The End of the Constitutional Republic?

If Barry Soetoro (also known as Barack Hussein Obama II) is an Indonesian citizen and not a U.S. citizen, then the following article comes from the man who should right now be the Junior U.S. Senator from Illinois…

The end of the constitutional republic?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The End of the Constitutional Republic?

  1. Jax says:

    Red, when you find yourself to the right of Michelle Malkin, it’s time to wander back in from the high weeds. That being said, what do you say to the fact that the grandmother tape was only a partial transcript? From Slate.com:

    “None of that stopped Berg from stoking the conspiracy theorists. On Oct. 16, an Anabaptist minister named Ron McRae called Sarah Hussein Obama, the president-elect’s 86-year-old paternal step-grandmother, at her home in Kenya. Two translators were on the line when McRae asked if the elder Obama was “present” when the president-elect was born. One of the translators says “yes.” McRae contacted Berg and gave him a partial transcript of the call with a signed affidavit. He opted not to include the rest of the call, in which he asks the question more directly—”Was he born in Mombassa?”—and the translators, finally understanding him, tell him repeatedly that the president-elect was born in Hawaii.”

  2. First, it’s not a “Left vs. Right” or “Republican vs. Democrat” issue.

    I am in good company with intelligent, high-integrity Democrats over at Texas Darlin’s blog and with many of the commenters at Michelle Malkin’s blog.

    Second, it’s not Berg’s case that is in conference by the SCOTUS today. It’s Donofrio’s. Get your facts straight. Barack’s grandmother has NOTHING to do with Donofrio’s case. But Baracks’ father certainly does…

    Truth: Obama’s own “Fight the Smears” web site admits:

    As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    That means that Barack Hussein Obama II was a
    British citizen AT BIRTH.

    And that is EXACTLY the type of person our founding fathers intended to make ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

    What is now Kenya was a British colony when Barack II was born.
    He had British citizenship at his birth, regardless of where he was born.

    That British citizenship turned into Kenyan citizenship when Kenya became independent of Great Britain.

    Again, Obama’s own smears website says “his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982″

    Which only serves to prove that he had British citizenship at birth!

    Even if Obama also had U.S. citizenship at birth, you cannot deny that he had British citizenship at birth. Donofrio’s point is that dual citizenship and “Natural born” citizenship are mutually exclusive. Nothing “kooky” about that. Let the Supreme Court decide.

    If the “Natural born citizen” requirement is not taken seriously (essentially treated as meaningless), then the precedent is set that any other part of the Constitution can not be taken seriously.

    That, my friend, would be the death of our Constitutional Republic.

    This is an extremely important issue, and I really have a hard time understanding how Michelle Malkin, of all people, can be so flippant about it.

    Dual” citizen and “Natural born” citizen are
    MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

    Obama is not eligible to become POTUS.

  3. Jax says:

    “‘Dual’ citizen and ‘Natural born’ citizen are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.”

    No, they’re not. Use all the caps you want, it doesn’t make it true. The 14th Amendment does not recognize the authority of other countries when it defines citizenship. No court case, no Supreme Court ruling, no lawsuit has ever been settled that comes to your conclusions. You are basing that precedent on the landmark case of Wishful Thinking vs. Reality.

    Natural-born means born in America. If the founding fathers had wanted to exclude people who were born with foreign citizenship, they would have had to start with THEMSELVES, and continued with every President up to Andrew Jackson, both of whose parents were citizens of the British crown until the day they died.

  4. John says:

    Jax says:

    “Natural-born means born in America. If the founding fathers had wanted to exclude people who were born with foreign citizenship, they would have had to start with THEMSELVES, and continued with every President up to Andrew Jackson, both of whose parents were citizens of the British crown until the day they died.”

    It seems you’re rather late to the table, Jax, with much reading to catch up on. (Or you knowingly set a stage and lighted it just for my comment) :)

    This is an important point relevant to the Donofrio suit: (see the Constitution, Article II) Hint: the founding fathers DID “exclude[d] people who were born with foreign citizenship .. up to Andrew Jackson” ALL OF WHOM WERE CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. (Jackson was born in the Carolinas in 1767.)

    They put the following highly significant exception to the Natural Born Citizen requirement into the Constitution: “…, (comma) or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, (comma)…”

    Significant, we say, because it forces the interpretation that the founding fathers up to Andrew Jackson WERE NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS and thus helps to define the term in question, which therefore excludes, quite topically for example, British subjects born in America.

    Have a nice day.

    John

  5. Jax says:

    Dear John,

    Fair point. And you’re right, I did forget about the part of the Constitution where the founding fathers made an exception for themselves. That being said, since I have MUCH reading to catch up on, perhaps you can stop talking like Pip from Great Expectations long enough to address my larger point, that Red is talking straight out of his ass when he says that dual citizenship and being a natural-born citizen are mutually exclusive. A constitutional scholar such as yourself should be able to explain quite thoroughly where the fourteenth amendment recognizes the sovereignty of other nations over the United States Constitution. And John, quite topically, to be an exclusively British subject born in America, you would have to be born to TWO British subjects, so I’m not sure exactly where you’re going with that line of logic.

    Enjoy the Obama administration.

    Jax

  6. mike.musculus says:

    {nb: the following comments are based on the headline (now seemingly incorrect) that SCOTUS has turned down the Obama cases because of lack of standing. Even while the headline might be in error, I think the comments are still relevant, though for different reasons.}

    I am becoming greatly disturbed concerning the various “standing” rulings vis-a-vis The Constitution proliferating across the land, and the precidents[sp] they are setting that will ossify as time progresses.

    The view that citizens have no standing in Constitutional issues turns the Constitution from a comptract between Citizens, (as the senior partner) and their government (junior partner) to a contract of government (as the senior partner) with government (junior partner)!

    And so, we see the groundwork laid for tyranny, for if government’s only overseer is itself we have become slaves, simply to serve at its pleasure.

    The Constitution has been turned: it is no longer Our Constitution, but their constitution: the lawyers and other members of the ruling political class.

    They recognize that their power comes from that document, and it has been turned into a noose on our necks. By hedging around it an unbreechable barrier, called standing, they have made certain that citizens cannot ensure its enforcement on the governing classes — we have no standing when the government colludes to violate its tenents. I am fairly certain that the government will find lots of standing when they find provision they wish to enforce on the citizenry. So, we see that as long as the tyrants hang togther, they will hang us. And because they profess with their forked tongues to honor that document while keeping the citizens ignorant of its contents, they’ll have the slaves’ willing cooperation in their slavery.

  7. Jax says:

    The irony is, if you had cared this much about the Constitution during the Bush administration, Obama never could have gotten elected! Ahhhh, karma is funny, isn’t it?

  8. Jax,

    The September $700 Billion Bailout was a Manufactured Crisis.

    McCain, by opposing it, could have shown that he was not “McSame” running for “Bush’s third term”.

    McCain, by supporting it, led the entire Republican party to the slaughter.

  9. mike.musculus,

    Thank you for your comments. I combined the two comments into one, to make it read the way you originally intended (per what you said in your second comment).

    We are in agreement. If the “Natural born” phrase becomes meaningless and is not enforced, then EACH AND EVERY OTHER phrase in the Constitution becomes meaningless. Ignore the “Natural born” phrase now, and it won’t be long before the 1st and 2nd amendments are ignored. And then it won’t be long before the entire Constitution is ignored or rewritten to look like this constitution.

    It’s shocking that even people like Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey don’t realize this.

  10. mike.musculus says:

    ITRP,
    Thank you for combining the two posts. This is the 2nd time you’ve needed to do this. I’m not sure I remembered to thank you for the 1st, so, let me extend thanks for that time, too.

    Yes, you’ve nailed one point exactly. The other prong of this dual problem though, is as worrisome.

    The F.F. purposely wrote the Constitution in the plain & common language of that time so the Citizenry could understand it. They did that because it was a contract between The People & The Government. That being the case We, The People always have standing. If XYZ Foods claims ABC Meats is stuffing the “all veal” hotdogs (contracted to be 100%veal) exclusively with persimmons, can a judge say that XYZ Foods have no standing? The idea is preposterous on its face.

    So, here we have a contract where we’ve lent our individual power to a central body, on condition that certain points are met. Remember, the premise of Our Constitutional Republic is that the government is our servant, not master, that it derives its power from the consent of those governed. What servant can tell his employer to “get stuffed” and retain employment? How can this legal creature, the government, have more power than that lent? Clearly it cannot, but judge after judge seems hell-bent to convince us otherwise. I’m certain I was the 1st to call it an “Obamanation”, (an accidental mispelling late at night…), but the real abomination is ongoing, Rep or Dem, Liberal or CINO. I have come to be truly convinced that the great bulk of the political/judicial class are selling us down the river… I’m not certain why, or that everyone for the same reason, but I AM convinced.

    If that makes me “tinfoil hat”, well, there are examples enough in history where the “tinfoil hat”s were correct.

  11. mike.musculus,

    Thank you for your kind words and for your excellent comment. I agree with you.

    I think the explanation is that the ChiComs and RusComs are dueling for control of our government. I believe that Hillary represents the ChiComs, while Obama represents the RusComs. The Democrat[ic Socialist] Party has been completely taken over by Communists, while the Republican Party has been severely infiltrated. I happen to believe that McCain is one of them, not one of us.

  12. I too am shocked at Malkin’s actions. I tried my best to invite an expansion of her post and repair of those poorly reasoned arguments.

    As you’ve witnessed, there was no response except to double the sarcasm.

    I had thought, seeing as the underpinnings of the “standings” argument state that the government is accountable only to itself, are in theory what the bailout is in practice, she might be somewhat more careful with her scorn. By that I mean that here is a case, by design, where the government is only accountable to itself. Look at how nicely that works.

    It isn’t good policy to heap ridicule on someone who’s fighting the same foe for the same reasons as you are. I can only guess, seeing that my 13 yr old niece demolished her arguments, (and she did so contemptuously!), that Michelle Malkin must have what seems to her a good reason for only 1/2 baking them. Maybe they’ll stay fresher that way… I don’t know…

    I have decided that, seeing as I’m not wanted there, and we are ramping up for the new CiC, I have good reason to avoid her site. I no longer trust her, feeling as I would about anyone who spoke so strongly one about something minute and inexplicitly reversed course the next.

    Since the registration on her blog is Dad’s, and I’m only holding it open for him, I’ll continue to pop in and post an inane comment 1x/month, so his registration won’t get broomed because its gone “stale”. If it were mine, I’d give it to someone who’d want the abuse. Other than keeping it active, I have no desire to go to a place that one minutes the hostess calls her readers “her friends” and twits them the w/o explanation the next. If I wish to be “My Friend(tm)”-ed, I’ll go to McCain’s office and let him slime me shake my hand in person. What she has done is functionally the same, if of lesser degree.

    Anyway, thank you again for your blog. I enjoy reading it… and not (just) because we’re eye-to-eye on this. We’ve had differences of opinion on MM’s blog, but you were always civil, rational, and open to persuasion by a *factual* and well crafted argument. These are traits worth beyond measure, but they’re being fast cast aside at large.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s