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
-- 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.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

US Supreme Court etc. v Chris Matthews on Obama Birth Certificate Issue and Constitution, and Matthews is proven wrong again.

[Last updated February 02, 2011]

"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

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

GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189
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."

Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540  (1840)@ 570-571

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 …”

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 199 (1796)
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.
…This principle is recognized by the Constitution

President George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.

Natural does not (in nature or biology) include a hybrid in its first generation:
e.g., an alien / non-native (wild) Tomato plant DNA and a domestic (native to that country) DNA spliced and grown together. 
Nor would a foreign national father of one nation who refuses to join a second nation where he marries and refuses to permanently reside, and vice versa for the mother, clearly neither of these can produce a "natural citizen" of sole liegance of the same citizenship as both parents. 

This being the case, it is impossible to call the child a natural born citizen without looking to nature.  The plant from which the seed comes dictates, not the soil in which it is planted in the first generation of planting, but the origin from which the plant hails dictates in nature and in the Law of Nations any de jure "Natural Citizenship" attributed to the child.  While the child may obtain a citizenship at birth in a foreign land, the child's natural citizenship rests in the land of his father, the land from which his seeded existence hails.  If he is not reared to be a citizen as his father, or to the government of his father, he has no natural citizenship when he comes of age to be a citizen of wherever he resides.  If he resides in a nation alien from his father and becomes a citizen there, he may establish roots there, and his following generation born and reared up in that nation's governance may be declared as natural born citizens where the father permanently resides and the same Government or sovereign land citizenship in. 

  Barack Hussein Obama II  has NO United States Natural Born Citizenship, his father being an alien national from Kenya with a British dual-citizenship and passing on that SAME status to his son Barack II, which even Barack has auto-biographically admitted to. 

Further, Barack Hussein Obama II  has not even a proof of citizenship that meets the legal definition of birth citizenship identification as is Law defined in specificity by the US Supreme Court.

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

                 [i.e., the burden of proof is upon those being President to prove they are Natural Born Citizens and Constitutionally eligible.]

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

When a person's citizenship is in doubt, we are required by Law to rule against the one, like Barack Hussein Obama II, who is UNABLE to provide proof of Citizenship meeting the Standards of Law as cited above.

Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644  (1929) @ 649-650
@ 649
...Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native-born citizens. ...And, in order to safeguard against admission of those who are unworthy, or who for any reason fail to measure up to required standards, the law puts the burden upon every applicant to show by satisfactory evidence that he has the specified qualifications. Tutun v. United States, 270 U. S. 568, 270 U. S. 578. And see United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472, 243 U. S. 475.

..."Citizenship is a high privilege, and when doubts exist concerning a grant of it, generally at least,

Page 279 U. S. 650

they should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant.

Thus, we are required by US Supreme Court ruling to say,
"When in Obama's Citizenship is in legal doubt,
the Law says, 
 throw Barack Obama OUT!" 

It is for reasons based on the Law that Obama is to be excluded from any legitimate claim to the US Presidency, and nothing else.  And if his archilochean performances and conduct of a neo-Shia Muslim Brotherhood brand of Communist-Socialism obfuscates his foudroyantly fawning worshippers, maybe they ought to close their open mouths for a few minutes, step back, and read up on US Supreme Court Case Law and Founding Father's Intent on the Natural Born Citizen clause before further promulgating their editorials of slander and vacuacy as they tickle each other's ears and giggle amongst one another.

As Barack Obama confesses about himself,

"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth,
 are those people with something to hide"

...or words to this effect. He likes to apply a standard to others that he himself cannot live up to legally or abide by, huh?  No kidding.
His own wife Michelle is on video record stating that she joined Barack on one trip "when he visited his HOME COUNTRY, KENYA..."
Why did she call Kenya his HOME COUNTRY if is not true?

 However, as one of the pundits in the ff. video clip, Howard Fineman make the point, if another state passes the mandatory Citizenship Proof and Presidential eligibility legislation
[per 333 US 640 @ 653 citing 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62]
 after Arizona does, then it becomes a "Constitutional Issue". Watch how fast that gets blown off by Chris Matthews (because it vets the birther argument).  The clip is at ca. 5:28-5:40 on the video.

Chris Matthews:

Requalifying the intent of  Chancellor Kent:

James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Volume I; New York: O. Halsted, 1826. Page 255

“The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen …of the United States…. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States…the qualification of birth cuts off all inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war…”

Kent is telling us that to have even one foreign national parent who never becomes a US Citizen, is to ever have a foreign inducement upon one’s life to corruption, negotiation, and like biases that are based on one’s own familial past or heritage rather than upon the exclusive interests of the people and sovereignty of the United States of America.

He probably thought that to state the overly obvious was too elementary, and failed to conceive of those of a future day like ours, lacking basic common sense and breath-taking legal acrobatics in semantics. The very activity of having a foreign national father is "an inducement", ""a bias, persuasion, influence to consent " to that of a foreign rather than domestic only socio-political influence upon one's life that disqualifies a person from being a United States Natural Born Citizen even were he born here. In context, Kent clearly infers that the US birth was to be accompanied by permanent US Citizens who permanently resided here in this nation. Hence, both a US Citizen father and mother, and a being reared in the loyalty and citizenship to the nation to which he was born. Dual, trio, and quad nationalities for the child, which Obama has had all of these...was simply so obvious, so out of the question and so totally alien, Kent could not even seem to conceive of such a question ever arising and needing to be addressed by him.

The American Legal Review issue of Sep/Oct 1884 was the same one in which Democratic lawyer George D. Collins (the same who co-prosecuted the Wong Kim Ark landmark citizenship case of 1898) 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”.

 George D. Collins asked the question: “are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of birth were aliens, citizens thereof?”

Collins cited Vattell in probing for the answer: "The native or natural citizens are born in the country of PARENTS who are citizens" [emphasis mine].

"The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."

His answer at the end of the article:
“Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”

Preceding this legal scholar article by 43 years is from 1845, when an Ivy League level Law Journal said this,

"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)


Of even a 14th Amendment Citizenship Claim, the Supreme Court say:

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102

"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306."

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290

- Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.

The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country
of parents who are citizens.

Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

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

In doing so, by looking back to a time when Citizenship was passed solely through the Father (unless he died or was presumed dead, then and only then via the citizen mother) this clearly places us in a legal territory that makes it impossible for anyone to justify Obama ever legally signed anything that could not be declared VOID by the US Supreme Court.  Every Signature he signed, every order he made, was poison and fruit of the poisoned tree, and his entire Presidency and all Executive Officers need to be removed and nullified, and replaced by sessions of the US Senate. 

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 the Gospel Genealogies, the "natural born" status is paternal...the super-natural or Messianic born status can only applied once, to the virgin born Messiah whose father is in Heaven, and that super-natural status in only in Him who died and was raised again the 3rd day and ascended back into Heaven before 120 witnesses, whom we know to have been Jesus Christ the Son of G-D. 

Massachusetts in 1646, 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. With the signing of 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”), America's legal relationship was by precedent established as distinctively unique from those laws that governed other English citizens and subjects, and this began with the unique political experience between the Virginia House of Burgesses and England in 1651.

Natural Law became politicized in the American Colonies, and was taken from Grotius' et al., and later Vattel. But unique to the American Experience is the US Supreme Court acknowledged interweaving of Protestant Christianity and Protestant Christian Interpretation in US Society -- especially Rector, etc. of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 456 (1892); as well as School District of Abington TP. V. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963); Van Orden v. Perry, 545 US 677 (2005) -- to such an extent that we must include such a perspective as true Founder's Intent and Founders' Constitutional Originalism. Protestant Christianity has been not only closely identified in both US History and US Government for most of its four centuries following the Mayflower Compact, it is de jure and de facto essential to grasp and argue such a context in order to arrive to Founder’s Intent of Constitutional Law (i.e., Originalism).

In regards to the Natural Born Citizen Clause, those who are well familiarized with Chapter 6 of Locke's second Treatise on Government, labeled "Paternal Power", at once also know what a Natural Born Citizen is...the natural product of his Citizen Father who rears the child up in his own Citizenship. It is not from the mother, but from the father...or as Locke puts it, "of Paternal Power."


Notice he did NOT say parental, but paternal. He did not say maternal, but paternal.

§. 52. "...in a discourse of this nature...which seems so to place the power of parents over their children wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it....

§. 53. ...absolute dominion, and regal authority, when under the title of paternal power it seemed appropriated to the father...contend so much for the absolute power and authority of the fatherhood, as they call it....

§. 59....all the laws a man is under...what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it..., at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government. ...

There are numerous other points Locke makes on the same lines.

Simply put:

A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is then defined for us as being that of a Son of his Citizen Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that same Government on the soil of his native birth as that of his father's, until he effectually takes his place as an extension of his father as a citizen in the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the citizenship of the nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off.

Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature AND the positive laws of an established government. In fact, there is a break in that "citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that we cannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the later United States Constitution.

Obama does not qualify to even Locke's definition to be a United States Natural Born Citizen, and those in Kenya might argue that although their Government recognizes Obama as a Natural Born Citizen of Kenya because of his biological father, they might wish to reconsider that position as well, based on John Locke's insights.


The US Supreme Court is Obligated to Accept and Extradite this Issue, and has failed to abide by the prior US Supreme Court rulings to even consider the matter.   

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)  @ 210

the US Supreme Court stated:

We have said that,
"In determining whether a question falls within [the political question] category, the appropriateness under our system of government of attributing finality to the action of the political departments and also the lack of satisfactory criteria for a judicial determination are dominant considerations."
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 307 U. S. 454-455.
The nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers.

But in regard to the political question of maintaining the veracity of a Presidential Candidate or Presidential Office Holder, Congress and the Supreme Court (by a vote of 6-3 against certiorari in recent months, 2 voters being illegal for not recusing themselves in self-interest) have decided to take the low road of irresponsibility, and pretend this Constitutional Crisis will just go away. It won't. It is of such importance, that a legal door to the future subjugation of America via the Executive has been opened up, and can legally now be cited as an excuse to Foreign Dictatorships, relegating Congress and the Court subject to a path to Foreign Executive Sovereignty...the kind of rule that subject British America, and their weak Houses of Burgesses to tyrannical abuses.

United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205 (1952) @ 223
stated that:

"This Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of an act of Congress where the question is properly presented unless such adjudication is unavoidable, [Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129 (1946); Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 297 U. S. 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).]
much less anticipate constitutional questions. [Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 331 U. S. 568-569 (1947); Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, note 41 supra, at 297 U. S. 346-347, and cases cited therein.]."

By stating that: "This Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of an act of Congress where the question is properly presented unless such adjudication is unavoidable...",  I submit that the need to hear and settle or study and settle the Natural Born Citizen dispute over the Natural Born Citizen clause of Article 2.1.5. of the Constitution of the United States has become an unavoidable and necessary case for US Supreme Court adjudication. 

Who is Obama and what is his real identity?  No one truly knows.

National Security Background Check .Standard Form 86 (at least in its July 2008 revised form)
requires he was to reveal he has a Kenyan national father, a Kenyan national half-brother, a Chinese national half-brother, British national half-siblings, foreign national step-mothers,

Page 11, question 18 - identify "each relative and give their full name and other requested information...for each of your relatives, living and deceased, specified below.

1-Mother, 2-Father, 3-Stepmother, 4-Stepfather, 5-Foster parent, 6-Child (incl. adopted and foster), 7-Stepchild, 8-Brother, 9-Sister, 10-Stepbrother, 11-Stepsister, 12-Half-brother, 13-Half-sister, 14-Father-in-law, 15-Mother-in-law, 16-Guardian.
Code, Full Name, Deceased box, Date of birth, Place of birth, Country(ies) of citizenship, Current address (Street, City, and State, include Country if outside the U.S.), If relative was born outside the U.S. indicate documentation that he or she possesses...(FS 240 or 245, Citizenship certificate, DS 1350, Naturalization certificate, Alien registration, US Passport, other / Document number)."

We know that this is what the revised July 2008 form says, and one would normally assume that Barack Obama would have had to report the data as required by the upgraded form...but that is an assumption based on presumption and an expectancy of full honesty,  and not the reality of crooked deals and Washington Insider politics. 

Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) @ 307

 (citing Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) @ 509); accord Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536(1956) @ 546.

It is "obvious and unarguable" that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation. Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. at 378 U. S. 509; accord, Cole v. Young, 351 U. S. 536, 351 U. S. 546 (1956); see Zemel, supra, at 381 U. S. 13-17.

So besides being a Constitutional Issue, the revealing of Obama's true identity (whatever nationality or nationality combinations it is) and the legal and peaceful removal of Obama from the US Presidency is a National Security issue as well.

Under Ex Parte Quirin 317 US 1 (1942) @ 31
it would probably be a trial conducted by Military Tribunal, based on his disqualification by fraud in the same category as a spy, instead of an Impeachment.  But if he resigned immediately, it is quite probable that no prosecution would ever be pursued by the US Government, just as with Nixon, because no charges were ever yet filed by Congress.  And unfortunately, rather than have the opportunity to reverse his entire Presidency -- which entire administration of Obama and voiding of every signature and order, or total reversal of Obama is what I advocate, -- he would escape justice and could conceivably (though not likely) even go run for President of Kenya, where the Parliament there says he is still recognized as a citizen on inactive status.  I guess apparently, only his British Commonwealth Citizenship expired in 1984 (allegedly).

But if he remains in office as a usurper, one day soon, inside of using the F*** word to express profanity, it will be the use of his name instead.  In other words, America will see a day to regret him that much...not based on the color of his skin, but his actions as a Communist-Socialist and Muslim with exteraneous neo-Caliphate Agendas.  Why else hire over 200 Muslim Brotherhood hires to the West Wing?  They wish Egypt to be part of a greater Islamic Caliphate.  And in the US, to make the US submit to the Devil (aka. Allah) or see it destroyed.  Obama is on a bent to destroy and or subjugate US Society to alien wills and alien belief systems in Governances, and the gradual mandatory emplacement of the religion of Islam to the point of mandatory obeisances under penalty of Sharia laws and capital punishment (as history warns us is so).  And lest we forget June 2009, when he admitted to the Muslims in Cairo in calling himself Baraq the winged jack-ass of Mohammed,  who will make the 12th Imam who will bathe the world in blood for Islam to ascend to the heavenlies on his back.

So who and what is Barack Obama?  Even without the birth records or the confession by the Governor and Elections Official of Hawaii that he has no hospital birth certificate, millions of us already know. 

Obama ain't legit...born also a Kenyan and a Brit.  Unconstitutional, regardless where he was born. 

No comments:

Post a Comment