Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

At this site, I discuss politics with a Right-Wing Conservative view that is pro-environmental, is in the defense of the freedom that is our birthright, and will go into detail discussing Conservative Fundamental Protestant Christian Theology that is pro-Zionist.

At times I will post some poems or other literary things I write, and may often post various entertainment or educational videos that I find of interest, and hope you will, too.

Thank you for coming, and feel free to also visit Frontsight or one of the recommended site links. You may also submit comments through the moderation process, or simply vote in a check off box below each article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
2016


Statement of Principle: Barack Obama is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen, and illegally holds office. He is a foreign usurper enabled by all three Federal Branches in Conspiracy to the subversion and disregard of the United States Constitution in criminally reckless disregard to our laws. The criminally irresponsible behavior of all 3 branches of our Federal Government from 2008 to present day is begetting and growing a lawless and tyrannical Government by gradual encroachments.


"No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5


The Original Constitutional Intent of a Natural Born Citizen at the time and era it was written is defined in this: that a child is born to a US CITIZEN Father at the Time of Birth, on US Soil or exclusive US Sovereignty, (this includes those born upon a US Flagship on direct water passage in International Waters IF it is so done between soil of the United States to soil of the United States); and that the child has NO OTHER CITIZENSHIP(S) OR ALLEGIANCE(S) FROM BIRTH TO AGE 21.


The Founders utilized John Locke for this definition:“This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.”
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-locke-second-teatise-of-government.html

"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel+%2B%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false


In May of 2009, Barack Obama and the Government of the United States of America officially recognized Kogelo, Kenya, as the birth place of the putative President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama II. It was attended by U.S. Ambassador Michael Ranneberger. The official Kenyan Government memo, Compiled by: Agwanda, J.O., ASDD and Comissioned by: Machage, T. N . , SDD
states very clearly and absolutely unmistakably that: “This was to honour the birthplace of President Barack Obama and re-dedicate the tomb of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., the president's late father.”
http://www.wnd.com/files/110525nsisbulletin.pdf


Under Constitutional Intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Article 2.1.5, the successful US Government Attorney of later Wong Kim Ark fame shows us that the Paternal Link (that through the Father's Status) is essential in determining who is or is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen:
Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and 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 the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins


“…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was ...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.”
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html {link since removed}

Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:
When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."

Since Barack Obama depends upon "operation of law" to claim citizenship status, he is NOT a United States NATURAL born citizen, and fails to meet Constitutionality.


Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) @ 12
http://supreme.justia.com/us/121/1/case.html
"It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument."

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189 http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html states:
" ...the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction."


Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson, dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello, wrote:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)@ 570-571 http://supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html
“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”

The various terms of Citizen in the US Constitution are described in this pdf. http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same


By having a Foreign National Father, and a foreign citizenship at birth and retained to his 23rd birthday, and / or a renunciation of US Citizenship declared by his mother to the US Consulate and signed under oath on August 13 of 1968 to declare her son absolved of US Citizenship for an Indonesian one, http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/05/orly-taitz-still-standing-new-lawsuits.html

Barack Hussein Obama II is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNQUALIFIED for the Office of US President.
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/02/obligatory-literal-definition-of.html
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/05/in-regard-to-natural-born-citizen-issue.html

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/02/us-supreme-court-etc-v-chris-matthews.html
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/05/obama-supporters-have-called-george.html

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102 states that:
"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was …to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306."

Obama owed allegiance to both the United Kingdom (Great Britain) and Kenya at birth, regardless if he was born in the US or not. Only by complete dishonesty can anyone label the man a qualified occupant of the Presidency. Ipso facto and de jure, he is not legally President of the United States, and his entire occupancy is legally voidable. His short form is so easily reproductive forgery, it might as well say Mickey Hussein Mouse as it does here: http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x13/Mactographer/birth_certificate_2-1.jpg

On January 19, 2011
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-has-no-birth-certificate-on-file.html
and on January 25, 2011
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-confession-and-more-on-non-extant.html

it was almost conclusive in the journalistic sense, that the only thing on file in Hawaii as regards Obama is a data entry of : "Obama II, Barack Hussein, Male...." instead of any United States Birth Certificate or Certification of Live Birth.

"The burden of establishing a delegation of power
to the United States,
or the prohibition of power to the States,
is upon those making the claim."
Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 @653 (1948)

That means it is upon Obama and/or his lawyers to produce Court admissible documents establishing his birth identity with location and witnesses to the birth (cf. Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62), - -

Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62 http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/
@ 54 : “The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.”
@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”


- - as well as having a US Citizen father age 21 or above at the time of birth.

John Jay’s letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 states:
“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.

It is clear that a “natural born citizen” in John Jay’s intent is someone WITHOUT dual or multiple nationalities, but has only one since birth: that of the US by both parents and geography, and NO OTHER.

In 1874, the US Supreme Court ruled that as it regards Common Law, that if we follow that model, not only did a US Citizen Father have to be present to make one a US Natural Born Citizen, but a US Citizen Mother also. And that formula of Common Law is also operative vice versa in the phrase: “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens “, that without a US Citizen Father, you could NOT be defined as a United States Natural Born Citizen, PERIOD!!!

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.”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167
(see also how Justia.com tried to bury this key reference case @ http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html )

On June 6, 1951, President Truman signed the 1951 British Treaty between the United States of America and the United Kingdom / Great Britain. This Treaty, ratified by the United States Senate, took effect on September 7, 1952. This Treaty authorizes the British Consulate to register the birth of British Subjects born in the United States of America, establishing a British jurisdiction over US Born Citizens of a British Citizen parent or parents. The British consulate of the jurisdiction of the United States where they were found, including the territory and later state of Hawaii, and were thus authorized to give British passports to those like Barack Hussein Obama II as a British subject and United Kingdom and Colonies Citizen at the petition of a British Citizen parent, like Barack Hussein Obama I's request (Obama's father).
http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/treaty/treaty_1507.html (See also 8 USC 1101 (a) (15) (F) (i) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/ )

While Obama declares he was born in Hawaii http://www.scribd.com/doc/56732637/Obama-Declares-He-Was-Born-in-Hawaii
neither Obama, nor his lawyers, nor the US Attorneys have ever produced one shred of solid identifying evidence of the man's identity into Court Evidence in a Court of Law. They refuse to enter his Birth Certificate or Certification of Live Birth, whether long or short, because both are forgeries. Even though under 333 US 640, Bute v. Illinois (1948) @ 653 and 533 US 53, Nguyen v. INS (2001) @ 54,62 they are so required to produce into Court's Evidence, submitting them as authentic under penalty of perjury to the Courts. IT NEVER HAPPENED because they are knowingly fraudulent documents.

Then there is Obama’s 1995 confession of legal identity facts as of then:
"You know, as soon as the Old Man died,
the lawyers contacted all those who might have a claim to the inheritance.
Unlike my mum,
Ruth
has all the documents needed to prove
who Mark's father was."
Dreams from My Father, p. 345 Barack Obama
(confessing there is NO Birth Certificate of any kind for him in Hawaii as of 1995)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280073



Obama can therefore be required by Law to produce an authentic US Hospital Birth Certificate into Court Evidence, something he has NEVER done, nor have in lawyers remotely done in the one reference they made to pro-Obama blogs in Hollister v. Soetoro Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR.What is it that Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie offered the Court the one time he even referred to substantiation in Hollister v. Soetoro Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR? Legal FRAUD upon the Court.

“Fraud on the Court is conduct:
1) on the part of an officer of the Court;
2) that is directed to the judicial machinery itself;
3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;
4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under duty to disclose;
5) that deceives the Court.”
Workman v. Bell, 245 F.3d 849 (6th Circuit 2001) @ 852


{{{Quote from Hollister v. Soetoro, Footnote 1: }}}1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” See “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. See The Washington Post v. Robinson,935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980). {{{Unquote}}}

Obama CANNOT and will NOT produce a valid Birth Certificate into evidence in a Court of Law because both released long and short copies ARE FORGERIES.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/04/white-house-releases-long-form-birth.html

Snopes.com, another pro-Obama partisan propaganda site, self-patting themselves on how factual they are when it comes to Obama, couldn’t even cite the correct alleged obstetrician it claimed delivered Obama. When the Obama forged Certification of Live Birth Long Form came out, their facts that “Rodney T. West delivered Obama in Hawaii” were cast aside as fables they promulgated to the gullible masses for over 2 years. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=295265

The Office of the White House Press Secretary linked journalists and other interested parties to what they called an authentic Obama Short Form Certification of Live Birth, as vetted by Snopes.com. Unfortunately, the link went to Ron Polland’s made from Template Scratch openly attributed forgery, of which Polland said he was the creator. In other words, the White House sourced themselves in a genuine copy of a known public forgery which url even contained Dr. Polland’s previous internet pseudonym in the url / jpg address itself. http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

Obama also uses an identity theft Social Security Number of a now deceased person 042-68-4425 http://www.scribd.com/doc/47560424/Affidavit-Regarding-Obamas-Social-Security-Numbers-Susan-Daniels for someone born in 1890 AND ISSUED IN CONNECTICUT in 1977-1979 as if a Tax ID number for most all his adult life. It is time for Congress to empower a special prosecutor and move to Criminal Filings against him, beginning with a subpoena duces tecum of his alleged identity documents under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedures 17(c) and "call his bluff".

In matter of fact, my quoting the Kenyan Media by the same standards as Bauer’s use of “The Washington Post v. Robinson,935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980)” is de facto and de jure not only just as relevant, but MORE relevant, as it sources a nation of birth, and a national citizenship at birth as jus soli in Kenya by Government confirmation, where the Hawaii newspaper announcements neither address nationality nor location at birth, only that a birth somewhere in the world occurred for people alleged to live at so-an-so an address.

The Nairobi Kenya Eastern Standard is the source of the Birther Movement, substantiated by other African Media and Kenya’s own Government Officials in Public Statement of fact in Transcript. Of primary concern is the Nairobi Kenya Eastern Standard dated as Sunday, June 27, 2004. Its headline reads:
“Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate”

The first line reads:“Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.”

De facto, the Nairobi Kenya Eastern Standard states clearly in the headline that Senator Barack Obama is Kenyan born...hence, born in Kenya. http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

There are no other living witnesses besides Barack's step-grandmother, who says she saw him birthed, and she says THAT was in Kenya! http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107524 and that claim was vetted twice by Kenya's Parliament, one of which in March of 2010!!!“

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT
Thursday, 25th March, 2010
The House met at 2.30 p.m. p. 31 ...2nd paragraph
[Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking]: "...how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American,become the President of America?It is because they did away with exclusion." http://www.scribd.com/doc/29758466/RDRAFT25

In others words, NON-Natural born Citizens of the US can now be President of the USA, starting with Barack Hussein Obama!!! See also: http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/04/obama-fec-audited-in-2011-little-bit.html

In matter of fact, various Secretaries of States will declare to the effect that the States have no right to verify if a candidate running for President is even a US Citizen, let alone qualified.

{{{Quote}}} “…neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate’s eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States.” Secretary of State, Susan Bysicwicz (Connecticut) November 26, 2008. http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-sec-of-state-connecticuit-fax-name-removed.pdfSee also: http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/01/was-obama-ever-vetted-as-qualified.html

It is a legal fact that Natural Born Citizenship is required to be a US President, which Obama does NOT have... NOT having the proper US Citizenship Credentials to produce into evidence in a COURT of Law, and especially by NOT BEING a UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN by the same principles of primogeniture and entail in regard to a sole US Citizenship (i.e., because he has NO US Citizen Father to Naturally take the place in Society of). Hence, he is a Usurper of the US Presidency, and an active criminal regularly committing felonies every time he acts or speaks in the fraudulently obtained office of the US Presidency.

Obama's own Mother declared Obama Jr. lost his US Citizenship as of August 13, 1968

Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro-Passport Application File-Strunk v Dept of State-FOIA Release-FINAL-7-29-10

Obama's Mother formally reported on her son so as to declare Obama Jr. lost his US Citizenship as of August 13, 1968 and denounced him officially before a Department of State Representative and signed such official documentation, intending that he had officially become a permanent Indonesian Citizen, absolved of any claim to a US nationality.

Obama's mother signed under oath on the back page of Form FS-299 of 7-64, following the instructions:

"I have not (and no other person included or to be included in the passport or documentation has), since acquiring United States citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state, taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…

{If any of the above-mentioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, or to any other person included in the passport or documentation, the portion of which applies should be struck out , and a supplementary explanatory statement under oath (or affirmation) by the person to whom the portion is applicable should be attached and made a part of this application.}

Ann Dunham wrote Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) and struck his name out to indicate that he was legally to no longer be a United States Citizen, and the document stood to apply all relevant passages that could apply to a 7 year old who lost US Citizenship by naturalization to Indonesia with a renunciation of his allegiance and renunciation of his citizenship by both he and his mother and his step-father for him.

Again, his own mother on August 13, 1968, before a Department of State consulate, denounced her son Barack Hussein Obama as having foreign allegiances and foreign naturalization to Indonesia, and signed to this effect in form FS-277, writing and striking his name out.

We must remember that:

“[T]HE INESTIMABLE HERITAGE OF CITIZENSHIP IS NOT TO BE CONCEDED TO THOSE WHO SEEK
TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF IT UNDER PRESSURE OF A PARTICULAR EXIGENCY....”
Chin Bak Kan v. United States 186 U.S. 193 (1902) @ 200

We do not need a Presidential candidate or President so badly, that we have to go outside the pool of two citizen parents at their birth on US Soil for a President, regardless of the candidate's ethnicity. The DNC yielded to a known unqualified candidate as a means of desperation, as if the pressure of exigency to get their Party the Presidency in 2008, and discarded the sacred trust of the People of the United States in upholding the US Constitution, by offering the most powerful office in the world to a United Kingdom and Colonies foreign national turned resident of the United States who may or may not even have as much as a secondary US Citizenship under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952's statutory law, if he indeed was born in Kenya as the media and Government of Kenya claims.

Under Original Intent and interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Obama fails to qualify as a 14th Amendment Citizen without a US Citizen Father and by having foreign dual or multi-national citizenship at birth:

The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866

The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38

Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) authored a "subject to the jurisdiction" clause into the 14th Amendment. Upon his introduction, the ff. are his remarks.

Part 4 (column 2), page 2890

Mr. Howard: The first amendment is to section one, declaring "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside...This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred:

Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893

Mr. Trumbull: The provision is, "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"... What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.

...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

...It is only those persons who completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."

Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895

Mr. Howard: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word "jurisdiction" as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States...that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

Then we have the dilemma of Law Legislated under an illegal Obama Presidency.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810) @ 87
The principle asserted is that one legislature is competent to repeal any act which a former legislature was competent to pass, and that one legislature cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature. The correctness of this principle so far as it respects general legislation cannot be controverted. But if an act be done under a law, a succeeding legislature cannot undo it. The past cannot be recalled by the most absolute power.”

By NOT having a legal US President in Office, not one single piece of Legislature signed by Obama is "under law" unless one can show that it was voted on by a 2/3 majority in both the House of Representatives and the US Senate and would have passed anyway, even if Obama were not in Office to exert the influence he had in the office of the US Presidency he usurped / illegally held and illegally maintained by fraud or its variants. Therefore, the objection that might be cited in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810) @87 that a succeeding Congress cannot void out the legislation of a preceding Congress -- when that legislation in the preceding Congress was an illegal action via a signing or benign neglect affirmation by an illegal Executive -- is therefore easily overcome.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) @ 180 states that
“a law repugnant to the constitution IS VOID. . . .” and
“in declaring what shall be the SUPREME law of the land, the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution,have that rank.”

I advocate that we follow the US Constitution and the advice of the US Supreme Court for such a crisis as this, and VOID OUT Obama's entire Presidency!!! Amen!!!

To all true U.S. Patriots, Obama is and remains unforgiven,




and we remain justified in both saying and doing this, because it is the appropriate response to an "alien national" who has usurped the Presidency, who is absolutely unable to produce -- and his own lawyers refuse to put forth under penalty of committing felonies to attest to its unfraudulent veracity -- evidence of a United States Natural Born Citizenship to Barack Hussein Obama II in ANY U.S. Court of Law. They won't even place his alleged Birth Certificate or Social Security Card before the Court as genuine under penalty of perjury. Under Bute v. Illinois or 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653, WE THE PEOPLE have the right to demand Barack Obama PROVE the right to his claim of the U.S. Constitution authorizing him, a suspected illegal alien and known foreign national, to the powers and authority vested in that of a President of the United States...who saw fit to help re-write a foreign (Kenyan) Constitution to include Islamic Sharia compliances and to make himself once again one of its current citizens while occupying and claiming to be "First Citizen" in the Presidency of the United States.




Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Guest Blog: Marc Morano of CFACT - Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams ‘global warming’ link to floods & extreme weather

‘Floods are not increasing’: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams ‘global warming’ link to floods & extreme weather – How does media ‘get away with this?’




By:  - Climate DepotAugust 23, 2016 2:01 PM 
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), slammed the linkage of global warming to the recent Louisiana floods and other types of extreme weather. (See: Bill Nye: Climate change is reason for Louisiana floods)
“Flood disasters are sharply down. U.S. floods not increasing either,” Pielke Jr. declared on August 23. Pielke rebuked New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for linking floods to climate change.  Krugman blamed “climate change” for ‘a proliferation of disasters like the one in Louisiana.’
“Floods suck when they occur. The good news is U.S. flood damage is sharply down over 70 years,” Pielke explained.
In a message aimed at climate activists and many in the media, Pielke cautioned: “Remember, disasters can happen any time and they suck. But it is also good to understand long-term trends based on data, not hype.”
“In my career I’ve seen the arguments go from: 1- ‘Drought increasing globally’ — To — 2- ‘OK, not globally, but look at THIS one drought.’ I’ll stick with the UN IPCC and the USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program) consensus rather than selected studies. Both of those agree there is no global or U.S. trend though literature is diverse,” Pielke wrote.
Extreme weather is NOT getting worse
Pielke also pointed to the hard scientific data that shows other types of extreme weather are not getting worse and may in fact be improving.
“Is U.S. drought getting worse? No,” Pielke wrote and revealed this EPA graph:

Professor Pielke Jr. also noted: “US hurricane landfalls (& their strength) down by ~20% since 1900” and provided this graph.

“Recent years have seen record low tornadoes,” Pielke Jr. added with this data from NOAA.
#

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Guest Blog: Ron Paul with Daniel McAdams - US Policy Shift In Syria; Pentagon's Lost Trillions




Lake Jackson, TX, Aug 22.

Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:

Dr. Paul and I finished a new episode of our daily Liberty Report this morning on a topic that I am finding increasingly chilling. Honestly I am getting a bad feeling. Even Dr. Paul was pretty concerned this morning when we met to compare notes in preparation for the program. I am talking about what seems to be a US policy shift toward direct confrontation with the Syrian government -- and with Russia, which is acting at Syria's invitation to help eradicate the foreign-sponsored insurgency.

In our episode this morning we discussed the appointment of the new "Commander of US troops in Iraq and Syria," Lt. Gen. Stephen Townshend. Gen. Townshend finds himself in what in normal times might be viewed as peculiar: he is "commanding" US troops who are operating in a foreign country without approval of that country's government, without a UN resolution authorizing such a violation of national sovereignty, and in absence of any kind of legal basis granted by a Congressional war declaration or even authorization.

Our politicians claim to "support the troops," but they leave them hanging in a foreign country without any legal justification for being there. That is not supporting the troops, that is abusing the troops in the name of the neoconservative agenda.

It is very clear that there are few if any champions of the Constitution left on Capitol Hill. How is it possible that Congress is completely quiet as the president places US troops directly in harm's way without any authorization or Constitutional protection? 

In fact Congressional leadership is intent in spreading false propaganda rather than enforcing the Constitution. As Dr. Paul discussed in today's program, House Speaker Paul Ryan inexplicably put out a press release at the end of last week condemning President Obama for not attacking the Syrian government after the 2013 sarin gas attack on Ghouta. Apparently he thinks that by repeating the fiascos in Iraq and Libya in Syria, somehow intervention would have worked this time.

Does Ryan not realize that the US Intelligence Community refused to sign off on John Kerry's claim that the Syrian government was behind the Ghouta gas attack? The White House had to invent a new pseudo-analytical product called a "government assessment" because the US Intelligence Community refused to sign off on its propaganda that the Syrian government was behind the Ghouta attack. That doesn't stop Speaker Ryan from pushing war, though. Facts are inconvenient, but not insurmountable.

So this afternoon I began seeing some indications on my Twitter feed of an unusual Pentagon press conference, so I found it and re-watched it. Even though I had written several times over the past couple of days on Syria I felt compelled to write about this extraordinary press briefing.

The Pentagon spokesman affirmed what was de facto a US "no-fly" zone in Syria, where the US claimed the right to shoot down Syrian and Russian fighter planes who it felt threatened US Special Forces and proxy fighters in Hasakah, Syria. He said, "we will use our air power as needed to protect coalition forces and our partnered operations." What he did not say is that US-backed Kurdish YPG militia forces have been firing on Syrian government positions in the area, which means if the Syrian government fires back -- or calls in Russian airstrikes -- the US will enforce a de facto "no fly" zone. Does that mean that the US will attack Russia risking World War III in the wastelands of northeastern Syria? Is this how the final conflict is to begin?


Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity







Keep up to date with Ron Paul's often insightful Libertarian Perspective at:
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/

Sunday, August 21, 2016

October 2016 Surprise?


Hillary Clinton is ill.  She has nominated a successor in her Vice Presidential pick, and her only goal is to live long enough with her mental and physically debilitating diseases to win a Presidential election, and if at all possible, to make it to be inaugurated, even if only in the Presidency for just a few days before being gurneyed away, incapacitated.















 In all likelihood, Hillary won't even make it health-wise to January 2016. But it is a let's wait and see based on what is thus far publicly known or publicly knowable via past news reports, et cetera.
    Hillary Clinton has been known  since the 1980s to have had an issue with little to no peripheral vision, so that she has been legally blind to anything not immediately in front of her.  She has also struggled with depth perception, which with her recent medical issues since her December 2012 apparent mild epileptic seizure which allegedly caused her to lose her balance and fall so severely that she required brain surgery, which gave her chronic double vision for the vision that she does have left.

 Hillary has also had what appears to be a mild form of epilepsy since what seems to be 1994, and perhaps even a year earlier, back when she headed up a 500 member Healthcare Commission, back at a time when she hung crack cocaine pipes on the White House Christmas tree in the 1990s while "First Lady", where each crack cocaine pipe was allegedly a new one used one time by her to help her overcome her physical disability even then, growing in numbers with each Christmas if I understand this correctly, during an era as she went about as if co-President of the United States with her husband Bill.  

In late December 2012 if I understand it correctly, Hillary, after a bad fall, underwent brain surgery to attempt to remove a blood clot  and either a benign (not malignant tumor) or perhaps something that may have been the size of a pituitary gland, but as yet there is no direct eyewitness corroboration to such a claim, nor the release of medical documentation as yet to say one way or the other. Hillary Clinton is too sick to run for or be POTUS.  She has been debilitated so physically, that she had to take a jet to travel a measly 20 miles that she could not endure by helicopter because she is medically unfit to ride a helicopter. 

 Further, as to why Hillary and perhaps neither party might ever see January 20 inaugurate any November 2016 electee, there is a faction that includes Kerry, that guided our foreign policies that gave us Iran, as Kerry promised he would do while debating Bush II in 2004. That faction views a viability in having a limited nuclear war with Russia and China, in which if they just have several nukes go off there and here, provoking a limited but not total exchange, they can argue for a UN total transformation of the United States (which "poof" is too uncapable of governing itself and must be under total UN control), and the 10 region world government plan, in which the USA is Region 1 with Canada and Mexico and foreign governed, can be implemented.

This summer of 2016, we have had a U.S. initiated false flag that was a tactical bringing out and exposing and killing off those Turkish anti-jihadi army officers opposed to arming ISIS / Al Qaeda.  Their tactical and asymmetrical annihilation in Turkey was Media promoted as a coup attempt there in Turkey.   Turkey is THE major supplier of ISIS / Al Qaeda logistics on behalf of Obama and is engaging in terrorist war and invasion upon Syria on behalf of Obama and the the United States by way of Obama's pro-jihadi policies.

  While Obama spends several times a day on his Muslim prayer rug and upwards of 5 hours a day hooked on ESPN at the White House, others like Joe Biden and John Brennan and John Kerry dictate incompetence as well as chronic TREASON in behalf of Islam, the New State Religion of the White House that only Brennan and Obama actually religiously practice of the 4 names mentioned here, John Kerry and his Department of State faction, which includes the wild eyed Samantha Powers, has motivated those loyal to party loyalty Democrats over the Constitution NOT purged from the upper officer classes of the Pentagon to move 50 nukes out of Turkey up to Romania, 
 with the goal of bringing these into the Ukraine, and starting a limited nuclear exchange from the Ukraine into Russia, with a like response into the Ukraine. 

Even though it will be members of the U.S. military firing into Russia, should we be asking the questions now, should we not be asking if there are or not viable target dates for an unprovoked war with Russia be it to the effect of October 12 - 16 or any other pre-January 21, 2017 date, just for an excuse to stay in and to consolidate MORE power?

When a nation is attacked, it is most essential to take and seize control of all communications and communication networks.  This has been known since the Blitzkrieg tactics of Germany upon Poland in September 1939.  Obama, the Indonesian maternal son and Kenyan paternal son of foreigners, has handed over control of United States communications just slightly over 5 weeks before the November 2016 Presidential election can take place.  Why?  Who benefits?  What happens if the internet and banking and all forms of communications (including radio, television, cell phone), all those  outside a standard landline telephone, if they  come to a screeching halt? 

October Internet censorship in the U.S. kicks into high gear as of October 1, 2016. October 1, 2016.  It is  by that date that the entire civilian side of Internet control of the United States will be no longer in United States control, but in the allegedly in the powers of FOREIGN GOVERNANCE which has no recognition of free speech or free expression or anything to do with the United States constitution.  The citizenry of the U.S. will effectually be invaded and Internet OCCUPIED by hostile Foreign powers by capitulation to them, by a form of legislative unconditional surrender that will allow foreign governance and foreign control and a foreign operated full capability to give all U.S. citizens a massive news blackout and censorship, so that as of October 1, it may be that the entire reach of the United States Internet will be fully neutralized as well as isolated, placed on an Obama given away regular Internet kill switch technology use, with regular brown out memory power and shoddy service at much higher costs as foreign powers want to be paid "their fair share" or twice the current financial costs now paid, for a rottening of service in which any information digitally transferred is at such a low capacity that the servers on every form of telecommunication device are always busy, while select pre-approved codes and code box compliant computers are granted free regular access, as the economy is forced into a meltdown, and news becomes pretty much a person to person, face to face encounter. 

In that scenario, if it is launched, perhaps the only way we would hear of a nuclear war between Russia and the Ukraine is by shortwave radio, smuggled international newspapers, or the discussion of why radioactive clouds up to two weeks duration are floating across the United States, giving a red glowing sky at night and making the grass glow almost purple.  Two Chinese Hydrogen bombs did this effect and the radioactive atmospheric debris crossed from California to New Jersey in June of 1975.  This was duplicated again in October 1976. 


If Hillary drops, especially with a bad reaction to some of the experimental anti-seizure drugs she is taking and having injected into her, likely they'll just say she passed away in her sleep, it will be a rewrite with a Kaine and Elizabeth Warren ticket refiled for November 8, and given a special circumstances waiver.

The way many top Democrats and billionaires are talking amongst themselves, it is alleged that "The fix is in for Kaine..." on the Democrat Party  ticket "...and for Pence." on the Republican ticket to be the either or that lives to see inauguration day. Trump made the mistake of nominating a globalist VP choice and then endorsing Ryan and McCain and being seen as someone who will likely do an accidental airline crash like the warning on the campaign trail in Tennessee (or wherever it was).


In recent days, Trump himself has tried to be Presidential material, and he truly is that.  








But Trump is doing a Kevorkian in suiciding himself to elites eliminating him by having a Mike Pence who salivates as badly as Lyndon Baines Johnson to remove President Kennedy in Dallas in November 1963, should we have an open and fair election come November 8, 2016, because the Communist-Socialists and the Intelligence Community leadership will drop a President-elect Trump and  then call it patriotism...as whatever means they can profit, be it selling out to any other nation or billionaire, to them, the love of money = patriotism.  As if having a TREASONOUS mindset makes it all okay.  Perhaps they will Media blackout and blame the UN for censorship, or perhaps they will just capitulate entirely and beg the U.S.A. to be taken over because of whatever their sales pitch reason is at the time.  That's a wait and see, moment. 

Trump's Vice Presidential pick  is a SELLOUT to GLOBALISM, and Trump has erred badly in selecting a Globalist Henry Kissinger endorsed choice of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)Mike Pence, and then on the heels of that, f**ked up again by a let's cleanup corruption hypocrisy COMPROMISE by endorsing and enabling those who corrupt and destroy the system and also want FOREIGN GOVERNANCE via the TPP Paul Ryan and John McCain...TRUMP is officially now a SELLOUT who has sealed his assassination fate at the hands of the globalists once he gets Mike Pence over the goal line in being elected in November under globalist plan B, if that is what is allowed and selected.  Trump's big fat failure #1 is choosing a VP candidate on his ticket who will REFUSE to follow his lead and look out for Americans first.  Trump's big fat failure #2 was in endorsing globalist sellouts who can't wait to go higher in power to new alien power masters like Quisling in Norway to National Socialist Germany ...come and just have it all, we want to be your slaves.  That is what Pence, McCain, and Ryan and so many traitors really are advocating in their most basic foundation of political platforms taken public by words, votes and actions. 

Gone is quite a lot of the credibility of Trump in his claiming he would stop Islamic Terrorism and fighting ISIS / Al Qaeda by his very first 3 POTUS Candidate endorsement selections: endorsing McCain (best buds with Al Nusrah / Al Qaeda) and Paul "Open Borders to all terrorists and pass the TPP and destroy the Constitution" Ryan, and even his own Globalist VP pick, Mike Pence, who  is now an  Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood Public Relations advocate who will rush to Islamic defense to keep the Islamic terrorists rolling in rather than be called names for properly DEFENDING the United States from INVASION...you know, like the clause in THE CONSTITUTION says is a REQUIREMENT.


Article 4, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion...."

The Muslim Brotherhood along WITH OBAMA and with the approval of Pence and Ryan and McCain is bringing in terrorists, the Muslim Brotherhood coordinating from the White House and through various points in the Executive Branch and State and Local Governments, installed and protected by Obama, and from their own writings THEY WRITE THAT they will be using MOSQUES in the United States as Base Camps for terrorism, and Trump is almost there as he compromises and inclinates to just about drop to his knees and turn Henry Kissinger at the Bohemian Grove before the election, when the Muslim Brotherhood is planning a war of CONQUEST through terrorist murders and bombings and what have you within the United States?
Uh huh.  Wake up, Mr. Trump.  Wake the hell up!

In 2017 and beyond, we are about to get the Israeli experience, where the only successful means of combating the Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Terrorists allying with Al Qaeda and ISIS will be the successful destruction of base operations of that Islamic Conquest and Terrorism. Following their own writings, this REQUIRES leveling their specifically designated mosques, preferably with them in it, should ever the time come that they launch their actual guns and bomb and acts of sabotage for mass killings and other forms of terrorism upon the population of the citizens of the United States upon United States soil.
[Quote]
Page 21:
"4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means.
The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal."
Page 25: "In brief we say: we would like for the Islamic center to become "The House of Dawa"' and "the general center" in deeds first before name. As much as we own and direct these centers at the continent level, we can say we are marching successfully towards the settlement of Dawa' in this country.
Meaning that the "center's" role should be the same as the "mosque's" role during the time of [Mohammed] Allah's prophet, Allah's prayers and peace be upon him, when he marched to "settle" the Dawa' in its first generation in Madina. From the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew [as Islam].
This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into "operations rooms" for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role model to be followed
[for the eventual subjugation and taking over the nation for Islam]." [Unquote]


Instead of a legal and peaceful DIVERTING of a coming Terrorism, Trump embraces Globalist TRAITORS who ENABLE them. All Trump has to offer is the same old yada, yada, yada, when he does this and COMPROMISE IS NOT THE ART OF THE DEAL if he flushes all credibility toward legal and peaceful and prosperous CHANGE and a return to upholding the Constitution and even preserving the hope of saving this Republic from total foreign governance right down the toilet. More and more, 2016 is turning into a choice of Hillary Clinton A (the original model) and Hillary Clinton B (a wannabe transvestite and male prostitute Henry Kissinger approved Clinton lite) transforming his alleged convictions right before our eyes by his own choice to betray us all, for whatever selfish reason. 

What a severe disappointment Trump has NOW become to Conservatives and anyone who truly wants to preserve the Constitution and save U.S. National Sovereignty.  But he can still redeem himself, the other candidate being a felonious liar and murderer cannot redeem herself, and intends an open civil war on tens of millions of United States citizens, with death camps and gun confiscations and the works.  Hillary is criminally insane.  To put it mildly, "She is nuts."



On September 20, 2010, at Hillsdale College, Mike Pence said

"A president who slights the Constitution is like a rider who hates his horse: he will be thrown, and the nation along with him.

The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it."

Yet that is exactly what Pence does in his actions against Christianity while exalting Islam as a State Religion, allowing Christianity to be persecuted while demanding Islam be embraced and calls himself a Christian while politically converting to Islam. Never mind a co-equal standard, that if you force the 10 Commandments out of the public sector and out of the classroom, you have absolutely NO legal nor moral excuse to insert the Quran or Islam into these areas in place of the 10 Commandments.

Never mind that Islamic Terrorists must be allowed to come in welcomed and that any criticism of them is banned but hatred and criticism and censoring the lawful Christian is perfectly acceptable, and any legislation that protects Christians must have it watered down and be non-protective of Christians so he can sign it as Indiana's State legislation.  Uh huh, Mikey.  Uh huh.  

Further, that betrayal of throwing off the USA and the constitution that Pence spoke of in 2010, is exactly what Pence wants in supporting FOREIGN Governance via the Trans Pacific Partnership. When he found he could not trick the Constitutionalists in the TEA Party activism to follow him as a personality over the Constitution as many have done in following Ted Cruz in 2015 - 2016, he was infuriated. He waved and wagged his pocket Constitution, as if being in the front of his body, wherever he walks forward, he "ha, ha, follows the Constitution." Yet, by his fruits / his actions, one would not bother to call him either a Constitutionalist nor a Christian. 

Obama claims Christianity but persecutes it and exalts Islamic conversion and Islamic terrorism. Pence ought to be equally judged as a liar and a pusher of Satanism in the form of Islam and as a SUBVERSIVE seeking the overthrow and removal of this Constitutional Republic and replacing it with a tyrannical form of something else, be it run from Europe or China.

Unfortunately, even if he works for Trump, he isn't PAID by Trump, so why should he be loyal? Just give the Donald a song and dance of what he WANTS to hear, and like a "John", Trump will be sold the dream that "he is IT". And once the votes are affirmed by Congress in December, I seriously doubt Trump will be anything more than his family's black band on the arm memory, who made a more fatal mistake than Reagan did, and was taken out all the more so quickly by both those whose names we may know and those we probably never will know.

America desperately needs a President Trump, but really, will he or the United States of America as a Republic even be around in 2017?  

The American globalist in regard or disregard of the U.S. Constitution says, "Show me the money."  

The patriot in his heart and actions in regard to the Constitution of this Republic, says, "Semper Fidelis"  "Always faithful."




Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

DNC 2016 - Violate And Pretend You Can Abrogate?

DNC 2016  -  

Unofficial...But Technically Insider Official, Hillary Will Attempt To Unconstitutionally Ban All Guns




 And HOW will she try to ban all guns simultaneously?  Via the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership attempt to overthrow the Constitution / TREASON Treaty). 

Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 Howard) 635 (1853) @ 657
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/57/635/case.html
"By the Constitution of the United States, the President has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. ... And the Constitution declares that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. The treaty is therefore a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions unless they violate the Constitution of the United States."



The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616 (1870) @ 620
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/78/616/
"The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that
"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument."



Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890) @ 267

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/133/258/case.html
"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the states.
It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent." [Case citations omitted]



United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) @ 701
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
". as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties and decisions upon that subject -- always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution."




State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) @432-433
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/416/case.html
@ 432 "It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do.
@ 433 . Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution...."




Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924) @ 341
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/265/332/
"A treaty made under the authority of the United States "shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Constitution, Art. VI, § 2.
The treaty-making power of the United States is not limited by any express provision of the Constitution, and, though it does not extend "so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids..." [Case citations omitted]




United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) @ 208 
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/270/181/
"The decisions of this Court generally have regarded treaties as on much the same plane as acts of Congress, and as usually subject to the general limitations in the Constitution.."



Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956)@ 17
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/1/case.html
"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."







Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
"Where rights 
   secured by the Constitution 
   are involved,
   there can be no rulemaking 
   or legislation 
   which would abrogate them."


Abrogate:     To repeal or do away with  a law or right as if by an authoritative (general) act -- an action that is not legal to cancel, invalidate, nullify, void, negate, dissolve, countermand,  reverse, abolish, put an end to, do away with, get rid of, end, stop, quash, a secured law or right even though it may claim to be able to do so otherwise.   

In effect, unless the Constitution is AMENDED by 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the State Legislatures, NO ONE has the right to executive order or by any means of proclamation (verbal or written) to abrogate the Constitution in any word or in any part or even as a whole.  There is NO legal right to say by a vote of 51 to 49 the first or second or any amendment goes away (as Senator Feinstein famously lied and claims in regard to the Second Amendment).  "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!"




 THEY become the criminals and are effectually subject to WE THE PEOPLE (those who are its citizens) becoming the legal enforcers of the CONSTITUTION if such an action occurs, first through Congress and the States, then by other means if Congress and the States also shirk their legal duties of representation.

Meanwhile, a member of the DNC Rules Committee rightfully supports opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership overthrow of United States National Sovereignty before dropping the BOMBSHELL REVELATION, the DNC Rules Committee no longer makes the rules and Super-delegates are told they now govern themselves and can censure or punish themselves at a later future time if they ever have a conscience or mind to.   







He is NOT alone in a right mindset to oppose the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership attempt to overthrow the Constitution / TREASON Treaty). 






Opposing the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership TREASON Against the Constitution Treaty)  is NOT about skin color, but a desire NOT to be enslaved to FOREIGN GOVERNANCE...emphasis on the DESIRE NOT TO BE ENSLAVED.  





 So what does the DNC do?  It rolls out a Muslim Brotherhood Immigration Attorney who sells pretty much sells U.S. Citizenship...and if he "sells", why?  Would it be so unreasonable to assume sales would be to those with serious criminal or terror related histories and to other like Muslim undesirables;  and for a hefty fee, this Muslim Immigration Attorney for the terrorist MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD especially, makes their applications look desirable, while making his servitude wife stand like the slave that she is in his presence. So how many MB terrorist purchasers through him are working for and with Obama since 2009? Hmmn?  










See also:




http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/07/30/hillary-called-benghazi-mother-liar-media-freaks-trump-response-muslim-parents/



----------------------------

[[[Update 8/3/2016  Adding More News Expose links of Khan as a Muslim anti-U.S. subversive among us:




http://www.infowars.com/what-the-media-isnt-reporting-about-khizr-khan/


see also:




 End of Update]]]