the immigration status of those they suspect may be illegal entrants. Shocking!!! Unbridled tyranny!!! Fascism!!!

The ruling also upholds the law's requirement that all businesses use E-Verify, a national database operated by the US Citizenship & Immigration Services that allows employers to check potential employees' Social Security numbers to determine if they are work-authorized. Sedition!!! Shameless racism!!!

Also upheld is the requirement that all school enrollees must present a birth certificate within 30 days of enrollment, this to determine the legal status of their parents. (Note: the law does not prohibit an illegal alien's attendance.) Oh, the humanity!!! Have we no heart???

On the flipside, the Judge blocked the law's 1) prohibition against an illegal's applying for a job, 2) imposition of civil action against employers who knowingly hire illegals, 3) criminalizing the harboring and transportation of illegals, and 4) prohibiting businesses from claiming deductions on wages paid to illegals. A confident and appropriately assertive Alabama plans to appeal these negative portions of the ruling straightaway. My sense is that Governor Bentley has no intention of continuing to obediently yield Alabama sovereignty to an overweaning federal government. Not this time anyway--I hope.

My research into this subject quickly and manifestly shows that federal primacy relates only to matters of naturalization, but that immigration still remains very much a State power.

We must remember that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution clearly reserve those powers and rights not specifically granted by the Constitution to the federal government to the States or to the people. Simply put, if a power is not specifically granted to the federal government (Art 1 Sec 8), that power falls within the sole purview of the States. The Ninth was intended to preserve all rights existing under state laws as of 1791. The intention of the Tenth was to prevent future federal encroachments upon the states via its exercise of non-delegated powers.

As the federalistblog points out, "because the States retained just about everything they had before joining the union, and the fact this is clearly enumerated in the Constitution, gives Congrss no more authority to authorize entry of immigrants or asylum seekers within the individual States any more than it has the authority to direct another country to accept them." In fact, before and after the 14th Amendment, most States actually had their own immigration commissioners to supervise state immigration activities as well as state immigration representatives in various foreign countries to encourage legal entries into their states of specially qualified persons. But, by slow erosion of the Constitution over the years, the feds have pretty much usurped nearly all authority over immigration matters. Willfully negligent or otherwise financially dependent, aka bought-off, States have, by their silence over the years, stupidly and irresponsibly consented to this--and countless other--federal encroachments.

Rep. John Bingham, co-author of the14th Amendment, argued that while States may not deny entry of US Citizens, States may forbid entry of aliens and to deny their right to acquire property in the States.
Surely, 'ole John must have been a crackpot. Huh?

Justice Taney argued Congress has no right to authorize the introduction of aliens without the express consent of the States involved. He also cited Holmes v Jennision, Groves v Slaughter, and Prigg v Pennsylvania to demonstrate that the States alone had the power to expel and exclude. Another Constitution-first troublemaker!!!

In a note to Congress, Pres. Grant asserted that the federal government was prohibited from interfering with immigration matters and that "responsibility over immigration can only belong with the States since this is where the Constitution kept the power." And all this time I thought Grant was a nice guy!!!

The challenge for the feds over the years has been to prove that immigration somehow directly relates to foreign affairs, thus incident to its exercise of delegated powers under Art 1 Sec 8. However, because the federal government has been unable to constitutionally or cogently demonstrate that relationship, it has simply usurped state authority. And, as said, up to now States have routinely submitted.

While Art 1 Sec 8 specifically grants Congress the power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States", nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted authority over matters related to immigration. NOWHERE!!! (Note: by definition, "immigration" relates to the movement of people while "uniform rules of naturalization" relate solely to citizenship requirements.) Again, the Constitution's enumerated federal powers say absolutely nothing about immigration; thus, if immigration/asylum authority is not expressly granted to the federal government, it is, therefore, expressly withheld from it. (Note: the only allusion to immigration, per se, is Art 1 Sec 9 which prohibits the "migration and importation" of slaves after 1808, a deal which the States agreed to as a condition of ratification.) Fullstop.

In a nutshell, for the feds to rightly claim constitutional primacy in immigration--or in any other matter--two conditions must be met: 1) that power must be expressly delegated to the feds, or be "incidental to a delegated power granted to Congress", and 2) that power must be expressly withheld from the States. On this subject, the Constitution very clearly places primacy with the States. But, constitutional primacy is utterly irrelevant if the several States are inclined to ignore or otherwise duck that primacy.

None other than Thomas Jefferson unequivocally stated that States retained jurisdiction and authority over immigration matters: "Alien friends {as opposed to enemy aliens] are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state within they are; that power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens..."

James Madison succinctly explained that "the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State govenrments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce with which the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

The short of it is this: since the Articles of Confederation, the sovereign States--not the feds--have had exclusive authority over immigration matters, and that authority was carried over into the Constitution itself. Clearly, the culprits here are the States themselves who have cavalierly and gratuitously surrendered their sovereignty. Well, up until now that is.

However, to checkmate further federal violations of the Constitution and to reverse the litany of violations already committed, I urge all readers to do their own research on this and a whole host of other subjects. You may be surprised and very much appalled by the extent of federal overreach perpetrated on the Republic over the years. In short, take nothing for granted. Accept nothing at face value. Challenge long-held assumptions, court rulings and popularly held notions about the Constitution which simply don't square with the Constitution. Don't expect to be properly educated by the media's agenda-driven talking heads and political elite, most of whom have already bought into the myth of federal supremacy in nearly all spheres of our lives. Don't routinely acquiesce to your own State's shortsighted failure to properly asset their constitutional powers. Finally, on ALL constitutional matters scrupulously question with boldness and probity. Leave no stone unturned. As the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional, it is encumbent upon We the People--not a gaggle of dopey self-serving attorneys--to be the experts. Research!!!! To determine what is and what is not constitutional, rely on the Founders, your own integrity, resourcefulness and objectivity, and most certainly NOT on the feds--and not even on your own lackadaisacal State authorities who, by their own negligence, have conspired to cede so many of our rights to an increasingly unbridled national government.

Time to Privatize Postal Service & TSA

2011-09-19T06:21:00.000-07:00

Editorial, Published D&C 9/19/11

Like the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and countless other costly and sorely mismanaged govenrment-run programs, the chronically deficit-prone U.S. Postal Service should be privatized. Indisputably, to achieve efficiency and financial stability, the profit motive always works best. This would save Americans billions.

Common-sense realists not blinded by pie-in-the-sky big government ideology know that government has never, ever been the answer. As President Ronald Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem." We need but to look around at our shattered economy to see how painfully relevant that assessment is today.

What Really Drives Obamanomics?

2011-09-05T10:44:00.000-07:00

Recently, a writer for the American Thinker asserted that "no intelligent president would do the things Obama has done", and went on to conclude that, in fact, Obama "is an intelligent anti-American president" and that he "is not a failure at his job--his job is the failure of our country." Wow! Couldn't be more perfectly stated.

In truth, one would need to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see that this cunning and thoroughly indoctrinated child of Marxism is anything but incompetent. Thus, only insofar as a brainwashed Socialist/Marxist is, by predisposition, narrowly fixated on ideology can he be accurately characterized as "incompetent". Clueless, ideologically or developmentally challenged, or, quite possibly, cognitively dissonant would, perhaps, be more accurate descriptions.

Obama's long and intimate associations with Socialist and Marxist individuals and mentors-- Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers being among the more notorious--as well as the support lavished on him by the likes of the Democratic Socialists of American (DSA), an affiliate of the Socialist Internationale, and the Communist Party USA is ample evidence of his warped political and economic propensities. And, of course, his unrelenting and divisive race-baiting and class warfare rhetoric are straight out of Bolshevism's playbook for achieving political power.

In any event, my greatest worry is the ultimate "what if" question. WHAT IF Obama knows exactly what he's doing? WHAT IF he is applying the now well-known Cloward & Piven strategy of orchestrating economic collapse in order to impose a Socialist utopia? Such a strategy involves deliberately generating economic turmoil which will lead to societal upheavel which, in turn, will result in the public's clamoring for authoritarian intervention in order to "save the country" and "restore order". (And where have we heard that before in the annals of history?) With that "order", of course, would come the Marxist state, the culmination of all that Progressivism has been so fervently pursuing over the last 100 years.

It should be noted that both the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America now openly and unabashedly sing Obama's praises, their only complaint being that he isn't "fundamentally transforming the USA" fast enough. Scour their sites for yourselves. That said, given that over 70 members of Congress are bonafide members of the DSA, one has to reasonably wonder how many of these Socialists are also CPU sympathizers as well.

(FYI, among the 70 are Andre Carson (IN-7), of "the Tea Party wants blacks hanging from a tree" infamy and Maxine Waters (CA-35) of "let the Tea Party go to Hell" ignominy. For my NYS compatriots, Carolyn Maloney (NY-14), John Hall (NY-19), M. Hinchey (NY-22), Yvette Clarke (NY-11) and our own Louise Slaughter (NY-28) are also proud DSA members.)

Yes, the foxes are clearly in the coop and our Republic is under seige from within by all manner of Marxist Czars, Socialist legislators, leftist apologists and academics, and their usual coterie of thuggish union allies and useful idiots, underscoring yet once again that history does, in fact, repeat itself with disturbing regularity. By nature, it seems that Man is averse to learning from history, and is predestined to repeating the same painful mistakes of the past. "Stuck on stupid" perfectly describes this age old phenomenon.

In any event, I pray I'm dead wrong and that Obama and his Czars are simply impractical theoreticians and bubble-headed incompetents. But even the casual observer must concede that something is dangerously amiss when so many obviously bright apparatchiks in this Administration continue to insanely press forward with their failed economic policies. One must realistically wonder if these policies really are intended to be remedies or a means to an alien political end? Shouldn't the stark contrast between the commonsense and demonstratively successful Milton Friedman economic model and Obama's destructive Keynesian economic approach be blindingly obvious to even the most committed ideologue? Are the Obamanomics advocates genuinely dumb or are they cold and calculating? That question should bother us all.

SO, can we impeach him before it's too late? Absolutely. We have the majority in the House. BUT, can we remove him from office? Nope! Not so long as the Senate is in Progressive hands.

So what do we do until 2012? Encourage gridlock and relentlessly prepare to electorally remove Obama and his minons from office in 2012. We should also demand of Congress that they stop ceding power to the Executive Branch and that Congress deprive revenue to any federal programs which impede economic recovery or that otherwise impel our country toward the brink of collapse. Most importantly, NO COMPROMISE with Progressive tyranny. Of course, we will be attacked for our "obstructionism" and "stubborn inflexibility"--even our "lack of patriotism", laughable as that may seem. But, in this pivotal struggle with the radical left we must hang tough.

With the electoral defeat of Obama in 2012--and I don't think there's much doubt about that anymore-- I think we can reasonably hope that constitutional order will be slowly restored and that all the unconstitutional edicts, fiats, executive orders and laws perpetrated upon the Republic over the past several years will be placed on a fast track to reversal. However, a word of warning: since Progressives plague both parties, achieving this critically important goal will require our continued vigilance and unwavering commiment.

Finally, if the WHAT IF scenario does invade our reality before January 20, 2013, then only civil disobedience and even a willingness to commit ourselves to patriotic rebellion and secession can protect us from tyranny. For that reason, we must not take electoral victory for granted. To dodge electoral defeat, Progressives may very well manufacture a WHAT IF crisis. From all they've shown us over the years,I simply don't put such a cynical, self-serving manipulation past them. Not at all.

So, forewarned is forearmed. Patriots need not--should not--submit to a Marxist takeover merely to restore social order. By definition, social order without constitutional order is tyranny.

("It is error alone which needs the support of government. The truth can stand by itself." Thomas Jefferson)

("When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson)