Tag Archives: constitution

CARAVAN – ILLEGALS – THE CONSTITUTION STATES – MICHAEL OBERNDORF WEIGHS IN

52 Comments

Warning! Agent Provocateurs Ahead!

As those who don’t depend on the Ministry of Leftist Propaganda, aka, the “mainstream” media, are aware, a growing army of foreign invaders is moving north through Mexico toward our southern border. The leftist Mexican government, with its plethora of draconian immigration laws, is not only doing nothing to stop them, it is actively supporting, aiding, and abetting them. This is a blatant, albeit slightly indirect, attack upon us, going way beyond its policy of aiding and abetting its own citizens in entering the US illegally. In response, President Trump needs to immediately rescind the recently negotiated trade agreement and consider imposing severe economic sanctions.

In addition, and more importantly, Article lV, Section lV, of the Constitution states,

The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…

Thus, as Commander-in-Chief, sending troops to the border is not just an option, it is a requirement of the Constitution. Repeat: it is a requirement of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, this is not as simple as it sounds. Given that the invading army appears to be organized and paid for by our Enemies Domestic, and that it is clearly timed to coincide with the upcoming midterm elections – another Democrat “October Surprise” – it needs to be looked at from more than just a military/law enforcement point of view. There has been a lot of speculation by all sorts of “pundits” and “experts” as to why this is happening, what is the hoped-for outcome, who will benefit, etc, etc. However, I have yet to hear what, in my never humble opinion, is a highly likely conclusion of this dangerous, and probably tragic farce.

The Setup: Thousands of poor, ignorant, unskilled and unemployed people, along with a large portion of criminals and foreign terrorists mass on the Mexican side of the border. Note that these are the dregs and jetsam of their society; they are definitely, in the eyes of their various governments, expendable. On the American side, troops and law enforcement agents, arraigned against the invaders.

The Trigger: Snipers and gunmen, acting as agent provocateurs open fire on the troops across the border, and, less obviously, on the “migrants”, causing the troops to return fire.

The Result: Hundreds of invaders, and American soldiers and law enforcement agents killed and wounded. The Democrats and the Ministry of Leftist Propaganda, in a preplanned effort to turn voters away from Republicans, go berserk, calling it a premeditated massacre of innocent immigrants on the orders of President Trump and his racist, immigrant-hating supporters, and the Nazi military.

Sound far-fetched, folks?  Wait and see. Watch and learn. Time for President Trump to seriously think outside the box.

NUCLEAR GORSUCH HEADS TO THE SUPREME COURT

57 Comments

Once again the Democrats stepped up, or should we say stepped down, falling on their own knife; creating a bloody mess. Joe Biden and Harry Reid, two also rans showcased their stupidity, duplicity and hypocrisy. For Reid and the current  Senate Majority Leader Schumer they proved that reconciliation, compromise and cooperation was never and will never be part of their modus operandi.

Schumer, limited to second fiddle, had that awful smirk wiped off his face by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who trumped him by employing the nuclear option, File:Greenhouse George Early Fireball.ogv

which by the way was conceived by Harry Reid’s, call it Reid’s “little boy”. Thanks Harry for dropping the bomb. You started the nuclear war.   Oh we have a question. What was it that hit you in the head on the way out? Was it the door or a machine. Anyway good riddance to you and Godspeed ahead.

On April 17 Gorsuch will be sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice. Bringing back the court to a semi-conservative bent is of prime importance. In lieu of the many decisions that wait to be adjudicated due to the death of our revered Scalia, we have no doubt in our minds that Gorsuch will bring common sense and a constitutional prospective to the bench.  The election of Trump was more important than any other policy decision he made. Choosing a Supreme Court nominee will set the stage for later victories. We have lost time to make up. 

The devastating defeats by McCain and Romney set the United States back by a half century. Remember two of Obama’s choices, Sotomayor and Kagan – paired with Bader Ginsberg who for all intents and purposes had one thing on their mind, RUBBER STAMPING THE LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE AGENDA. The triumvirate wasn’t for justice, they were anti Constitutionalists. But looking ahead and anticipating the retiring of Kennedy and maybe Ginsberg we have a bright future. To many of the initiated it is obvious that Ginsberg has lost her marbles and in the not too distant future will enter the world of oblivion joining the rest of the judicial psychos in the asylum.

For us Patriots, he number one item on the agenda is the breath of the 2nd amendment. The question here,  does it allow citizens to carry a gun outside their home? Being a Constitutional scholar we believe Gorsuch will be a straight shooter, hitting the target with a bull’s eye. 

“LYING TED CRUZ” – NEW FOX POLL OUT – TRUMP CRUZING TO VICTORY

3 Comments

Senator Ted Cruz knows the truth, a Harvard graduate with a Juris Doctor degree. Cruz was also an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary Canada to an American citizen mother and to a Cuban born father with Canadian citizenship. This leads us to the Constitution.

Reading the following paragraph, it is up to you to ascertain the eligibility or non-eligibility of CRUZ to be the President of the United States.

Qualifications for the Office of President

Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident .

The preceding rendering is crystal clear, spelling out in clear unadulterated English the eligibility requirements for President. Note, where it says “or a citizen of the United States, as the time of the adoption of this Constitution”, this clearly implies that one seeking the highest office in the Land must be today a Natural Born Citizen which conclusively means, “BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.” Why would it add “or……?”

The aforementioned Article needs to be litigated now, the record must be set straight; The Supreme Court must determine with clarity the eligibility requirements once and for all. If not frauds perpetrated on the American people will continue.

Ted Cruz knows in his heart that he is NOT ELIGIBLE to be President. There is no two ways about it.

(CLICK HERE) NEW FOX POLL DEVASTATING FOR CRUZ

THINK THOMAS JEFFERSON TODAY AND IN NOVEMBER

42 Comments
This is amazing.
There are two parts.
Be sure to read
the 2nd part (in RED ).
Thomas Jefferson
was a very remarkable man who started 
learning very
early in life and never stopped.
At 5, began
studying under his cousin’s tutor.
At 9, studied
Latin, Greek and French.
At 14, studied
classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered
the College of William and Mary.
Also could write in Greek with one hand
while writing the same in Latin with the other.
At 19, studied
Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started
his own law practice.
At 25, was
elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the
widely circulated “Summary View of the Rights of British America” And
retired from his law practice.
 
At 32, was a
delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the
Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took
three years to revise Virginia’s legal code and wrote a Public Education
bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was
elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick
Henry.
At 40, served in
Congress for two years.
At 41, was the
American minister to France and
negotiated commercial treaties with
European nations
along with Ben
Franklin and John Adams..
At 46, served as
the first Secretary of State
under George
Washington.
At 53, served as
Vice President and was elected
president of the American Philosophical
Society.
At 55, drafted
the Kentucky Resolutions and
became the active head of Republican
Party.
At 57, was
elected the third president of the
United
States.
At 60, obtained
the Louisiana Purchase doubling
the nation’s
size.
At 61, was
elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired
to Monticello.
At 80, helped
President Monroe shape the
Monroe
Doctrine.
At 81, almost
single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first
president.
At 83, died on
the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along
with John Adams.
Thomas Jefferson
knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government.
He understood
actual history, the nature of God, His laws and the nature
of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand
today.
Jefferson really knew his stuff.
A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy
held a dinner in the White House for a group of the brightest minds
in the nation at that time. He made this statement: “This is perhaps
the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in
the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined
alone.”
“When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in
Europe,we shall become as corrupt as Europe.” —
Thomas
Jefferson
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those 
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
—
Thomas
Jefferson
“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. 
A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”
—
Thomas
Jefferson
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government
from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” —
Thomas
Jefferson
“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government 
results from too much government.” —
Thomas
Jefferson
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” —
Thomas
Jefferson
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is,as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
—
Thomas
Jefferson
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” —
Thomas
Jefferson
“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he
disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
—
Thomas
Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than
standing armies.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their
currency,first by inflation, then by deflation, the
banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks
will deprive the people of all property – until
their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

PLEASE PASS ALONG, THANK YOU FROM THE NEW BOSTON TEA PARTY

DOES TRUMP HAVE A VALID QUESTION?

3 Comments

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump told The Washington Post in an interview published Tuesday night.

Donald Trump is not a lawyer, Ted Cruz is. Senator Cruz, a Harvard graduate cum laude, should no if he is qualified or not. According to the Constitution, the President must be a natural born citizen. Naturalized has not been wholly defined. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

The Naturalization Act of 17908×8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795). provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”

The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”

That conclusion about what the drafters meant is based partly on a law passed in 1790 by the first Congress, providing that the children of U.S. citizens born outside the country “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” The law is no longer in effect, but it’s considered evidence of the intent of the founders.

Then, in 1964, the Supreme Court muddied the waters by seeming to say, without deciding, that “natural born” meant born inside the United States.

Image: Barry Goldwater
Sen. Barry Goldwater in 1958. AP, file

In an opinion on an unrelated issue, the court observed, “The rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”

But that language is not legally binding, and the Supreme Court has never actually ruled on what “natural born” means.

Writing last year in the Harvard law Review, two former holders of the Justice Department’s top courtroom advocate job — Solicitor General — said Cruz met the qualification.

“All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding,” Neal Katyal and Paul Clement wrote.

But until the Supreme Court rules on the issue, or the Constitution is amended, the issue will remain officially unsettled.

St. George Tucker, the editor, says this in a footnote:

Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.

In an 1829 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle (1759-1836), formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791-1799), wrote that

The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. … [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. …. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that … no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the dissenting opinion of J. Curtis (which should be read in combination with the dissenting opinion of J. McLean for a better understanding of the issues in the case) in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. 576 (1856):

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been in conformity with the common law that free persons born within either of the colonies were subjects of the King that by the Declaration of Independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, except so far as some of them were disfranchised by the legislative power of the States, or availed themselves, seasonably, of the right to adhere to the British Crown in the civil contest, and thus to continue British subjects.

ustice Gray explained in that case:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

It was also touched upon in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913):

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

The closest the U.S. Supreme Court has come to addressing eligibility to be president was in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939):

There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States… [citing to Steinkauler’s Case, which was an opinion given by Edwards Pierrepont, who was Attorney General for Ulysses S. Grant].

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INTRIGUE ON THE QUESTION, WHAT DOES NATURAL BORN MEAN. WILL THE SUPREME COURT RULE ON THIS RUDIMENTARY QUESTION?

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH by MICHAEL OBERNDORF

5 Comments

Enough!

 

It seems as if it’s at least once a week over the past seven years that one conservative columnist or another, and often several, lists the crimes and blundering of Obama and his administration. Everything these radicals have done has served to undermine the Constitution, the Rule of Law, our traditional culture, Christianity, our economy, our sovereignty, and our national security. Had they been white conservatives, any one of these actions would have gotten them, a) impeached; b) investigated by a Special Prosecutor; c) indicted; or, at the least, d) driven to resign. But since We, the People no longer have any real representation in Washington, none of this has occurred.

Our government has been taken over in a silent coup by radical Marxists, neo-fascists, and self-serving con men, posing as elected representatives from both parties. Over and over and over and over,  the ruling “elite” has ignored the fact that 60 to 90% of the American people have opposed the laws and policies that they have gone ahead and shoved down our throats, anyway. These have been discussed in excruciating detail time and again in the past, so I will not repeat what you should already know.

Instead, I want to look at what’s happening today, right now. The free world, aka, the civilized West, is being overrun by a barbarian invasion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc). It is being passed off as “refugees”, but the vast majority of the invaders are military age, single, Muslim males. Obama has sneeringly mocked those who have voiced concerns over this fact – repeat: FACT! – accusing them of being afraid of “widows and 3-year-olds”. However, he fails to acknowledge that there are almost zero of these among the invaders. Instead he tries to tell us, Americans who, unlike him, were raised in this country, by freedom-loving parents with the Judeo-Christian values that have made America a bastion of freedom, that not allowing him to foist 100,000 or more of these potential violent, Muslim terrorists on us is “not who we are.”

 

Indeed, it is his policies in the Middle East that have created ISIL/ISIS and allowed dozens of other Islamic jihadist organizations to arise and/or expand exponentially. And though after years of attacks, he still refuses to admit that nearly all the acts of terrorism worldwide are by Mulsim zealots (https://www.facebook.com/AussieLanguage/videos/vb.213358308795914/671460799652327/?type=2&theater).

The “mainstream” media, in blatant collusion with him, also refuses to call it Islamic terrorism, and is complicit in aiding him in covering it up at home (http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/11/22/a-list-of-islamic-terror-attacks-planned-andor-accomplished-in-the-us-that-hussein-obama-has-covered-up/).

Many in America are convinced that Obama is a closet Muslim and his actions over that past eight years have done nothing to disabuse us of this notion (https://www.facebook.com/Gallagher.Mike/posts/10150459723149943).

In fact, as we speak, Obama is touring Asia, bad-mouthing America in Muslim countries as he has done before, trying to make it look like those who resist his pro-Islamic jihadist policies are an ignorant, bigoted minority. In addition, his attempt to force 100,000 Muslims into American communities – mostly in Republican areas – is clearly – repeat: CLEARLY! – an attack on our freedom unprecedented (there’s that word again that the “mainstream” media love to apply to his actions) in the entire history of OUR country.

Enough!

The time has come for We, the People, who make up the clear majority of the citizens of America, to stand up and demand that Barack Hussein Obama resign from office, immediately. It’s obvious that no one in Congress will live up to their sworn Oath of Office to do their mandated duty and impeach him. Thus, it is up to us, the ones suffering most under his oppressive, dangerous, destructive, and totally unconstitutional and un-American policies, to take back the power we mistakenly delegated to the cabal occupying our capitol and the White House.

We need to take to the streets, declare a general, nationwide strike if necessary, and not stop until he steps down. We have seen the left force out dozens of conservatives over the years, including a Republican president, so what we would be demanding is not in the least extreme. And since the left will hysterically scream “racism”, merely cite what has been pointed out in the column above. Tell them, “It’s his actions, not the color of his skin,  stupid!”

This, of course, is not to say that if any of the Republican candidates want to support us in the demand for Obama’s immediate resignation that they would not be welcome. But this needs to be ours. We don’t need another self-proclaimed “leader” to make this happen. America is OUR country. We, the People are the owners, and it’s time we acted like it.

 

THE BEGINNING OF THE END – CIVIL WAR IS NOT A REMOTE POSSIBILITY IT IS A PROBABILITY

46 Comments

The Supreme Court cowards who have the audacity to make law will soon feel the noose of public opinion. To have six liberal justices rewrite the letter of the law violating the Constitution by subjugating the independence of States rights.. The time for revolt has come. Click here of the Hannity interview of Ted Cruz.