Obama The Destroyer

American Daily Review

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was asked “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” by a reporter last October, and in response Speaker Pelosi shook her head and replied: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” She then went on to seek out a different question, one more to her liking. Later, Pelosi was pressed for a more substantive response, and rather have the guts to face America, Pelosi’s sent out a press spokesman to admonish the reporter, saying: “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

This kind of ignorance, or purposeful disregard, of the U.S. Constitution regarding a mandate to buy health insurance is nothing new. The Clinton Administration tried the same kind of tomfoolery, and the Congressional Budget Office let out this statement in response in 1994: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

In other words, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government any power as intrusive as forcing all Americans to purchase a service due to their very existence. It is one thing to ban use for the safety of the public, as in the anti-drug laws (which by the way the federal government doesn’t have the authority to do either, that is a state issue), but what the Democrats are trying to do here with their health care legislation is tell you that they, the federal government, have the power to regulate commerce to the point of forcing an individual to do something just because he exists.

If the argument by the Democrats is that the Commerce Clause allows them to mandate health insurance ownership, then they can do anything they want to you. At that point one must ask, what’s the point of the rest of the Constitution? If they can force you to own medical insurance, then they can mandate you buy government bonds to pay for the wars, or they can mandate that under medical marijuana laws all of us must grow “weed” for the common good, or they can mandate that all women must have an abortion should they get pregnant, unless the federal government provides the allowance for that woman to have a child. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the right to dictate actions to the people in that manner.

The argument to the contrary by the Democrats drags the mandate for car insurance into the fray. Automobile insurance requirements, however, differ from the mandate the Left is pushing in a number of ways. First, it is a state requirement, and not an example of the federal government mandating anything. States have authorities that the federal government does not have, in many cases. Also, the auto insurance laws only apply to folks that drive a motor vehicle, not to all Americans, as would a federal health insurance mandate. The fact that the vehicles are making use of public roads comes into play as well, as does the fact that the insurance laws specifically only require drivers to insure against injury to other drivers, not to insure themselves against personal injury. Insurance beyond liability is a personal choice.

Listening to the Massachusetts voters talk about why they voted in Republican Scott Brown as the 41st GOP Senator in the recent special election to fill the vacant seat left behind by Senator Edward Kennedy, I found their reasons quite fascinating. The mandate to buy health insurance being pushed by the Democrat Party, and other intrusive government agendas by Washington, tended to be the primary reasons the bluest of blue states put a Republican into that seat, it seems. Despite the fact that liberals outnumber conservatives in that state three to one, the people recognize tyranny when they see it, and they voted to put a stop to it. But despite their ability to recognize the symptoms of the problem, their blind devotion to the “anointed one”, Barack Obama, is chilling.

A good number of the interviews did not proclaim that their vote was a referendum against Obama, but instead their vote was a message of dissatisfaction to the Congressional Democrats. One of the interviewed voters on Fox News even went on to say that he likes Obama, but the “Congressional Democrats have been leading him in a direction he did not intend to go.”

Obama is great at deception. We have seen him do this time and time again. When something goes well, he takes the credit. When things go poorly, he finds a way to dish off the blame to someone else. The economy is a great example of this. When numbers improve, “Our hard work on saving the economy is showing some sign of working!” If numbers crash and burn, he his happy to remind us “I inherited this mess.” Now, Obama has gotten so good at shifting blame, he has trained the sheep to do it for him.

Barack Obama is a radical leftist, and the Congressional Democrats didn’t do anything that Obama did not want them to do. He has been the conductor orchestrating this madness all along (and some may argue even Obama is a puppet, and there are more radical personalities pulling his strings). People don’t believe that, however, because he campaigned from the center, and the fools believed him. They wanted “hope” and “change”, and what they are getting is a Democrat Party that has the “hope” to “change” the American Form of Government into something the Founding Fathers never intended it to be. That is how statists, or “socialists” if we must, work. Their strategy is always to promise the people one thing, but deliver another. If you knew the true nature of what they plan, you would never vote them into office in the first place. Once they are in office, the radical leftists try to deliver the socialism they wish you to live under in small doses, never delivering so much that the people discover the exact nature of the game.

The Democrats injected more socialism during the first year of Obama’s presidency than their Marxist strategy recommends, trying to mask it with claims that it is “for the common good,” or that their radical agenda of government control over health care is a gift from them to you and once you have it you’ll like it so much you will never wish to give it back. The American People recognized the tyranny for what it is, and rejected it, and now the Democrats are confused, unable to understand what went wrong, many are arguing among themselves, and they are doing everything they can to point the destruction away from Obama, when in reality Barack Obama is the one with the smoking socialist gun in his hand.

Deception can only go so far before the American People realizes the truth, and pushes the Marxists away.

So what now? Obama is unpopular, his presidency is a dismal failure at the one year mark, the Congressional Democrats are expected to lose their majority in November, and even a seat that once belonged to a Kennedy is being occupied by a Republican. The Democrat Party is in disarray, and is essentially destroyed, for now, and all the leftists can do is run for the hills with their tails between their legs.

I am still amazed it only took Obama a measly year to accomplish such destruction!

As the Democrats have been doing with the health care bill, they will water their socialism down so much that there is only trace amounts of tyranny mixed in with the legislation. They do this not because they believe in lightening up their radicalism, but because they know even trace amounts of socialism leaves the door open for more of it later. Creeping Incrementalism that will even sucker the Republicans into voting for a bill filled with amendments designed to make the GOP happy enough to vote for it. A little here, a little there, and eventually you get so used to the trace amounts of socialism that you demand the whole pot of chili!

That is what the first big progressive president, Theodore Roosevelt, did. That is what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did with his New Deal (though, like Obama, he tried to overreach), and that is what every progressive president has done ever since. A sprinkle here, and a sprinkle there, and eventually, when you never thought it possible, America becomes a communist nation under the guise of liberalism, and accepts it with open arms – until the prison door slams shut.

As shown by the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, however, the worst of the danger “may” have been staved off for the time being. I hope that the frantic leftists crying crocodile tears over their Soviet Vodka are right, and it will take another fifteen years before they get this opportunity again.

In fifteen years, or whenever it is that this madness returns, it will do so even more determined than before. Hopefully, by then, we will have read our U.S. Constitution, and we will know it like we know a weapon we must use in battle, and we will be ready to fight off the onslaught of statism, even if it takes revolution to do so.

But don’t let your guard down, the election of Scott Brown does not spell the end of the liberal left just yet. They will fight until they have no fight left in them. And remember, progressivism has infiltrated the Republican Party as well. Even Scott Brown calls himself a “big tent Republican.”

We must never rest until our government returns to the ideals of a limited government as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.

As Benjamin Franklin responded, when asked what kind of government the founding fathers had given the people, “A Republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.”


Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace

World Net Daily

The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.

The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a “natural born citizen” must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens.  By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president.  Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.

The relevant Obama admission

At the official Obama campaign website – Fightthesmears.com – just below the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – the following admission was also published:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

This was republished from a Factcheck.org, article which further stated:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.

The U.S. State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual discusses problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: (e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

This helps explain why the definition of “natural born citizen” as one born in the nation to parents who are citizens makes perfect sense in that such a person will not be infected by dual-allegiance problems.  If the parents are citizens, neither will confer allegiance to a foreign nation.  Additionally, if one is born on soil foreign to the parents, that nation is likely to recognize the person as a citizen.  Owing allegiance to more than one nation is an unnatural circumstance of citizenship.

While the Constitution requires representatives, senators and presidents to be citizens, Article II, Section 1, additionally requires that the president’s citizenship be “natural born.” A natural born citizen is not a higher level of citizen.  “Natural born” simply describes a circumstance of citizenship.

Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: “The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama’s presidency constitutionally legitimate?”

There are multiple circumstances that create “citizens at birth.” Some require a federal statute for citizenship while others rely on the 14th Amendment.  Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to deem every person born in the United States a natural born citizen, they certainly could have included such plain, unequivocal language.  But they didn’t.

In 1790, the first Congress deemed all persons born of two United States citizen parents abroad to be “natural born citizens,” but the words “natural born” were repealed in 1795.  Congress never again legislated the definition of “natural born citizen,” and no United States statute currently defines the term or even mentions it.

The citizenship of a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens is self-evident and has never required naturalization, a federal statute or an amendment, and the Supreme Court has indicated that such persons are the only citizens who satisfy the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1.

Origin of the natural born citizen clause

The strict constitutional requirements were enacted to exclude citizens for the sake of national security in safeguarding the office from inexperience and from persons who may not have sole allegiance.  It appears the clause was first introduced for constitutional consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington dated July 25, 1787:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Jay underlined “born” which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.  The “natural born” requirement renders irrelevant that a person – born to foreign or dual allegiance – may not have renewed his foreign citizenship upon reaching maturity.  One is either eligible to be president at birth, or one will never be eligible.

An important historical definition of “natural born citizen” comes from a 1797 translation of the “Law of Nations,” a 1758 text by Emerich de Vattel, which summarized that body of international law known also as the “Law of Nations”:

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.

Note that a child of former aliens can be a natural born citizen under this standard if born in the United States to parents who were naturalized prior to the child’s birth.  That was made clear by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Perkins v. Elg.

It appears from James Madison’s notes of August 1787 that the delegates used the terms “native” and “natural born citizen” synonymously.  Additionally, Ben Franklin stated that the framers frequently consulted Vattel’s text.  Also consider that Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the authority to “punish … offenses against the Law of Nations.”

In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. …”

Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel’s text.  The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. …

It’s significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted.  As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.

If Obama had run for president in 1874 – six years after the 14th Amendment went into effect – he wouldn’t have been eligible since he doesn’t fit the Minor Court’s standard for a natural born citizen.

The strange case of Chester Arthur

The holding in Minor v. Happersett must have given Chester Arthur nightmares when he ran for vice president in 1880, six years after Minor.  Arthur, a prominent New York lawyer, managed to conceal from public view that his father didn’t become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after he was born.  Therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth.

Arthur’s deception in concealing this fact involved numerous lies to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper concerning his father’s heritage, immigration and age.  He also quite famously burned most of his papers and lied about his own age.

Historical records bear witness that this issue was never discussed in relation to Chester Arthur’s eligibility until recently.  Helping to cloud the issue all these years was a famous conspiracy theory expounded by a New York lawyer named Arthur Hinman who alleged  Chester Arthur was born in Canada and was therefore not eligible.  This sensational and unfounded conspiracy theory took the spotlight and unfortunately provided a smokescreen to conceal the true eligibility defect.

Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents.  As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama’s eligibility.  Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn’t known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality.  That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles.

In the September/October 1884 issue of The American Law Review, George C. Collins discussed the citizenship status of persons born on U.S. soil to foreign parents.  In the concluding paragraph, Collins stated:

Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.

It’s ridiculous to imagine the sitting president wouldn’t be mentioned when the article concerns the issue of whether a person born of an alien father is even a United States citizen.

Chester Arthur’s true eligibility defect doesn’t appear to have been mentioned in any historical record until December 2008 when it was exposed at my blog.  Clearly, Chester Arthur’s deception cannot serve to validate anyone’s presidential eligibility.  He got away with it, but that doesn’t make it right.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen.  Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen.  But that’s not accurate.  The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here.  If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens.

Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was “natural born.” In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. … At 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. …”

While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray’s restatement of the Minor Court’s definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent’s fear.

A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are  essential  to intelligent discussion.

The term “native born citizen” has been erroneously substituted for “natural born citizen” by numerous commentators.  Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous.  His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur’s dual nationality was hidden from the public.  There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn’t mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance.

The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a “natural born citizen” as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens.  This is not a political issue.  It’s a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law.  As such, it deserves judicial review.