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

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 / A.D. 2014


Statement of Principle: Barack Obama is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen, and illegally holds office.


"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.

In Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810)
the Supreme Court states @ 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.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

IRS Scandal Update Regarding the Perjurious IRS Commisioner Kosinen March 26 - July 23, 2014


On July 9, 2014, Rep. Jim Jordan, Republican, OH-04, questioned the current IRS Commissioner John Koskinen regarding  Lois Lerner's e-mails, some of which discussed how that she was trying to hide information that demonstrated she was without a doubt breaking laws and then hiding those damaging and revealing e-mails from Congress.  Koskinen, continued his stall offensive, so far successful since his February 14, 2014 initial subpoena from Congress for ALL the Lois Lerner e-mails, as he argued with Representative Jordan.


July 09, 2014 Jim Jordan – Republican, Ohio   Part 1



Jim Jordan – Republican, Ohio      Part 2


Previously, the Commissioner testified to Congress and told them on June 19, 2014 that the Lois Lerner hard-drive had been destroyed because her e-mails were unrecoverable, 



and implied that those related e-mails were therefore not going to be given Congress because if the 2011 hard drive is gone, why should we even look at all the Server archived e-mails on back up that are to remain in existence by law for 5 years?


No ifs, buts, or ands about it…John Koskined LIED to Congress in order to attempt to derail any further Congressional Investigation where he attempted to equate a destruction of a hard drive as destruction of Lois Lerner’s e-mails at that time. 


Then on July 23, 2014, it was reported from the latest round of hearings that IRS Commisioner Koskinen admitted that the Lois Lerner computer hard drive was intentionally accessed and intentionally "scratched" or sabotaged in order to prevent the e-mails from being recoverable
 http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/07/23/irs-commissioner-not-sure-he-should-be-worried-if-lerners-hard-drive-was-scratched-on-purpose/ 
( in compliance with any Congressional subpoena, no doubt).


Some 6 weeks after Koskinen was served a February 14, 2014 subpeona for the Lois Lerner e-mails, Koskinen tried to “snow” Congress, while successfully “stalling” them.  
Published on Mar 26, 2014
Oversight and Government Reform Hearing
"Examining the IRS Response to the Targeting Scandal"
March 26, 2014




On March 26,  2014,  Koskinen had  argued with Representative Chaffetz about a February 14, 2014 subpoena from Congress that it would take over a year to even “get back to you” about having to  collect and give Lois Lerner’s emails to Congress.   Then ,Koskinen admits that  all of Lois Lerner’s e-mail were  “archived” on an off-site server not having to do with Lois Lerner’s personal computer anyway, and that he doesn’t have to provide the info because he was of the personal opinion that no judge would enforce the subpoena, and that Congress could simply wait years before they would be allowed to see them, and that regardless of what the subpoena says, he was determined that he refused to give them up without redacting them of the 6103 information.  That is…we have them, screw you, you cannot have them. 
When former District Attorney Trey Gowdy heard the lying claim that “no judge” would allow the subpoena to stand, Representative Gowdy asks Koskinen, if that was so, why didn’t you move to “quash” the subpoena? 


Representative Gowdy even tried to compromise with a one month window of e-mails that Koskinen could present Congress in no more than two day’s time, if he would just give Congress all the January 2010 e-mails from Lois Lerner’s accounts, but instead of compliance, Koskinen continued running criminal interference for Lois Lerner.  

On July 23, 2014   Representative Gowdy, who is one of my personal top two choices for the next Speaker of the House, again grilled Koskinen who played off that Investigator General (IG) investigations prevent him from doing any dual investigation of most any kind.



Then later, on the Floor of the House  in a one minute speech, Representative Gowdy informs the House that the IRS has changed their testimony 8 DIFFERENT TIMES, and were anyone else to attempt to do so in committing such perjury, they would be inmates.


Friday, July 25, 2014

The Beatitudes of Matthew 5:3-12, A New Translation. (Part of the AWPR Series of Selected Verses)



The Beatitudes of Matthew 5:3-12



King James Version (KJV) in aqua Blue
Alternate Word Pictures with Reiterations Version (AWPR) in Yellow
My Comments are in Green




And the LORD Jesus said: 

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  (KJV)     

3)   Blessed 

       [to a state beyond need, having the promise of 
        fulfillment and satisfaction] 

       (shall be) / (are)  

        the crouching destitute (ones) - the crouching and begging poor

        in Spirit,
        because of them is the Kingdom of Heaven.
        (AWPR)




Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.  (KJV)     

4)   Blessed 


       [to a state beyond need, having the promise of 
        fulfillment and satisfaction] 

       (shall be) / (are)  

       the grieving - the mourning - the lamentful (ones),
       because they shall be called to the side (by invitation)
       and comforted - consoled - encouraged.
       (AWPR)



Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.   (KJV)    

5)   Blessed 


       [to a state beyond need, having the promise of 
        fulfillment and satisfaction] 

       (shall be) / (are)  

       the inwardly graceful (ones) - the meek having a moral toughness
       [who only get angry at the right time in the 
        right measure and for the right reason],

       because they shall inherit the Earth.
       (AWPR)



Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.   (KJV)     

6)   Blessed 


       [to a state beyond need, having the promise of 
        fulfillment and satisfaction] 

       (shall be) / (are)  

       the (ones) starving - hungering
       and (those who are) dry and thirsting
       (for / after)
       the Righteousness / the Justice   [of GOD],
       because they shall be filled and fully satisfied.
       (AWPR)



Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.   (KJV)     

7)   Blessed 


       [to a state beyond need, having the promise of 
        fulfillment and satisfaction] 

       (shall be) / (are)  

       the sympathetically compassionate - the compassionately merciful,
       because they shall receive compassionate mercy
       
       [Note: implies "and be spared or delivered 
        (either in the same way or as from punishment)" ].
       (AWPR)
  


Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.    (KJV)    

8)   Blessed 


       [to a state beyond need, having the promise of 
        fulfillment and satisfaction] 

       (shall be) / (are)  

        the clean - the pure - the made ritually unsoiled and unpolluted
        in heart,
        because they GOD shall look upon and behold 
        [with acceptance].
        (AWPR)



Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.   (KJV)     

9)    Blessed 


       [to a state beyond need, having the promise of 
        fulfillment and satisfaction] 

       (shall be) / (are)    

       the Peacemakers - those doing, making, causing, bringing about
       Peace and Tranquility;
       because they shall be called forth - summoned - invited
       (as) Sons of GOD.*
       (AWPR)



10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.   (KJV)      

10)    Blessed 
          
         [to a state beyond need, having the promise of 
           fulfillment and satisfaction] 
       
          (shall be) / (are)    

          those being followed after and pursued - those being persecuted
          on account of - for the sake or because of
          Justice - Righteousness,
          that of them is the Kingdom of Heaven
          
         [Note: this verse implies that the Kingdom of Heaven 
          is within those being persecuted, (cf. Luke 17:20-21)
          and that the persecution of the true believers into Christ Jesus 
          is mislabeled as justice or righteousness by the world or 
          its system of order to persecute them.]
          (AWPR)



11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.   (KJV)     

11)   You are blessed 


       [to a state beyond need, having the promise of 
        fulfillment and satisfaction]

       when they  reproach - defame - rail (upon)
       you, and follow after pursuing and persecute,
       and shall say   all - every 
       evil - grievously wicked - vile - sorrowfully painful and ill
       word - saying - statement - utterance - speech
       against you,
       lying - speaking deceitfully or falsely
       on account of - for the sake or because of      Me.
       (AWPR) 




12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.   (KJV)

12)   Rejoice with gladness, 
        and leap and skip in joyful exultation,
        because your wage - your reward
        (are) many in Heaven.

         For - Because  in this manner,
         they followed after and pursued - they persecuted
         the prophets who (were) before you.
         (AWPR)


Disclaimer:  The Alternate Word Pictures with Reiterations (AWPR) translation, translation mine, should be used as a Bible Study Aid only, and it is recommended that a direct literal translation or the King James Bible be used for regular and ecclesiastical purposes, and that the AWPR be used in association only as a Bible study aid so as to help the reader / user in their Bible Studying to clarify context and Scriptural Intent, and to get the full context and understanding into the English from out of the ancient Greek in which this New Testament passage was first written.   Thanks.  -- Brianroy



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




  John 1:12 states:  
        "As many as, then, 
         took and seized - laid hold of - received   Him,
         He of His own good will and accord gave   to them
         mighty permission - rightful authority - the power to do or not do
         to become children - sons and daughters   of GOD, 
         to those trusting - believing into His Name."

    The world system and those of its own who have infiltrated the Church teach contrary to the Scriptures and make the false or lying claim that we are all GOD's children.  GOD directly contradicts that lying claim that we are somehow "all" GOD's Chidren (so as to perhaps justify their sins and blame GOD for them) in His Holy Book, the Bible.   Jesus, who is the WORD of GOD, especially rebukes those who pretend such lies in the Gospel of John in 8:41-47, as I have previously shared.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.   (KJV)        

41)    You  do - make - perform - cause - bring about 
          the work performances of the father of you.'

          Accordingly - Therefore,  they said to Him,

               'We certainly  were not  born - begotten
                out of fornication - out of sexual sin
                
[out of having sex outside the husband and wife
                  marraige relationship].
         
                 One father we have - hold - possess and continue 
                 to have - hold - possess:  GOD.'
                
 (AWPR)                              



42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.     (KJV)        

42)    Jesus - Yeshua  said to them,
              'If (hypothetically)  GOD was your Father,
               you would unquestioningly and without precondition,
               with compassion and duty,  
               love Me  now - at this (present) time;
               for I, out of GOD,  proceeded from and went forth,
               and have come to be here.

               Because certainly not from Myself 

               I have come forth (so as to make a public appearance),
               but that one there sent Me forth out.
              
 (AWPR)                                                              



43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.    (KJV)  

43)    Through which or what (part of)   the speech of Mine
          do you certainly not know and perceivingly understand
          because you are not able, nor capable, nor empowered 
          
          to listen intently and hear the intelligent word (of) Mine 
          (that which belongs to and proceeds from Me)?
        
  (AWPR)
                                                                   


44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.    (KJV)   


44)    You are   out of / from   (your) father, 
          the Devil  / he casting or throwing (false accusations) through;
          and the longings and strong desires of the mind 
          of the father of you 
           you willingly wish - desire - intend - are pleased
           to  do - make - perform - cause - bring about.

           That one there was homicidal - was a murderer

            from (the) Beginning - from (the) First Cause;

          
  [Note: in regard to events at "The Beginning", this verse appears to refer to events in Genesis Chapter 3.   -- Brianroy]

            and in the Truth - and in the True Reality (as it really is)

            has certainly not stood - has certainly not established nor
            confirmed,  
            because the Truth is certainly not in him.

             Whensoever he randomly speaks the falsehood - the lie,

             out of his own (privately and apart from others) 
             he speaks,
             because he is a liar, and the father of it.
           
 (AWPR) 
                                                                 


45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.   (KJV) 

45)    Then, because I lay down definite words and speak
          the Truth - the True Reality (as it really is),
          you certainly do not believe - you certainly do not trust 
          Me?
        
  (AWPR)
      
       

46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?   (KJV)          

46)    Who out of you shames - disgraces - provingly convicts
          Me (as in the wrong)  round about - concerning 
          sin - a guilty offense?

          Then, perhaps if  I lay down definite words and speak

          the Truth - the True Reality (as it really is),
          through which or what (part)
          do you certainly not believe - trust  Me?
        
  (AWPR)                                                                          



47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.   (KJV)    

47)    He being out of GOD hears and listens intently to
          the speech - statements - discourse   of GOD 
         
 [as uttered and taught by a living voice].

          Through this,  you certainly do not listen intently nor hear,

           because you are certainly not  out of - out from  GOD.'
           
(AWPR)                                              




Then we have 1 John 3:1-2, 7-10 which states in the King James Version, thus: 
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.


And the Apostle Paul  demonstrates in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 how that we are invited and called (still having free will and free choice) to come out from among unbelievers and idolaters as alien peoples to us, attempting to drag us down in their ignorance and filth, and to live separate (implying something as basic as separate living quarters or dwelling places from them)  as sons and daughters of  the Living GOD, apart from the temporarily living dead ones obsessed with idols and darkness, they being socially and spiritually dealt with as those of a different family than we who believe into Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (KJV)
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.


17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.


18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.


That's my input.              

            -- Brianroy