Sunday, July 20, 2014

Sarah Palin to GOP: Fight for the 'Forgotten Man' to 'Win Big in 2016'


20 Jul 2014


 Ronald Reagan won two presidential elections by fighting for the "Forgotten Man," and Sarah Palin said Republicans will only win presidential elections in the future if the party sticks up for the "little guy" and the "Forgotten Man" of all races and backgrounds.

 Building upon the themes she has always fought for and distilled in a landmark speech in Indianola, Iowa in 2011 in which she denounced the bipartisan permanent political class and their brand of crony capitalism that extracts wealth from American workers, Palin told attendees at the Western Conservative Summit in Colorado on Saturday to think about what Sam Griffith posted on her Facebook page. She said he wrote: “I grew up poor. My mother was a die-hard FDR Democrat. When I turned eighteen the first president I voted for was Ronald Reagan. My mother was beside herself. When she asked me why I had voted for him, I told her I didn't plan on staying poor.”

"This is our message. This is what we stand for," Palin exclaimed. "You wanna win big in these midterms, you wanna win big in 2016? Listen to Sam. Stand for a guy who still wants to believe in the American dream."

Palin said the "Forgotten Man" is not invited to parties in swanky zip codes and Washington D.C. where crony deals are cut. She said the Forgotten Man "is the hard-working middle class that just can't seem to get a break" and who is worried about their mortgage and the cost of college. She said the Forgotten Man "is the college grad who voted for Hope and Change, but now can’t find a job. Losing hope. Got no change."

She said the Forgotten Man is the soldier we sent off to war who has come "home forever scarred" and denied his "promised compensation" while he is shuffled around the Veterans Administration while VA bureaucrats "give themselves raises."

"Today, the Forgotten Man is the patriot," Palin said. "She starts a Tea Party group to champion the blessings of liberty and prosperity... but finds herself the target of the IRS." And Palin said when the "crystal-clear evidence stares" Obama in the face about the IRS's corruption, Obama slaps the Forgotten Man in the face and says, "no corruption at all." Not even a smidgen.

"Sadly, the forgotten man has used to being lied to," Palin said. She singled out Benghazi, where Palin said "our ambassador there begged for security and was ignored and murdered when the consulate was attacked by savage Muslim terrorists." She said Obama promptly lied to Americans and blamed a YouTube video for "this highly organized, premeditated attack."

Speaking at the same Colorado university in which she gave a Reaganesque foreign policy speech three years that found the sweet spot between retreating into isolationism and recklessly and naively trying to be the world's policeman, Palin said the "Forgotten Man is used to Obama's lawlessness" --  and she cited "amnesty" as the chief example.

Palin noted that Obama has turned America into an "unfunded charity" that illegal immigrants can invade and overrun after unilaterally passing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Palin also wondered why illegal immigrant children were being dumped in working-class and middle-class communities in not in swanky zip codes in Washington, D.C., Silicon Valley, and Manhattan, places where pro-amnesty advocates are pressuring Obama to not deport the nearly 60,000 illegal immigrant children who have unlawfully entered the country since October of last year.

Palin also blasted wealthy amnesty supporters who would rather replace American workers with cheaper foreign workers, denying the "Forgotten Man" an opportunity to "earn a decent living and the dignity that comes with that."

Palin said a decent living allows the Forgotten Man to get ahead and perhaps lay a foundation for their children to "finish what you started." She said that exceptionalism is lost when people don't play by the rules and those at the top promote lawlessness regarding illegal immigration and "collude" to "drive down wages of Americans by replacing them."

She said that the Forgotten Man believes "in this exception nation" and will fight anyone who wants to fundamentally transform America by undermining its rule of law and "making it just another chunk of land on a map no different from the countries our ancestors left to stake a claim here -- legally."

"But who’s looking out for the American worker? Who has got their backs? Who fights for them? Who will stand up for the forgotten man?" Palin asked. "One man did. He was an FDR Democrat. And he left his party because he said his party left him."

Palin said that man was Ronald Reagan, who said, “You can’t be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy, and still be for the little guy.”
Palin said Reagan "stood for us," and that's why American workers stood with him.

Saying that Republicans represent the calloused hands of people who built the country and the little guy who can't afford seats at swanky fundraisers but also does not begrudge success and loathes crony capitalism, Palin reminded attendees that the Forgotten Man wants freedom and the culture of life and the military to be respected. Palin also said "defending our borders and defending our constitution and rule of law" are important to the forgotten man.

Palin has been one of the few politicians in either party who has never forgotten the "Forgotten Man," and that is why both establishments have often derided and reviled her. But Politicians on both sides of the aisle are tapping into the anti-crony capitalism spirit that continues to percolate. Even the mainstream media is finally recognizing it. Palin was ahead of the curve, though. Before there was Dave Brat and Elizabeth Warren, Palin delivered a landmark speech in Indianola, Iowa in 2011 where she injected crony capitalism on both sides of the aisle in "Boomtown" into the political bloodstream to make it an issue. Before she blasted the bipartisan "permanent political class" in her Indianola speech, Palin took them on in Alaska. She won and enacted significant reforms, accomplishing nearly every one of her campaign promises.

Palin also said impeachment should be used as the ultimate check against a lawless executive, and she again indicated that Obama's lawlessness on illegal immigration was the tipping point for her to call for impeachment because no issue adversely impacts the "Forgotten Man" of all backgrounds and races more.

That is why Palin announced in an op-ed on Breitbart.com that Obama's "many impeachable offenses" can no longer be ignored.
"It’s time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment," Palin wrote. 
As Breitbart News noted, "Palin specifically said Obama's lawlessness on illegal immigration was the tipping point because it impacted Americans -- native-born and legal immigrants -- of all backgrounds":
The federal government is trillions of dollars in debt; many cities are on the verge of insolvency; our overrun healthcare system, police forces, social services, schools, and our unsustainably generous welfare-state programs are stretched to the max. We average Americans know that. So why has this issue been allowed to be turned upside down with our “leader” creating such unsafe conditions while at the same time obstructing any economic recovery by creating more dependents than he allows producers? His friendly wealthy bipartisan elite, who want cheap foreign labor and can afford for themselves the best “border security” money can buy in their own exclusive communities, do not care that Obama tapped us out.  
Have faith that average American workers – native-born and wonderful legal immigrants of all races, backgrounds, and political parties – do care because we’re the ones getting screwed as we’re forced to follow all our government’s rules while others are not required to do so. Many now feel like strangers in their own land. It’s the American worker who is forced to deal with Obama’s latest crisis with our hard-earned tax dollars while middle class wages decrease, sustainable jobs get more scarce, and communities become unrecognizable and bankrupted due to Obama’s flood of illegal immigration. 
Who’s looking out for the American workers? Who has their backs? Who fights for them? 
We should.

Big Government

Friday, July 11, 2014

The case for Obama’s impeachment: The Constitution’s remedy for a lawless, imperial president




The next time you hear politicians denounce Barack Obama as a lawless, imperial president with a scandal-riddled administration, ask them what they’re going to do about it. Their gnashing of teeth over Obama’s self-granted omnipotence is repetitive.

Let’s agree with our ninth president, William Henry Harrison, who said there is nothing more corrupting, nothing more destructive than the exercise of unlimited power. We understand the problem. The only way for politicians to fix it is with a little less talk and a lot more action.

The Constitution provides the remedy for a president who commits “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It’s impeachment.
The only thing necessary to transform America into something unrecognizable is for good men to do nothing!
To be clear, “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not necessarily ordinary criminal offenses. Our Framers used the term to signify a dereliction of duty, and the first duty of the president is to enforce our laws and preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton described impeachable offenses as those “which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He explained that they are “political” offenses “as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

No serious person who is paying attention can deny that Obama and his administration have abused and violated the public trust and disregarded the Constitution. Let me count the ways.

Without notifying Congress as required by law, he set free terrorist prisoners at a time of war when they can return to the battlefield to kill our troops.

In violation of our Constitution, he regularly ignores court orders, changes laws by executive fiat, and refuses to enforce laws he doesn’t like, including our immigration laws.

When Congress declined to pass amnesty for illegal immigrants’ offspring, he unilaterally enacted his own version of it, which created the current crisis on our border as illegal youth pour into our country to receive what he illegally promised them.

He committed fraud on the American people when he promised that if we liked our health care plan we could keep it.

He got us into a war in Libya without Congressional approval. When our ambassador begged for security at the consulate in Benghazi, he was ignored and then murdered when the consulate was attacked as predicted. Americans were left behind to die, as the president did nothing to rescue our people there. Afterwards, he helped spread the lie that a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video was to blame for this highly organized, premeditated terrorist attack.

Obama’s IRS targeted his political opponents for harassment. Then the agency lied to and stonewalled Congress and likely destroyed subpoenaed evidence, while Obama falsely declared there’s no corruption there, not even a smidgen.

From the VA scandal to his unconstitutional recess appointments, to his DOJ wiretapping reporters and giving guns to Mexican drug cartels, to violating religious freedom exercised by businesses and ignoring in-house illegal fundraising, the list of abuse goes on and on.

Barack Obama’s administration is proving itself a festering boil of scandal. The Constitution is rock solid in holding the president responsible for the executive branch. He can’t just vote “present” while shrugging and feigning ignorance about all these abuses of the public trust, any more than a mob boss can claim innocence because he didn’t personally do the hit. The buck stops with the guy at the top.

Impeachment is the ultimate check on an out-of-control executive branch. It is serious, not to be used for petty partisan purposes; and it is imperative that it becomes a matter of legitimate discussion before the American people lose all trust in our federal government.

Impeachment requires moral courage to advance what is right, and it requires political will. A complacent or disheartened electorate may silently endure these abuses from the administration, the permanent political class is only too happy to maintain the status quo, and the mainstream media is not a fair watchdog. So, the nation’s last line of defense is for We the People to rise up and say, “enough is enough.”

Obama’s lawless encouragement of illegal immigration should be the tipping point for that political will because it impacts all Americans – native-born and legal immigrants of all backgrounds who followed the rules and now watch rewards go to rule breakers while they’re forced to compete for limited jobs and resources. It’s the tipping point because the forgotten working class is hurt most by this lawlessness; and these good Americans deserve the strongest, most effective tool to defend the livelihoods they’ve so honorably built!

Some are arguing for cautious inaction and dismiss even a discussion of impeachment. With Obama’s poll numbers in the tank and his liberal policies exposed as failures, why rock the boat? But that argument misses the point.
The president is radically changing the way the executive branch does business. He is setting a dangerous precedent that will fundamentally change us. With his “pen and phone,” he’s abrogating Congressional authority in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers. He’s making himself a ruler, not a president. We had a revolution back in 1776 because we don’t like kings.

Some argue we should wait for midterm elections and hope a big victory by Republicans in both Houses of Congress will rein in Obama.
Been there, done that in 2010. If Congress refuses to use the power the Constitution gives it, Barack Obama will continue to rule however he wants.

Some argue that at best the House might vote for articles of impeachment, but the Senate is unlikely to convict. But that is no argument against holding a president accountable and sending the people’s message to all successors.
Obama can keep laughing and say, “so sue me” to the House’s tepid lawsuit threat. Let’s hear him laugh off impeachment. At the very least, despite his mocking the Constitution, this Constitutional process will put him on notice.

The only thing necessary to transform America into something unrecognizable is for good men to do nothing! If not these violations and the president’s promise to continue to “go it alone” in ignoring the separation of powers and rule of law, what will it take for you to take a stand? How bad does it have to get?

We live in an America where the NSA spies on our communications, the IRS targets us because of our political beliefs, the border is overrun by foreign nationals, terrorist leaders are released to the battlefield, our health care is taken from us and we’re forced to buy a plan we don’t want and can’t afford, Catholic nuns are targeted by the government simply because they adhere to their Catholic faith, the Justice Department arms Mexican drug lords, and the president keeps a “kill list” of people he’s authorized to be executed on sight.

If you’re comfortable with all that, then by all means sit back and hope for the best. Those concerned about America want change. That comes with healing the injuries done to society by an unchecked president; that starts with impeachment.

Sarah Palin first made history on December 4, 2006, when she was sworn in as the first female and youngest governor of Alaska. In August 2008, Senator John McCain tapped Palin to serve as his vice-presidential running mate in his presidential campaign, making her the first woman to run on the Republican Party's presidential ticket. She is a contributor for Fox News where she offers her political commentary and analysis across all Fox News platforms.

Fox News

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Progressives At War with Reality

July 6, 2014
By Taylor Lewis

In his essay The Part Played by Labor in the Transition From Ape to Man, Frederick Engels wrote, “Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us.” Engels may have been a dunce on economics and class sociology, but his warning was prescient to progressivism’s attempt to subvert the shackles of reality.

Listening to today’s progressives, you get the impression that we are on the inexorable path to utopia. People are more tolerant and accepting than ever before. Abortion and birth control are readily available. Sex selection of the unborn is on the rise. Marriage has ceased being a sacred bond and is becoming a catch-all term for any contract agreed to by one or more persons. As government takes over more swaths of the economy, promises of material abundance keep escaping the mouths of politicians.

The implicit goal in all of this progress is total domination over nature by man. Poverty, sickness, intolerance, ugliness -- the left wants nothing to be left to chance or God’s hands. The power to mold the future so that it fits one grand vision is the Holy Grail of progressivism.

A slew of recent news stories elucidate this sweeping objective. In Slate, transgender activist Christin Scarlett Milloy condemns the practice of assigning gender at birth. She -- her preferred pronoun, though this photo makes me question its accuracy -- writes that upon birth, a child’s “potential is limitless.” The second that gender is determined, the newborn’s “life is instantly and brutally reduced... down to one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes.” Essentially, the baby’s future is split, so that its career as a blue collar construction worker or ballet dancer is now predetermined.

Not giving the infant or the parents consent to “choose” gender is now seen as a great injustice. It may sound strange but it shouldn’t. In the great age of choice, why shouldn’t we subvert the tradition of gender assignments? Are we not free unless we can ignore a doctor’s “cursory assessment” of what’s between a newborn’s legs?

If nature is the enemy, then biological reality must be defeated. Hence the move to transcend gender, and its social expectations, through medical operations. But even the construction of artificial genitals doesn’t seem to be enough to soothe the unrest of those uncomfortable with binary gender roles. Milloy notes that transgendered individuals have a higher rate of suicide and depression than cisgender folks. Why is this? Milloy attributes it to bullying and being assigned the wrong gender at birth. The idea of revenge for believing man can overthrow nature is not given a hint of consideration.

Striving to master sex and gender is not the only mission of progressives. Now, there are attempts being made to counteract life’s one guarantee: death. A recent front page story in the New York Times detailed how a funeral home in New Orleans specializes in posing the corpse of the recently deceased performing their favorite activity. One deceased woman was photographed while propped up at a table “amid miniature New Orleans Saints helmets, with a can of Busch beer at one hand and a menthol cigarette between her fingers” as was her wont in life. The practice, which originated in Puerto Rico, is still relatively rare. In San Juan, viewings in recent years have included a “paramedic displayed behind the wheel of his ambulance” and “a man dressed for his wake like Che Guevara, cigar in hand and seated Indian style.” Some people are beginning to request this type of funeral upon their death. Elsie Rodríguez, vice president of the Marín Funeral Home in Puerto Rico, rationalizes the custom because it eases the burden felt by the deceased’s family. He told the Times, “the family literally suffers less, because they see their loved one in a way that would have made them happy.”

In the scheme of things, does posing the dead engaged in a favored activity really corrupt the soul? Perhaps not, but it’s indicative of a fanciful longing to not leave things as they are. This year, a man in Ohio received his wish that upon his death, his body was to be placed on his Harley-Davidson motorcycle and towed to the cemetery in a custom plexiglass coffin. Did parading his lifeless body around bring some happiness to his spiritual being? We’ll never know the answer. But does clinging to the last vestiges of earthly existence undermine a person’s contribution to the living world? I believe the answer is “yes,” despite what reprieve it may bring for family members in anguish. As Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute writes, conducting “living” funerals is just another contemporary disposition that attempts “to deflect the ultimate reality of human mortality.”

Gender-bending and death denial aren’t consequences of a flawed philosophy on life, but merely symptoms. If you believe mankind can conquer the mountains, squash all injustice, and create a society of pure happiness, then it makes sense to push the limits of nature and see if God will truly stand down to His own creation. Of course, in the fight between God and man, man must always lose, or else he wouldn’t be man to begin with. That’s why progressivism’s march to conquer nature nearly always ends in despair.

Pushing too hard against reality is liable to create unintended ramifications that distort and disorder our own well-being and sense of purposeful design. In short, it conflates what we know to be true with what’s false. 

Pretending the dead are still alive doesn’t bring proper closure. It only delays the inevitable reckoning. Just the same, arbitrarily choosing one’s gender based on personal inclinations doesn’t appear to boost self-esteem. The epidemic of suicide attempts among transgendered individuals says there is something highly disrupting about challenging one of nature’s most embedded realities.

Without a recognition and acceptance of natural order, things become disorienting to the point of meaningless. If good and evil are no different, if life and death hold no meaningful difference, if girl and boy are simply words with no distinction, then what foundation do we have to plant the flag of reality? It is as Milan Kundera wrote:
“...it reminds us of Stalin’s son, who ran to electrocute himself on the barbed wire when he could no longer stand to watch the poles of human existence come so close to each other as to touch, when there was no longer any difference between sublime and squalid, angel and fly, God and shit.”
Kundera called this feeling of weightlessness in a world crying out to be grounded “the unbearable lightness of being.” When it attaches itself to a person, our moral compass goes haywire. Life begins to lose all direction. The only way to recalibrate ourselves is to rediscover our role in the universe.

The difference between the man who sees reality as living truth and the man who must control all external factors is surrender and pride. Those who surrender accept the path given, and find joy along the way. Those who have the overwhelming need for control -- and are prideful enough to believe they can succeed -- end up destroying what nature provides. They pull reality’s various poles together, flattening the landscape until they are left with nothing.

In Canto III of Paradiso, Dante summed up the ordered liberty position perfectly: “For in His will is our peace.” Those who try to conquer the laws of nature will never find peace because they are ultimately trying to accomplish the impossible. Failure leads to dismay, dismay leads to arrogance, and arrogance leads to an inability to distinguish between what’s right and wrong. And without that moral fortitude, we may as well be animals without a higher purpose.

American Thinker

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Natural Born Citizenship and History– Timeline

By   


 Here is the undisputed PROOF that Obama is ineligible for the Presidency:

Representative John Bingham 1862 (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., pg 1639:
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.?
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif

In 1866 while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11


MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/exhibits/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html

Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the Law/Amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and you will see that the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!

What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

Supreme Court Case Minor V. Happersett:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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”

MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

In the 1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
“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 natural born citizens 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.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

——————————————————————–
Still Not 100% Sure? Here’s more!
Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution says:
“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;”

When the Declaration of Independence was adopted, the people of America broke free from British rule and were made US Citizens.

When writing the Constitution, they wanted to be sure they did everything possible to keep America perpetually secure and everlasting, by letting no one, except a Natural Born Citizen (born to two citizen parents) to be eligible for the Presidency. There is an OBVIOUS distinction in the Constitution between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen, which proves there is a difference or it would have just said citizen, for all the positions, instead of saying that the President and VP must be Natural Born, but all others need only be citizens.

The original text of Article 2, section 1, is not what it is today. Here is a timeline of the changes:
 June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

That was the original link, which if you search it, you will see it’s all over the web but you will also see that it has since been scrubbed. But I found another link, where you can read the letter:
http://books.google.com/books?id=z0oWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=%22I+thank+you+for+the+hints+contained+in+your+letter%22&source=bl&ots=1mgttvUzrt&sig=D56Q1n9tWRdgDFGkLLEf9zUR630&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jsAHT4aaNqH30gHP-5SWAg&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22I%20thank%20you%20for%20the%20hints%20contained%20in%20your%20letter%22&f=false

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only a natural born citizen can legally be President of the USA.  ”Obama” is not one. See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Web Hosting Hub

Thursday, June 19, 2014

US Republic now gone—Fully replaced by Dictatorship

By Sher Zieve 


 I have been writing about this time for, at least,  the last ten years.  It has now arrived.  It has occurred under Barack Hussein Obama. Those who say “Obama has now lost his political power” are either not seeing what’s going on or are willfully attempting ignorance.  As predicted, Obama’s power as dictator-in-chief is on the rise and growing exponentially every day.

Obama and his criminal syndicate are completely and tyrannically running the show in the USA.  US and Constitutional laws are not being followed—and have not been since Obama took the Office of POTUS—by Obama and the members of his ruling cabal.  Obama’s legal authority is to enforce the laws of the land.  Obama has—and is—doing neither.  Instead, he is writing and judging laws—replacing both Congress and SCOTUS. 

The Obama syndicate didn’t like SCOTUS’ Citizens United decision regarding political contributions from all—not just its own leftist supporters.  Therefore, the ObamaGov sicced its now-whollyowned IRS on Obama’s enemies conservative, Christian and observant Jewish organizations in order to keep them all from being politically active in opposing his Orwellian and subversive policies.  In an article from Huff Post—hardly a conservative or even “moderate” publication—Harlow Giles Unger writes:  “Nothing in the Constitution gives a president power to issue executive orders or proclamations with the force of law. The opening words of Article I of the Constitution are quite clear: “All legislative powers… shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” “

Obama’s message that the US’ Southern border is now wide-open has reached not only Mexico, but Central America and the Middle East’s jihadis…and they are entering what used to be a country—our country—by the thousands.  Obama’s—or perhaps Jarrett’s—strategy seems to have been and still does “Let them know we’re no longer trying to keep anyone out and that they can send their kids here so that the stupid American people will feel sorry for them.  Then, their parents can follow and be new Democrat voters!” Note:  Without well-maintained and policed borders, there is not a sovereign country.  And quite obviously the Islamic terrorist groups, drug cartels, human traffickers and Latin gangs (with MS-13 members reported to be in the forefront) are now entering at will.  Obama said he would “transform” what was once our country.  Transform to Obama means “obliterate”…and he has done so while Congress members still do nothing to stop him in the hopes that Obama will allow them to retain their “elite-ruler” status.

Obama has overtly turned against our veterans


Obama has overtly turned against our veterans, is in the process of criminalizing his opposition, is removing our Constitutional rights, has illegally opened our borders to all comers (effectively “providing aid and comfort to our enemies”—that’s treason) each and every day (BTW, the Obama-directed Copyright/Patent office’s decision against the name “Washington Redskins” globally removes the owners of the team’s rights to that which they have paid for decades) so that the destruction of our country will soon be completed.  And please don’t forget that Muslim Brotherhood members are running huge portions of the US federal government—including, but not limited to, the US DHS.

Impeaching Obama is interesting but—unfortunately—won’t work…and he knows it.  Ostensibly, impeachment would give Congress the right to provide them with discovery and subpoena Obama & Co.  The problem is that the Obama syndicate will not comply with any orders that do not comport with their own “kill the USA” agenda.  Just this week, the IRS issued the statement that ‘all of Lois Lerner’s emails, including those back and forth from the White House, have been lost due to a ‘computer glitch’.  I can hear the conversation from Obama’s dictator chambers now:  “Val, I love your idea!  Let’s go with it.  We’ll tell the peasants that we can’t find the emails or they’re lost…or whatever.  What can Congress or the stupid American people do to us?  Nothing!  Heck, they voted for their destruction twice when they voted us in.  Besides, we’ve militarized most of our government now to protect us while they and Congress let us do it.”  (Laughter is heard while Obama takes another drag on his cig and slugs down another beer).  “So, you take care of it and that Iraq thing, too.  I need some sleep so that I’ll be awake on the links in the Springs tomorrow.”

We have but one choice, folks, and it was always the only and inevitable one.  There are now no other options left.  Obama and his cabal must be physically removed from our White House. 
2Th 2:9 (NKJ) “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders.”

Who Needs Congress When Obama Just Writes the Laws?:
 
The Dangers When a President Writes His Own Laws:

Charles Krauthammer: Can Obama write his own laws?:

U.S. Patent Office Cancels Washington Redskins Trademarks

‘Plot lines in Hollywood are more believable’: IRS ‘lost’ Lois Lerner’s emails and those of SIX other officials and kept it secret for MONTHS
:

Muslim Brotherhood Goon Appointed As Sr. Secretary For U.S. Gestapo Homeland Security Scheme:

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?:

Canada Free Press