Newt Gingrich on the phone with Glenn Beck (Part 1)
Newt Gingrich on the phone with Glenn Beck (Part 2)
Michelle Bachmann interview with Glenn Beck, responding to the Newt interview (Part 1 )
@ 1:31 ff. in Part 1: Rep. Bachmann responds to Newt Gingrich's Healthcare ideas with "It doesn't help to have a frugal socialist. That's really what we're talking about.is managing socialism and trying to be a frugal socialist."
(Part 2) @ < 90 seconds
On December 6, 2011 Obama @ Osawatomie High School in Osawatomie, Kansas stated that Capitalism, Rugged Individualism and a Healthy Skepticism of too much Government doesn't work, and makes the nudge argument that we need a New Nationalism where too much Government is not enough Government.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/06/remarks-president-economy-osawatomie-kansas
Obama: "Well, it is great to be back in the state of Tex -- (laughter) -- state of Kansas. I was giving Bill Self a hard time, he was here a while back. As many of you know, I have roots here. (Applause.) I’m sure you’re all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie. (Laughter.) Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent -- and my values -- from my mother. (Applause.) She was born in Wichita. (Applause.) Her mother grew up in Augusta. Her father was from El Dorado. So my Kansas roots run deep.
{Let me ask this of Obama and his supporters: What defines having roots to the soil...when it involves the affirmation by Obama that it is not his being born or raised there, but that someone else in his family having had roots and a home there and much time spent there? I already know that Obama is exhibiting an irrational and delusional state of mind here, and that clearly it comes with the territory of his being a professional liar who can't keep his birth and biographical stories straight, let alone his keep his alleged pro-US and pro-Christian front from his clear convictions of his de facto anti-US pro-Communist-Socialist and pro Muslim convictions straight. -- Brianroy}
...in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for
what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless
it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each
man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”
(Applause.)
Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist --
(laughter) -- even a communist.
...there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said,
let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market
will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and
cut more taxes....
Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s
in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But
here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t
work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what
led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work
when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s
not as if we haven’t tried this theory.
...we need to meet the moment. We’ve got to up our game.
Under normal circumstances, what are the defenses of keeping a President from abuse of power? Possible impeachment by the US Senate...unless you have them in your pocket like Obama does. Scrutiny by the press, often too busy to have objective scrutiny of Obama acting as if they were picking Obama's pubic hairs from between their teeth (as it were). And a desire for re-election. So if these three obstacles are all that is needed, as is made by the argument of the Court...
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/731/case.html
Page 457 U. S. 757
... what real obstacles are there in place that would keep ANOTHER foreign national at birth like Obama from running for and being elected President of the United States? Shhh. The Media gets offended when you ask. Don't ask.
Screw 'em. Ask and demand a coherent legal answer from them. But you won't get one from them, only by we who dare to ask, apparently.
The US Supreme Court is NOT prohibited in vetting Obama's legal identity and nationality --
"The burden of establishing a delegation of powerto the United States,
or the prohibition of power to the States,
is upon those making the claim."Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 @653 (1948)
@ 54 : “The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.”
@62:” In
the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth
itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”-- it is in forcing any legal President to sign or not sign, to enact or not enact legislation that was properly arrived at as part of his Executive function and Constitutionally approved / defined interaction, as Justice Scalia in 1992 stated in:
FRANKLIN, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. v. MASSACHUSETTS ET AL - 505 U.S. 788 (1192) http://supreme.justia.com/us/505/788/case.html
Justice Scalia:
“We have long recognized that the scope of Presidential immunity from judicial process differs significantly from that of Cabinet or inferior officers. Compare Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 750 (1982) http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/731/case.html (“The President’s unique status under the Constitution distinguishes him from other executive officials”), with Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 811, n. 17 (1982) http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/800/case.html (“Suits against other officials – including Presidential aides – generally do not invoke separation-of-powers considerations to the same extent as suits against the President himself”). Although we held in United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.) (upholding subpoena directed to President Jefferson), the order upheld there merely required the President to provide information relevant to an ongoing criminal prosecution, which is what any citizen might do; it did not require him to exercise the “executive Power” in a judicially prescribed fashion. We have similarly held that Members of Congress can be subpoenaed as witnesses, see Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 615 (1972), http://supreme.justia.com/us/408/606/case.html citing United States v. Cooper, 4 Dall. 341 (CC Pa 1800) http://supreme.justia.com/us/4/341/case.html (Chase, J., sitting on Circuit), though there is no doubt that we cannot direct them in the performance of their constitutionally prescribed duties, see Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) http://supreme.justia.com/us/421/491/case.html (refusing to enjoin the issuance of a congressional subpoena).
I am aware of only one instance in which we were
specifically asked to issue an injunction requiring the President to take
specified executive acts: to enjoin President Andrew Johnson from enforcing the
Reconstruction Acts. As the plurality
notes, ante, at 802-803, we emphatically disclaimed the authority to do so,
stating that “this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President
in the performance of his official duties.”
Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475, 501 (1867) http://supreme.justia.com/us/71/475/case.html . See
also C. Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution @ 50, pp. 126-127 (1922); C. Pyle & R.
Pious, The President, Congress, and the Constitution 170 (1984) (“No court has
ever issued an injunction against the president himself or held him in contempt
of court”). The apparently unbroken
historical tradition supports the view, which I think implicit in the
separation of powers established by the Constitution, that the principals in
whom the executive and legislative powers are ultimately vested – viz., the
President and the Congress (as opposed to their agents) – may not be ordered to
perform particular executive or legislative acts at the behest of the
Judiciary. 2
Note 2: In
Mississippi v. Johnson, 4. Wall. 475 (1867) http://supreme.justia.com/us/71/475/case.html
, we left open the question whether the
President might be subject to a judicial injunction requiring the performance
of a purely “ministerial” duty, see id. 498-499; cf. Kendal v. United States ex
rel. Stokes, 12 Pet. 524 (1838) http://supreme.justia.com/us/37/524/case.html (Postmaster General); Marbury v. Madison, 1
Cranch 137 (1803) http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html (Secretary
of State). As discussed earlier, the
President’s duty was not that.
…It is noteworthy that in the last substantive
section of Nixon v. Fitzgerald http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/731/case.html where we explain why “[a] rule of
absolute immunity for the President will not leave the Nation without
sufficient protection against misconduct on the part of the Chief Executive,”
457 U.S., at 757, because of “[t]he existence of alternative remedies and
deterrents,” id., at 758, injunctive or declaratory relief against the
President is not mentioned.
None of
these conclusions, of course, in any way suggests that Presidential action is unreviewable. Review of the legality of Presidential
action can ordinarily be obtained in a suit seeking to enjoin officers who
attempt to enforce the President’s directive, see, e.g., Youngstown Sheet &
Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) http://supreme.justia.com/us/343/579/case.html
; Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) http://supreme.justia.com/us/293/388/case.html
– just as unlawful legislative action can be
reviewed, not by suing members of Congress for the performance of their
legislative duties, see. E.g., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 503-506
(1969) http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/case.html
; Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82
(1967) http://supreme.justia.com/us/387/82/case.html ; Kilbourn v. Thompson 103 U.S. 168 (1881) http://supreme.justia.com/us/103/168/case.html , but by enjoining those those congressional
(or executive) agents who carry out Congress’s directive. Unless the other branches are to be entirely
subordinated to the Judiciary, we cannot direct the President to take a
specified executive act or the Congress
to perform particular legislative duties."
The argument needs to be made, if by Naturalization, we define Naturalization of Citizenship to the United States as "the process by which a foreigner renounces and cuts ties to ALL foreign allegiances in order to become a United States Citizen"; then by the very nature of it, Naturalization -- by the very use of the root word "nature" -- cannot ever exceed the definition, and natural expectancy of that required of what parameters a Natural Born Citizen is defined by.
US Natural Born Citizens as of the Act of May 24, 1934 ff. is defined as those having a US Citizen father and mother, being born to this soil and government and into a nuclear family of its citizenry. At no time prior to this, was the absence of or lack of a US Citizen Father (or the presumption of a US Citizen Father in cases of bastards) ever acceptable to the definition of a US Natural Born Citizen in US Code (in some cases by an obvious presumed reading of the text based on precedent language, in most cases literal) or in US Supreme Court decision, it seems to me. Only a few commentaries outside the Court can be used to suggest, and hence promote an alternate theory; and all but one of these (it seems to me) clearly taken out of context and intent of the author they cite in order to further their argument. A mother could not pass on that Natural Born Citizenship alone, the father had to be presumed, if unknown, to be a US Citizen Father before a US Citizen Mother could pass on the designation. Obama's father was a British Colonial at the time of his birth, and a Communist foreigner who had no interest into immigrating into US Citizenry.
Barack Hussein Obama II, putative President of the United States, was born a foreign natural born citizen, not a US one.
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/11/barack-husssein-obama-jr-british.html
De facto and de jure, a Natural Born Citizen is required to have – at the very least at birth -- an equal to and better claim than someone who renounces and severs ALL alien allegiances and citizenships from his or her legal character. This is a factual reality that needs to be pounded upon the disinformation agents of the Left in our debates and refutation of them. I can only hope that in the December 27, 2011 scheduled Presidential debates with Donald Trump on ION, that the facts of how much a fraud Obama is Constitutionally and in claimed national identity will be exposed.
-------------------------------------------------
{{December 7, 2011 Update....
Glenn Beck reacts to Obama's Kansas speech cited above.
Part of the reaction of Glenn Beck was these words:
"Is it a coincidence that we have the two frontrunners are Obama and Newt Gingrich? Tea Party members, you have to decide where do you stand on progressivism. Where do you stand on this? Are you a Theodore Roosevelt Republican? Because if you are, may history forget that you were my countrymen.
New Nationalism....America, you got a choice: Communism the fast way, communism the slow way"
End of update}}
{{Addendum: Glenn Beck on Glenn Beck TV on December 7, 2011 has virtually an emotional conniption over Obama's Kansas speech:
Looks like poor Glenn is drinking unfluoridated water, which levels under the Obama administration have increased nationally, so as to keep the majority of US Citizens in a more compliant mode of accepting Communist-Socialist propaganda like Obama's Kansas speech. But the fluoridation of water for population compliance and the science vetting its reality, is a topic for another day. End of update}}
No comments:
Post a Comment