Ron Paul: ‘No’ on Census Support

The Wall Street Journal

By Jean Spencer

Rep. Ron Paul was the single “no” vote on a resolution last week to support participation in the 2010 Census.

In a weekly column on his Web site, the Texas Republican said the census “has grown far beyond what the framers of our Constitution intended.”

He said the government has no business collecting personal information such as ethnicity, income and religious affiliation and categorizing people into groups. “From a constitutional perspective, of course, the answer to each of these questions is: ‘None of your business,’” Paul said. “But the bigger question is — why government is so intent on compiling this information in the first place?”

A bit of history here: The first decennial census was taken in 1790 and two rounds later, in 1810, the government began collecting information beyond a simple headcount. At that time, residents answered questions regarding housing conditions, schools, achievement of students and the economy, among other things. The president in 1810: James Madison, “Father of the Constitution.”

The resolution introduced by another Texan, Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes. While 409 lawmakers voted for it, 20 others, all Republicans, abstained.

It’s rather unusual for a lawmaker to speak against the census because the headcount is the basis for allotting the 435 House seats and residents are required by law to participate, said Tim Hodson, director for California Studies at Sacramento State University who studies redistricting.

Texas is expected to gain four seats in Congress this year, according to Data Election Services, a political consulting firm that tracks congressional seats.

Source:

Talking Babies Reject ObamaCare

The Obama Eligibility Question Lives

By Paul Hollrah

Beyond surviving the current political madness in Washington, the American people have no greater task ahead than to insure themselves that another Barack Hussein Obama can never again hold political power in our country.

When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to sign the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives. So is it even remotely conceivable that just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – e.g., an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president or vice president of the United States?  It is not, and they did not.

In order to forestall that eventuality the Framers included a provision… Article II, Section 4… requiring that candidates for president and vice president be at least thirty five years of age, that they have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and that they be natural born U.S. citizens, owing allegiance to no foreign power because of the circumstances of birth.

Expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

In recent columns we have discussed the controlling legal authority, under U.S., British, and Kenyan law, necessary to determine Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

If we can agree that Obama’s father, a citizen of Kenya, then a British colony, was a British subject at the time of his birth, a fact that Obama himself has attested to on numerous occasions, it is evident that, under Part 2, Section 5[1] of the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was born with automatic British citizenship “by decent” from his father.   Thus, it is an inescapable fact that Obama held dual US-British citizenship from the date of his birth, August 4, 1961, until December 12, 1963, the day that Kenya won its independence from Great Britain.

However, Article VI, Section 87[3](2) of the Kenyan Constitution states that “Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11^th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Obama Jr.), or a British protected person, shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12^th December, 1963.”

Therefore, setting aside the possibility that Obama MAY HAVE acquired Indonesian citizenship when his mother married Indonesian Lolo Soetoro and moved to Jakarta in 1967, it is clear that Obama held dual US-Kenyan citizenship from December 12, 1963, the date of Kenyan independence, until at least his 21^st birthday on August 4, 1982, when he claims to have been a student at Columbia University in New York.

In either event, Barack Obama is clearly not a “natural born” U.S. citizens and is, therefore, ineligible to serve in the office he occupies. So how did we manage to get ourselves into this mess? Three successive systemic failures combined to provide us with a usurper president.

Complete Story: