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.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Article III Standing...What did the Supreme Court Say About It? 8 Cases And Their Quotations You May Well Come Across.


Article III Standing...What did the Supreme Court Say About It?
    
    I have found it necessary to share at length Court Citations in dealing with the issue of Article III standing.  

 When you read these, place this precondition as you read the text, of someone who runs as a Natural Born Citizen for President of the United States against those who are not.  

      Do not let anyone now existing enter the mind in considering the application of law.  Do those who are competitor candidates of the same party with equal or greater votes, who are deprived of necessary delegates to be a party winner in a State or at a Convention, do the legal natural born citizen candidates have legal standing to sue when someone illegally running against them takes away votes and delegates and deprives them of their legal right to only run against legal and qualified to run competitor candidates?  

I am posting these as a means of both education and reference in regard to POTUS Candidates suffering injury in fact by having their Constitution of the United States right to run only against those who also are United States Natural Born Citizens violated, that if or when such a lawsuit comes, that there is reference that might be referred to perhaps to copy or hyperlink when discussing it in forums, or in referencing the Article III standing issue.  

 I have inserted my  couple of aids below in green.  





 Baker v. Carr  369 U.S. 186 (1962)

 @204     "Have the appellants alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions? This is the gist of the question of standing. It is, of course, a question of federal law."

 @208       " A citizen's right to a vote free of arbitrary impairment by state action has been judicially recognized as a right secured by the Constitution when such impairment resulted from dilution by a false tally, cf. United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299; or by a refusal to count votes from arbitrarily selected precincts, cf. United States v. Mosley, 238 U. S. 383, or by a stuffing of the ballot box, cf. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371; United States v. Saylor, 322 U. S. 385."

 "  "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury."    Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 163. "






 United States v. SCRAP  412 U.S. 669 (1973)

@686                 "In interpreting "injury in fact," we made it clear that standing was not confined to those who could show "economic harm," ... Nor, we said, could the fact that many persons shared the same injury be sufficient reason to disqualify from seeking review of an agency's action any person who had in fact, suffered injury."

 @688                  "To deny standing to persons who are in fact, injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody. We cannot accept that conclusion."






  
Valley Forge Coll. v. Americans United 

 454 U.S. 464 (1982)

@471        "...although respondents lacked standing as taxpayers to challenge the conveyance, they had standing merely as "citizens," claiming "injury in fact' to their shared individuated right to a government that `shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,'" which standing was sufficient to satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement of Art. III."

 @472          "Art. III requires the party who invokes the court's authority to "show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant," Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 441 U. S. 99 (1979), and that the injury "fairly can be traced to the challenged action" and "is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision," Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26, 426 U. S. 38, 426 U. S. 41 (1976)."

 @473    "[W]hen a federal court declares unconstitutional an act of the Legislative or Executive Branch...

@474     Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), it has been recognized as a tool of last resort on the part of the federal judiciary throughout its nearly 200 years of existence...."

 @476 Supra (footnote 13)      "Article III obligates a federal court to act only when it is assured of the power to do so, that is, when it is called upon to resolve an actual case or controversy."





Whitmore v. Arkansas  495 U.S. 149 (1990)

 @ 154        "It is well established, however, that before a federal court can consider the merits of a legal claim, the person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court must establish the requisite standing to sue. Article III, of course,

 Page 495 U. S. 155

 gives the federal courts jurisdiction over only "cases and controversies," and the doctrine of standing serves to identify those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 454 U. S. 471-476 (1982).

 Our threshold inquiry into standing "in no way depends on the merits of the [petitioner's] contention that particular conduct is illegal," Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 422 U. S. 500 (1975)...

 the alleged harm must be actual or imminent, not "conjectural" or "hypothetical." Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 461 U. S. 101-102 (1983).
 Further, the litigant must satisfy the "causation" and "redressability" prongs of the Art. III minima by showing that the injury "fairly can be traced to the challenged action," and "is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision." Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26, 426 U. S. 38, 426 U. S. 41 (1976); Valley Forge, supra, 454 U.S. at 472.

 The litigant must clearly and specifically set forth facts sufficient to satisfy these Art. III standing requirements."




  
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife  504 U.S. 555 (1992)

@560    "One of those landmarks, setting apart the "Cases" and "Controversies" that are of the justiciable sort referred to in Article III-"serv[ing] to identify those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process," Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U. S. 149, 155 (1990)-is the doctrine of standing.
Though some of its elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III. See, e. g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751 (1984).

Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" -an invasion of a legally protected interest which is

(a) concrete and particularized, 
see id.,at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972); 1
and

(b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,'" Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95,102 (1983)).

  Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be "fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... thee] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court." Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare

 1   By particularized, we mean that the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. 

Page 504 U.S. 561 

Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41-42 (1976). 

Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision." Id., at 38, 43. 

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U. S. 215, 231 (1990); Warth, supra, at 508." 

@ 574       "In Ex parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633 (1937), we dismissed a suit contending that Justice Black's appointment to this Court violated the Ineligibility Clause, Art. I, § 6, cl. 2.

 [[[[No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.]]]]

 Page 504 U.S. 575
 "It is an established principle," we said, "that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public." 302 U. S., at 634. See also Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne, 342 U. S. 429, 433434 (1952) (dismissing taxpayer action on the basis of Mellon)."


@576     "To be sure, our generalized-grievance cases have typically involved Government violation of procedures assertedly ordained by the Constitution rather than the Congress. But there is absolutely no basis for making the Article III inquiry turn on the source of the asserted right. Whether the courts were to act on their own, or at the invitation of Congress, in ignoring the concrete injury requirement described in our cases, they would be discarding a principle fundamental to the separate and distinct constitutional role of the Third Branch-one of the essential elements that identifies those "Cases" and "Controversies" that are the business of the courts rather than of the political branches.


 "The province of the court," as Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170 (1803), "is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals." Vindicating the public interest (including the public interest in Government observance of the Constitution and laws) is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive. The question presented here is whether the public interest in proper administration of the laws (specifically, in agencies' observance of a particular, statutorily prescribed procedure) can be converted into an individual right by a statute that denominates it as such, and

 Page 504 U.S  577

 that permits all citizens (or, for that matter, a subclass of citizens who suffer no distinctive concrete harm) to sue. If the concrete injury requirement has the separation-of powers significance we have always said, the answer must be obvious:

 To permit Congress to convert the undifferentiated public interest in executive officers' compliance with the law into an "individual right" vindicable in the courts is to permit Congress to transfer from the President to the courts the Chief Executive's most important constitutional duty, to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, § 3.

  It would enable the courts, with the permission of Congress, "to assume a position of authority over the governmental acts of another and co-equal department," Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S., at 489, and to become" 'virtually continuing monitors of the wisdom and soundness of Executive action.'"   Allen, supra, at 760 (quoting Laird v. Tatum, 408 U. S. 1, 15 (1972)). 
  

We have always rejected that vision of our role:
"When Congress passes an Act empowering administrative agencies to carryon governmental activities, the power of those agencies is circumscribed by the authority granted. 

 This permits the courts to participate in law enforcement entrusted to administrative bodies only to the extent necessary to protect justiciable individual rights against administrative action fairly beyond the granted powers .... This is very far from assuming that the courts are charged more than administrators or legislators with the protection of the rights of the people. 
 Congress and the Executive supervise the acts of administrative agents .... But under Article III, Congress established courts to adjudicate cases and controversies as to claims of infringement of individual rights whether by unlawful action of private persons or by the exertion of unauthorized administrative power."    Stark v. Wickard, 321 U. S. 288, 309-310 (1944) (footnote omitted).

 Page 504 U.S.  578

 "Individual rights," within the meaning of this passage, do not mean public rights that have been legislatively pronounced to belong to each individual who forms part of the public. See also Sierra Club, 405 U. S., at 740-741, n.16.
 Nothing in this contradicts the principle that "[t]he ... injury required by Art. III may exist solely by virtue of 'statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing.'" Warth, 422 U. S., at 500 (quoting Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 617, n. 3 (1973)).

  Both of the cases used by Linda R. S. as an illustration of that principle involved Congress' elevating to the status of legally cognizable injuries concrete, de facto injuries that were previously inadequate in law (namely, injury to an individual's personal interest in living in a racially integrated community,  see Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205, 208-212 (1972), 

 and injury to a company's interest in marketing its product free from competition, see Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U. S. 1, 6 (1968)).

  As we said in Sierra Club, "[Statutory] broadening [of] the categories of injury that may be alleged in support of standing is a different matter from abandoning the requirement that the party seeking review must himself have suffered an injury." 405 U. S., at 738. 

 Whether or not the principle set forth in Warth can be extended beyond that distinction, it is clear that in suits against the Government, at least, the concrete injury requirement must remain."



  


Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. 

Contractors of America v. Jacksonville  

 508 U.S. 656 (1993)

@663                "The doctrine of standing is "an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III," Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992),

 which itself "defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded," Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984).

  It has been established by a long line of cases that a party seeking to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction must demonstrate three things: 

(1) "injury in fact," by which we mean an invasion of a legally protected interest that is
 "(a) concrete and particularized, and
(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical," Lujan, supra, at 560 (citations, footnote, and internal quotation marks omitted);

 (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, by which we mean that the injury "fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant," and has not resulted "from the independent action of some third party not before the court," Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41-42 (1976); and

  (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, by which we mean that the "prospect of obtaining  

 Page 508 U.S. 664  

  relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling" is not "too speculative," Allen v. Wright, supra, at 752.

 These elements are the "irreducible minimum," Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982), required by the Constitution."   




  
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona  

520 U.S. 43 (1997)

 @64     "Article III, § 2, of the Constitution confines federal courts to the decision of "Cases" or "Controversies." Standing to sue or defend is an aspect of the case-or-controversy requirement.

 Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville,508 U. S. 656, 663-664 (1993) (standing to sue); 

Diamond v. Charles, 476 U. S. 54, 56 (1986) (standing to defend on appeal).

  To qualify as a party with standing to litigate, a person must show, first and foremost, "an invasion of a legally protected interest" that is "concrete and particularized" and" 'actual or imminent.'" Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992) (quoting Whitmore v.Arkansas, 495 U. S. 149, 155 (1990)).

An interest shared generally with the public at large in the proper application of the Constitution and laws will not do. See Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S., at 573-576.

Standing to defend on appeal in the place of an original defendant, no less than standing to sue, demands that the litigant possess "a direct stake in the outcome." Diamond, 476 U. S., at 62 (quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740 (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

 The standing Article III requires must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance. Diamond, 476 U. S., at 62."







Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. 

United States ex rel. Stevens 

529 U.S. 765 (2000)

  @ 771       "First, he must demonstrate "injury in fact"-a harm that is both "concrete" and "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U. S. 149, 155 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

 Second, he must establish causation-a "fairly ... trace[able]" connection between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the defendant. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41 (1976).
 And third, he must demonstrate redressability-a "substantial likelihood" that the requested relief will remedy the alleged injury in fact. Id., at 45.
 These requirements together constitute the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992)...."

 @772             "An interest unrelated to injury in fact is insufficient to give a plaintiff standing. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 486 (1982); Sierra Club, supra, at 734-735."

  @773            "See Steel Co., supra, at 107 ("[A] plaintiff cannot achieve standing to litigate a substantive issue by bringing suit for the cost of bringing suit"); see also Diamond v. Charles, 476 U. S. 54, 69-71 (1986) (holding that assessment of attorney's fees against a party does not confer standing to pursue the action on appeal)."



[[[[ @773 - Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83 (1998). ]]]]

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Obama Intends 15,000,000 Muslims To Invade The United States, Attempt A Takeover, And Be Tax-payer Dollars Supported In Invading It?





It is being reported that there is a plan to import 15,000,000 jihadi Muslims and force them onto small communities throughout the United States, and subjugate whatever communities they are planted in.  


https://youtu.be/WWms5v9yklc




Well America if you haven’t noticed. Refugees are raping, looting and killing all over Europe. And the European establishment is condemning the citizens on THEIR behavior rather than that of the invading hordes of fraudulent young male refugees who claim to be fleeing war ravaged hell holes.

Now, those refugees are quietly entering America, but its not large cities like Washington D.C. and San Francisco being targeted due to their higher cost of living. Smaller American cities are being targeted to become refugee sanctuaries exactly as tiny European towns had been targeted. Rather than integrate all of the refugees into large cities, where aid facilities are better funded and menial jobs are more plentiful.The Obama administration is directing pockets of the refugees into small to medium sized American cities that are already struggling to survive. Cities like Missoula, Montana, Twin Falls, Idaho, and Stone Mountain, Georgia population of 6,025, where a huge boon to the economy is the Stone Mountain carving of Confederate Generals the very historical monument the liberals want destroyed.

It was revealed around this time last year by political activist Susan Payne, who had inadvertently been allowed to attend an Obama White House conference call on the Syrian Refugee strategy, that the intent of the Obama administration is to grow the Muslim seedling communities into larger entities eventually overtaking the small cities they had been given sanctuary in as part of a greater plan to overtake the host nation. The Obama task force even discussed replacing the Thanksgiving holiday with “Celebrate Immigrant Day” by executive order. Their main directive being that these 15 million plus “New Americans” will replace the old Americans and grow as a separate nation within the United States.

America is no longer economically sound enough to cushion the blow of millions of refugees that actually hate everything we represent. The Middle class is aggressively shrinking, we have lost millions of jobs due to international trade deals, cities are going bankrupt, and the national debt is at a record 19 Trillion. Meanwhile, as 31 Governors oppose the acceptance of Syrian refugees into their states the remaining balance of our nation’s officials are declaring their cities as sanctuaries at an alarming rate. How soon we forget. Has the Paris massacre or the San Bernardino jihad been forgotten already?

Monday, February 1, 2016

Guest Blog: Infowars and Ron Paul "Is Congress Declaring War on ISIS…or on You?"








Is Congress Declaring War on ISIS…or on You?


undefined




Passage of Senator Mitch McConnell’s authorization for war against ISIS will     not only lead to perpetual US wars across the globe, it will also endanger our civil and economic liberties.

The measure allows the president to place troops anywhere he determines ISIS is operating. 

Therefore, it could be used to justify using military force against United States citizens on US territory. It may even be used to justify imposing martial law in America.


The President does not have to deploy the US military to turn America into a militarized police state, however. He can use his unlimited authority to expand programs that turn local police forces into adjuncts of the US military, and send them increasing amounts of military equipment. Using the threat of ISIS to justify increased police militarization will be enthusiastically supported by police unions, local officials, and, of course, politically-powerful defense contractors. The only opposition will come from citizens whose rights have been violated by a militarized police force that views the people as the enemy.



Even though there is no evidence that the government’s mass surveillance programs have prevented even a single terrorist attack, we are still continuously lectured about how we must sacrifice our liberty for security. The cries for the government to take more of our privacy will grow louder as the war party and its allies in the media continue to hype the threat of terrorism. A president armed with the authority to do whatever it takes to stop ISIS will no doubt heed these calls for new restrictions on our privacy.


Following last year’s mass shooting in California, President Obama called for restricting the Second Amendment rights of any American on the “terrorist watch list.” The president also used the attacks to expand the unconstitutional gun background check system via executive action. Can anyone doubt that President Obama — or a future anti-gun president — will use the absolute power to do whatever is necessary to stop terrorism as a justification for imposing new gun control measures? Using the war on ISIS to justify more gun control will be particularly attractive since even many pro-gun politicians will support gun control measures if they are marketed as part of the war on terror.

As the American economy faces continued stagnation, and as challenges to the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency mount, an increasingly authoritarian government will impose new restrictions on our economic activities and new limits on our financial privacy. In particular, our ability to move assets out of the country will be limited, and new reporting and other requirements will limit our ability to use cash without being treated as criminals or terrorists. Those who carry large amounts of cash will find themselves at increased risk of having the cash confiscated by government agents under civil asset forfeiture laws.


If Senator McConnell’s declaration of perpetual war passes, presidents could use the war on ISIS as a justification to impose new restrictions on our use of cash and our financial privacy via executive action. After all, they will say, the government needs to make sure cash is not being used to support ISIS.


The only way to protect both liberty and security is to stop trying to impose our will on other countries by military force. The resentment created by America's militaristic foreign policy is ISIS’ most effective recruiting tool. Adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy that seeks peace and free trade with all would enable the government to counter legitimate threats to our safety without creating an authoritarian police state.


Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link


 are given.







S.J.Res. 29: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its Associated Forces


114th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. J. RES. 29
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 20, 2016
 (for himself, Mr. GrahamMr. CoatsMr. Hatch, and Mrs. Ernst) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the first time
January 21, 2016
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its associated forces.
Whereas the terrorist organization referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and various other names (referred to in this joint resolution as ISIL) has been systematically targeting, kidnapping, and killing innocent men, women, and children throughout Iraq and Syria, continues to expand its terror influence, and is responsible for recent attacks in Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, and France;
Whereas foreign fighters, undeterred by the more than 60-nation coalition operating against ISIL, continue to join the ranks of ISIL with the goal of establishing a caliphate;
Whereas, on June 19, 2014, President Barack Obama stated that ISIL poses a threat to the Iraqi people, to the region, and to U.S. interests;
Whereas, on August 19, 2014, ISIL released a video of the beheading of an American journalist, James Foley, and threatened to kill more Americans;
Whereas, on September 2, 2014, ISIL released a second video, of the beheading of an Israeli-American journalist, Steven Sotloff, and again threatened to kill more;
Whereas a Central Intelligence Agency assessment in September 2014 estimated that ISIL can muster as many as 31,500 fighters in Syria and Iraq alone;
Whereas, on November 16, 2014, ISIL released yet another video of militant Jihadi John standing over the severed head of former Army Ranger Peter Kassig;
Whereas Master Sergeant Joshua Wheeler, a member of a United States Special Forces operations team, was killed during a daring raid on an ISIL stronghold in Iraq to rescue 70 prisoners who were slated to be executed;
Whereas American hostage Kayla Mueller, a 26-year-old female, was kidnapped and repeatedly raped for almost 18 months by the leader of ISIL, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi;
Whereas, on November 13, 2015, ISIL carried out a coordinated attack on Paris, France, killing more than 129 people from at least 14 different countries, including American student Nohemi Gonzalez;
Whereas, on November 16, 2015, Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan warned, following ISIL’s horrific terrorist in Paris, that the attack was likely not the only operation that ISIL has in the pipeline;
Whereas, on August 18, 2014, Pope Francis said that the international community would be justified in stopping ISIL;
Whereas, on August 21, 2014, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey stated that ISILhas an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated;
Whereas, on September 16, 2014, former Secretary of Defense Hagel testified before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate that if left unchecked, ISIL will directly threaten our homeland and our allies;
Whereas, on September 17, 2014, during a hearing of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, Secretary of State Kerry stated that ISIL must be defeated. Period. End of story.;
Whereas, on March 13, 2015, Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan stated, ISIL is well-armed and well-financed. Its fighters are disciplined, committed, and battle-hardened. Left unchecked, the group would pose a serious danger not only to Syria and Iraq, but to the wider region beyond, including the threat of attacks in the homelands of the United States and our partners.;
Whereas, on July 23, 2015, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Comey stated that [t]he threat that ISIL presents to the United States is very different in kind, in type, in degree than al Qaeda. ISIL is not your parent’s al Qaeda, it’s a very different model. And by virtue of that model, it’s currently the threat that we are worried about in the homeland most of all;
Whereas, on November 16, 2015, following the attacks on Paris, France, ISIL released a video threatening tostrike America at its center in Washington;
Whereas, on November 17, 2015, former Secretary of Defense Panetta warned that countering the threat posed by ISIL isn’t about containment. It is about defeating ISIS. I think if there’s anything we ought to understand from these last events [in Paris], it’s that we have to go to war against this brutal enemy;
Whereas after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress authorized the use of military force against al Qaeda;
Whereas ISIL poses a direct threat to the United States homeland that is equal to or greater than the threat posed by al Qaeda prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001;
Whereas, although nothing in this joint resolution limits the authorities of the President under article 2 of the Constitution of the United States, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) that [w]hen the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate; and
Whereas ISIL, through the use of social media and its online magazine, Dabiq, seeks to radicalize Americans and to inspire attacks within the homeland: Now, therefore, be it
1.
Short title
This joint resolution may be cited as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its Associated Forces.
2.
Authorization for use of United States Armed Forces
(a)
In general
The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations.
(b)
War Powers Resolution requirements
(1)
Specific statutory authorization
Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1457(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2)
Applicability of other requirements
Nothing in this joint resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
3.
Reports to Congress
(a)
Reports
Not less frequently than once every 60 days, the President shall submit a report to Congress on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted under section 2.
(b)
Single consolidated report
To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution, all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to Congress.
January 21, 2016










Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Every United States Citizen Should Have This Text Submitted To Their State Representatives Ahead Of The 2016 Primaries and / or Elections

Proposal of a Bill for State Legislature


Be it known that the Constitution of the United States declares in
Article. II.
 Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress****
and that since
No Person except a natural born Citizen *** 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 within the United States

henceforth, in order to subscribe to the meaning and intent of the Constitution for the Office of President, that he be at birth 100% subject to the jurisdiction of the United States alone at birth, that from this day henceforth, all Electors of the State of   ________   are henceforth forbidden to subscribe, support, or in any way affirm any candidate (regardless of Party or political affirmation or the lack thereof) who at birth was not:  born to two United States Citizen parents  at the time of birth and born on soil that is exclusively the jurisdiction of the United States of America.