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]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
2019
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.


Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.










Saturday, May 22, 2010

To study American Originalism, we must parallel study 1600s English History

History, the depth of Law in its proper context, and proper background, is something liberals and communist-Socialists fear. They depend on ignorance of a subject, and the ability to intimidate their victims with emotion or pseudo-intellectualism which is often exposed as both fraudulent in its presentations (motive) as well as erroneous (substance).
In delving back into the "Original Intent" of the Founding Fathers who wrote and voted on the Natural Born Clause of Article 2.1 in the US Constitution, we find ourselves having to go back into the English and American History of the 1600s in order to see how English Law and American Laws ran parallel, and were marked by their own distinctions. America's Colonies placed their own peculiar brand of English Law upon the Colonies...as if pulling for self-sovereignty while being loyal to England. In fact, in the immediate years prior to the Revolution, in the 1760s and 1770s, the Founding Fathers were of a mind as if they were more often than not, that left to their own devices, the United State Colonies owed England and its king merely a payment of Tribute to the monarchical Governance across the seas, and that such a preset taxation royalty would have suited them just fine.

The United States was birthed by persecuted Protestant Christians, who, while they saw that the owed some legience to the nation who laid claims upon the lands they would settle, and clear, and plant, and build upon...that they were a free and independent people, subject to the Crown deserving of respect as equal to that accorded any province and its citizen inhabitants in England. The vast majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence, and that of the US Constitution were devout Protestant Christians…and quite a few were pastors or deeply involved in personal and/or public Christian evangelism. Therefore, any “Natural Born Citizen” definition that is placed in the US Constitution is to be interpreted in it Protestant Biblical context, and requires the paternal lineage to identity be followed.

In Barack Obama’s case, that makes Barack not only a son of the soil of Kenya, but a Kenyan natural born citizen regardless of who the mother was. Now if we wish to treat Barack the son of Barack and Ann with the same disdain as Ishmael, we see that Ishmael was unable to claim the nationhood of his mother and though he was a type of nomadic drifter at the first, he still was able to lay claim to inheritance from Abraham, though not with full status. The national status of the mother was considered as irrelevant. Ishmael made his inroads by marriage and compacts with local peoples, and received an inheritance of wealth from his father; but not anywhere near that given to Isaac, the son of 2 Chaldean parents, and those of the same familial bloodline. Isaac was effectually a natural born citizen and a true Hebrew …Ishmael was not counted worthy to carry on the name, and faith (religious belief system) and the peculiar family ritual customs of Abraham. The apostasy of the descendants of Ishmael being Muslims, worshiping an alien deity that Abraham would violently disapprove of, and whose mission in life is to destroy the natural born citizens of Abraham (those seeds of Isaac) testifies to that fact.

For those of us looking to the relationship of Colonial American and British Law, the American view and application was strongly in favor of following Lord Coke, in spite of whatever was happening back in England. In the years before the American Revolution, we see that 1760 appears to be the swinging of the pendulum of legal scholarship in England where England’s Universities removed themselves from Lord Calvin Coke's fundamental law emphasis and to the view of Blackstone's push of his legal theory of Parliamentary supremacy. The Colonies were in disagreement to that theory, and were of a mind to continue to be Fundamentalists of the Law in both theory and practice.

Fundamental Law and Divine Law were to be combined from our very beginnings. Not just by those who signed the Mayflower Compact, but when America boomed as a colonial settlement also. In 1629, King Charles dissolved Parliament, declaring he would never call it forth again; and immediately the first major exodus to America of 1,200 ships followed King Charles dissolving Parliament. Representation of the people had been removed from England, and an age of tyranny had begun.

On June 7, 1628, Parliament decreed 4 basics to the people and to King Charles, decrees that mirrored the American Experience in the pre-Revolution early 1770s:
1. No taxation without representation and the consent of Parliament.
2. No one was to be imprisoned without show-able cause.
3. It ruled the forced billeting of soldiers and seaman upon unwilling homeowners as unacceptable.
4. Martial Law, and the deployment of domestic military forces, could not be used to punish or be in reaction to ordinary offenses.
But less than a year after Parliament rightly stood up for the rights of its English populace, on March 10, 1629, Parliament was dissolved by King Charles own decree;
http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur016.htm

and thereafter, until 1640, the Laws of England often became seen by the people as if it were whatever the will of King Charles and his underlings was at any given time. While some saw the decade as an era of peace from wars with Spain and France, as Commerce was restored, and fortunes were made; many of the elite opposition and the masses faced the revivification of the Star Chambers. (You became kidnapped; no one had the right to know where you were or even if you were alive; you were tried and convicted in secret -- hence, no juries -- and without any right to counsel, witnesses, or even the right to know what you were charged with; and you dealt with judges and thugs who could care less that you were even breathing. It appears then, for the 1630s to have been viewed by some as a "golden age", it depends on what side of the political spectrum you were, and if you were a giver or a taker of other people's gold, by whatever means that meant.

From 1629-1640, during England's Economic recovery and sporadic Civil Wars...King Charles' tyrannical underlings were loosed on Protestant Christianity, forcing droves to flee to the Colonies to rather face a wilderness and savages, and to thrust themselves by faith into the Arms of G-D. In effect, Roman Catholic persecutors of Englishmen who trusted in Protestant Christianity haunted English high offices until 1688/1689, and this played well upon the psyche of the transitional American Colonies as they broke away from England just 88 years after the reaffirmation of England's New Bill of Rights. Many of England's collective Constitutional Laws, never found in one document, would be gathered and laid out by the New Republic of the United States in the Constitution that England had failed to provide. And that collection of English ideas were Americanized, made unique, and part of our debate about the Usurper Barack Obama in our own day.


The two greatest oppressors that probably set upon the American Psyche at its founding was likely that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud; and the Earl of Strafford, Sir Thomas Wentworth.

Lord Treasurer, Sir Richard Weston who died in 1635, could have been a third man, had he lived longer. Weston was a clandestine Roman Catholic. who virulently hated Protestants, especially Puritans. Weston and several other high officials of the British Governance in the 1630s thought it was their duties as clandestine Roman Catholics to sorely persecute Protestant Christianity, and supported the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Strafford to that specific end.

In these years, (and significant to the more than a century later United States Founding Fathers), King Charles levied fines in the United Kingdom that were placed even upon somewhat modest landowners having a real property value of as little as 40 Pounds. King Charles further made a law that if land owning parents were killed, the king's representatives could merely say they claim adoption of the orphans in the name of the king; and in the name of the king then immediately sells the land, have the Monarchy pocket the proceeds, and kick the orphans to the curb. In effect, there was no right to life, liberty, or neither property, nor the pursuit of happiness during these times...and this reign of terror was one of the historical precedents in British History that the Founding Fathers in 1776 would have had in mind in the writing of the Declaration of Independence.
Almost a century and a half after the horrors and nightmare years of the 1630s, in New York, Founding Fathers John Jay (who graduated from New York’s King’s College in 1764), and Alexander Hamilton (who graduated from New York’s King’s College in 1775), by example, probably learned to hold a bias to Coke's view to hold Law under the spectacles of Fundamentalism, rather than to accept Blackstone's Progressivism in his elevating Parliament to the legislative equivalence of the King (as William Laud and the Earl of Strafford had previously done).

John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, by example in college in the 1760s and early 1770s, would have had to learn about and cite “extension rules” in English and Colonial English Law when looking to legalities and precedents in the cases and discussions of law they were to participate in. The extension rule was related essentially to the recognition of those charters and laws that were jurisdiction, province, or colony (later called “State”) specific at the time they were governed over by an officially / royally recognized Legislature for that jurisdiction, province, or colony.

In New York City, the case law and charters, etc., by "extension rules" in a 1764 Court of Law in the Colony of New York, by example, could only go back as far as 1664, when New York was taken from the Dutch a second time by the British. However, it was generally accepted in the New York Courts that since 1691 was when British Royal Authority was the official year of establishment of the Royal Legislature of His Majesty the King of England in the Colony of New York, that the extension rules for New York in terms of citing legal precedents were to generally not precede 1691, and specifically were to halt by 1664 at the resumption of British final occupancy when citing precedents in New York.

In contrast, we could cite that Virginia’s extension rules went back to 1607, but would generally not precede the Virginia Treaty of March 12, 1651, when the Virginia Colony’s House of Burgesses entered into a Free Trade Treaty (et al.) with Great Britain (cf. Thomas Jefferson’s “A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA”), and the relationship with Britain for that Colony via the House of Burgesses was amended. Following this Treaty, those in Virginia would next look forward to that (then New) English Bill of Rights of 1689, by which America governed itself in obeisance to the King of England and England’s Constitutional Laws.
Such followed the example of the precedent of the 1646 Massachusetts Declaration of Liberties: which in and of themselves were prone to Americanize English Law in the Colony, and reject any non-Constitutional laws of England, public or private. Massachusetts and other of America’s Colonies instituted Natural and Divine Law to supplement and fill in where Magna Charta (et al. Constitutional) and Common Law allowed. Natural Law politicized was taken from Grotius' et al., and later Vattel.
In effect, Natural Law in the Body Politic was the Law of Nations in much of its body, but Divine Law had an equal sway...the same Divine Law which says that a natural born citizen is the seed or male of the father who held and passed citizenship in the manner one passes inheritance by primogeniture and entail.

By example of co-equality of Divine Law, for one to be a publicly practicing non-Christian in 1647 Massachusetts made one susceptible to execution by the Community (cf. “The Book of the General Lawes and Libertyes Concerning the Inhabitants of the Massachusets” of 1647):
“Capital lawes.
If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other God, but the lord god: he shall be put to death. Exod. 22. 20. Deut. 13.6. & 10. Deut. 17. 2. 6.

2. If any man or woman be a witch, that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit, they shall be put to death. Exod. 22. 18. Levit. 20. 27. Deut. 18. 10. 11.

3. If any person within this Jurisdiction whether Christian or Pagan shall wittingly and willingly presume to blaspheme the holy Name of God, Father, Son or Holy-Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous, or highhanded blasphemy, either by wilfull or obstinate denying the true God, or his Creation, or Government of the world: or shall curse God in like manner, or reproach the holy religion of God as if it were but a politick device to keep ignorant men in awe; or shal utter any other kinde of Blasphemy of the like nature & degree they shall be put to death. Levit. 24. 15. 16.


For the ACLU and tmany hundreds of professors with tenure to argue about the godlessness and atheistic origins of this nation, is not only disingenuous, it is purposely hateful and an Orwellian attempt with the hope that the masses will believe them and be too damn lazy to research the facts for themselves. That is why Communist takeovers must eliminate Conservative Historical scholarship and others who can refute their lies about the past...but the Media fels it owes political correctness the same rights as truth tellers. If Goebbels were a modern Communist-Socialist, and alive today, he would lead MSNBC and the other news outlets as the Media Messiah to be used to proclaim Obama against the "Conservative Right".

The Book of the General Lawes and Libertyes Concerning the Inhabitants of the Massachusets of 1647 was written in that period following the mass migrations to the American Colonies by those English families persecuted by the Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud, who from 1634 until February 1641 took upon himself ever increasing and finally tyrannical powers in both Church and State, until his arrest on February 26, 1641. His pre-Reformation Arminian brand of Calvinistic faith was accused of being de facto as Roman Catholic more than a Protestant Faith. He sorely persecuted great numbers of Puritans to flee to the American Colonies. This was especially so during the years 1634 to 1637: during which period he especially attempted to make everyone of the masses in the geographical provinces of England to conform to his will. His persecutions is thought to have actually began when he was bishop in 1630, when the publication of Puritan Doctor of Divinity Alexander Leighton’s “Zion's Plea Against Prelacy” accused bishops like Laud of theologically falling away and acting as if the tools of the Anti-Christ. And with the ensuing years, it seemed as if Leighton, whom was sentenced to have his ears cut off, and be publicly flogged and then branded, was the more correct in his assessment and accusations.

Laud, saw NO rights to the masses, such as “freedom of speech”, “freedom to petition grievances”, “freedom of self-will” of any kind (it seems).

When we had the TEA Party petition Congress in town halls in August 2009, Pelosi and other Communists howled virtually the VERY SAME verbatim...the American Conservatives were to be stepped on as fake turf: they were to be treated as if they had no "freedom of speech" rights; as if they had no “freedom to petition grievances”, had as if they had no “freedom of self-will” of any kind.

We can identify, as did the Founding Fathers, with such persecutions and unlawful demands for us to submit to their evil wills.

To Laud, as with the modern Communist-Socialists, those who burned down a Church were no guiltier than those who may have hypothetically said to one of his priests “You’ve no right to steal the only food we have off the plates of my children, nor to take coins from my purse as you please, whenever you please.” But in the modern times, it is the theft of tax revenues going down rabbit holes...and tens and hundreds of billions unaccounted for to who knows whose personal or this or that ACORN or Communist or Socialist account? Even the CBO is inhabited by pro-Obama cover-uppers.

Both the one committing the act of arson, and the one who petitioned a greivance or complained in the 1630s were equally guilty to Laud, and deserving of the same torture that Roman Catholicism in its dungeons and clandestine places currently dished out to Protestants...tortures and the most severe judgments that would sicken many readers here. To those suffering, especially the English Puritans departing in groves to America’s English Colonies in fear for their lives, there was no difference.

Archbishop Laud’s undoing was to follow England’s persecutions with a military backed oppression to his brand in Presbyterian Scotland, and by extension with demands upon Ireland and America also. This led to an outbreak of war in Scotland, that began with riots in July 1637 in opposition to a mandatory Roman Catholic-like William Laud beatification prayer book and liturgy, which included prayers like:
"Keep us, O Lord, constant in faith and zealous in witness, that, like thy servant William Laud, we may live…”.

The State sanctioned and enabled self-exultaion of William Laud to be exalted to a position equal to Christ, and equal to G-D, burned in the minds of those in America that such should not happen here. In the 1770s, the Founding Fathers were well aware of this pendulum swing to the monarchal anarchy side, as much as it was aware of the current 1770s swing to the Parliamentary seizing of powers to the point of anarchy other side as well.

In our day, it seems as if the Communist-Socialists have been able to "split" the pendulum, and attempt both an executive and legislative simultaneous anarchy assault on the American populace in the hope of succeeding....inculding the redefining of common every day words, until all that is left is obfuscation, bickering, and a dominant hand to seize dictatorship.

As Obama and his fellow Communist-Socialists of his Administration seeks to infiltrate the US Churches via "Social Justice" and Ecological Justice "partnerships" , the very "US Government" contract that was drawn up for the US Church Denominations to sign defacto obligates the Christian Churches sign up to the same program as the Nazis did to the Lutherans and others in the 1930s....the Churches cease being Christian...and do become the political tool, and politically corrected (heavy censored and pre-State cleared) mouthpiece propagandizing for the State. By taking out the Church, and altering its definitions, the Communist-Socialists see to redefine and replace G-D with flawed humanity, and Orwellian ever changing histories reflecting current Communist-Socialist Regimes. Hence, subjugating the masses by destroying the Aleitheia Faith of Christianity from without and within, and infuriating G-D in Heaven in the doing.

The opposition to such blasphemy as Laud committed in Scotland amongst the Presbyterian Christians, continued to foment and rise until full military clashes were exchanged in 1639 and 1640 between England and Scotland because of this Archbishop of Canterbury who decided to rule as if a king (or a neo-pope) unto himself. However, under existing laws and authorities granted him, the finally reestablished Parliament, still reeling after a 10 year absence when they were dissolved, were so infuriated, it seems they wished to treat Laud as he had treated them in absentia. By a special writ of a bill of attainder (most renowned for those thought guilty as rebels, and without need of more than just suspicion, reasonable or otherwise in regard to the crown, especially during the War of Rose ff.), Parliament was able to pass judgment upon William Laud as guilty of beheading, and this was carried out on January 10, 1645.

The reason why the Colonies personalized English Law and stamped their own brand upon it was for reasons as Thomas Jefferson put it:
“…our ancestors, before their emigration to America, were the free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right which nature has given to all men….
America was conquered, and her settlements made, and firmly established, at the expence of individuals, and not of the British public. Their own blood was spilt in acquiring lands for their settlement, their own fortunes expended in making that settlement effectual; for themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold. Not a shilling was ever issued from the public treasures of his majesty, or his ancestors, for their assistance, till of very late times, after the colonies had become established on a firm and permanent footing.
by solemn treaty, entered into on the 12th day of March, 1651, between the said commonwealth by their commissioners, and the colony of Virginia by their house of burgesses, it was expressly stipulated, by the 8th article of the said treaty, that they should have "free trade as the people of England do enjoy to all places and with all nations, according to the laws of that commonwealth.
…. experience confirms the propriety of those political principles which exempt us from the jurisdiction of the British parliament.
… we declare… that the British parliament has no right to exercise authority over us.


Obama needs to be removed via the US Supreme Court in order to preserve this Republic...all laws and enactments by his illegal Administration need to be reversed by Court Order.

Whatever sentence the Supreme Court passes, must be done WITHOUT Sotomayor or anyone Obama appointed.

And if the Birth Certificate issue and NBC issue is brushed aside by the US Supreme Court too much longer, eventually Obama will send out death squads just like any other Communist dictatorship . The only question is whether it will be before or after the US Constitution is "hereby declared dissolved, by executive order" with Nancy Pelosi and other Communist-Socialist traitors at his side, or not. Because Obama is NOT a US Natural Born Citizen, and has not presented his Long Form BC per Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54, 62...the ONLY HOPE America has is in diverting violence and preserving the Republic is by an immediate forwarding of the Birth Certificate cases: or the US A is about to cease to exist as any kind of Government we have heretofore known. We are THAT CLOSE!

No comments:

Post a Comment