Want 100 mile per gallon gas engine cars? Another reason to keep Israel as our ally in preference to hostile Islamist oil producers. From Israel 21c

RE: Israel 21c

January 22, 2009
http://www.israel21c.org/technology/pulling-out-the-pistons-for-100-miles-to-the-gallon


December 2, 2009
http://www.israel21c.org/environment/a-rocket-engine-for-your-car

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



If I were the head of a major US Car Company, I would have had my top people over in Israel looking to negotiate a purchase of this new engine technology to place in midsize US cars.  Where is the vocal concern and the outrage from those on the Left like Al Gore and Ralph Nader that we aren't using this technology availble in 2009 in cars we are manufacturing today?  Are they on the news?  What about the so-called pop-environmentalist celebrities?  Or is environmentalism only a soap-box gimmick one puts on for one's friends and the general public because it is politically correct?

It is time that America not only get rid of the subsidies it gives the oil companies, but in exchange for doing so, that America would also let US Oil Companies have the preference to drill here in and off the shores of the US, build 12-16 more eco-compliant oil/gas refineries, and that this nation's car and vehicle manufacturers promote and immediately implement the new technologies that will dramatically reduce carbon consumption and emmittance without jacking up everyone's costs and oppressing the poor and lower classes among us.  We must make the goal toward a pro-business and pro-consumer National Energy Efficiency that will actually cut our gas/oil and electric rates by more than half in the next 5 to 10 years, even with allowing for inflation.  That will boom our economy.  We also need to plant several billion trees in the US to help clean the air more, and produce more life giving oxygen back into the planet's eco-sphere and promote the life-cycle of G-D's Creation around us in a positive way (especially one that doesn't promote chaos). 

Of a side comment:
One of the allowances needs to be that it becomes legal again to grow a fruit tree and share that fruit with your neighbors and family not living on your property.  Under the Obama Communist-Socialist Muslim Regime, even sharing a single apple from your tree and your hand with your neighbor next door can get you arrested, fined, and your property can be confiscated by the Federal Government run by Obama.  So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and love thy neighbor in America with a Shia Muslim Communist  Usurper and an Oppressor of Constitutional Laws and Rights in the White House. 

I guess we are expected to just come up with a catchy tune like "Running on Empty" with Jackson Browne and not do anything except see the masses oppressed, energy rates sky-rocket, and talk on how bad the industrialists are (etc.) rather than offering solutions, as I do above.  

Well, yeah, that tune was a classic...

but I say, we as a nation and society can do better than just listen to "Leftist Communist justification gripes to take away our freedoms without fixing the problems" rhetoric,  instead of joining us in manifesting real world solutions. 

That's my input.   

The Obligatory Literal Definition of a Natural Born Citizen as Defined by the US Constitution

[Edited on March 17, 2011]

With the writing of this, I must amend my position on what a Constitutional Natural Born Citizen is as it respects those who wish to run and qualify for President of the United States, because those requirements are not mine, but the parameters set forth by the US Constitution.  Therefore, they are obligatory. 

The Constitution has become to some, as disdainful as though they were backwoods avenues or country roads.  But even John Denver sang out a uniquely American tune in which those same kind of roads, those Country Roads, were a means of bringing us home. 



Let the song be a reminder of our freedom, and let be a learning tool to help bring us home in the political sphere  to a sense of a national family of one peoples in a US Constitutional Article 4.4 Republican Form of Government.

-----------------------------
In 1787, the United States Constitution was formulated, and stated:

"No Person except a Natural Born Citizen,
 or a Citizen of the United States,
 at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office
who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 2, section 1, Clause 5

In the Madison Debates, on September 7, 1787, it was then that it was entered that "the President should be a natural- born Citizen," of which he bore no allegiance or citizenship to any other nation than that of the United States of America.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_907.asp

“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 …”

Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html

In this Article 2.1.5 clause of the US Constitution, the person eligible to be President was to be either a US Citizen at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution or a natural born citizen -- one who was  reared from his US Birth within the United States into a US citizen by his US Citizen Father (and presumably US Citizen mother by virtue of marriage and union with the US Citizen Father) -- and his 14 year residency requirements in the clause was officially recognized as required to be that starting at the age of 21 years old. 
Since at the age of 35 he was required to dwell WITHIN the United States for 14 years since his 21st birthday, this a a Constitutional Obligatory presumption that has been extremely often entirely missed in discussing this clause, and deals with the concept of affirmation of sole legience to the United States alone.
While the prospective Presidential hopeful and actual office holder was given a mandatory residency requirement of living WITHIN the United States the entire 14 years he was alive IF he aspired to the Presidency at age 35, he only needed a combined total residency within the United States of 14 years if he was older.  For example, if he aspired to the Presidency at age 45, he could have wandered outside the nation another 10 years as a merchant, but was still needing a mandatory residency/dwelling WITHIN the United States...not just being based there, but actually dwelling within the US...for at least 14 years since his 21st birthday.   You will see this residency aspect return in the discussion of the parameters of the Constitution later on. So please keep it in mind.

15 years prior to 1787, the United States was at that time "British America".  It was composed of 13 colonies which were transmuted into the designation and nomenclature of "States" on July 4, 1776.  Therefore, if a person were a natural born citizen of one of the 13 Colonies that became a State of the United States, by accepting and declaring legience to State and Country after the War as a Citizen of the United States, the Natural Born Citizenship for only that time in our nation's history, was transmuted or carried over into the Confederacy and then the Republic of the United States of America.

Again, the TRANSMUTATION of natural-born citizenship to the United States was relegated to those who were born in any one of the 13 United American Colonies before July 4, 1776, as well as those born before the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789. It applies only to those in that period of history that were citizens by jus soli and jus sanguinis before the Revolution, who also made the transitional allegiance to the New Government that would be the United States AFTER the war was over.

The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural born citizen".  In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified it was to be "a free white person" who was repeatedly a "he", who was "of  the age of twenty one years", and specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli  (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law.  But still adapting some of the English Legal ruling of Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of "Nemo potest exuere Patriam" :
 "No one has the power / ability / authority
  to leave / reject / disown himself
  from the Father's Land."      [Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.]

From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old.  If he was not at least 21, technically (under Constitutionally set parameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be Vice-President.  

As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired the right to vote.  The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971, needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism.  For exceptions to this, we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification not measuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by any party having legal standing to sue. 

To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens" as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where in the world the child is born.  This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only 1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.

Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough. 

The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.

That "natural born citizens of the United States" were:
1) only born to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth who had only one nationality and legience at the time of the child's birth;
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other legience than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave.

In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."
 This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".   He was also to be "a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."

In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".

In other words,the father "of a US Natural Born Citizen defined son" was never to be a foreign national, as Obama's father was.  Obama's father was an alien national Citizen of Kenya, under the Colonial Commonwealth Protectorate of Great Britain. He was NEVER a US Citizen, nor even had any expressed desire to be (not that such would have helped...it wouldn't have). 

 And never in the child's life was that child to be a de facto or de jure citizen of a foreign nation as Obama was in Indonesia so adopted and legally made a citizen minor under guardianship in that foreign society out of Jakarta, and attending Menteng 1.   

Just one year after the  above-cited Act of 1795,
 in Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 199 (1796)
we find how that we are supposed to read the US Constitution, in its literal context.
@240
"When we collect the intention from the words only, as they lie in the writing before us, it is a literal interpretation, and indeed if the words and the construction of a writing are clear and precise, we can scarce call it interpretation to collect the intention of the writer from thence. The principal rule to be observed in literal interpretation is to follow that sense, in respect both of the words and the construction which is agreeable to common use."
@245
"…This principle is recognized by the Constitution...."

In Article 6 of the US Constitution, we are told that:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof...shall be made the supreme Law of the Land...."

In Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) @ 179-180,

http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html

both elected officials and judges are to maintain and adhere to the US Constitution as the supreme law that guides and governs their actions, and states:

"...it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?"

The Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat.155) stated that:

"children of persons who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof . . . ."

From 1802 to 1855, through certain vagaries in the Law, there were those who wondered what the definitive law of Natural Born Citizenship in this time period was. This was cleared up in the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604).     This in turn was clarified again as Revised Statute 1993 which stated:
        "All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose FATHERS were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

In other words:
1) Children born to a US Citizen father outside the US = US Citizen
2) Children born to a US Citizen Father inside the limits of the US = US Natural Born Citizen
3) The presumption of the US Citizen Father is that he is age 21 or older at the time of the child's birth.

    In 1802 and until 1855, while it was still a requirement that a child have a US Citizen Father, and under the specific language of the statute, the employing of the plural "persons" in the natural and literal sense of a child's birth, is inclusive of the necessity of a US citizen Mother as well as that of the Father at the time of birth in order that the child born outside the jurisdiction of the United States also be considered a US citizen as well, and not be stateless.   The naturalization of the father automatically naturalized the mother as well at the moment the oath of naturalization was officially taken in a legal proceeding.  With the codification of the Revised Statute 1993, the necessity of a US Citizen mother was either removed or left obscure, and the US Citizen Father once again became all that was required for a child born outside the limits of the United States to become a US Citizen for the next 13 years.  But that was rectified by an Amendment to the US Constitution.

On July 28, 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the natural born citizen requirement of a US Citizen became clarified and founded upon the inclusion of that birth which was  in a State of the United States, and that the 14th Amendment minimum was that the person also be a citizen in the State where they reside, and be subject to the laws of both the national jurisdiction of the United States and that of the local State wherein they reside. The action implies a continuous present tense formulation in its legal phrase: a lifetime US residency and citizenship, not subject to withdrawl by the participant citizen without risk to a withdrawal of 14th Amendment Citizen standing. 

In other words, in the strict literal sense, the 14th Amendment disowns those who cease to be citizens of any jurisdiction of the United States.  The dis-ownership of the United States by its former citizens who choose to go overseas and not maintain a home state address and State Citizenship, but do not swear legience to another, thereby rendering them Stateless, is prevented in language elsewhere and outside the US Constitution in the codifications of the US Code.

But as it regards Natural Born Citizenship, and the requirements of that Status in order to legally and Constitutionally be a President or Vice-President of the United States, the academic argument over the intent of the 14th Amendment and the ability to rescind a citizenship of a non-resident citizen who chooses to neither live in the United States nor be subject to its laws, is a discussion for another day.

Prior to the 14th Amendment we know that  "Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law…” stated United States v. Rhodes (1866).

  (Notice that Barack II was born with a British Citizenship via his father, hence a British allegiance, and unqualified to be called a United States "natural born citizen" under the US Constitution etc.).

And even after the 14th Amendment,
we read  in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102
where the Court said,

"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." 

With the 14th Amendment, in order to be a US Natural Born Citizen:
1) Children must be born to a US Citizen Father
2) Be born in  the United States.
3) Reside perpetually in the United States to age 21.
4) Never at any time owe any allegiance to any alien power.

If one aspired to be President at age 35, the perpetual residency requirement is to age 35.  If they aspire to be President of the United States at age 45, they need a perpetual residency to age 21, a combined de facto and de jure dwelling within the United States for at least 14 years since the age of 21.  In effect, those who join the US Military and serve outside the United States under the age of 21 were not perceived in the intent of the 14th Amendment, but with the 1971 26th Amendment, the age requirement reduces to age 18 perpetual residency, and still a formula of perpetual residency to age 35 if they run at age 35, as the intent of the clause was a perpetual residency for 35 years in the United States if one were to run at age 35, even with a drop in the age of when a person becomes a voting citizen is Amended into the US Constitution without redressing Article 2.1.5.

Further, as of June 22, 1874, six years after the 14th Amendment was passed:

"The United States have not recognized a double allegiance.  By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government."

US House of Representatives Report No.784, June 22, 1874  

As it regards the Constitution and the obligatory intent of the Natural Born Citizen clause, there evolved one more requirement, that of a US Citizen Mother (as well as that of a US Citizen Father) at the time of birth.

With the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution on August 26, 1920, stating,
"the right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."  increased the obligatory Constitutional Requirements on those aspiring to be President of the United States, as defined by the parameters set forth by the United States Constitution.

With the 1920 ratified 19th Amendment, in order to be qualify as a "natural born citizen" in order to be President, a person within the defining parameters of the US Constitution (Article 2.1.5, the 14th and 19th Amendments) needs to:


1) Be born to a 21 year old or older US Citizen Father
2) Be born to a 21 year old or older US Citizen Mother
3) Be born on United States soil within a US State
4) Maintain a permanent sole legience to the United States absent of any dual or multi-citizen nationalities and /or allegiances. 
5) Maintain a lifetime residency to a State or States within the United States to age 35;
 or to age 21 plus a minimum total of 14 additional years physical presence residency within the States if older than 35. 

Again, in 1971, with the 26th Amendment, the age of the citizen parent, in the Constitutional requirement, was dropped to 18.  Thus, a child born to a 17 year old on US soil to those who would otherwise be identified as US Citizen Minors, would not be eligible to one day run for President under the obligatory Constitutional Requirements found in the natural and literal sense of that document. 
In 1961:
1) Barack Hussein Obama II was born to an alien national father of foreign citizenship and himself  having foreign allegiances from birth to maturity AFTER age 21, to the age of 23!!!
2) He was born to a minor mother age 18, not yet legal under either codified lesser standards, nor the Constitutionally required age of voting (age 21).
3) There is no hospital or location birth record with witnesses to the birth for Barack (per 333 US 640 (1948) @ 653 that he prove his alleged US birth with witnesses to the birth per 533 US 53 2001) @ 54,62)  to prove any US birth origin to even confirm a birth citizenship was acquired by him. 
4) Barack Hussein Obama II was adopted in Indonesia and maintained a Indonesian legience and residency  for at least 4 years.  His mother had multiple allegiances by marriages (Britain-Kenya, Indonesia), and her son did not retain a sole US legience with sole US residency.  The residency and allegiances or co-allegiances of the parents and step-father of Barack were in Indonesia and Kenya for most of his life as a minor, including when he turned 18.

Further, Barack Hussein Obama was financed in his Harvard years by the House of Saud,

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/obamas-benefact.html

even though he is a Iranian-faction Shia Muslim and a Communist-Socialist, he was funded by the royal family of Saudi Arabia, for which reason he first bowed to their King, showing obeisance and/or personal legience to the keeper of the two alleged as holy mosques of both Islamic Sunni and Shia sects. 

The fundraiser for Obama's college tuition to Harvard in the 1980s was Khalid Al Mansur, someone who  has been known to have been definitively employed to work for the Saudi Royal Family under Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, for example.  But Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia as his benefactor.



Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen,
and there are legitimate doubts as to whether he was even born a US citizen in the first place. 
 
He operates as an alleged US Citizen with a stolen Connecticut Social Security card, from a state he has never resided in. 
 
 He has been made known by his close friend and fellow Communist-Socialist, Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii, to have NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE on file, just a data entry. 
 
 No hospital in Hawaii is able to claim Barack was born there,
 but Obama's Kenyan step-grandmother and the nation of Kenya in both official Government transcripts and Nairobi Media since 2004, long before Obama aspired publicly for the US Presidency, announced Barack (whether as the new US Senator or as POTUS) as "Kenyan-born."  
 
 Barack was knowingly  ineligible to run for President without a US Citizen Father, but ran anyway. 
 
 He hired an illegal hire of a US Senator during the time for which she was elected to serve, into heading the Department of State, contrary to Article 1.6 of the US Constitution. 
 
Instead of sympathizing and protecting Arizona from Invasion, as required in Article 4.4 of the US Constitution, he has violated the US Constitution and prosecuted a State of the United States acting in compliance to existing Federal Laws. 
 
 He hired and put into office a known insurrectionist who vowed to overthrow the United States in the person of Van Jones.  Van Jones was personally appointed the high Executive Office post of Czar and there are some 200 members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were hired to the West Wing in 2009 (having the agenda to overthrow the US for Islam) in violation of the 14th Amendment's Section 3, which Constitutionally requires that there never be appointed to any executive office anyone who "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion...or given aid or comfort to the enemies" of the United States, etc. 
 
He has signed an executive agreement designed to strip the US of its nuclear arsenal unilaterally, sought to ruin US oil interests in the Gulf of Mexico in order to make us more foreign oil dependent, fomented revolutions in Egypt and elsewhere geared to create an Islamic New World Order with the guidance of the Muslim Brotherhood inside his own West Wing, and advisers from the House of Saud. 
 
He has committed Treason meeting the threshold of Article 3.3 of the US Constitution in giving aid and comfort to those who would overthrow and/or disrupt the State Capitol Government of Wisconsin, its duly elected Governor and its legislators, appointing his own political action committee to foment insurrection while meeting with Union Insurrectionist leaders against the Governor and Legislature of Wisconsin in the White House as many times a three times a week by their own accounts.   


 
And on and on. 
 
When is enough, enough, America?  When is enough, enough, Congress?

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. "

It must also be remembered that the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the government they were creating and prescribing, in language clear and intelligible...

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in @ 22 U. S. 188, well declared:

"As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, 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."

...As said by Mr. Justice Matthews in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478:

"The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

And by MR. JUSTICE GRAY in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 654

"In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624-625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274."

South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 - 450 (1905) http://supreme.justia.com/us/199/437/case.html

The Constitution was seen from the Founders as a Supreme document that was to be enforced BECAUSE sacred oaths were taken to protect, preserve and defend its language and original intent.

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."

In the Madison Debates, on September 7, 1787, it was then that it was entered that "the President should be a natural- born Citizen," of which he bore no allegiance or citizenship to any other nation than that of the United States of America.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_907.asp

That was the intent.  In 1833, in Justice Joseph Story's “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” § 1473, we find this concurring jurisprudential insight from an intelligent and articulate US Supreme Court justice, who wrote:
“It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States… to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.

…But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.”

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/story/sto-336.htm

Unfortunately, campaign calls were made for Obama by Hamas in the Gaza Strip and repaid with a $400,000,000 financial quid pro quo gift in February 2009 by the Obama Administration through Hillary Clinton. 

Prior to the 14th Amendment, and at least for the first decade after, it is clear that the intent of the "natural born citizen" clause in legal circles clearly meant "sole legience at birth to the United States of America"...a distinction Barack Obama, never had at birth.  But let us now quote a legal journal just 12 years after Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution and see that they concurred that sole legience to the US at birth is essential only for a United States Natural Born Citizen, which Barack is NOT.

"The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, 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)
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

The US Constitution, in Article 2, officially ratified on March 4, 1789 -- in part, reads, and IN OUR DAY REQUIRES:
"No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President; .."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art2.asp

Why is it that Congress and those in the Media cannot fathom such a simple declaration?  Or is it that they do, and by committing treason and the aiding and abetting of treason, they find themselves as "accepted" by those they wish to be accepted by, and damn the Constitution, because under Progressivism, the Law is whatever consensus is, not what's on the books?  Is that it now?

PRO-OBAMA SITE CONCURS THAT OBAMA DID NOT HAVE SOLE USA CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH NOR AT AGE 21: HENCE , INADVERTENTLY CONFIRMS OBAMA IS A USURPER


“…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and 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.” {Emphasis mine]

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

Thus, even the pro-Obama Annenburg funded anti-Republican and oft Propaganda web-site, “Factcheck.org”, after being corrected by postings (since removed) by New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio, and later by NJ lawyer Mario Apuzzo, admits to Barack not being a 100% US only birth citizen of 2 US Citizen parents, and confess that Barack's citizenship status was also passed through his father until his 23rd birthday. Any duality of citizenship at birth, is an AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION to run for or to be a holder of the Presidency of the United States of America.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

Further, as we have seen, the expectancy of being a sole legience US Citizen is also demanded at age 21 by Article 2.1.5 and the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution as well as at birth.  So no matter what osmotic definition we examine the literal intent of the US Constitution to be, by NOT being a sole US Citizen at age 21 and age 22, as well as NOT so at birth, Obama has illegally obtained the US Presidency.

And in "Factcheck's" own words, so allegedly correct that its author Joe Miller was hired as a High Public Relations Official in the Obama Administration:
{Pulled up on and block-copied exactly on 02/04/2010}

"Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1984.

Corrected (Sep. 3, 2009): Our original article incorrectly stated that then-Sen. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship on Aug. 4, 1982. The correct date is Aug. 4, 1984. The Kenyan Constitution required Obama to choose whether to keep either his U.S. or Kenyan citizenship upon his 21st birthday, which was in 1982. But we initially missed that the Constitution provided him a two-year window for making that choice.

So Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship until his 23rd birthday in 1984. We have updated the item to reflect this.

- Joe Miller

Sources

Rocky Mountain News Staff. "Things You Might Not Know About Barack Obama." 6 August 2007. The Rocky Mountain News. 24 August 2008.

Temple, John. "8-word Gaffe Ripples Across Web." 15 August 2007. The Rocky Mountain News. 24 August 2008.

The British Nationality Act, 1948. "

Again, by being a Multi-National at ages 21 and 22, having citizenship status with at least both Great Britain and Kenya (not to mention a possible still extant claim of citizen status with Indonesia by way of adoption) Obama cannot escape that he is absolutely and unequivocally disqualified from serving in the Office of the US Presidency under the intent of Article 2.1.5 and the 14th Amendment's section 1 of the United States Constitution.

In the Sep/Oct 1884 issue of the American Law Review, just 16 years after the passing of the 14th Amendment, Democratic lawyer George D. Collins (of the Wong Kim Ark fame) stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”".

Again, as an authority on explaining a Natural Born Citizenship distinction, Collins is that same co-prosecutor for the United States who won the landmark case of US v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 in 1898,

http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

George D. Collins, as stated before in the American Law Review in 1884 wrote that:

"Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it 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..."

Obama's Father was a Kenyan at the time of Barack's birth, and a British Commonwealth / Colonial.  He was NEVER a US Citizen.

This whole issue is about a matter of Law, of easily discernible knowledge, of right and wrong.  It is Legal Purism that is meant to protect America.  Skin Color has nothing to do with Barack Obama being a Usurper of the US Presidency, it is a legal distinction and disqualification of having a foreign national father, having foreign national citizenships at birth because of his foreign father, and the possibility by his own testimony of his being 3 months old in April of 1961 (out of his own mouth) that he was not only NOT born in the United States, but as the Eastern Standard Media reported in 2004, and the Kenyan Government officially transcripted, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, just as the original "birthers" --  black Africans of Kenya's Media and Government -- said so. 

It's time to wake up America.  We don't need to convince a Congress to Impeach, when in a matter of hours the US Supreme Court can receive a legal document, accept it, review the merits, and order Obama to step down and resign immediately, and it all can be accomplished in just 4 to 9 days from start to finish.  And if certain groups burn down their own neighborhoods rioting in perhaps 40 or even 100 cities around the country for up to a week or a little more, so what?  Broadcast the law, the legal case, the facts, and it will calm 98% of this Country down.  Better that temporary collateral damage than to lose this whole nation forever.

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

 Update: July 2, 2011 addendum  WND breaks with new info and video which by coincidence contain data confirming my above conclusions

• June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended to "permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president."
  
• Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same as Snyder's, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.
  
• Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to "try to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement." But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States," which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.
  
• Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104, "to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years."
  
• Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabacher's.
  
• Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
  
• April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years' citizenship.
  
• Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what "natural-born citizen" includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.

Read more: What did Congress know about 'natural-born citizen'? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=317705#ixzz1Qzq4Mw2I

Notice that a NEW definition is attempted to be created by socialist and Communist-Socialist / Liberal members of Congress, a new definition which would allow a 35 year old who has multiple nationalities (or even just more than one), including a US born citizen status, but who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen born to two US Citizen parents on US Soil.  These NEW DEFINITIONS NEVER APPROVED NOR PASSED BY CONGRESS are part of the two "Snyder" resolutions to "redefine" what a United States Natural Born Citizen is.  Obama therefore does not qualify by Congress' own resolution submissions, including the most stringent under Snyder's attempts to redefine it under a 35 year citizenship and 35 year US State residency under Snyder's two resolutions which tells us he was attempting to strip down from the 2 US Citizen Parents requirements with a US Soil Birth, and shift the onus onto a 35 year residency and citizenship for a 35 year old to be qualified to run for President.   There is a clear and knowledgeable subversive element in Congress who are intentionally aiding and abetting or themselves attempting to overthrow the Republic of the United States of America.  I accuse every single person, Republican as well as Democrat, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo, (illegally appointed Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton and (the felony fraudster via stolen Social Security Number(s) and fake Birth Certificates, and de facto Usurper of the US presidency) Barack Obama of either attempting to or actively guilty of subverting the Constitution of the United States of America.
 

Of further interest, is that in regards to Natural Born Citizen Born on the seas or within the realm, we can look to Samuel Adam's who wrote in  "The Rights of the Colonists"   November 20, 1772

http://constitution.org/bcp/right_col.txt

The statute of the 13th of Geo. 2, C. 7,

naturalizes even foreigners after seven years' residence. The words of the

Massachusetts charter are these: "And further, our will and pleasure is, and

we do hereby for us, our heirs, and successors, grant, establish, and

ordain, that all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors,

which shall go to, and inhabit within our said Province or Territory, and

every of their children, which shall happen to be born there or on the seas

in going thither or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy all

liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the

dominions [422]of us, our heirs, and successors, to all intents,

constructions, and purposes whatsoever as if they and every one of them were

born within this our realm of England."

We now therefore see, that the defining of "beyond the seas" according to the Massachusetts Charter, an AMERICAN body-politic, that being "born beyond the seas" regards territories of the realm, and being born in the act of a direct transport from the realm to another point of the realm.  Again, this is NOT parliamentary statute, but an AMERICAN statute in British America respecting colonialists in Massachusetts, and by extension, the other 12 colonies of the 13 colonies as well (post July 3, 1776).

By example, in British America prior to July 04, 1776, a child born to two Massachusetts citizen parents on the way to London during the Colonial rule of British America is affected.  And again,  in regards to the United States from July 04, 1776 onward, say on a boat from Boston to New York City or Charleston, the Massachusetts Charter is clear in its intent.  If the boat went to a non-US territory or state, the application of law as stated by Samuel Adams does NOT appear to apply in later US Constitutional Originalism, and we can apply this in our understanding to the Acts of Naturalization in 1790, 1795, etc.


End of July 02, 2011 addendum
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allen West verbally gives CAIR a little verbal push-back. Well, call it a nudge back.

When the "make America a Sharia governed country Muslim action group" CAIR
attempted to push political correctness on Representative West
to accept Islam as only a religion of non-violence
in contrariness to many Quranic passages,
in contrariness to the entire length of Islamic existence,
in contrariness  to the realities that any honest person can very easily distinguish and know extremely quickly ... West rightly counters with the passages of the Quran, the citation of the death cry of  the 9/11 hijackers (allah is great),
and cited his military service.
 His instant classic US Army vet line to CAIR in this video was:
 "Don't try and go blow sunshine up my butt."




Let me list 4 Jihadi cited calls that the Islamic Jihadists use to call for a slaying of all Jews and Christians, and to call for the destruction of Israel and the United States from the Quran:

1) “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." Surah 9:5

2)“Fight against them until there is no unbelief, and the religion is for Allah.”
Surah 2: 193

3) "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all (the world) submit to the religion of Allah alone ." Qur’an: 8:39

4) "Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you." Qur’an: 9:123

ISLAM is a religion of harshness, and subjugation.

ISLAM was created by a schizophrenic child rapist and socio-pathic murderer who took by force whatever he wanted, whether it was other men's wives or what have you, and found his greatest sexual arousal was by putting his head between the legs of his child wife Aisha while she was in her teenage years in bloody menstruations and got high off their putrid fumes while hearing his alleged Quranic revelations read back to him before having sexual intercourse. These are facts of history and from facts claimed from their own Hadith.

Surah 6:296: “Said 'Aisha: The Prophet {Mohammed} used to lean on (and into) my lap and recite Qur'an while I was menstruating.”

Aisha was six when Mohammed engaged the child in 617 A.D., and she was only nine when he raped / consummated her "in marriage" (Surah 33:28).   She was allegedly a teenager in regard when Surah 6:296 of the Quran allegedly occurred.


Recently, 200 of his religious followers in Egypt felt the same way as he about women, and violently raped a CBS news journalist while justifying it by calling the non-Jewish blond reporter as Jew, over and over, as they urinated and ejaculated on her and raped her front and back, reportedly half clawing her left breast off and also reportedly having bit off one of her nipples. When these scum-bag excuses for peaceful and civil behavior in their own Islamic society like Egypt aren't doing violence to women, in Egypt they are kidnapping and raping or killing Coptic Christians just for breathing.

If the CBS executives wish to offer up their wives and daughters the same way as they did their journalist, and then still push this ISLAM is Peace ordure, only then would we know that their Extreme Leftist Utopian ideologies have sent them completely insane as well as utterly and contemptibly morally corrupt. Where is the outrage by the EXTREME LEFT over one of its journalist reporters, or the fact that she is a US Citizen? Is there or was there ever outrage over the incident? Their silence on the issue dominates over any menial words uttered by them over the airwaves. The name Bush evokes passion from them still...her brutal rape they seemingly just blow off.

The first CBS executive reaction was to worry about their jobs, and wonder, "Gee, I hope she doesn't sue us."
The Extreme Left's reaction was that either wickedly side with the rapists or to continue the cry and push for a "bloody revolution" (in their own words).
Even the Leftist members of Congress like Representative Michael Capuano
http://www.dotnews.com/2011/potential-us-senate-candidates-stir-union-rally

now push to "get a little bloody" and even a Leftist US member of Congress dares call for lawlessness in the streets!  So is this Leftist member of the US Congress calling for assasination attempts like that upon his Arizona colleague and de facto of a Federal Judge and innocents in Arizona, or is he thinking more along the lines of Egypt and getting bloody on the phallus in raping innocent by-standers, or does he glorify anarchists to be unprosecuted no matter who they rob - beat - maim - or kill? Hypocrite!!!

And what of White House culpability? Obama sent some of his own West Wing Muslim Brotherhood Government employees along with Code Pink and Sorosian activists and anarchists, while aiding and abetting the promotion of ISLAM in a quid pro quo expectancy to foment these riots in the first place. Is there any sorrow on his part? No. Based on Obama's past words, history, and conduct, it comes down to this: the reporter wasn't black, so why should he care? For Obama, it is all about using the Left to bring about an Islamic ruled world, and the Left is merely the dope-ified tools or instruments to help bring that about.

Again, rephrased, what is it Obama is seeking, and telling those of the Left as what he is actually doing, so that they believe his words rather than their eyes as to what he is "actually doing" literally? The Extreme Left retains what Obama tells them what they want to believe, and hold to that prism of washing all rhetoric through that prism of brain-washing or sheer stupidity, so that whatever Obama deceives them as to what he says he is doing...that is what they believe. Goebbels did the same thing to Germans in Nazi Germany ('believe what I tell you, not what you see!'), even as whole cities lay in waste, their armies were in full retreat, and they were about to be conquered by the millions of Russians from the East, and the US and British Allied forces from the West.

In other words, the Left believes Obama as he tells them "don't believe I am creating a Sharia State, because I am actually advancing Socialism and then that followed by Communism". And while the Extreme Left believes Obama, no matter what pro-Muslim agenda they see Obama advance, "wink, wink, he is really advancing 'the cause'"...that is, until one day, it is only the Muslims who remain, and the Leftists watch themselves beheaded by hunting knives and swords as fanatic Jihadists yell praise to "Baraq who elevates the Mahdi" and "allahu akbar" praises to the fallen cherub, Satan the Deceiver (i.e., the Devil).

If We supersede any verse or cause it to be forgotten
[the right to change our story and lie whenever it suits us],
We bring a better one or one similar. Do you not
know that Allah has power over all things!" (Surah 2:106)

"They plot and plan,
and Allah, too plans,
 but the best of planners
[The Arabic equates 'planners' with liars, fakers, bluffers, and deceivers]
is Allah." (Surah 8:30).

Jesus Christ, in the only true and trustworthy Holy book called the Bible, warns:
"The thief
{the Devil, the shining Cherub that once walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire in Heaven until he self-exalted himself and stole trust from others in heaven - Isaiah 14:12-15, Ezekiel 28:14}
 cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy:
I am come that they might have life,
and that they might have it more abundantly."  (John 10:10)

To Mohammed, He rebukes from the Scripture:
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.  (John 8:44)

The Apostle John writes:
"Who is a liar
but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
He is antichrist,
that denieth the Father and the Son.  (1 John 2:22)

It is not acceptable in the Bible to call G-D a liar, or to atribute any evil to His nature. But Muslims do this all the time, and hence, worship not G-D as G-D; but they worship the Devil, a created and fallen being, as if Deity.
The Bible also says in John 14:6 and Acts 5:12 that there is only one path and one name by which to get to Heaven...it is NOT the pseudo-deity "allah", it is JESUS CHRIST.
How can the left be so deceived. Notice, the EXTREME LEFT has its brain fried on drugs (usually marijuana and other mind-altering drugs) when they make such alliances with Islamo-Jihadists (including Obama), so that simple observations made while sober and drug-free are too complex for them to believe and rationalize...meanwhile, the Jihadi factions of Islam, are generally drug free and just plain evil humanity wishing to dictatorial live as if demi-gods oppressing and taking from a society called oppressive submission by brutal acts of force, which is the literal Arabic word picture translation for the word we pronounce as "Islam".

In Islam, a man’s lifetime of works or deeds according to Islam’s 5 pillars (Surah 2:277) are what matters, as if on a Cosmic scale (Surah 17:13-14), and they, along with a daily confession of Devil worship in which “allah” is confessed as sole Deity and Mohammed as his sole prophet (Surah 1:2-4) must outweigh the bad deeds (any deeds contrary to Islam). But the only claim of actual assurance of a good after-life in the deceptive religion of Islam, is that its believers are to be Jihadi and to war and die while committing “Jihad” (Surah 9:5,29).  Islam and Quran commands them to senselessly murder for their father the Devil, who was a murderer from the Beginning.

 “And if you are slain, or die in the way [jihad] of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass.”  (Surah 3: 157)

Without Jihad, a Muslim rolls the Cosmic dice, because his Deceiving Deity will save only those he has a whim to save (Surah 14:4)…unless, the Muslim dies committing “Jihad” (Hadith 1:35, and Surah 3:157). But since Allah is confessed as a liar, a deceiver, a trickster, and untrustworthy, only morons like Muslims would bother to trust such a rotten scumbag of a deity as “Allah”. What an idiocy of such astounding proportions!!! If they had bothered to even read Mohammed’s own words, he himself stated that he couldn’t figure out if or not he wasn’t damned himself (Hadith 5:266)!  And this guy, tens of millions of Jihadi murderers want to die for?  Where's the brainless "seig heil" before...oh wait, it's "allahu akhbar"...yeah, yeah...never mind.


Getting back to Allen West. Following his (what I call soft, but much needed nudge back ) confrontation with CAIR on or about Monday, February 21, 2011, Representative West went to the soft-leftist news site of Foxnews.




Allen West had also, prior to the above-mention incident, appeared on ACT for America's new Broadcast medium. His appearance starts at about 4:10.

Reflections -

In the 1950s, America was once free to have popular Protestant Christian Worship shared with secular entertainment with class...so much so, that major celebrities like Jane Russell and Rhonda Fleming eagerly and happily participated is spreading the Gospel in musical format.



Less than 30 years later, in order to see the Gospel shared on television, one had to almost exclusively look to specific programs supported by donations of viewers to the ministry. 

Jimmy Swaggart - Gone.   (A resurrection song about Jesus)


And almost 30 years after that, sometimes in order to share the Gospel on a college campus, sometimes it seems it must be relegated to a wordless artistic musical expression.

Celtic Acoustic Guitar with Phil Keaggy


America...the more it slides and moves away from G-D and the exclusive Gospel of Jesus Christ, the more it falls out of the manifest grace and invisible support of G-D to uphold its society against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

It has us asking at times, what is the plan of G-D in all this?  How much will G-D allow?

We as human beings are made up mostly of water, and given an animal form, drawn from matter sourced in and of the soil.  The Bible shows that water as a material substance, was originally sourced in G-D from his throne.  In the exposition of Scripture, I have shown through that which happened at the Cross and through the Revelation 22:1 and Ezekiel 47:1 ff.,  we can understand that in the Millenial Reign of Jesus Christ (after that humanity has almost been obliterated), the waters of life shall trickle from the heart and the spear-hole in the side of Jesus, and as it flows from His Throne, it will grow and grow until a mighty river, and give living and healing waters that will make life flourish as never before upon the Earth.  Wheat heads giving 10 pounds of fine clean flour per head of wheat...grapes so huge, just peel back the skin, dip in the bucket, do it once or even several times, and close the skin back up if you wish. 

Since G-D will give such life then in Nature, what about us, right now?  We are made 9/10ths of a substance of water, and 1/10th of material substance (generally speaking).  When G-D created our first father, Adam, in the Earth, like in Ezekiel 37, the earth formed of itself and the mist of the ground the sinews and bones of the first man.  But in his animal form, even with a soul of life, Adam was not a son until G-D breathed into Adam's nostril the soul of lives, so that man by the breath of G-D became a literal spiritual son to G-D, and the sound of the inhale and exhale breath became the very name of man's Creator. 

When Adam fell in disbelief and sinned, the second soul, the higher soul of G-D's union, was as if a flame put out...a pilot light waiting for the means and operation of faith / belief into the one whom Adam had disbelieved, YHVeH Messiah / Jesus Christ, in order to be re-lit.  But because of sin and falling away was done while the higher soul was housed in an animal form of the human body, the body also needed to be atoned for as well.  The operation of that atonement in the body, Jesus took care of at the Cross, because it became appointed for man to die once in the body, and after that: Judgment.  By clothing Himself in the same flesh as Adam's opposite, the flesh of the virgin, Christ undid in the flesh what Eve had done in ignorance, though Adam followed after in disbelief willingly.  By being lifted up upon the Cross, upon a tree, Christ through the operation of faith undid what the creature Satan did in the operation of creating unbelief when he caused the murder and robbery of the soul Adam, killing man's soul and stealing that soul of life from G-D the Creator. 

We who believe and confess Jesus unto salvation (Romans 10:9-10, 13) are given the option and sure promise of an eternal life in the ages to come beyond the greatest bountiful expectancy one could have in any day or moment of life in this age, and in the age to come that excellency far exceeds 100 fold ever micro-second of eternity to come. 

The Greek word zoe, is best translated as eternal living life in its application in verses such as John 3:16, for example.

And yet, short of the Enochian or Elijahn Rapture, we are souls behind the eyes of our sight, behind the hearing of our ears, behind the senses of touch, or even that of intellect and emotion.
We are as spirits in mortal bodies, recognizing that mortal death is still yet a price we must all pay for being born.

What do we do in this world while we have time?  Do we constructively bring order, find the treasures of the hidden things of G-D in his Creation and in the souls of those around us?  Do we tell them of John 3:15-16, and lead them to that eternal living life that is to come to those who believe and trust into Jesus and what he did at the Cross and through his resurrection and ascension?  How many pilots of dead souls in humanity are lit into eternal life because of us, and the sharing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? 

The many of all humanity are indeed called, but the few who believe and trust into Jesus, and what he did by coming to die upon the Cross and be raised from the dead, to be the First Fruits unto G-D the Father, and show us the way, that we need not fear death when we are in Him; yea, we few are chosen.  And the many, are as souls behind the eyes of their human bodies, lost within with a terror of death and the death that is beyond death (as if a death after-death).  They chose the euruchoros, the broad way of the open countryside as wide and as far as the eye can see, where every way and path is right in their own eyes...and their is NO way out, but to perish into oblivion.

"But whosoever comes to Me," Jesus says of Himself, "I will in no way cast out."

"For G-D so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son,
 that whosoever believeth into him  should not perish,
but have eternal living life."  

Trust and believe into Jesus Christ, for He also says,
"Blessed in he,
whosoever
 shall not be offended in Me."

Shalom.

Claire Lopez, Vice-President of 'The Intelligence Summit' admits we are in the same kind of ideological clash with Islam that we face (and have faced) with World Communism

Claire Lopez's biography is available at:
http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/ClareLopez.php

Claire refers to her paper, "The Rise of the Iran Lobby --
Tehran’s front groups move on—and into—
the Obama Administration", available at:

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/center%20publication%20pdfs/Clare%20Lopez%20-%20Iran%20Lobby(1).pdf

Just a reminder, like Obama's Muslim Faith, Tehran's Islam is Shia (i.e., Shiite) and believes into a 12th Imam, aided by a winged (they say donkey, I say) jack-ass named Baraq / Barack who will aid the Mahdi in empowering him to the heavens, to bathe the world in blood and fire for total Islamic subjugation.

We already know who Barack the (they say donkey, -- as it regards Obama and how he conned America -- I say) winged jackass (the new interpretation of the 2008 ff. animal mascot of the DNC because of Obama) is. 'Nuff said.

Apuzzo and Kerchner discuss Obama, and no, there isn't any violent rhetoric...the Left violates Brandenburg, not the Right

Former Navy Commander Kerchner recently listed some gaffes regarding Obama's Lack of Constitutional Eligibility

LTC Lakin - A Sampling of Common Blunders and Uncorroborated Statements by Members of Congress about Obama’...


He and his attorney also appeared on alternate weekend low-level Media radio broadcasts on the Les Naiman show. AM 970 WGTK  http://www.970wgtk.com/schedule.aspx?sort=Sunday&id=1








Under My Bus
( a takeoff of the Rolling Stones "Under My Thumb")...where Obama considers virtually everyone as expendable, as was obvious in his first 100 days as Usurper of the US Presidency.

Kurtz interview about Obama and Educational Videos: US Capitalism, Soviet Communism

[Edited on February 15, 2011]

Segment 1:


Of a note in the interview of Segment 1, laissez-faire: Peter Robinson ensures that he smooths over the Journalists of  (what I personally call) the American Pravda Mainstream Media in being either hypnotically mesmerized or plainly incompetent in vetting Barack Hussein Obama II, and Kurtz simply goes along with the smug casual answer. 

Segment 2:



Segment 3:



Segment 4: Obama in Disguise  -
 "...Obama was a very strong Marxist-Leninist, at that time."
"Obama consciously and knowingly lied..."


At 4:01 - 4:21 Kurtz errs in thinking Obama aspired only to be the mayor of Chicago at the age of 24. .

Segment 5:



The one good thing about the wikileaks scandal, in spite of all the other atrociously bad, is at least the exposure of the Communist Sympathetic and anti-Ally stance of the Obama Administration, whose goal is to destroy all existing US Alliances, such as with Great Britain. The Obama Administration, it is now known, has handed over every last bit of information we had on the British Nuclear Defense Systems, including down to the serial numbers on the Trident Ballistic Missile Nuclear Warheads.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html


Based on this information, and the refusal for the Obama Administration to do a snatch and grab extraction of Julian Assange, it is clear that the Wikileaks was a verbally authorized release sourced in Barack Hussein Obama and I suspect, chief counter-terrorism Deupty John Brennan (the man whose company stole Obama's passport from the Department of State in 2008, and was quid pro quo rewarded with his current post for covering up Obama's past). The only question is, did or did not Hillary Clinton have any prior knowledge or warning about this. I suspect that she did not, and in part, the information was leaked also as a means to sabatoge any future Presidential aspirations in 2012 or beyond.

I personally believe that Obama really is a sick Communist-Socialist anti-American ideologue with a Muslim agenda, and is a political cannibal. By using the office of the US Presidency to depose Egypt to install the same Muslim Brotherhood he has in his West Wing at more than 200 employees hired in the first quarter of 2009, and install a theocracy of Islam to liquidate the Coptic Christians there and war against Israel, while strategizing to acheive a dramatic spiking Western Oil prices by a threat or near future threat of cutting off of the Suez Canal on purpose, it is clear that contrary to Henry Kissinger's original aspirations for Obama and Bilderburger Coalition influences, Obama seeks to be more like the mega-installment of the former Ugandan African Dictator Idi Amin than a Western President over a people he despises.

In contrast, however, in order to win the day, we must by legal and peaceful means depose the man through the Courts, State Legislatures, and Congress. Or the Bilderburgers could simply do the shock and awe suprise of nullifying Obama's illegal Presidency through the Courts, and use the natural Born Citizenship issue to oust him virtually instantaneously via the US Supreme Court and their Council of Foreign Relations mouthpieces in Congress and the Media. I suggest to Kissinger and Bill Clinton et al. running the Bilderburgers, to seriously not just consider it, but to do so.



The Responsibilities of US Citizenship (1955)






The Bloody History of Communism: Part 1 of 14 





Stalin:  Part 1



Part 2:

The intent of the Communist-Socialists as stated by them in the late 1970s and unrepented of, so to be their goal upon 60-80 million US Citizens to mega-holocaust us (either instant liquidation or Slave Labor until dead), is inspired in part by Stalin (and especially by Mao Tse-Tung, not included here).





Part 3:
The current indoctrination in the DNC
by the Communist-Socialists
that the Democrats owe everything to the Party, to the State,
and to the Leader  (in the present, the US Presidency usurper Obama)
is pure Stalinist Communist indoctrination.

Conservative Political Action Conference 2011

Let me first start with a what should have been an opening performance after a pledge of allegiance and the national anthem to have been a much more interesting (and crowd energetic) opening than what CPAC offers (in my opinion).  Perhaps a concert stadium with conservative inspirational talent contributions might have been a better way to go. 



Behind the scenes at CPAC February 11, 2011 Pamela Geller was able to get off three questions/answers with Donald Rumsfeld



The 2001-2009 Bush Administration approach to the Middle East ignored the arguments of religion v. religion, and sought to liberate politically and economically, only.

The US isn’t good at debating ideals, Rumsfeld says.

In context, the Middle East has a consistent 80% expectancy of Sharia Law of Islam imposed on either a national or local level in Muslim dominant nations, whether moderately or extremely imposed upon themselves; in consideration of that, the exclusion of religious ingrained thought processes of violence and slavery/subjugation of the Islamic masses was a severe oversight. While Rumsfeld brushes aside the Islamic religious implications upon policy and focuses on the liberation of the politico-economic systems they sought to free up, Obama seeks to further the Islamo-fanaticisms along, as described in the prior video explanations of the KGB Officer
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/1983-and-1984-ex-kgb-insights-to.html

…using many of the same foreign Communist-Socialist and anarchist-environmentalist alliances we saw used at Copenhagen



 and G-20 summits, allegedly along with some of Obama's 200 plus West Wing Muslim Brotherhood Federal and Civilian employees to allegedly Left Wing rabble rouse the crowds of Egypt's bogus and manufactured Egypt's "February 2011 revolution" from inside the crowd and outside in West Wing Command headquarters and various agents of the US Department of State (apparently). I accuse that the (what I now call the) American Pravda Mainstream Media was "all in" to intentionally deceive the masses in the USA as to what was really going on, and did not report that foreign Leftists were paid mob participants and organizers, many of whom who paid others (i.e., co-foreign riot participants as well as Egyptians themselves) to help them riot in the same way they were also funded to demonstrate in Copenhagen 2009.

The same Junta oligarchy that was in charge before Mubarak, still runs the country without Mubarak as the CEO of that oligarchal Board of Directors. Only now, the more Sharia inclined on Egypt's Board of Governance has gained more sway. But I digress. Back to CPAC 2011.


Dick Cheney & Donald Rumsfeld @ CPAC

Both receive “defender of the Constitution” awards

Dick Cheney, in failing to uphold US Constitutional Law and Protocol
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/11/review-of-chester-arthur-arthur-social.html
unrighteously received the award. He certainly did NOT defend the United States Constitution when it came to allowing a Communist Muslim infiltrator past him into the White House with willing glad hands extended.

While we hear a bit of his bio in coming to Washington DC, and some tail kissing to Rumsfeld, it appears that true substance and a proper use of time contribution is missing from Cheney. However, the bio allows an inside look of how Washington politics still worth noting in like application currently.

(RINO Heckler infiltrated) Part 1:



Part 2:



Unfortunately, this year, in 2011, as even Ron Paul has alleged, CPAC has been infiltrated by other than Conservatives. Pamela Gellar was even more explicit than that. 




Those running CPAC need to do their own background checks thoroughly to weed these co-opt Left Wing subversives out now, and need to investigate as far back as who and what those under investigation were in 2004. I would say, anyone and everyone "administratively connected"  needs this background vetting and/or re-vetting.

For an example of the co-opt dangers, I would merely point people to demand if they are still registered Democrats in other states at the time of joining CPAC, even as in 2009 Democrat Damon Dunn was still a on-the-books registered Democrat in Florida when he moved to California temporarily in order to co-opt the Republican Secretary of State nomination in 2010 (which he did).


Ron Paul at CPAC 2011




David Horowitz at CPAC 2011





Allen West at CPAC 2011 – wraps up CPAC on February 12, 2011