Natural Born Citizen and Natural Law
Print This Post
POSITIVE LAW, NATURAL LAW, AND NATURAL RIGHTS
by Jedi Pauly
How did the Founding Fathers define the term "natural born Citizen"?
(Sept. 28, 2010) — I just wanted to teach everyone the true meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’ because I am astounded at the level of incompetence and ignorance that exists surrounding this issue.
First, let me say that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ from Article II is NOT an undefined legal term. It is perfectly self-evident and defined within the context of Article II and the Declaration of Independence, Natural Law, and the opposite which is Positive Law, and the term just means exactly what it says.
Second, it most definitely DOES NOT require both parents to be citizens, or for the person to be born on U.S. soil, because ‘natural born Citizen’ has absolutely nothing to do with your mom or soil jurisdiction.
Third, the purpose and intent of Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ is to preserve our Constitutional Republic form of government to be under NATURAL LAW by protecting our sovereignty from foreign royalty so that we will not become a MONARCHY form of government like England or Europe, which is what the founders feared most and were trying to separate themselves from.
It is declared in the Declaration of Independence that it is a SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH that all MEN are CREATED equal and that governments are instituted among MEN. The Declaration of Independence is not talking about women’s political rights! Women are not the source of sovereign political authority, MEN are. What is being declared is that in nature, under Natural Law, that all men INHERIT a SOVEREIGN POLITICAL AUTHORITY EQUAL TO A KING as a natural inalienable right and it is not just for the privileged few families of royalty that existed in Europe at the time, and still exists today. The Declaration specifically lists LIBERTY as one of the inherited inalienable natural rights. Liberty is just a fancy way of saying that one possesses a sovereign political authority. The person with the most liberty (freedom) is the king who is a sovereign authority. Under Natural Law, sovereign political authority is inherited from males, not females or soil. Women do not have natural political sovereignty. That is why we have to have a 19th Amendment to the Constitution in order to extend the legal PRIVILEGE of Positive Law to extend political rights (voting rights) to women. Men and women’s political rights are not equal under natural law due to a man’s natural superiority in physical strength. It is a self-evident truth that men fight the wars and defend the tribe, and negotiate the peace, and institute governments, and make and enforce the rules. Men do this as a function on nature, not women. The political authority of any clan is passed on with the surname inherited from the father. Even a queen can not be queen without a statutory law (privilege) put in place from the males from whom her authority comes from (her father because there are no male heirs).
Natural Law gives one Natural Rights which is an endowment from Nature or the Creator depending on your religious point of view. Even an atheist can accept Natural Law because the Laws of Nature (Declaration of Independence) are a scientific objective subject that one can just observe and realize independent of a Creator or God concept. The legal opposite of Natural Law is called Positive Law. The term Positive Law comes from the Latin root ‘posit’ which means that which is declared and agreed to. Positive Law is statutory man made law that gives you ‘Legal Rights’ which are PRIVILEGES of government and they are the opposite of Natural Rights which are NOT privileges.
Now, let us examine the self-evident meaning of Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ and prove that it is not an undefined legal term. First, just look at the part ‘natural born’. This is meant to convey that we are talking about being CREATED under Natural Law and not the opposite which is Positive Law legal privileges. This eliminates soil jurisdiction from any consideration because you only get legal privileges from soil jurisdiction. Soil does not give you natural inherited inalienable rights. Next, and here is what everyone is missing, let us apply the simple rules of English grammar to ‘Citizen’ and notice that ‘Citizen’ is capitalized. The word citizen is a noun, and when you capitalize a noun in a sentence that makes the noun a PROPER noun. A proper noun means a specific instance or special TYPE of citizen. What special TYPE is being referred to? The answer is they are referring to a SOVEREIGN U.S. Citizen. You can not have a sovereign nation if there are no sovereign citizens. Furthermore, you can not have any sovereign citizens without sovereign fathers to create them! A sovereign citizen is one who inherits a sovereign political authority as a natural inalienable right as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Since you only inherit a sovereign political authority from males under natural law, this eliminates your mom from consideration since she is a female and you only get ‘legal privileges’ from positive law due to your mom, not the natural inherited political sovereign authority which only comes from males. Simply put, ‘natural born Citizen’ just means that one must INHERIT their right to be President from their citizen father as a natural right and not a legal privilege, and we have just proven that your mom and soil jurisdiction are irrelevant and that ‘natural born Citizen’ is perfectly defined within the context of Article II, Natural Law, Positive Law and the Declaration of Independence.
Now let’s examine from the point of view of the purpose and intent of Article II ‘natural born Citizen’, which is to prevent a monarchy form of government and protect U.S. sovereignty from foreign royalty, in order that we may further prove that soil jurisdiction and your mom are totally irrelevant. Lets suppose for a moment that you could somehow inherit a sovereign political authority from just the soil or your mom. Then any foreign king could impregnate an American woman or have his child born on U.S. soil and that child could qualify for President due to an inherited sovereign political authority from mom or the soil, and at the same time would be a prince or king of a foreign country inherited as a sovereign political right from his foreign royal father. Oops! There goes the Republic! Now you have foreign royalty in power and you have a monarchy again. Clearly the founders prevented this by realizing that you only get legal privileges of positive law from your mom or soil jurisdiction and if you are created (natural born) by a citizen father from whom you inherit a sovereign political authority from (all MEN are created equal) then this would protect American sovereignty from foreign royal influence. I have settled the issue. the term ‘natural born Citizen’ just means inherited from a citizen father. Mom and soil are irrelevant. Obama is not qualified because he was not created by a U.S. citizen father.
Here endeth the lesson!
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
OBAMA IS AIDING AND ABETTING CRIMINALS AND THEREFORE GUILTY OF TREASON
by Don Hank
(Sept. 25, 2010) — I recently published a column on the gradual seizure of ranches in Arizona by Mexican cartels with the tacit consent of the current administration.
I need to clarify that any person in a position such that he/she can be reasonably expected to be protecting US assets (US president, Homeland Security Chief, Border Patrol chief, etc) and who refuses to protect said assets is on a par with — but in fact is more culpable than — the actual perpetrators (in this case, the cartels, Mexican criminals and other invaders) of the harm to the assets.
This means that these people are liable and must be brought to justice as soon as possible.
Obama and his administration have made it clear that they not only will not meaningfully defend our borders and perform a modicum of their duties to protect American lives and assets (see the definition of security in the above-linked column). They have in fact clearly sided with the criminals, aiding and abetting them in harming a state and its citizens. Suing the state of AZ for protecting borders that can be expected to be protected by the federal government and is their duty to protect under the Constitution, is nothing short of treachery.
Here are the parts of the Constitution that are being directly violated – first an Article that applies indirectly, then an Article that applies directly:
“Art. IV, Section 3: ….The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the US; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the US or of any particular State.”
The Obama administration has “construed” the Constitution “so as to prejudice the claims of” a “particular State” (AZ). That is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.
Further, and more directly:
It the administration has violated Section 4 of Art. IV, which clearly states:
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”
There is no wiggle room here for the Executive. Obama and the agencies subordinate to him must protect the states against invasion and they are failing to do so, in flagrant violation of Constitutional Article IV. In fact, they are illegally suing AZ under color of law in an attempt to cover their tracks.
This passive refusal to protect a state and the pro-active frivolous and malicious lawsuit against AZ for attempting to defend itself amount to one of the grounds for impeachment explicitly enumerated under Article II, Section 4, because the inaction on the one hand and the active step on the other hand are quite simply treason. There can be no other word for it.
It does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Each state has the right to decide whether the government has denied them aid.
Regardless of this, it is time for the states to defend themselves against all blatant violations of their Constitutional rights, whether these violations be perpetrated by the Executive or a higher court, including the SC.
When a higher court violates the Constitution, it is up to the people (on the state level first) to assert their rights and just say no — as Sheriff Joe Arpaio has done, BTW, in refusing to provide documents improperly requested by the feds.
Arpaio is in his right under the 10th Amendment, which states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Constitution does not grant to the federal government the right to interfere with law enforcement activities on the State level.
Nor did AZ, according to this same Amendment, have to accept the intervention of the higher court to hamstring their immigration law. They chose to do so. It needs to be recognized, in this regard, that Jan Brewer is willing to defend AZ only in part, but not in whole. She is behaving first as a politician and, as a distant second, as a defender of her State and its Constitutional rights.
Her endorsement of John McCain is evidence that she is only willing to half-heartedly defend her people.
The fact that the people chose McCain in the primary election is evidence that they are willing to allow the tail to wag the dog.
They have not fully grasped the Tea Party principles and the significance of the Constitution.
And there is one salient reason for this: Neither Brewer nor the people have actually read the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.
Nothing significant will happen until the Articles mentioned above are read and understood by a majority of the people.
© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.
by Don Hank
(Sept. 25, 2010) — I recently published a column on the gradual seizure of ranches in Arizona by Mexican cartels with the tacit consent of the current administration.
I need to clarify that any person in a position such that he/she can be reasonably expected to be protecting US assets (US president, Homeland Security Chief, Border Patrol chief, etc) and who refuses to protect said assets is on a par with — but in fact is more culpable than — the actual perpetrators (in this case, the cartels, Mexican criminals and other invaders) of the harm to the assets.
This means that these people are liable and must be brought to justice as soon as possible.
Obama and his administration have made it clear that they not only will not meaningfully defend our borders and perform a modicum of their duties to protect American lives and assets (see the definition of security in the above-linked column). They have in fact clearly sided with the criminals, aiding and abetting them in harming a state and its citizens. Suing the state of AZ for protecting borders that can be expected to be protected by the federal government and is their duty to protect under the Constitution, is nothing short of treachery.
Here are the parts of the Constitution that are being directly violated – first an Article that applies indirectly, then an Article that applies directly:
“Art. IV, Section 3: ….The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the US; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the US or of any particular State.”
The Obama administration has “construed” the Constitution “so as to prejudice the claims of” a “particular State” (AZ). That is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.
Further, and more directly:
It the administration has violated Section 4 of Art. IV, which clearly states:
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”
There is no wiggle room here for the Executive. Obama and the agencies subordinate to him must protect the states against invasion and they are failing to do so, in flagrant violation of Constitutional Article IV. In fact, they are illegally suing AZ under color of law in an attempt to cover their tracks.
This passive refusal to protect a state and the pro-active frivolous and malicious lawsuit against AZ for attempting to defend itself amount to one of the grounds for impeachment explicitly enumerated under Article II, Section 4, because the inaction on the one hand and the active step on the other hand are quite simply treason. There can be no other word for it.
It does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Each state has the right to decide whether the government has denied them aid.
Regardless of this, it is time for the states to defend themselves against all blatant violations of their Constitutional rights, whether these violations be perpetrated by the Executive or a higher court, including the SC.
When a higher court violates the Constitution, it is up to the people (on the state level first) to assert their rights and just say no — as Sheriff Joe Arpaio has done, BTW, in refusing to provide documents improperly requested by the feds.
Arpaio is in his right under the 10th Amendment, which states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Constitution does not grant to the federal government the right to interfere with law enforcement activities on the State level.
Nor did AZ, according to this same Amendment, have to accept the intervention of the higher court to hamstring their immigration law. They chose to do so. It needs to be recognized, in this regard, that Jan Brewer is willing to defend AZ only in part, but not in whole. She is behaving first as a politician and, as a distant second, as a defender of her State and its Constitutional rights.
Her endorsement of John McCain is evidence that she is only willing to half-heartedly defend her people.
The fact that the people chose McCain in the primary election is evidence that they are willing to allow the tail to wag the dog.
They have not fully grasped the Tea Party principles and the significance of the Constitution.
And there is one salient reason for this: Neither Brewer nor the people have actually read the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.
Nothing significant will happen until the Articles mentioned above are read and understood by a majority of the people.
© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.
Friday, September 24, 2010
JAGs protecting Obama have committed treason
Print This Post
IS THE “FIX” ALREADY IN FOR LT. COL. LAKIN? IF SO, WHAT DO WE DO?
by James H. Roberson
The position of Judge Advocate General is appointed and provided for by Title 10 of the U.S. Code
(Sept. 23, 2010) — Folks, we may be getting close to Civil War II.
Lt. Col. Lakin (M.D.- Active Army) – first asked the Army to affirm that Obama was constitutionally eligible to serve as President, and when his chain of command refused, he then refused to deploy to Afghanistan until “eligibility” was established (to force the issue to a head). Lakin’s argument is simple and direct: a soldier must not be compelled to obey an “unlawful order”; an “ineligible person” cannot serve as President and Commander-in-Chief and, thus, cannot issue “lawful orders.” He has thereby laid his liberty and whole career on the line in order to honor his Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution (especially Article II, Section 1, Clause 5), which must not be violated!
In preparation for his court martial, scheduled for October, his defense counsel asked the Judge Advocate General (JAG) court to authorize “discovery” of Obama’s birth records in order to prove Lakin’s innocence. Col. Lind, Presiding JAG Judge, has recently ruled that LTC Lakin can’t depose (question under oath) the Hawaiian Custodian of Birth Records, nor view any of their documents. The judge claimed that birth records might contain “embarrassing information” about the putative President. The judge further ruled that it is “irrelevant” for the military to prove that Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief. She said that LTC Lakin’s deployment orders came from the Pentagon and, “on its face,” that’s all he needs to know. In other words, along with her Commanding General, Col. Lind has just decided that the chain of command originates at the Pentagon, and the President is NOT an integral part of it. Both Lind and her commanding general have now violated the Constitution’s clear specification that the “President is the Commander-in-Chief.
Col. Lind is either a disgrace to the uniform, or a coward who has just covertly handed LTC Lakin’s defense team a “home-run” issue to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court! A lengthy but very insightful interview with a legal military justice expert explains the background and history of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and WHY we must never give Obama an opportunity to declare “martial law,” which is brutal and NOT civilized, constitutional law as we normally comprehend it.
So far, three generals, all retired, have offered support for Lt. Col. Lakin. Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, the highest-ranking officer yet to lend public support, has supplied an affidavit “in support of defense request for discovery/motion to compel.” The affidavit acknowledges widespread concerns over the putative President’s constitutional eligibility and demands that he release his birth records or the court authorize discovery. Lakin faces trial on October 13-15.
Extracts from the affidavit include:
The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.
As a practical example from my background I recall commanding forces that were equipped with nuclear weapons. In my command capacity I was responsible that the personnel with access to these weapons had an unwavering and absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential — vital– in the event the use of those weapons was authorized. I cannot overstate how imperative it is to train such personnel to have confidence in the unified chain of command. Today, because of the widespread and legitimate concerns that the presumed President is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, I fear what would happen should such a crisis occur today.
In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. That training mandates that he determine in his own conscience that an order is legal before obeying it…
For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that LTC Lakin’s request for discovery relating to the President’s birth records in Hawaii is absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this President > whether his service as Commander in Chief is Constitutionally proper. He is the one single person in the Chain of Command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship. This determination is fundamental to our Republic, where civilian control over the military is the rule. According to our Constitution, the Commander in Chief must now, in the face of serious– and widely held– concerns that he is ineligible, either voluntarily establish his eligibility by authorizing release of his birth records or this court must authorize their discovery. The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here. Our military MUST have confidence their Commander in Chief lawfully holds this office and absent which confidence grievous consequences may ensue.
The second general, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret.) was less subtle when he said: “We need to demand resignations of Obama, his cabinet, and members of Congress.” He also stated that Obama is both “incompetent” and “ineligible.” Further, “The fix is in” and “The damages have been so great that we can’t afford to wait until the 2012 elections.”
The third General, Army Major General (Ret.) Jerry Curry, a decorated combat veteran, has issued a statement indicating that he agrees with Lakin that the (putative) President should provide proof of eligibility. Curry served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Carter administration, as Press Secretary to the Secretary of Defense for the Reagan administration, and has worked in international relations, public affairs, management, aviation, and research and development.
Folks, I’m terribly concerned about the future of our Republic. It is disgraceful that nearly every member of Congress knows Obama is ineligible. What are they afraid of? Are they are all afraid to act for fear that this will cause more racial uprisings — with big cities looting and burning — as happened before, following the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rodney King events? Or is there some other powerful force keeping them — and major media — silent about this matter? When people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Neal Boortz, and Sean Hannity are all afraid to discuss the matter, there is cause for real alarm. Even the U.S. Supreme Court is afraid to address the issue. Justice Clarence Thomas, testifying before Congress, stated, “We (the Supreme Court) are “evading that issue.” At the 1:00 min. mark of this 1:17 min video, Justice Thomas “spills the beans” — and then tries to act as if it were a joke.
Attorney General Eric Holder (a demonstrated racist) was talking about our fears of honestly discussing racial issues when he asserted, “We are a nation of cowards!” He was indeed correct. Nevertheless, as a Citizen, you do need to understand this important issue of “eligibility” if you don’t already. Every patriotic citizen has a positive duty to understand the limitations imposed on our governments by the Constitution so that our liberties can be protected.
A five-minute video clearly explains why Obama is ineligible under the U.S. Constitution to be President (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5). Please view it. You will then understand why he is a bold Usurper.
Some Closing Thoughts
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must first arm themselves with the power that knowledge imparts. — James Madison ( “father of the U.S. Constitution”)
Hold on to the Constitution…and the Republic for which it stands — what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution. — Daniel Webster
We must not let an audacious, clever, glib Marxist subvert it, nor diminish it. “Native born” (born in the land), is NOT the same as “natural born” (both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of birth). Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 makes clear that the Founders recognized that there were various categories of “Citizens.” They decided that only “natural born” met the strict criterion of undivided allegiance needed for the President.
“Remember in November.” We must settle this with ballots; otherwise, bullets may be the ultimate solution.
Please, pray for our Republic.
© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Letter to Obama tells him to make a hasty exit
Print This Post
HEY, BARACK, NEED HELP PACKING?
September 22, 2010
How many more days does the country have to suffer under a Marxist usurper who has hidden his entire past from the public and seized major sectors of our economy?
Dear Editor: The following letter is being faxed to the White House:
Mr. Obama,
Since you are a champion of transparency, as you have told us this many times (although you have not been compelled to demonstrate this attribute yourself — all of your background records are sealed), I know you would want me to speak openly and honestly. So, here goes:
* You know you are an impostor, unconstitutionally installed
* Over 60% of Americans know you are an impostor and that percentage is growing daily
* Only those members of Congress who are stupid enough to think they will somehow miraculously survive the upcoming blood bath are still holding off exposing you
* Any self-respecting black person who considers himself to be an Americans rejects you
* You routinely violate the Constitution of the United States almost on a daily basis
* You openly fail to perform your basic responsibility to protect the rights and sovereignty of our states and our citizens.
* In direct violation of your oath, you encourage the government to wage war upon the citizens of the United States.
* Joe Wilson said it best: You lied!
* The kid from the UK made a good point
* The situation in Bell, California will soon spread to Washington
* Before the election you claimed you were Christian now it is pretty apparent you are a Muslim by supporting many of their endeavors
As an American patriot dedicated to follow the Constitution of the United States, I recommend you take the following advice seriously as it applies.
Sincerely,
Ken and Arnie
© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.
Print This Post
HEY, BARACK, NEED HELP PACKING?
September 22, 2010
How many more days does the country have to suffer under a Marxist usurper who has hidden his entire past from the public and seized major sectors of our economy?
Dear Editor: The following letter is being faxed to the White House:
Mr. Obama,
Since you are a champion of transparency, as you have told us this many times (although you have not been compelled to demonstrate this attribute yourself — all of your background records are sealed), I know you would want me to speak openly and honestly. So, here goes:
* You know you are an impostor, unconstitutionally installed
* Over 60% of Americans know you are an impostor and that percentage is growing daily
* Only those members of Congress who are stupid enough to think they will somehow miraculously survive the upcoming blood bath are still holding off exposing you
* Any self-respecting black person who considers himself to be an Americans rejects you
* You routinely violate the Constitution of the United States almost on a daily basis
* You openly fail to perform your basic responsibility to protect the rights and sovereignty of our states and our citizens.
* In direct violation of your oath, you encourage the government to wage war upon the citizens of the United States.
* Joe Wilson said it best: You lied!
* The kid from the UK made a good point
* The situation in Bell, California will soon spread to Washington
* Before the election you claimed you were Christian now it is pretty apparent you are a Muslim by supporting many of their endeavors
As an American patriot dedicated to follow the Constitution of the United States, I recommend you take the following advice seriously as it applies.
Sincerely,
Ken and Arnie
© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Obama omitted the words "by their Creator" from his speech.
On September 17, President Barack Obama spoke to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute 33rd Annual Award Gala. During his speech - reading from a teleprompter - he quoted from the Declaration of Independence. Here is what he said: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Watch the Video Here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GBiqX7Dnec
Obama omitted the words "by their Creator" from his speech. Why? Given the fact that he was using a teleprompter, I can only conclude that this was intentional. Either he, or his speechwriter, did not want to give credit to Almighty God. This kind of action would be in step with modern secular liberalism which is hostile to the Christian faith and hates the historical fact that America's founders revered and acknowledged God in so many ways that are indisputable, such as these words in the Declaration of Independence: "endowed by their Creator."
The best action Christians can take in response to this is to both work and pray for changes in Washington, D.C. You can start by getting everyone you know who is eligible to vote to register and vote November 2. We need more men and women who, like our founders, understand that our rights are from God and not from man.
On September 17, President Barack Obama spoke to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute 33rd Annual Award Gala. During his speech - reading from a teleprompter - he quoted from the Declaration of Independence. Here is what he said: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Watch the Video Here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GBiqX7Dnec
Obama omitted the words "by their Creator" from his speech. Why? Given the fact that he was using a teleprompter, I can only conclude that this was intentional. Either he, or his speechwriter, did not want to give credit to Almighty God. This kind of action would be in step with modern secular liberalism which is hostile to the Christian faith and hates the historical fact that America's founders revered and acknowledged God in so many ways that are indisputable, such as these words in the Declaration of Independence: "endowed by their Creator."
The best action Christians can take in response to this is to both work and pray for changes in Washington, D.C. You can start by getting everyone you know who is eligible to vote to register and vote November 2. We need more men and women who, like our founders, understand that our rights are from God and not from man.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Obama and Minions call Constitutionalists “Extremists” and “Crazy”
Print This Post
OBAMALAW HAS AMERICA IN ITS GRASP…OR DOES IT?
by Sher Zieve, ©2010
(Sept. 17, 2010) — Taking the lead from other despotic totalitarian leaders, their lackeys and adherents, The Obama and his minions have launched an all-out battle campaign against any–the majority of us–Americans (soon to be known and “Obama-ians” if the Marxists have their way) who believe the US Constitution should be followed by those who govern. Note: I suspect that as Obama & Co rules rather than governs, The Obama believes it doesn’t apply to him.
It is now “radical” and “crazy” to follow US law and not the emerging sinister ObamaLaw. A prime example of this is the Obama’s and his DOJ’s refusal to support US laws protecting US citizens and our country’s Southern border from foreign invaders and then suing the States (think Arizona) and Sheriffs (think Sheriff Joe Arpaio) who do so. Note: The ObamaLeft is again using lapdog Alan Colmes who appeared on Megyn Kelly’s FNC show 17 September and called Conservative candidate for Nevada Senator Sharron Angle “crazy,” “extreme,” and “paranoid.” Poor simple Alan hasn’t had a successful gig since Hannity & Colmes folded.
Even the Democrat plants and ruling elite within the Republican Party (aka “RINOs”) are now openly fighting against We-the-People who want to restore our Republic to its Constitutional and God given rights roots. The Delaware patently leftist RINO Mike Castle, who ran in that State’s primary for Senator against Christine O’Donnell, is still calling his opponent O’Donnell (who won the primary) almost every vile name in his playbook and even seemed to suggest she might be ‘unbalanced’. And instead of a congratulatory call to O’Donnell after she had won the primary, Castle talked with and cried to The Obama and VP Joe Biden! Castle then, in true bad-tempered Marxist style, made angry comments about O’Donnell and Delaware voters to the press. Did you know that Castle had promised, if elected Senator from Delaware, to vote AGAINST the repeal of ObamaCare and had already promised Harry Reid he would vote FOR Cap & Tax? Still, the “mentally unbalanced” theme for conservatives and TEA Party members either running for office or supporting Constitutionalists running for office has now become the general talking points that are playing with virtually all of the ObamaMedia; i.e. NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN etc. The old adage of “if you can’t beat ‘em, call ‘em racist or CRAZY or both” is once again rearing its always ugly head.
Another down for the count but, still snapping at her Republican primary opponent and winner is soon to be former Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Lisa is another example of a Democrat plant and/or RINO who lost her race to the conservative TEA Party backed upstart Joe Miller. So, she came out viciously against the people who elected Miller and called the TEA Party “an outside extremist group.” Guess she meant outside of Europe or the old USSR. Heck, even former President G.W. Bush Advisor Karl Rove had a meltdown over O’Donnell!
However, one by one, the old leftist/Marxist ruling-elite guard–on BOTH sides of the aisle–are being forced out and a new pro-Constitution and pro-American group has emerged to take over and govern…not rule.
Get all of your family members, friends and neighbors to the polls on 2 November to vote for the survival and renewal of OUR county. And please continue to remember that our country’s survival and return to sanity requires the removal–from both sides of the aisle–of the US ruling elites and their replacement with true patriots. If the pro-American candidates lose, so do We-the-People and all of our freedoms, liberties and ability to earn a living may be lost…completely. It really is that dire.
© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.
TREASON IS EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK
by Neil Turner
John Brown was accused, tried and convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia for attempting to lead a slave insurrection via a raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, VA in 1859. He was found guilty of treason and hanged.
(Sept. 17, 2010) — Backdoor Amnesty is upon us…disturbing news indeed. And petitioning Congress and the Administration simply gives legitimacy to an illegitimate Administration and a complicit – and therefore illegitimate – Congress.
This breaking story by Kimberly Dvorak of the San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner concerning a third memo “leaked” inside the DHS confirms our worst fears. Another act of Treason by the Treasoner-in-Chief and his complicit band of Czars, Justices, Judiciary, members of Congress and media moguls is about to befall us.
You may want to participate in the fund-raising and petitioning as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi introduce their treason-laced defense spending bill set to hit the Senate floor next week, but I believe that removing the Treasoner-in-Chief will have much more effect on stopping this nonsense that we are being hit with every day.
Recently, in a ruling by Army JAG Judge Denise Lind, our worst fears that a military coup has taken place have been confirmed. In a courts-martial pre-hearing concerning the demands of LTC Terry Lakin that the putative Commander- in-Chief must prove that he is a Constitutionally lawful CINC before anyone obeys any military orders, lest they themselves be charged with obeying an unlawful order, Judge Lind stated that any and all orders now originate with the Pentagon and no longer with the Office of the civilian President and Commander-in-Chief.
This issue is now much greater than just LTC Lakin and his refusal to obey an unlawful order; it is a case of the Military Command saying that the Military (the Pentagon) has taken over the government and that orders no longer come from the putative Commander-in-Chief. It is a ruling that says there has been a Military Coup, and we are now ruled by a Military Junta. (NOTE: This is not the same as that which recently occurred in Honduras – a lawful act to uphold their Constitution, until a legitimate President and CINC can be duly selected or elected – this is a secret and treasonous takeover of our Constitutional form of government, with a person of unknown origins and allegiances as the de facto pResident in charge).
This must not be allowed to stand, and the nation must be informed – through the defense that is to be mounted at Lt. Col. Lakin’s courts-martial next month.
Your country, and the continuance of our Constitutional form of government, depends on you.
Neil B. Turner
Citizens for the Constitution
by Neil Turner
John Brown was accused, tried and convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia for attempting to lead a slave insurrection via a raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, VA in 1859. He was found guilty of treason and hanged.
(Sept. 17, 2010) — Backdoor Amnesty is upon us…disturbing news indeed. And petitioning Congress and the Administration simply gives legitimacy to an illegitimate Administration and a complicit – and therefore illegitimate – Congress.
This breaking story by Kimberly Dvorak of the San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner concerning a third memo “leaked” inside the DHS confirms our worst fears. Another act of Treason by the Treasoner-in-Chief and his complicit band of Czars, Justices, Judiciary, members of Congress and media moguls is about to befall us.
You may want to participate in the fund-raising and petitioning as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi introduce their treason-laced defense spending bill set to hit the Senate floor next week, but I believe that removing the Treasoner-in-Chief will have much more effect on stopping this nonsense that we are being hit with every day.
Recently, in a ruling by Army JAG Judge Denise Lind, our worst fears that a military coup has taken place have been confirmed. In a courts-martial pre-hearing concerning the demands of LTC Terry Lakin that the putative Commander- in-Chief must prove that he is a Constitutionally lawful CINC before anyone obeys any military orders, lest they themselves be charged with obeying an unlawful order, Judge Lind stated that any and all orders now originate with the Pentagon and no longer with the Office of the civilian President and Commander-in-Chief.
This issue is now much greater than just LTC Lakin and his refusal to obey an unlawful order; it is a case of the Military Command saying that the Military (the Pentagon) has taken over the government and that orders no longer come from the putative Commander-in-Chief. It is a ruling that says there has been a Military Coup, and we are now ruled by a Military Junta. (NOTE: This is not the same as that which recently occurred in Honduras – a lawful act to uphold their Constitution, until a legitimate President and CINC can be duly selected or elected – this is a secret and treasonous takeover of our Constitutional form of government, with a person of unknown origins and allegiances as the de facto pResident in charge).
This must not be allowed to stand, and the nation must be informed – through the defense that is to be mounted at Lt. Col. Lakin’s courts-martial next month.
Your country, and the continuance of our Constitutional form of government, depends on you.
Neil B. Turner
Citizens for the Constitution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)