Sarahpac video: We're gonna stand up! "GRRRR!!!" and a message to Congress, "Throw Obama the Usurper and alien NBC out of Office, NOW!!!"

Reloading the first video after accidentally erasing when removing drafts.  However, all things considered, it is an appropriate opening for the rallying cry to throw Obama out of Office by whatever legal and peaceful means possible. 

Yes, America is still angry over the Communist-Socialisms in both the Legislative and Executive Branches...but even as they continue, many of their supporters are defecting to our numbers and ranks.  We the people, be we the disenfranchised, or those promised tyranny and physical annihilation threats by Obama and Congressional officials,  or promised economic ruin by the Communist-Socialists who will break open our heads and bathe us in our own blood, or promised enormously high taxes to pay ourr fair share of wealth redistribution to Communists and dictatorships around the world...I say legally and peacefully, on this issue that can make it all go away in hours to less than 4 days..."We're gonna stand up and fight" by winning the hearts and minds of the Courts and those of Congress, and throw the bums out and/or watch them run (i.e., resign).  GRRRR!!!





On July 28, 2009, the US Senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution, SR225 in which the following clause appeared: … “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”


That NON-BINDING Resolution does not rise to an "act of Congress" of legally "conferring citizenship" as mentioned as the third alternative to obtaining the various types of US Citizenship as inferred by 523 U.S. 420 MILLER v. ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY OF STATE (1998)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/420/

With that, "non-binding resolution", the US Senate turned its back on the US Constitution, and chose to close its ears to anyone who dares bring up the Constitutional ineligibility of the Usurper Barack Hussein Obama.

Can they offer any proof that being born on US soil automatically makes one a Constitutionally defined “natural born Citizen” of the United States? No. Like Senator Feinstein, they might cite the 14th Amendment of 1868  as their excuse to declare someone born on US Soil as “natural born”, but even the Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg shot down that argument in 2001 in the Oral Arguments of Nguyen v. INS.
Justice Ginsburg states:
“ … if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934….”

In other words, any claim of the 14th Amendment granting citizenship via a maternal citizen birth on US Soil is Bovine Ordure. Neither the second article of the US Constitution allows for such an interpretation, nor does the 14th Amendment.     And it is a liberal justice,  in Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg who de facto obliterates the perfidious sneer and Left Wing canard where they argue that the 14th Amendment = Presidential qualification.

In  523 US 420, Justices Scalia and Thomas, agreed in Miller v. Albright that the Court has no power to provide the relief requested because the petitioner sought a conferral of citizenship on a basis other than that prescribed under the Law: that of birth, and that of naturalization. The petitioner sought to be granted a US Citizenship outside of the naturalization process because they were born outside the US. In NOT releasing his Long Form Certificate of Live Birth, Obama is demanding that he be presumed a US Citizen and qualified based on essentially the same principle...a non-binding resolution (hence, a not legally binding utterance), to justify his running for and usurping the office.  Scalia told the petitioner in Miller, a decade previously, that only Congress by a Legislative Act can grant a US Citizenship outside of the birth and naturalization processes.

So the fact remains that Obama cannot grant himself a retroactive citizen status, and unless he had a Congress prior to his illegal election declare him in a binding resolution that he was a United States Natural Born Citizen...which has NEVER happened...and thus signed of by any previous US President serving in office...again, which has never happened...he cannot claim an end run around the lack of standing he has to claim a US Natural Born Citizenship.

Further, in  Miller v. Albright, Justice Stevens further elaborated:
"There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U. S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress."

By acquiring a Kenyan Natural Born Citizenship at birth via his Kenyan National father, an alien national visiting in the US on student visa,  Obama cannot EVER legally claim a US NBC status under US Supreme Court Law and Precedent. 

As Justice Ginsberg herself alluded to in the 533 US 53 Oral Arguments, that although Natural Born Citizenship has de facto been via a US Citizen Father and US Citizen Mother on US Soil or US Territory from May 25, 1934 ff.; prior to May 25, 1934, Constitutionally speaking, a US Citizen Father (or the presumption of one)  and US Soil or Territory was all that was required to make one a US Natural Born Citizen.

In his speeches, Obama only infers that he is a "citizen of the United States", and never (as far as I am aware) states a "Natural Born Citizen" status of the United States.   He has even gone so far as to state that he is a "citizen by birth" and that he claims to be born in Hawaii, but has offered no proof as required under 333 US 640 @ 653 and the documentation per 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62...the HOSPITAL he alleges to be born in records with WITNESSES TO THE BIRTH.

Born Citizenship, a citizenship that denies the legal right to seek the Presidency or a Presidential succession office,  could be acquired by simply being born on US Soil, being born on a US Flagship or sovereignty (such as a US embassy or US Territory) without any foreign legiences.    That is the level that Obama claims by seeking out and ( de facto illegally) taking office as president...a level both pro and anti Obama debaters all agree on, that he has had at least a dual Kenyan legience at birth via his Kenyan national father.





Research Obama, and again, notice he has never said that he is a United States Natural Born Citizen...he always says, "I am A CITIZEN of the United States."  
Such a declaration does not rise to the Level of Founder's Intent on the Natural Born Citizen clause, which Madison demands must be interpreted under strict literalism.

The damage control machine of the now partisan (formerly non-partisans) advisory to the Congress of the United States, issued the ff. advisory twisting and contortions of NBC issue, and told Congress to IGNORE anyone concerned about Obama's inelligibility.   The overpaid and under-worked Congress, too busy calling and fund-raising an average of 4-5 hours a day the moment they enter or re-enter Congress, keeping their eye on the golden parachutes and the deceptive pride of legislative leverage and the pride of power, reached for any excuse they could to remain as apathetic and unattached to the concerns of the constituents and their failure to protect and defend the US Constution as possible.  This is what they read:


Members of Congress Memo--What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions



The memo as explained in a WorldNetDaily video summary:






Notice how Satanic and sneaky the Obama worshippers twist Perkins v. Elg...at next to the last page, they write:

"The Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg thus found that one born "in" the US, even of alien parentage,  is a US citizen at birth and...."

The writer clearly and blatantly lies to Congress in order to dupe them!!!   A US Citizen father at the time of the child's birth in Perkins v. Elg is intentionally mislabeled as "alien parentage" to make him sound equivalent to Obama's alien national father with NO US CITIZENSHIP. 


The Congressman or Congresswoman is given the pitch to confuse "natural born citizenship" with any kind of "birth citizenship" available.  Why not?  That same last Congress  was so self-serving and corrupt that they literally passed  bills written by Communists and Socialists and Unions seeking to change laws and set up slush funds for themselves, looting the US Treasury. 


  Was Obama born by a Caesarian section? No.  Was he a test tube baby?  No.  That proves he was born naturally.  Or maybe if we say he was born naked, we can say "au naturel" and twist the definition that way and make him an "au naturel born citizen"...but of which country? 

http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html

So what are the facts of Perkins v. Elg?  That at the time of birth, the child was born on US soil to a US Citizen Father...at the time of birth.  The fact that the father renounced his US Citizenship later, did not reflect ill upon the child.  It was only because of the Father's US Citizenship, that the child born on US soil coul claim to be a United States Natural Born citizen...a US Citizenship Obama's father NEVER had to confer on Barack II.

Page 307 U. S. 330

This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis.



Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided.



[In other words, the son is born to a US Citizen Father on US Soil...totally alien from if the father had remained a German National, had a son born on US soil and repatriated to Germany with the child...in which the child in the second scenario is NOT SUBJECT to US jurisdiction. 



 When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States.



To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:





"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright.



[In other words, Barack Obama Sr., a citizen of Kenya sired Barack Obama II, in a foreign land.  Regardless that the son was born in a foreign land -- in that case, the USA -- Perkins v. Elg at the cited point of 330 by those who issued the memo, will have their heads metaphorically handed them in the US Supreme Court of Law, because the language of nationality of the father as being a United States Citizen at the time of the child's US birth, makes any citation of it for an Obama defense  -- when Obama's father was an alien national Barack's ENTIRE LIFE, including at the time of birth  --that such a Perkins v. Elg defense would be slapped back upon those who argue this as their primaryt defense of Obama, as an ostentacious display of incompetence or as an intentional intent to defraud.)



He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages."



The essence is this, AT THE TIME OF BIRTH, the Father was a Naturalized US Citizen who renounced his German Citizenship and swore legience to the United States.  That US Citizenship jus sanguinis passed to the son.  Further, the son was born on US Soil.



Notice the pattern in this US Supreme Court Law citation, even in Perkins v. Elg :

1) The REQUIRED US Citizenship of the father,

2) THE REQUIRED US birth location.



Barack Hussein Obama II has NO US Citizen Father...only a Foreign National, a Citizen of Kenya. 

Obama fails point #1.



Further, as previously pointed out, in both 2009 and in 2010, the Kenyan Government officially insists that the same Barack Obama who became "President" of the USA, was "native-born" (sired by a Citizen father on sovereign soil of the same) in and to Kenya.

Obama depends on being above the law, and skirting the fact that Nguyen v. INS  533 US 53 @ 54 and 62 requires that Obama or anyone who seeks to produce records at the Federal level for acceptable to the Court identification purposes, must produce the hospital records (i.e., the name and location and seal of the hospital on the records) as well as "witnesses to the birth."  

Have those records been produced?  No.  So who was Obama's birth physician?  No one knows.  Who was the hospital Administrator who signed off the hospital records?  Shhhh, it's a "State Secret".  How much did Obama weigh at birth?  What? You mean to tell me it isn't on his alleged Certification of Live Birth? 
 
The US Senate has the power to Remove Obama...but what is also important to know, is that the House of Representatives has the power to lay Obama on trial and IMPEACH the Usurper.  Thus says James Madison on June 17, 1789.  I include the following to help those reading realize that Founder's Intent on the US Constitution and the Czar substitution cabinet in place of Congress or  even if it were intended as a combining of power between the Executive Branch in Congress, the very act of Czars to legislate laws as if a legislative wing of the Executive Branch are removable offenses that not only can be acted upon by either or both Houses of Congress, but that the Czars and Obama are instantly contrary to the US Constitution's allowances and provisions as declared in the record in 1789 through the declarations and the eyes of James  Madison.   


http://www.constitution.org/jm/17890616_removal.htm
http://www.constitution.org/jm/17890621_pendleton.htm

June 16, 1789
MR. MADISON stated:


If the construction of the constitution is to be left to its natural course with respect to the executive powers of this government, I own that the insertion of this sentiment in law may not be of material importance, though if it is nothing more than a mere declaration of a clear grant made by the constitution, it can do no harm...


I am clearly of opinion ...that we ought in this and every other case to adhere to the constitution, so far as it will serve as a guide to us, and that we ought not to be swayed in our decisions by the splendor of the character of the present chief magistrate, but to consider it with respect to the merit of men who, in the ordinary course of things, may be supposed to fill the chair. I believe the power here declared is a high one, and in some respects a dangerous one; but in order to come to a right decision on this point, we must consider both sides of the question. The possible abuses which may spring from the single will of the first magistrate, and the abuse which may spring from the combined will of the executive and the senatorial qualification.


When we consider that the first magistrate is to be appointed at present by the suffrages of ...millions of people...it is not to be presumed that a vicious or bad character will be selected. If the government of any country on the face of the earth was ever effectually guarded against the election of ambitious or designing characters to the first office of the state, I think it may with truth be said to be the case under the constitution of the United States. With all the infirmities incident to a popular election, corrected by the particular mode of conducting it, as directed under the present system, I think we may fairly calculate, that the instances will be very rare in which an unworthy man will receive that mark of the public confidence which is required to designate the president of the United States.


...the senate...which is constitutionally authorised to inspect and controul his conduct....


The high executive officers, joined in cabal with the senate, would lay the foundation of discord, and end in an assumption of the executive power, only to be removed by a revolution in the government

I believe no principle is more clearly laid down in the constitution than that of responsibility After premising this, I will proceed to an investigation of the merits of the question upon constitutional ground.


I have since the subject was last before the house, examined the constitution with attention...that where the constitution is silent it becomes a subject of legislative discretion, perhaps, in the opinion of some, an argument in favor of the clause may be successfully brought forward on this ground I however leave it for the present untouched.


By a strict examination of the constitution on what appears to be its true principles, and considering the great depart ments of the government in the relation they have to each other, I have my doubts whether we are not absolutely tied down to the construction declared in the bill


In the first sec tion of the 1st article, it is said, that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States


In the second article it is affirmed, that the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America


In the third article it is declared, that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as congress may from time to time ordain and establish I suppose it will be readily admitted, that so far as the constitution has separated the powers of these great departments, it would be improper to combine them together, and so far as it has left any particular department in the entire possession of the powers incident to that department, I conceive we ought not to qualify them farther than they are qualified by the constitution


The legislative powers are vested in congress, and are to be exercised by them uncontrolled by any other department, except the constitution has qualified it otherwise The constitution has qualified the legislative power by authorising the president to object to any act it may pass, requiring, in this case two thirds of both houses to concur in making a law, but still the absolute legislative power is vested in the congress with this qualification alone.


The constitution affirms, that the executive power shall be vested in the president: Are there exceptions to this proposition? Yes there are. The constitution says that, in appointing to office, the senate shall be associated with the president, unless in the case of inferior officers, when the law shall otherwise direct. Have we a right to extend this exception? I believe not. If the constitution has invested all executive power in the president, I venture to assert, that the legislature has no right to diminish or modify his executive authority.


...The judicial power is vested in a supreme court, but will gentlemen say the judicial power can be placed elsewhere, unless the constitution has made an exception? The constitution justifies the senate in exercising a judiciary power in determining on impeachments: But can the judicial power be farther blended with the powers of that body? They cannot. I therefore say it is incontrovertible, if neither the legislative nor judicial powers are subjected to qualifications, other than those demanded in the constitution....


Mr. James Madison, June 16, 1789
------------------------------------------------------------



June 17, 1789
...when I consider, that if the legislature has a power, such as contended for, they may subject, and transfer at discretion, powers from one department of government to another; they may, on that principle, exclude the president altogether from exercising any authority in the removal of officers; they may give it to the senate alone, or the president and senate combined; they may vest it in the whole congress, or they may reserve it to be exercised by this house. When I consider the consequences of this doctrine, and compare them with the true principles of the constitution, I own that I cannot subscribe to it.


...There is another maxim which ought to direct us in expounding the constitution, and is of great importance. It is laid down in most of the constitutions or bills of rights in the republics of America, it is to be found in the political writings of the most celebrated civilians, and is every where held as essential to the preservation of liberty, That the three great departments of government be kept separate and distinct; and if in any case they are blended, it is in order to admit a partial qualification in order more effectually to guard against an entire consolidation. I think, therefore, when we review the several parts of this constitution, when it says that the legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States under certain exceptions, and the executive power vested in the president with certain exceptions, we must suppose they were intended to be kept separate in all cases in which they are not blended, and ought consequently to expound the constitution so as to blend them as little as possible.


...for if an unworthy man be continued in office by an unworthy president, the house of representatives can at any time impeach him, and the senate can remove him, whether the president chuses or not.


The danger then consists merely in this: the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be im-peachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust. But what can be his motives for displacing a worthy man? It must be that he may fill the place with an unworthy creature of his own. Can he accomplish this end?


No; he can place no man in the vacancy whom the senate shall not approve;
and if he could fill the vacancy with the man he might chuse, I am sure he would have little inducement to make an improper removal. Let us consider the consequences.


...If this should not produce his impeachment before the senate, it will amount to an impeachment before the community, who will have the power of punishment by refusing to re-elect him. But suppose this persecuted individual, cannot obtain revenge in this mode; there are other modes in which he could make the situation of the president very inconvenient, if you suppose him resolutely bent on executing the dictates of resentment. If he had not influence enough to direct the vengeance of the whole community, he may probably be able to obtain an appointment in one or other branch of the legislature; and being a man of weight, talents and influence in either case, he may prove to the president troublesome indeed.


...If the president should possess alone the power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest, will depend, as they ought, on the president, and the president on the community. The chain of dependence therefore terminates in the supreme body, namely, in the people; who will possess besides, in aid of their original power, the decisive engine of impeachment.


Take the other supposition, that the power should be vested in the senate, on the principle that the power to displace is necessarily connected with the power to appoint. It is declared by the constitution, that we may by law vest the appointment of inferior officers, in the heads of departments, the power of removal being incidental, as stated by some gentlemen. Where does this terminate? If you begin with the subordinate officers, they are dependent on their superior, he on the next superior, and he on whom? — on the senate, a permanent body; a body, by its particular mode of election, in reality existing for ever; a body possessing that proportion of aristocratic power which the constitution no doubt thought wise to be established in the system, but which some have strongly excepted against: And let me ask gentlemen, is there equal security in this case as in the other? Shall we trust the senate, responsible to individual legislatures, rather than the person who is responsible to the whole community? It is true the senate do not hold their offices for life, like aristocracies recorded in the historic page; yet the fact is they will not possess that responsibility for the exercise of executive powers which would render it safe for us to vest such powers in them. But what an aspect will this give to the executive? Instead of keeping the departments of government distinct, you make an executive out of one branch of the legislature; you make the executive a two-headed monster...you destroy the great principle of responsibility....

Mr. James Madison, June 17, 1789

[And thus we are today, at the point where Obama and his Comunist-Socialists are creating the Two-headed monster of the Executive Branch, and intend a tyrannical over-taxing Communist-Socialist Police State to rule America...and if they cannot acheive that, to make it as vulnerable to not just terrorists, but to nuclear attacks by newly armed sovereign Third World rogue nations, and anyone that hates for whatever reason.]

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

Contrary to Obama's Communist-Socialist reinterpretation:
"The Constitution of the United States is a Constitution of limitations and checks. The powers given up by the people for the purposes of Government, had been divided into two great classes. One of these, formed the State Governments, the other the Federal Government."
Mr. James Madison
Speech in Congress on the Jay Treaty. March 10, 1796

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

LETTER
To Edmund Pendleton

N. York June 21. 1789.

Dear Sir,


...The Constitution has omitted to declare expressly by what authority removals from office are to be made. Out of this silence four constructive doctrines have arisen


1. that the power of removal may be disposed of by the Legislative discretion. To this it is objected that the Legislature might then confer it on themselves, or even on the House of Reps, which could not possibly have been intended by the Constitution.

 [i.e., they may not later vote that they have "no removal powers" or "no powers to impeach".  They cannot simply cut these powers out.  Like the Natural Born Citizen Clause, it must remain intact in order to maintain an intact US Constitution.  While the option of adding maximums to the specific language is allowed, they cannot remove from the bare minimums of the Founding Document ratified under Madison's watch.]


2. that the power of removal can only be exercised in the mode of impeachment. To this the objection is that it would make officers of every description hold their places during good behavior, which could have still less been intended.


3. that the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment. To this the objections are that it would require the constant Session of the Senate, that it extends the mixture of Legislative & Executive power, that it destroys the responsibility of the President, by enabling a subordinate Executive officer to intrench himself behind a party in the Senate, and destroys the utility of the Senate in their legislative and Judicial characters, by involving them too much in the heats and cabals inseparable from questions of a personal nature...


4. that the Executive power being in general terms vested in the President, all power of an Executive nature, not particularly taken away must belong to that department, that the power of appointment only being expressly taken away, the power of Removal, so far as it is of an Executive nature must be reserved. In support of this construction it is urged that exceptions to general positions are to be taken strictly, and that the axiom relating to the separation of the Legislative & Executive functions ought to be favored. To this are objected the principle on which the jd. construction is founded, & the danger of creating too much influence in the Executive Magistrate.