How the United States Actually Uses False Flags to Terrorize Its Own Citizens and the World!

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:17

0

(Before It's News)

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. How the United States Uses False Flags to Terrorize Its Own Citizens and the World!
False flags operations are when somebody pretends to be somebody else in order to start wars. The purpose is to start trouble between other countries, and frighten the people into believing in the necessity for a war. Aside from the potential for monetary gain, the logic here is simple: a frightened people are easily to manipulate. And the purpose is likewise simple: a frightened people are an enslaved people.
An English sailing vessel enters a French harbor with the French flag flying. The English are flying French flag, so the French think the ship is friendly, so they don’t blow it out of the water. The English then raise the Flag of Norway, blow everything up, and sail out of the harbor. The French now go to war with Norway.

Is this a false flag intended to enslave the American people?

Do you understand how it works? You pretend to be somebody else, deliver a blindside attack, run away, and let your victim get in a fight with whoever you pretended to be. And, in a full on false flag operation, you would get various people all frightened and riled up so they would fight for you.
Pretty nasty.
And, it is pretty common throughout history.

In Germany in the early thirties a young fellow name of Hitler is the likely suspect in the burning of the Reichstag building. He blamed the communists, and while everybody was angry at the commies, he rose to power. Perfect false flag.

In the early 1950s the United States executed a false flag operation in Iran. In conjunction with the British, the United States Central Intelligence Agency used politics, propaganda, and agreements with tribal leaders to create a coupe that resulted in the United States replacing Iranian oil companies with United States oil companies. This is a matter of declassified record, should you wish to search the CIA archives.

In the 1960s the United States Department of Defense almost conducted a false flag operation called ‘Operation Northwoods.’ The plans were to hijack or shoot down passenger or military places, burn crops, sink ships (filled with Cuban refugees!), and thus create a war with Cuba. The attacks would involve Cuban infiltrators and airplanes disguised as Cuban MIGs, and acts of terror on American soil. The only reason this operation didn’t get off the ground was because a young fellow name of John F. Kennedy said no to it. The complete plans were uncovered during investigation into Kennedy’s assassination by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid 90s.

Also in the sixties is the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident. The United States claimed it was under attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. No proof was ever had, but the result was 10 years of war in Viet Nam with thousands of lives lost. And the real winners here were the people who made war materials, who lent money (can you spell Bankster?) and otherwise profited.
Coming into modern times, we have some downright startling revelations concerning False Flag Operations.

To pay a quick trip to Russia, that country actually bombed itself so as to go to war with Chechnya.

In 1993 the Federal Bureau of Investigation infiltrated a cell of terrorists who wanted to blow up the trade center. In an absolute stunner, the FBI apparently had the ability to replace the explosives with fake explosives, but didn’t do so!

Then there is the False Flag of 9/11. There are videos showing–proving–that the buildings went down because of planned demolition. These videos include a rather stunning look at one of the minor buildings suddenly collapsing and going down exactly like a building would go down if a demolition company took it down.

And there are records of the CIA actually letting Osama Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan–when they could have caught him–after 9/11. Thus letting him be a living purpose for the war making somebody so much money.

And, an interesting tidbit this writer had not heard of before doing his research on this article: the only instances of anthrax attacks were against key politicians…right before the patriot act came up for a vote!

These events are all False Flag operations, or, at the very least, dire occurrence being taken advantage of as if they were false flag operations.
The point of this article is simple: to educate people as to what a false flag is, and how it is used to rile up the population, therefore making them prone to war, and eventual enslavement.
And, make no mistake, the purpose of a false flag is exactly as stated: to rile up the population, to make them go to war, to exhaust and confuse them, and to enslave them.
Consider: 9/11 happened, and laws were passed which abrogated the constitution…and the people were happy!
Darn! We’re fighting the enemy! And they come together in camaraderie, had common purpose, and cheerfully gave up their rights.

Consider the words of Adolf Hitler. “The art of leadership… consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.”
These are the words of the man who likely burned the Reichstag, and then killed millions of people, and they describe a False Flag operation, and they describe events that if they are not outright false flag operations, are at least being taken advantage of as if they were false flags.
We are talking about the Boston Bomber as as excuse to exercise military might on the streets of America, which is blatantly in opposition to the Constitution.
We are talking about the media advertising illegal wars around the globe, that the banksters may get rich.

We are talking about hurricane Katrina, which has resulted in a whole city being uprooted and not being allowed back to their homes, and somebody in New Orleans is getting rich.
And, we are talking about the next staged event, the one that will put soldiers on the streets to enforce martial law, fill the FEMA camps, and put aside, once and for all, the Constitution for the United States.

In closing let me point out something. in the 1950s Israel attempted a false flag operation. They planted bombs in Egypt in US diplomatic facilities. But Israel was found out, and the scandal that resulted brought down the government.

Here is the thing…a government involved in false flag tactics doesn’t want to be found out. They want to go ahead and pat themselves on the back even as they shunt the constitution and enact slavery.

But finding the government out is the key…and it is the way to stop them…and it is the way to let the world know that the United States chooses freedom over tyranny!
So when the IRS is found cheating for political gain…when NSA is found to be spying on all of us…when politicians line up to attack somebody who reveals the existence of the NSA spying game…when events happen that rile you up and make you want to fight somebody, remember what a false flag is, and become the voice of reason.

It is the voice of reason that the bad guys fear most of all. For the voice of reason undoes their attempts to sow chaos and war, and illuminates evil people for what they are. It is the voice of reason that must hold sway in the coming days that we would survive these times, and that our children may run free.

This has been a page concerning false flag operations.
If you like this article, go to The Daily Neutron and subscribe!
Original source for this article was http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag


Source: http://thedailyneutron.com/united-states-false-flags-terrorize-citizens-world/

PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS
CONSTITUTIONAL OR CRIMINAL?

Commentary By:
Dwight Kehoe

April 24, 2013 TPATH- As new polls indicate that only 4% of Americans think more gun control is an important issue, and the United States Senate, even if just temporarily, did the right thing and voted to stop further infringement of the the 2nd Amendment, this illegal and imperial President has indicated he intends to "write law" via yet another unconstitutional Executive Order.

Article II does not give any President the authority to write legislation or to adjudicate laws which effect the citizens of this country.  The executive order can only be used, constitutionally, for the administration of government operations and employees.  Article I, specifically gives legislation over the people to only the Congress.

A common misconception which has been used to excuse the unlawful use of the Executive Order is that every President, including George Washington has used them.  While this is "factually" correct, it is not true that George Washington abused it.  His EO's were limited to the operation of the Executive Branch and did not ever legislate laws for anyone outside of the government.

However, the most wide reaching violation of the Executive Order came from one of this country's greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln.  His Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 was, for certain, noble, just and something long needed and overdue.  For that reason, that Executive Order met small and disorganized opposition from the legislative branch and....... the precedent was set.

Other Presidents then began ignoring the Constitution while the Congress sat by like twiddle-dee and twiddle-dumb.  The Executive Order issued on December 7th, 1941, by the left's most popular and loved President, FDR, ordered the rounding up of and imprisoning American citizens.  This order was not only unconstitutional relating to Article I, but it violated every right and protection our Constitution guaranteed to the people.

Over the years, because neither the Congress nor the Courts have stepped in to stop the power grab by the executive branch, the violations of our Constitution, by most Presidents, has persisted, increased and now is on the verge of creating and Imperial Dictatorship.

It has become so pervasive and common that the implementation of Executive Orders is described thusly:
"Regulations issued by the president that do not require Congressional approval, become law after 30 days."
First of all, where did that decree come from? Its certainly not found in the Constitution. And notice how they so cavalierly confront the Consitution by pronouncing the order as " becoming law", an authority the President does not have.

When an executive order creates or amends Federal regulations or creates or amends existing law, those orders are illegal and are impeachable offenses.  The executive order was intended to give authority to the Chief Executive to set rules for how the executive branch would operate.  Not to a allow the circumvention of the authority of the other two branches.

As TPATH has stated on other occasions, if any aspect of our Constitution is ignored, for any reason, all aspects of it are in jeopardy. 

Congress, over the decades, having neglected their legal oversight concerning legislation and more recently allowing the eligibility requirements as defined in Article II, Section 1, to go unenforced, has endangered our country to the point where calling it a Republic seems almost ludicrous.

If we are to survive, not as wards and serfs of the state, but a free people, the Congress had better step up and stop the illegal use of the Executive Order and thereby halting this dictator "wannabe" before its too late.  If its not already.

Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A "Natural Born Citizen"

Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A "Natural Born Citizen"

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

           Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-
              Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A “Natural Born Citizen”

                                         By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                               January 21, 2013




The U.S. Constitution

      


Barack Obama eligibility supporters maintain that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. But to do so, they have blended together, through ignorance or intent, “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen,” and denied that there is a critical constitutional distinction between these phrases. These supporters and enablers, who I call the citizen/born citizen/natural born citizen conflationists, in constitutionally supporting Barack Obama to be president, have allowed our Constitution, the rule of law, and our nation to be violated. Allow me to explain.

In order to understand the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” we have to understand the constitutional distinction between a “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen.” The first constitutional distinction is between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” In Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 the Framers provided in pertinent part: “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 President.” Here, we see the Framers distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” There is no other type of “citizen” mentioned. So, our Constitution, Acts of Congress, and treaties, call “citizens,” or members of the United States, either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.” As we shall see, the former are defined by American common law (the definition being based on natural law and the law of nations) and the latter by the Fourteenth Amendment (the definition being in part based on colonial English common law), Congressional Acts, or treaties. From this we can see that a “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” Because of the requirement of having to be born in the country to citizen parents, a “natural born Citizen” will necessarily also qualify under these sources as a “citizen of the United States.”

Article II refers to a “natural born Citizen,” but does not define it. In fact, the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not found anywhere in the original or amended Constitution or any Act of Congress. Rather, it is found in the common law upon which the Founders and Framers relied at the time of the adoption and ratification of the Constitution. Under this common law, the three constituent elements of being a “natural-born citizen” are time (at the moment of birth), birth place (in the country), and birth parents (U.S. citizen parents), what I will call birth time, birth country, and birth parents. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution and confirmed that “[a]t common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (the majority and dissent agreed on the Minor definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but they disagreed as to the definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth). Given this settled common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” these elements are both necessary and sufficient to make a “natural born Citizen.” In the definition, the parents have to have as a minimum the status of a “citizen” (“born citizen” or “natural born Citizen” is not necessary) in order to produce a “natural born Citizen.” Note that Minor said that at common law, if one was not a “natural-born citizen,” one was an alien or foreigner. This means that if these persons qualified, the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty could make them a “citizen of the United States.”

These historical and legal developments inform that at common law there is a critical distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” In fact, natural law and the law of nations have always recognized this distinction. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm ). At common law, if one was a “citizen” but not a “natural born citizen,” then, except for the original “citizens” who became such by the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution, one had to have been alien born and become a “citizen” by naturalization statute. Natural law and the law of nations, along with both English and American common law, have also always recognized that a child gains allegiance and citizenship by either being born on the soil of a country (jus soli) or by being born to parents of that country (jus sanguinis). The Founders and Framers accepted the distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” and understood that birth country and birth parents produce in the child allegiance from the moment of birth. Because they expected the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have absolute allegiance from birth only to the United States, they applied the distinction to the Office of President. In fact, they used it when they made the “natural born Citizen” clause a requirement of eligibility for the Office of President (the XII Amendment extends it to the Office of Vice-President) and for no other office, requiring, for those to born after the adoption of the Constitution and who would aspire to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, that they be not only a “citizen,” but a “natural born Citizen.” (The grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 allowed “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President, provided they had that status “at the time of Adoption of this Constitution.”) The English did not nor did they have to demand such allegiance from their would-be Kings, for their Kings did not have to qualify from among the people. Rather, they lay their claim to the throne by royal blood. Rejecting as a requisite to be President royal blood, the Founders and Framers instead settled with the natural elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, and made their distinction between a “citizen” who was also a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen” who was not. And it was the combination of these three elements at the time of birth which assured them that all means of inheriting allegiance and citizenship (birth country and birth parents) were united at the moment of birth to produce in the child absolute allegiance only to the United States.

The next constitutional distinction is between “born citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” These same Obama eligibility supporters add the word “born” to the word “citizen” and want us to accept that combination as the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” But those who assert that a “natural born Citizen” is just any “born citizen” commit two errors: a textual error of missing the point (or by refusing to see the point) that the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born citizen” and a definitional error of not understanding (or refusing to accept) that “born citizen” is neither a definition nor a description of the clause “natural born Citizen.”

First, regarding the textual error, as I have already explained in other articles such as Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html , we cannot define a clause by merely repeating parts of the clause itself. For example, if we wanted to know what the definition of a “natural born German Shepherd” is, we would not accept as a correct definition the answer that it is a “born German Shepherd.” To argue that a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born German Shepherd” is tautological, for it only repeats part of the form of the clause and does not define the clause. Such an argument does nothing more than to state the obvious that a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born German Shepherd.” Likewise, a “natural born Citizen,” is, of course, a “born citizen,” but saying so does not define the clause.

Second, in this “born German Shepherd” definition example, a rational person should also want to know what happened to the qualifier “natural” and its meaning. Does not that word tell us something about under what conditions the “born German shepherd” must come into existence? Likewise, those rational persons who want to know the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” should want to know what happened to the qualifier “natural,” and whether that qualifier also requires that certain conditions be met in order to have a “natural born Citizen.” Actually, these persons would be correct in raising such questions. Given the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” with its three constituent elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, we know that the word “natural” when combined with “born citizen” demands that all three elements be satisfied in order to have a “natural born Citizen.” We might be willing to include others as “born citizens” and Congress has the naturalization powers to do so and has done so throughout our history. But that we are willing to tolerate by the application of some law certain persons as “born citizens” does not, given the applicable common law definition of the clause and its requirements, make them “natural born Citizens”

Regarding the definitional error, the clauses “natural born Citizen” and “born Citizen” are conclusions, birth statuses that do not provide sufficient factual information as to how one arrives at the conclusions or statuses themselves. Rather, to know if one satisfies the status of being a “natural born Citizen,” one must start with the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” identifying its constituent elements. If one satisfies those elements, then one is a “natural born Citizen.” And to know if one satisfies the status of being a “born citizen,” one must also start with the available definitions, however many there are and whether provided by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Acts, of a “born citizen,” identifying their constituent elements. If one satisfies those elements, then one is a “born citizen.” But obviously, we are defining two different clauses which necessarily contain different definitions and requirements. The clause does not tell us how one arrives at being a “born citizen,” which process must be equivalent to the process by which one arrives at being a “natural born Citizen” if the two clauses are to mean the same thing. Hence, to simply use other legal mechanisms of citizenship which produce a “born citizen” and proclaim that they too produce a “natural born Citizen,” simply because they, like “natural born Citizens,” are “born citizens,” is to err. It is to err because being a “born citizen” is only a necessary consequent (a conclusion or status) of being a “natural born Citizen” and by itself, because it is based on a different definition, represents a different class of citizen, one produced by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act and not by American common law.

There is only one process or means by which one can be a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., by satisfying the necessary and sufficient conditions of birth time (at the moment of birth), birth country (born in the United States), and birth parents (born to U.S. citizen parents). Simply stated, any “born citizen” who does not satisfy these three conditions, while still being a “born citizen” under some legal mechanism (e.g., under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act), is not a “natural born Citizen” under American common law which is the natural law/law of nations-based law that provides the constitutional definition of the clause.

Minor v. Happersett confirms all this and United States v. Wong Kim Ark changes none of it.

Barack Obama maintains that he was born in Hawaii. With a dispute involving whether his birth certificate, social security number, and military draft registration are authentic still continuing and not having been definitively resolved through any legal process, we have yet to see conclusive legal proof of his place of birth. But even assuming for sake of argument that he was born in Hawaii, he is still not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that the three elements of being a “natural born Citizen” are birth time, birth country, and birth parents. Minor; Wong Kim Ark. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he satisfies the birth country requirement. But while Obama was born to a U.S. “citizen” mother, his father never became nor did he strive to become a U.S. “citizen.” Rather, his father was born in the English colony of Kenya, was born a British citizen, and remained such until his death. Hence, Obama was not born to a U.S. “citizen” father. He therefore fails to satisfy the elements of being born to citizen parents at the moment of birth. This means that he can be a “born citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act, which provide a more relaxed allegiance standard , but he cannot be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, which provides a more exacting allegiance standard for would-be Presidents and Commanders of the Military. This also means that because he is neither “a natural born Citizen” nor “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” he is not eligible to be President.

On January 20, 2013, Barack Obama was again sworn in as the President of the United States. But because he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he is at best a de facto President of the United States, not a constitutionally legitimate one.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 21, 2013
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2013
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Rubio can't serve...
Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:50:07

Since the Daily News has begun associating Florida Sen. Marco Rubio with 2016 presidential coverage (editorial, “The travels of Marco Rubio,” Dec. 6), the record should include evidence that questions Rubio’s constitutional qualifications in accordance with Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, to serve as president. Sen. Rubio has my respect, but the U.S. Constitution trumps my personal observation as well as any party affiliation. The Constitution requires our president to be a “natural born citizen,” which is distinct and different from being a “citizen” as discussed in the 14th Amendment. Barack Obama, whose father was a British subject and never a U.S. citizen, fails to legally meet the “natural born citizenship” requirement to serve as president. Our legal system is corrupt and has no backbone to enforce the Constitution, but two wrongs don’t make a right. There is ample legal precedent that establishes “natural born citizenship” as applying to a person born of two parents who are American citizens at the time of their offspring’s birth. Marco Rubio was born in 1971 in Miami to parents who were citizens of Cuba. Not until the 1975-76 time frame did his parents become naturalized citizens of the United States. Marco Rubio was born a citizen of the United States as well as a citizen of Cuba, thus having dual citizenship at birth but not being a “natural born citizen” of the United States —a requirement to serve as president. Sen. Rubio can serve our nation in virtually any capacity, but not legally as president of the United States.
The Constitution is the law of the land.

—HARRY RILEY
Crestview, FL

Nullification: The Duty and Right of the States-Pt. 1

     

 

by KrisAnne Hall http://www.KrisAnneHall.com After perceiving a long train of usurpations of power by the federal government, which culminated in legislation known as Obamacare many Americans took to the streets in protest.  They appealed to the Legislature to no avail. The legislation ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court.  We then witnessed a colossal rewriting of our founding documents in the majority opinion to the Obamacare mandate.  Justice John Roberts in a few lines pulled down the pillars of the Republic and set us on the path to totalitarianism. Nearly half of the population rightfully regards this legislation as extending far beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government.  The truth is, not only should the Sates be able to deal with their own health insurance issues, but the federal government has no legitimate authority to rule by such dictates.  Yet, many who vowed to fight it “to the end” have now acquiesced and declared that it must be submitted to as “the law of the land.”  So is this the end?  Since SCOTUS made its declaration from on high, must we now bow to an all-powerful government, from which no area of our daily life is off-limits?  Or is there a remedy yet remaining?  Can the States legitimately resist federal law or is this "treasonous" as some have suggested? To answer these questions we must first understand the nature of the Republic we call the United States.  These States are “United” in a compact, the Constitution.  This compact, or contract, made among the States not only the created the federal government but also dictated the limited and specific powers delegated to the federal government by the parties of this contract.   Secondly, since the States are the parties to the compact and the creators of the central government, then the States, naturally, are the masters of their creation.  That is to say, they are sovereign - independent of, separate from and sovereign over the federal government.  All of the powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the States and the people.  The 10th Amendment makes that very clear. "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." 10th Amendment to the US Constitution It is upon this foundation that the States have the ultimate right to stand against ANY unconstitutional law created or enforced by the federal government.  The 10th Amendment declares that the federal government is to only operate within their delegated powers.  James Madison explains those delegated powers in Federalist Paper #45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…”  Federalist Paper #45 Madison then goes on to explain “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.”  Federalist Paper #45 Therefore, the 10th Amendment in conjunction with Madison’s explanation makes it clear that the States’ powers are numerous, the federal powers are few, and the federal government has no business interjecting itself into the powers reserved to the States. To claim the 10th amendment says anything else would make the Constitution a complete absurdity.  Since there are no areas of power that are simply floating out in the neutral zone waiting for someone to use them, if the federal government uses a power that was not Constitutionally delegated, it must steal it from the States.  When the federal government does this, it removes power from the States, rights from the people, and makes the Constitution completely meaningless.  Such overreach sets the precedent that no power is reserved to the States and that all power is open for federal taking.  This effectively nullifies the 9th and 10th Amendments, and destroys the Constitutional barriers established to contain a limited and defined federal government.  What will then be the federal government’s limitations? Nothing but its own will.  “That they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the general government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely in cases made federal, but in all cases whatsoever…that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority…” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 This is, in essence, what Justice Roberts declared in his opinion on Obamacare, overturning the very purpose of the Constitution itself – to enumerate the powers of a limited central government and bind it under the authority of the States.  What happens when the barriers of the Constitution are completely swept away?  The federal government will now have the ability to exercise any power over the States whatsoever.  The people will be rendered completely powerless and irrelevant.  What will be the purpose of elections then?  We will no longer be a republic, but a government ruled as a Kingdom. “…for the federal government toenlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases…the obvious tendency and inevitable result…would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.”  James Madison, Virginia Resolutions 1798 So, when the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government have collectively torn through the boundaries set by the Constitution, and the people have no recourse in the federal system, what is the remedy?  What is the proper course when the federal government has gone rogue?  The drafter of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and The Father of the Constitution, James Madison speak very clearly on the position of the States as the sovereign defenders of the foundations of our Republic.  It is the founders of the Republic who must give us our remedy…  Nullification, the Duty and Right of the States-Pt. 2         by KrisAnne Hall http://www.KrisAnneHall.com   James Madison gives us this answer regarding the remedy to the states for combating federal overreach. In fact, according to our founders, it was not only the remedy but the DUTY of the states to stand in defense of the Republic. “…in the case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted…the states…have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, …for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties…” Virginia Resolutions of 1798 James Madison What is this interposition? It is what Jefferson referred to as NULLIFICATION of the unauthorized acts of the federal government.  It is the States declaring, “The federal government is NOT our master, the States and the people are the masters of the Constitution and we do not have to, nor will we comply!”  “Whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Nullification is legitimate act of refusing to implement unconstitutional federal directives. “That the several states who formed [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”  Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions 1799 To deny the States this right is tyrannical and is an unconstitutional doctrine. In fact our founders believed that if the States did not refuse to submit to unconstitutional use of federal power, the result would be the elimination of state powers, elimination of the rights of the people, and the complete dissolution of the Union and our Constitution.  “the doctrine which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through which department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of the Federal Union.”  Fort Hill Address, John C. Calhoun July 26, 1831 If the federal government uses a power that it was not delegated, it does so unconstitutionally. The federal government exists solely because of the Constitution.  Therefore any act that is unconstitutional destroys the very legitimacy of the federal government’s actions and therefore has no effect whatsoever.  Since it has no effect, the States are merely declaring that fact, and are therefore not required to submit. An epidemic of Constitutional ignorance has made it popular in our day to declare “this is the law of the land because the Supreme Court says so,” and since SCOTUS has said “nullification is not valid,” then it is not a proper remedy, some even claim that it is treasonous.  The men who founded the nation found the assertion offensive that the Supreme Court had the ultimate authority to dictate to the States the acts of the federal government. “The idea that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism- since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution would be the measure of their powers.” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution 1799  To assume that the Supreme Court has the final word on what will or will not be implemented throughout the land is to abandon all power of the states, and throw them into complete submission to a federal power. It would be like allowing a criminal to determine his own guilt or innocence.    “If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution… consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another--by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” James Madison,Virginia Assembly Report of 1800 Even Federalist, Alexander Hamilton made clear that the Constitution is binding upon any branch of the federal government.  To suggest that the creature could overrule its creator was to our founders a complete absurdity.  "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.  To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #78 It is incumbent upon the STATE REPRESENTATIVES to carry out their oath of office, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and be the guardians of the liberty of its citizens.  The Governors and Legislatures must draft a Resolution proclaiming the sovereignty of the state and the unconstitutionality of the federal power and asserting the state’s duty to deny said power.  That Resolution must then be transmitted by the Governor to the Senators and Representatives representing the state in Congress.  Unwilling to shrink from our representative responsibilities… It would be [deceitful] in those entrusted with the GUARDIANSHIP OF THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY, and acting under the solemn obligation of the following oath, — “I do swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States,” — not to warn you of encroachments, which, though clothed with the pretext of necessity, or disguised by arguments of expediency, may yet establish precedents which may ultimately devote a generous and unsuspicious people to all the consequences of usurped power.  Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia January 23, 1799 When petition fails…when Congress refuses to enforce Separation of Powers and protect the sovereignty of the States…when the Supreme Court joins in the unconstitutional use of power, we cannot admit that revolution is the only solution that remains! Revolution does not save the Constitution, it can only destroy it.  There must be another peaceful resolution; and there is: It is called Nullification. For the federal government or the States to deny this method of constitutional remedy is to say they are resolved to the destruction of the Constitution and the potential of driving its people to revolution. “…our Constitution is most worthless and tyrannical, if the usurpations of those who administer it, cannot be resisted by any means short of revolution. I have always considered the reserved powers of the States, as the only real check upon the powers of the federal government; and I have always considered it, not only the right, but the imperious duty of the States, so to apply that check, as not to dissolve the Union. And I have never been able to discover any mode of doing this, except by the positive refusal of the States to submit to usurpations…” Judge Able P. Upshur, An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (No. I) The acquiescence of the states, under infractions of the federal compact, would either beget a speedy consolidation, by precipitating the state governments into impotency and contempt, or prepare the way for a revolution, by a repetition of these infractions until the people are aroused to appear in the majesty of their strength.  Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, January 23, 1799 Therefore, in upholding their oath the States must stand against any legislation that serves to steal power from the state, thus destroying the Constitution.  If the States fail to stand against this tyrannical use of power by the federal government, they will consent to their own destruction, or worse, to revolution. “Let history be consulted; let the man of experience reflect; nay, let the artificers of monarchy be asked what further materials they can need for building up their favorite system.”  Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1799

Last Chance To Save Our Constitution!

by Alan Bates, MD

It took two centuries for our Founders to finalize our Constitution and Bill of Rights,  the chief objective of which was to limit government involvement in our lives while allowing We the People to fulfill our dreams made possible by natural freedoms endowed upon us by our Divine Creator.    Every point of the Constitution was the subject of great debate until there was near unanimous majority for  the final form which found a happy medium away from the extremes of anarchy and tyranny.   This was accomplished by creation of three branches of government to ensure that no single branch could go unchecked and destroy our precious freedoms.   Over the past two hundred years America has been the beacon of freedom and free enterprise and thereby the majority of inventions ranging from homes to automobiles to electricity to appliances to airplanes and ultimately spacecraft with the ability to place a man on the moon---and the list goes on ad infinitum.  

But now we have a problem:  a treasonous president elected by fools and who is an enemy of our Constitution and the concept of a government subservient to the People ( link 1 below—‘What if’ by Judge Andrew Napolitano).  Barack Obama  and his many socialist, Marxist and communist friends do not believe in government “of the people, by the people and for the people” but rather an all-powerful government which can control every facet of our lives---tyranny.  He talks and dresses to impress the the less educated and particularly immigrants who have no background in American history and how our founding documents set a path for American exceptionalism during the past two hundred plus years.  (for more insight I recommend the book The 5000 Year Leap by Skousen).  His pathological narcissistic personality combined with his schooling in Marxism and communism has led to his sharp focus on weakening a free America until it collapses in ruin.  Why?  That gives him and his minions the maximum opportunity take total control of our lives.  How?  By dividing the People along racial, ethnic and financial lines to create strife so that We the People take our eye off the beacon of Freedom.  Want proof?  Here are four short examples amongst many:

Obama started with Obamacare which is not about affordable health care at all,  but rather about government control of our lives.  Once the government controls healthcare it can control every facet of your life,  such as where and when you can travel, and even whether or not you can live or die.  Obamacare implements a flow chart of hundreds of  bureaucracies which place the patient and physician in the lower right and left hand corners with HHS in the middle of that chart.   The end result is a collapse of the best healthcare system in the world---the comparison stats are there for all to see.

Obama took advantage of his power to violate our constitutional rights and the rule of law by confiscation of ownership rights of bondholders of the auto industry, giving the assets to the Unions who supported him---a shot in the heart of free enterprise. 

Obama and Biden have committed treason against America by purposefully divulging top-secret national security information for their own personal and political gain,  thus resulting in the loss of lives amongst our military and erosion of our nation’s security.  The examples are too numerous to list here.

Obama used hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars without approval of the Congress to accomplish his personal agenda to fund training and weaponizing ‘rebels’ in many of the Islamic countries of the Middle East and Africa,  many of whom are Al-Qaeda (our enemies); and now we see the consequences of his policies as the entire region falls into chaos  and Americans are murdered without intervention by the Obama administration.  The goal?  To place Obama’s  Islamic friends---The Muslim Brotherhood---in charge of Islamic nations no matter the cost to America in dollars and blood.   Did the Congress authorize this?  An emphatic no!  There is no debate at this point that Barack Hussein Obama is a socialist Muslim as so well described by Nonie Darwish in her recent commentary which appeared in The American Thinker (2).  Ms. Darwish grew up in Egypt and lived in  the Middle East for 30 years before coming to America and converting from Islam to Christianity.  She explains that Obama,  as a Muslim,  would not dare issue an order which might result in the deaths of  Muslim attackers (of our CIA personnel) because according to Islamic doctrine,  one Muslim cannot kill another unless it is to defend the name of  Allah.    And then there is ‘Taqiyya’---meaning Muslims may lie to others if it helps them to achieve their long term goal of the global caliphate (of Islam) worldwide.   This is how Islamists have infiltrated the continent of Europe and now more forceful push to instill Sharia law in many of those nations.   Islam idolizes Allah and socialists are atheists;  a  combination of the two is the most dangerous threat to America and the religions of Christianity and Judaism.  Obama is that combination according to Ms. Darwish.   Need more evidence?  He allows members of the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House regularly as finding ways to empower them around the world.   This is what Obama has in store for America---believe it!  

If you want freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and a republic in which the rule of law prevails to protect those freedoms,  it is time to dethrone, indict and try the America-hater in the White House and his unconstitutional Czars and accomplices in high crimes against America.  This election finds America’s very tenets on the ropes.  Should we fail to preserve what many have fought and died for during the past 200 years,  We the People will be  enslaved by an all-powerful tyrannical totalitarian regime.    Is this what we want for ourselves and our children?  

1.     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBO02pkPUmQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

2.    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/obamas_taqqiya_unravels.html

Copyright 11/04/2012 by Gulf1

"A Strong Warning to the Government"

- From an Outraged Patriot -

from - The Parallax Prophecies -

By Ron Ewart, President

National Association of Rural Landowners

and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues.

We are helping to spread freedom and liberty around the globe.

© Copyright Sunday, October 21, 2012 - All Rights Reserved

Article also available at: http://www.narlo.org/ppcurrent.html

"Without an unfettered press, without liberty of speech, all of the outward forms and structures of free institutions are a sham, a pretense -- the sheerest mockery. If the press is not free; if speech is not independent and untrammeled; if the mind is shackled or made impotent through fear, it makes no difference under what form of government you live, YOU ARE A SUBJECT AND NOT A CITIZEN." William E. Borah, prosecuting attorney, Boise, ID, late 1800's

---

Yes, through our weekly column we have been advocating that Americans should openly, but peacefully, resist your arrogance and rising tyranny. Yes, we have been exposing your corruption, your double dealing, your passing laws no one has read or understands and your insidious violations of the constitution with executive orders and bureaucratic edicts ..... a constitution that you swear on solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend but don't. We've watched you nationalize the car industry, businesses and the health care system with no constitutional authority whatsoever. Yes, we have been logging your propaganda, hype, distortions and lies to push your un-American agenda down our throats and we have been observing, with a critical eye, your reckless and criminally negligent foreign policy that exacerbates the Islam crisis and caused the death of a highly respected diplomat and three other Americans in Libya at the hands of terrorist ..... and an equally negligent immigration policy that allows millions of illegal aliens to flood into America to get on the "free" government gravy train for which productive Americans get to fund, at the point of a "gun." It has not escaped our probing eyes the waste, fraud, abuse and corruption that exist in every single government program, squandering billions, if not trillions, of taxpayer dollars. And let's not forget your relentless pandering to those you have bought off with our money from the public treasury for their votes so that your power and corruption can be extended and institutionalized in perpetuity, from generation to generation.

We know you have the press in your pocket and you collude with them to filter the news so that you are presented to the public in a positive light. Even the presidential debates are rigged in favor of the Democrat candidate. If not, then how is it that the moderator, Candy Crowley, just happened to have the transcript of Obama's speech in the Rose Garden on the Bengazi attack in Libya? It was crystal clear from the video, that Obama knew that Crowley had the transcript, when he said "..... get the transcript." Blind luck? Hardly! Collusion? You bet!

We know that the truth is covered up or altered to fit a socialist, radical environmental, or one-world-order agenda. We know that there are wealthy socialists, like George Soros, that use that wealth to manipulate you, the press, academia, the people and special interests, for their own evil, anti-American ambitions. But even worse, you, the government, are aligned with these socialists.

Oh yes and we know you are watching us through your daily sweeping of our websites. We wouldn't be surprised if you have tapped our phone, or are monitoring our e-mail traffic. We expect that from a tyrannical government that uses fear, intimidation, spying and surveillance to control the population, not unlike Nazi Germany, Communist China, or a KGB dominated Russia.

But with all that stacked against us, we do not fear you and we will not bow down to you because we are on the right side of history and we are on the right side of freedom. What lies between you and absolute power over the masses is a little amendment to the Constitution. In fact, it is the second Amendment and because of the power of the second Amendment, you will not dominate us ..... ever! You will not crush us because we will rise up en masse and replace you, by force if you make it necessary. Why? Because America has the largest civilian army in the world and we have the power to do it, thanks to the Founding Fathers and our Constitution. Just the knowledge of that power is sufficient to accomplish our goal to preserve freedom and you know it. You and your anti-American actions are why militias are forming all over the country. That is why you want to disarm us. You rightly fear an armed population and Americans are the greatest armed population on the planet.

You can silence us but our voice will live on in the hundreds of articles we have written about you. You can haul us off and bury us in some dungeon but other voices of freedom will fill any gap we may have left behind.

Because you see, all you miscreants and brainwashed liberals that occupy the halls of government:

I am a free man in body and in spirit and I bow down to no one. Nor will I bow down to this government that tries to wrap us in chains against our will. I shall resist with every fiber of my being, any attempts by government to break my free spirit and the spirit of that of other free Americans as well.

I shall not bow down to the socialists who use the government to reward those that are undeserving, with the sweat of MY brow, MY blood and MY tears. I shall not bow down to the environmentalists who use the government to pass laws to rob me of my constitutional rights and cry "the-sky-is-falling" with their man-caused global warming fraud. I shall not bow down to a government that gives amnesty to illegal aliens, with the sole purpose of using my taxes to buy the votes of lawbreakers, in order to entrench their political power. I shall not bow down to laws, rules, regulations and ordinances that repeal my unalienable, God-given rights of freedom and liberty.

As a free man, I reject any laws that violate the sacred rights granted to all Americans by our God and our Constitution. I refuse to abide by federal and state supreme court rulings that fly in the face of common law, common sense and that repeal constitutional safeguards.

As a free man, hear my cry against all the laws and acts by every level of government every day of the year, that moves us ever deeper into absolute bondage ..... laws that strip us of our individuality and attempt to meld us into a mindless collective ..... laws that bind our hands and feet so that we cannot move in the cherished "light" of freedom.

I shall fight with all of my heart and soul to stop attempts by this and future governments to merge America, the one remaining shining beacon in a troubled and unstable world, into a North American Union, or the dreaded one-world-order. For without a free, prosperous, powerful and sovereign America, the world has no chance and will descend into chaos. Should America's power and our prosperity evaporate, or become irrelevant, or we sink into third-world depravity, evil will fill the vacuum and evil will rule the world. Just imagine for one minute that China or Russia became more powerful than the United States. Who or what would save us then?

As a free man, I bow down to no man or no government who would tear down the very fabric of our liberty and render us nothing more than serfs to a government fiefdom. America is the world's last remaining hope and if we do not defend the promise of its freedom and liberty, we will be complicit in its demise, to the detriment of every man, woman and child who walks this Earth and looks to America for guidance and a step closer to freedom.

The ship of America, riding on a bountiful sea of freedom and liberty, has freed over a billion people from tyranny, bondage and slavery. Our military might makes other governments with empirical designs, think twice before adventuring into war with us, or others we protect. We dare not let down our guard for one second. We dare not reduce our military power to the point that other nations might be tempted to challenge us. We dare not be detoured down the path of socialism and remove the one ingredient that makes us the most prosperous, industrious, creative, powerful and generous nation on Earth, our freedom.

If Americans bow down to government tyranny today, tomorrow or ever, all that was won by the sacrifices of our Founding Fathers and the colonials that gave everything to establish our freedom and all the brave men and women who gave their lives, their limbs and their minds thereafter to defend our freedom, will have been for naught.

We ask all who consider themselves sovereign Americans to join with us in this open, peaceful resistance against a government that has forgotten that its solemn duty is to protect individual, God-given rights and to protect Americans from all enemies, foreign and domestic, even if that domestic enemy is the government itself.

We hereby, on this day, warn government, at all levels, that you will not be successful in the slow, insidious enslavement of the American people and the consequences of your attempts to do so will be dire indeed. We need not go to war with you. We only need to peacefully unravel the corrupt institutions you have established and replace them with the original institutions of liberty that is our birthright. Be advised that it does not take a majority to accomplish this. It only takes an irate minority willing to lay it all on the line for freedom. It's been done before and it can be done again.

This November, the first order of business for all patriots is to dump the con man and snake-oil salesman that slithered his way into the oval office by promising HOPE and CHANGE, that turned out to be Obama's HOSTILITY and CONTEMPT for individual rights, freedom, liberty and American sovereignty.

PRESIDENTIAL ILLEGITIMACY: OBAMA'S PERISHING DILEMMA

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

by Dan Crosby of the Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - It requires a truly reprobate mind that causes one to refuse the preeminent definition of natural-born citizenship as it was divinely understood by the framers. They declared the Constitutional eligibility mandate in the critical time which required it...and forever more, because, by moral convention, it was simply normal and common to them.

Willful ignorance and shame consumes the ideologue unwilling to accept that those, existing centuries before them, more favored by God, declared natural-born eligibility from a righteous perspective rooted in an eyewitness understanding of the need to disqualify tyranny born of foul parentage, primarily, not just geographic origin.

The founders saw firsthand that Monarchal inbreeding put sovereignty at risk, so they refused to allow that risk to take hold their new nation. War mongers abound, boundaries are indefensible, but blood-ransomed thrones are not. The founders foreknew borders could be created and changed and be violated, but parentage is eternally founded in the natural laws of God and, therefore, so is natural-born citizenship. Hence, Article II was born.

Only liars and reprobates remain dissonant to this universal truth because they can't let go of their fetish for a transient celebrity everyone else will soon forget.

Yet, the misguided belief that Obama's eligibility hinges only upon a geographic natal origin fails foolishly when mortally impaled by two facts: Obama, himself, voted to uphold SR 511 which declared his 2008 opponent, John McCain a Natural Born citizen explicitly because McCain was born to two citizen parents. There is simply no remedy available to Obots for this teeth-gnashing reality..

Why did Obama and so many of his esteemed degenerates not disqualify the Panamanian-born McCain? Because, the question of McCain's natural-born eligibility was resolved as a matter of natural law founded in PARENTAGE and natal identity, not his birth within transient geographic boundaries from which anyone may be removed or enter from anywhere at any time.

If the question of natural-born citizenship is merely endowed by the location upon earth one's mother is when she gives birth, where lies the contribution to the child's natural born citizenship by the father? What if the father is not present? Certainly we are all born of two parents insofar as the laws of nature dictate.

This is why it was declared that the father's citizenship defines the citizenship of his children, not the mother's. Natural law makes the absence of the mother at birth impossible but it does not prevent the absence of the father. Therefore, because God made them one flesh, this rendered her unable to pass natural-born citizenship to the child alone, based only on geographic birth place, when, in the event she gave birth in a foreign land. In such cases, the child could not be a natural born citizen, but could retain the citizenship and estate of the father.

Therefore, it was declared by the laws of man, as modeled after the laws of God, the father's citizenry is the citizenry of the child, regardless of the location of the mother at birth. But, even more importantly, full natural-born citizenship must be defined both by parentage and birth place.

Should we desire a lesser standard for our highest office of leadership? Should we decompensate the utmost expectations of our commander-in-chief? Who would dare say the President must be considered to a lesser measure? Who would dare say the blood ransom paid to fortify our sovereignty should be represented by a minimalist rendering of character in our highest office? When inferior men, though beloved by a bowing consensus, seek that office, shall we diminish the requirements to meet the man? Or should the man be made to meet the highest of the requirements for the sake of our place among nations...and God?

If Obama’s only claim to eligibility is that he was born in a geographic region under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution, then why did he vote in support of a resolution declaring the natural-born eligibility of man who was NOT born in a geographic region under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution?

Because, he is found to be inferior when measured against the natural born citizenship mark. The law will not be deceived. It can only be violated and upheld as justice. The law has an unrelenting grip upon Obama soul and mind. His only option is to lie about who he really is while casting his own dilemma onto others. He is a deceiver, through and through.

Second, the framers of the Constitution explicitly differentiated language with regard for natural-born citizenship from mere common citizenship as an exaction of two absolutes founded in the natural laws of God, not the laws of man. Having only recently established this new nation, they were at a disadvantage, militarily, to defend it’s borders from invasion, indefinitely. However, they could defend the sovereignty of their new government and, therefore, the strength of their constitutional resolve by declaring that the President be a natural born citizen in the common sense, by citizenship of their parentage. For no parents who were citizens of the U.S. in 1787 could conspicuously bear a foreign child to raised among the "brethren" and, later, betray the blood of patriots by becoming a tyrant unopposed. His parentage was an indicator of his loyalty and intentions.

Therefore, in these two precedents, it was never in doubt (Minor v. Happ.) that 1.) God made man and woman and that 2.) they shall become one flesh in bearing children…and in their identity, the child too could be called a naturally-born citizen as well. Thus sovereignty is upheld as much as possible in this manner.

This ancient law of natural born identity precedes any case law, by millenniums. From the moment God took a rib from Adam and created woman, Obama's fate as an illegitimate president was sealed. The founders simply defeated him 250 years before he had the chance to impose his vile deceptions. The time in which we are born is another unfortunate result of natural born identity. We don't chose who, when or where our parents are. They are a product of God's natural laws.

Natural Law was in effect from the beginning of time and was merely upheld by the framers through declaring the Constitutional requirements of eligibility to be president because they understood that sovereignty by geography was tenuous and morphological whereas birth to one's parents was immutable and unchangeable. God's law, as so upheld by our Constitution, disqualifies Obama from ever being legitimate as a president regardless of any random, corporal birth place because he was the "one flesh" of foreign parentage.

Upon the foul precipice that natural born citizenship is determined ONLY by geographic birth place , a foreign enemy may circumvent the standards endowed by generations of bloodshed and sacrifice, enter the nation illegally, bear a child on our soil, take the child back to their foreign land, raise him apart from decency under all manner of foul doctrine and hate, then return him to the nation to usurp power without any verification of intention as to his interest in our welfare or by loyalty to our sovereignty.

Did we learn nothing from the scourge of Austrian-born usurper in 1930’s Germany? Only atrocity and hate can result from Obama’s violations of natural law. His natal geography is ridiculous and shallow in providing any credible evidence of his natural-born citizenry because nations will rise and fall, but the natural laws of parentage remain forever! Blood sovereignty, familial heritage and the roots of natural-born identity are defined by generations of parental consummation, not momentary residence in a remote outpost way out in the Pacific Ocean.

This law is as preeminent as it is final. Upon the laws of God, all debate in this matter comes to a dark and empty apocalypse with the losers left alone in their defense of a lie which is now exposed by divine truth...and Hell is at hand.

It is imperative that America reject Obama and all case law citations in favor of geographic-based definitions of natural born citizenship, because they have no authority over the truth.