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
2017
-- 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.




Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.





Thursday, January 7, 2016

Obama Fraud: Obama Claimed Executive Orders On Gun Control In January 2016, But Released Claims Of Power Under Statements And Releases (For Media Purposes) Instead.

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016, Obama walked out as if he had an oversized sex toy up his rectum, and later cried as if in pain from it more than anything else, 
though some observers have argued his fingertips were laced with trace amounts of OC Pepper Spray, as he also pretended he has any authority to dictate bans on guns by his own authority, and the hell with everybody else.  His tactic was pure feel sorry for me, me, me, and if we can save just one life (while killing tens of thousands more annually) then we MUST do this ban by infringements and encroachments on the Second Amendment so we cannot only one day achieve an unconstitutional ban on guns by first infringing on ownership by anyone receiving a direct deposit Social Security bank deposit, but that we can annually drive up the U.S. citizen death toll by creating more gun free lawless zones that statistically will increase violent deaths by thousands of percent and get so many more Americans killed (heh,heh,heh).    There has also been the concern that not only will the elderly be targeted for denial of gun ownership and be called mentally incompetent by having a direct deposit into their account (which most employers now require of their workers of all legal working ages), but that merely by voicing any dissent we should be stripped of the Second Amendment rights   
in conjunction with a demand we also lose our First Amendment of the United States Constitution rights as well. 


At the White House website, Obama issued his gun control Executive Orders of January 2015  through a pack of lies, as if marijuana smoke blown in bluff and bluster of an assumption of Congressional Powers to Legislate on his own has been delegated magically to him, and he blows this putrid smoke of his own high mixed with smells of vomit  upon the American Media and the American People as those items and issues that are NOT even Executive Orders, but merely "Statements and Releases".   

 Statements and Releases?

  In other words, NOT LEGALLY BINDING.   Even were they Executive Orders, these too would be NOT LEGALLY BINDING upon the public at large.  

Alex Jones of Infowars reported on his show as being told by 2 separate inside the White House sources, and it being affirmed by others in the know (having been in the White House to personally see and observe Obama) – or words to that effect -- citing one being  a Secret Service, one a high Administration official, that Obama has been known and seen as wearing the Muslim prayer cap and DAILY praying on a Muslim Prayer Mat 5 times a day to Mecca inside the White House.  It was not ascertained if this is an ongoing recent practice or if it is just done during his annual month long Ramadan observations.  The fact that Obama is being more and more open and zealous for his Islamic faith in worshipping Satan / Lucifer / Allah of the Moslems, shows that if he is not politically neutralized, Obama will attempt a jihadi bloody war of violence upon the Citizens of the United States, and most likely will arm those men of military age who are already jihadis in the Middle East, issuing them billions of Homeland Security bullets and rifles, authorizing them on green cards, and employing them as mercenaries for Islam with whatever they can steal and rob from their victims, telling them he will make sure they are immune from prosecution in whatever they do upon civilians, just like they refuse to touch them or arrest them in Europe and prosecute anyone who dares say word one against the lawlessness of the Mohammedan barbarian raping and murdering hordes.    Obama wants the same here in the United States.       


Again, in his January 2016 Gun Control by Executive Orders and Executive Actions pitch,
 

Obama does NOT release an Executive Order, 

he issues it as a "Statements and Releases"

 and "poof",

 he can then act on it as policy 

and infringe on the Second and First Amendments 

without a political "removal from office"

Impeachment  consequence? 



  Let me put it another way...what would be the loss of the American People to cast Obama down out of office now, have him thrown into prison, convicted, and the United States Government then execute him for Treason?  Hell, it is only 11 months until the next election anyway.  Does he really not care that a Congress, which could be bribed by his replacement to impeach him, might just look at Obama as political baggage to be tossed aside because to Biden, taking out Obama to officially himself be President would be such a big sex organ erection to Biden?

So what information do we glean from Obama's STATEMENT that is NOT supposed to be the Executive Order he Psychological Operations Warfare games that it is?   
  
 Obama desires "230 additional examiners and other staff to help process ...[more] background checks."    Hiring within a given budget by Congress is appropriate under a legal Presidency, which Obama is not.  

Obama desires  "200 new ATF agents and investigators", but what is not told us, is that like Ruby Ridge when they shot a pregnant woman with a baby in their arms or teamed up with 4th Army Psy-Ops to start an armed assault that shot the hell out of the front door as their form of knock and notice, regardless of any children on the other side (instead of properly serving a warrant, instead of attempting a massacre that was resisted under  Janet Reno's mentally ill power tripping behest), we can expect under Obama a reasonable use of the new ATF man-power is intended to, once again with 4th Army Psy-Ops Black Operations psychopaths looking for a license to bloodbath massacre innocent U.S. citizens, that these 200 new ATF agent Obama wants are intended to  effectually do the round the nation gun confiscations, probably in conjunction with federalized local Police SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) teams that will do urban and select political Conservative targets of opportunity strikes (perhaps starting first with those residing in states like New York, Connecticut, and California).    

But what if those ATF specifically target those like Wayne LaPierre or other notables and are misused as a political Schutz-Staffel  or Shield Authority (considered "bodyguards of the State"), which were the personal and extended bodyguard detail to the dictator (which is how Adolf Hitler first used them)?  It can go several ways, and none of them will likely be in anyway peaceful and without serious consequence.  

Obama also demands the right that if you own one gun to sell, he has the right to now legislate you, on his own, to have to become a licensed firearms dealer.  

But if the Department of Justice wishes, they can pat you on the head and give you a verbal waiver...for now.




Obama Claim Of Power To Legislate Is 100% FRAUD For him To Make 

By definition in the Executive Orders Obama signs, executive orders are
 "not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against
the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person." 

Therefore the negative in which a right can be taken away by executive order must be refuted and a claim that resistance to it is a lawful act in which we choose the option NOT to abide by, and to legally NOT abide by Obama executive orders, his memoranda, and anything else he unilaterally seeks to declare as law also applies.

Article 1 – Section 1 – “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Obama is NOT empowered by the Constitution of the United States to LEGISLATE, so he can take his executive orders, roll them up into a tube, and go f*ck himself.  

Obama is 3 years later once again doing an updated version of a repeat of what he claimed he would do on January 16, 2013 announced he was signing 23 Executive Orders.



Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491 
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”


To just say / lie, "by the powers invested in me by the Constitution" to legislate or usurp powers not there, is NOT a sufficient answer when properly challenged. We just do not hear anywhere near the discussion we ought to have from major Conservatives in bringing up 
Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952) @ 587-589 
which governs “Presidential Policy” as opposed to “Congressional Policy”.

By example, a smacked down President Harry S Truman executive order on a different subject, but relevant to the "gun control" bogus claims of Obama stated:

"Page 343 U. S. 587
It is clear that, if the President had authority to issue the order he did, it must be found in some provision of the Constitution. And it is not claimed that express constitutional language grants this power to the President. The contention is that presidential power should be implied from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution. Particular reliance is placed on provisions in Article II which say that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President . . ."; that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", and that he "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
The order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Government attempts to do so by citing a number of cases upholding broad powers in military commanders engaged in day-to-day fighting in a theater of war. Such cases need not concern us here. Even though "theater of war" be an expanding concept, we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. This is a job for the Nation's lawmakers, not for its military authorities.
Nor can the seizure order be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President. In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The
Page 343 U. S. 588
first section of the first article says that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. . . ." After granting many powers to the Congress, Article I goes on to provide that Congress may

"make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress -- it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President. 

The preamble of the order itself, like that of many statutes, sets out reasons why the President believes certain policies should be adopted, proclaims these policies as rules of conduct to be followed, and again, like a statute, authorizes a government official to promulgate additional rules and regulations consistent with the policy proclaimed and needed to carry that policy into execution. The power of Congress to adopt such public policies as those proclaimed by the order is beyond question. It can authorize the taking of private property for public use. It can make laws regulating the relationships between employers and employees, prescribing rules designed to settle labor disputes, and fixing wages and working conditions in certain fields of our economy. 

The Constitution does not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control.

It is said that other Presidents, without congressional authority, have taken possession of private business enterprises in order to settle labor disputes. But even if this be true, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution
Page 343 U. S. 589
"in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof."
The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times.

It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power, and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand."


Even the current turncoat globalist and Socialist subversive, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, even Paul Ryan  knows that the political winds are not in siding with Obama’s lawlessness and unconstitutionality on this one issue:




Statement on Potential Executive Action to Restrict 2nd Amendment Rights
January 4, 2016|Speaker Ryan Press Office

WASHINGTON—House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) released the following statement in response to reports that the president intends to take executive action to restrict gun ownership in America:
"Ever since he was a candidate ...Obama’s dismissiveness toward Americans who value the Second Amendment has been well-documented. 

He acts as if the right to bear arms is something to be tolerated, when in truth – as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in 2008 – it is fundamental. 

The same goes for the Constitution and its limits on executive power.

"We all are pained by the recent atrocities in our country, but no change ... [that Obama] ... is reportedly considering would have prevented them. We have seen consistently that an underlying cause of these attacks has been mental illness, and we should look at ways to address this problem. We should also better enforce the laws we have on the books now to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. Instead ...[ Obama] ... is again targeting law-abiding citizens, intruding further into innocent Americans' lives. At a time when the country wants ... [leadership in the Executive Branch] ... to lead the fight against radical Islamic terror, this is yet another attempt to divide and distract from  [Obama's] failed policies.

"...[Obama]  is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will. 

His proposals to restrict gun rights were debated by the United States Senate, and they were rejected. 

No president should be able to reverse legislative failure by executive fiat, not even incrementally. 

The American people deserve a president who will respect their constitutional rights – all of them.

 This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it."


Barack Obama claims that he receives the right to issue his orders and exercise his office on that authority granted him by the US Constitution...but as a son of a foreign national, a son of a father who was NOT a citizen of the United States, nor ever at any time applied or intended to be...Obama himself HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY without a Constitutionally required US Natural Born Citizen status via a US Citizen Father plus a birth on United States soil. 

Anyone up to why the 12th Amendment required a Vice President to be of the same United States Natural Born Citizen qualifications as the President in 1803?

 Anyone up on the relevance of the 14th Amendments intent that a person be 100% subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the language of the author as debated over and affirmed as its intent in Congress?

Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), stated that a 14th Amendment child legally defined be born of parents (plural) and not a parent (singular):
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 
every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

On the Natural Born Citizen Clause…it was for good reason the 12th Amendment requires a Vice-President to be a United States Natural Born Citizen just like a President over him.

He must be one of sole nationality, so that were he ever stripped of citizenship in the United States, he would be declared as “Stateless”.

Neither parent may be of foreign citizenship, and the child must be born 100% within United States jurisdiction and 100% a U.S. Citizen with NO FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP (NOR A CLAIM OF SUCH IN ANY WAY) AT BIRTH.  

Anyone acquiring or possessing ANY FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH IS NOT A UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and this is affirmed indirectly by the 12th Amendment and the intent of those who argued the opening clause of the 14th Amendment when they deliberated voting on that Amendment’s language in the United States Senate. The question for America 2016, is will we ever restore and enforce ALL of the Constitution of the United States anymore? By gradual ignoring this and that language of it, the Constitution of the United States is being stripped away piece by piece before our eyes.

Even for the most arm’s length, the bare minimum observation for all should have been as Dick Cheney stated in April 2015 publicly.  

"If you had somebody who, as president: 
 who wanted to take America down. 
who wanted to fundamentally weaken 
our position in the world, 
reduce our capacity to influence events; 
 turn our back on our allies 
and encourage our enemies,
 it would look exactly like 
what Barack Obama is doing."
 - Dick Cheney 04/07/2015


What Dick Cheney has just done in those words uttered on April 7, 2015, and then passed around by e-mail as part of a fundraiser for the "Alliance For A Strong America" 501(c)(4) political non-profit group, was to effectually admit that Barack Obama is NOT legally President of the United States under the Constitution and to admit that Obama commits Constitutionally defined TREASON  by those words and by that example.












The North American Law Center has rightly called for Obama's Impeachment,

I would also add more citations of United States Codes that can be used to start the process with:

The very starting of the process is simple enough. 
Impeachment Under Congressional Rules

"Article 2, Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The opening salvo is started in this way: 

"Impeachment proceedings may be commenced in the House of Representatives by a Member declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own initiative, [ III Hind’s Precedents of the House of Representatives , §§ 2342, 2400, 2469 (1907)]

by a Member presenting a memorial listing charges under oath,
[ III Hind’s Precedents of the House of Representatives,  §§ 2364, 2486, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515.]
or by a Member depositing a resolution in the hopper, which is then referred to the appropriate committee
[ 116 Cong. Rec. 11941-42 (April 15, 1970); 119 Cong. Rec. 74873 (Oct. 23, 1973).  See also, Brown, W., House Practice, A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House , § 6 (1996).]."

Quoting from source of:


There is only ONE answer Congress and WE THE PEOPLE Of These United States must abide by: 
         Barack Hussein Obama II’s

            IMPEACHMENT! 

No comments:

Post a Comment