GINA COBB

SITREP Obama Citizenship, Nov 30 08

By DemocracyRules

At this point, our number of dissenting voices is small, and those who would stifle our voices are legion.  But still the cause moves on, pushed forward by an invincible belief in honor, justice, and fair play.  This force ultimately wins, because it is the life-force itself, expressed in human thought and action. 

Good makes the world, evil destroys it.  Evil may triumph among some of the people some of the time, but those who embrace evil are unable to advance society or culture.  If a society rejects the Golden Rule, and the Ten Commandments, they reject the Natural Laws on which those rules are based.

Many philosophers, religious and secular (e.g., Hobbes) have argued that there are Natural Laws that emerge as written laws within long-lived societies.

Biological research on the behaviors of social vertebrates supports this idea.  For example, wolf packs behave according to certain rules of conduct, and these rules enhance the survival of the pack. Many rules of conduct in wolf societies resemble those of human societies.

Thus, the evidence for the existence of Natural Law comes both from the Bible, and from the findings of secular science.

Natural law is based on the observation that humans are a highly interdependent social species which must peacefully cooperate and compete to succeed as a species.  No single hermit has created a civilization. No culture or society can thrive if it is solely based on selfishness, dishonesty, covetousness, and revenge.  Such societies may be able to parasitise other societies, but they cannot survive on their own.

So no matter what the outcome of this Constitutional crisis, the fight will be worth it.  If we fail in this struggle against selfishness and dishonesty, others will pick up the challenge in some other time and place.  As for Obama, it is vital to convey to him that he will never attain and keep his claim on the Presidency without a fight, and this fight will persist for centuries until it is finally settled.  Obama needs to know that he is in a tough fight, a fight that ultimately intends to erase his Presidency from history.

Thank goodness for the Internet, for without it, most of our collective action would be impossible.  Three big things have happened recently.

______________________________________

(1) Google itself has sided with Obama in information warfare.  Google has “sandboxed” the Atlas Shrugs website run by Pamela Geller.  Google admits they engage in censorship.

Pamela has led the eligibility fight from the beginning, and many thousands visit her site for updates.  Google is making it harder to find Atlas Shrugs when people do searches like  “Obama birth certificate”.  Pretty disgusting stuff.

(2) Another newspaper advertisement, this time in Chicago, is about to challenge Obama’s eligibility.  Obama’s home base is Chicago.

The text is here:  ChicagoTribune-Obama-Letter-Nov-2008
I like this one better than the Washington Times ad, because it’s more carefully reasoned.  It makes a clearer case that a Constitutional crisis is already underway.

(3) The biggest news is an article by Judah Benjamin at Texas Darlin. 

Judah Benjamin makes a much more thorough and detailed discussion than I do here, and his whole piece is very much worth reading.  What follows is just my brief  summary.

Here is the key Constitutional clause, from Article II, Section 1:

“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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Benjamin makes a strong case that under this clause, Obama is ineligible by Obama’s own admission.  That is, Obama has clearly and publicly stated that he was born a dual citizen because his father was Kenyan, and the laws of Kenya at that time conferred Kenyan citizenship to the newborn automatically.

Benjamin grounds his reasoning on the laws and word meanings that were in common use at the time the Framers wrote the Constitution.  This is the most common way legal scholars interpret the Constitution.  They enquire into what the Framers meant, given the linguistic and social context of their time.  

For the definition of “natural born citizen,” the best context comes from  “Commentaries on the Laws of England”, by Justice Sir William Blackstone, 1769.  “William Blackstone lectured on law at Oxford University in 1753. As a result, the first professorship of English law was established. His lectures were published in 1769 as the “Commentaries on the Laws of England”. They greatly influenced the American colonists and were the basis of legal education in England and America for years. They were comprehensive and covered real property, crime and punishment, court procedure, contract, corporations, and commercial law.”

When the Framers did their work, they had very little US law to go on, and relied heavily on British law, as it was written and interpreted at that time.  Blackstone’s work was authoritative at that time (it still is for many things), and a lot of the thinking and language in the Constitution is derived from Blackstone.

Blackstone was British, and the peoples of Britain were and are subjects of the Queen (or Crown).  They owe a personal, faithful, and undivided allegiance to the Crown.  That’s what Blackstone meant when he wrote about a “British subject,” or just a “subject”. 

In America, the Framers got rid of the word “subject” and substituted “citizen”.  US citizens owe a personal, faithful, and undivided allegiance to their Constitution, not to the Crown.  But in other ways, the character of the personal, faithful, and undivided allegiance is the same.

Writing about citizenship, Blackstone reasoned that if a person was born on British soil, they were a British subject, and their allegiance to the British Crown would not be questioned, except in certain explicit circumstances.  For example, if an ambassador and his spouse, coming from a foreign country, had a baby on British soil, the baby would owe its allegiance to its father’s homeland, and therefore would not be a British subject at all. 

To Blackstone, a “natural born subject” was one who was born on British soil, and had no allegiances of any kind to any other country.  He meant that anyone born on British soil with dual citizenship is not a natural born subject.  Even if the child were to grow up and renounce their second citizenship, the person could never be deemed a natural born subject.  They would be deemed a naturalized subject.

Blackstone’s reasoning is clearly present in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution.  Blackstone’s definition of a “natural born subject” looks exactly like the Constitution’s definition of a “natural born citizen”.  In fact, unless you use Backbone’s definition, the clause in Article II, Section 1, seems to make very little sense.  If you use Blackstone’s definition, the clause makes perfect sense.  The framers didn’t want the President to have any divided loyalties at all, so any President who was born after the Constitution was enacted, had to be a natural born citizen of the USA.

__________________________________________

Judah Benjamin’s piece has a bunch of important  implications.

(4) Benjamin has laid out the case in a way that all us non-lawyers can understand it.  That’s vital, because if this battle is going to be won, it will be won by informed citizens who won’t take “go away” for an answer.

(5) Benjamin’s reasoned case may be why the SCOTUS has agreed to confer on the eligibility challenges.  They are conferring on the case brought by Donofrio, which is reasoned very much like Benjamin’s case.

(6) People who challenge Obama’s eligibility don’t need to resort to cyber-warfare to get him to cough up his birth certificate.  They can if they want to, but they don’t have to.  Prima facie, Obama is ineligible because he was born a dual citizen. Done. Completamento Finito. Fermé. Kaput.

(7) “The Poisoned Chalice” problem.  SCOTUS may feel damned if they do and damned of they don’t.  Whether we like it or not, Judges are people first, and humans are not inherently good at disinterested logic and reasoning.  They have to discipline themselves to control their emotions and keep their judgments rational.  Most commenters have decided that SCOTUS will cave, because the risk of civil disturbances is just too high.

I’m not going to make a prediction.  If  Obama sits as President in this state of ineligibility, there is also a risk of civil disturbance at some point.  As the four years elapse, Obama’s popularity will subside, as it always does with Presidents.  If it gets very low, and the stresses on the nation get very high, dissent may become organized disobedience.

Pro Patria

Mumbai Terrorists Funded by UK Mosques

By DemocracyRules

More than 300 dead, piles of bodies still being recovered.  All terrorists were from Pakistan, from an Al Qaida-affiliated group.  Indian press calls it war with Pakistan.

British SAS anti-terrorist expert says the same methods in a British attack would kill hundreds.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrings his hands, knits eyebrows, looks worried.  "Maybe something should be done..."

Obama hands over to Bush, tucks in for Thanksgiving.  If India/Pakistan nuclear war occurs, Obama can always blame Bush.  Bush sends condolences to India.

Bill Ayers considers massive US peace demonstrations to march on all Pakistani consulates and embassy in America, demanding an end to Islamist violence.  Then he yawns and decides not to bother.

Run on US gun shops continues.  Ammunition may become scarcer, as 18 States plan to reduce availability and track purchasers...

Pro Patria

Obama 1, Constitution, 0 -- Alan Keyes Challenges Obama's Eligibility

By DemocracyRules

h/t Essence.com

Dr. Alan Keyes, a former US ambassador, ran for President for the American Independent Party. In November, Keyes filed a lawsuit against Obama, the California secretary of state, and others, to stop California from giving its electoral votes to Obama until a birth certificate is produced proving that he is indeed a natural born citizen.

ALAN KEYES: "I had read a little bit about the issues that were being raised about Obama back during the primary season. At first I thought, like a lot of people, "There's nothing to this. It's just a matter of fact. You can establish what the facts are." The Constitution specifies that a citizen who is naturalized, rather than born into the status of being an American citizen, cannot be president. That was done in the beginning because people feared a foreign takeover of the United States government by the process of immigration. Staid as it is, we again are in a situation where a lot of foreign entities have influence or control over U.S. policy.

The reason an issue has been raised about Obama is because of the simple question, which can be answered with a birth certificate that shows he was born in the United States, or born to parents who had the capacity to transmit U.S. citizenship. When the question was asked, he danced around it. If the most important office of the federal government can be occupied by someone who is not qualified under the United States Constitution, that destroys the authority of the Constitution. I think it's something that needs to be dealt with in a clear, straightforward way. Eventually the case will get to the Supreme Court, establish the facts, and clear the air. It's really all very simple.

A lot of questions have been raised [about birth certificates posted on websites]. It has to be established by a matter of fact, not by some Web site. The state of Hawaii needs to share the birth certificate with the Supreme Court, so they can take a look at it. When I went into the government as part of the United States foreign service, you had to submit an original copy of your birth certificate. People have been dancing around Obama's certification instead of going straight to the answer.

Part of the problem is, at the time he was born, the state of Hawaii was issuing certificates of live birth. That's what he has on the Web site. They would issue that certificate verifying you were born, but not necessarily in the United States. And there is question that, at the time that he was born, his mother was not yet of age to transmit citizenship. You had to be 19, I think. If he was born in Hawaii, then he is a natural born citizen. If he was born somewhere else-and a question has been raised if his birth was in Kenya-then his mother would not have transmitted citizenship. One needs to verify that the certificate verifies the birthplace.
...

This is not something that should be taken on hearsay. This is the most important office. Everything should be done without controversy, in such a way that the Constitutional requirements are met. If something is contrary to the Constitutional requirement, then you have to do away with that. It's not on Obama to do this. The folks with whom this burden presently rests are the officials who are now responsible for the process, who sit on the Supreme Court and other areas. They have to abide by their oaths to preserve and defend the Constitution, and not have him entering into office with a question they refuse to resolve.

...

The problem in this case is, Obama was not properly vetted-by the media, or other individuals-during the campaign. They refused to look at it. People went to the polls with the issue unresolved. Once the electoral process is done, then the responsibility for certifying the results and making sure it's all according to the Constitution rests on the officials. So we're at a different stage of the process. I don't believe it would be a good idea to turn to the government to establish the qualifications of people who are running for office. That could be abused to limit the options of the people. If people are behaving with integrity, these facts would come out and then people would be able to make their judgment. This didn't happen.
...

I think politics is irrelevant to this, actually. I don't see how it is showing fondness for Barack Obama to let him enter into office with a question that could be raised. He should not have to operate under that burden. I think the officials need to clear the air for his sake. From my point of view, it is a bad idea to have a president of the United States enter office with a cloud hanging over his head, where every time he tries to do something, he would end up frittering away time because of that objection. So let's get it over with. Let's resolve it and move forward with a clear an undisturbed mandate for the new president.

...

It makes a difference to the Constitution. The Constitution has to be obeyed. If we get into a position where it is somehow regarded as dispensable then this country will fall apart. Black people should be the first folks to remember that. Without adherence to the Constitution our battles would have never been won. I don't want to live in a country where we are suddenly back in a world where the force of majority rules. I don't think any of us do.

...

Today we are in more danger as a people of being subverted by foreign powers than we were when it was founded. It is possible, under our present rules in America, for folks from another country to come visit America, to have a child here, to take that child back to wherever, raise that child there, and that child would be an American citizen. Do we really think it would be right to have a person who has not lived in America, does not identify with our people, to run here as president of the United States?
...

Rules have to be written in general. You can't write a rule in every particular case. The rules established in the Constitution are general rules that have been abided by people throughout the history of this country. People have been excluded from running for president, people like Arnold Schwarzenegger. One has to think of the common good. This isn't a question of individuals anymore. The key thing about the presidency, in my opinion, is that the person above all takes responsibility for the common good of the country. Our public officials do not swear allegiance to a country; they swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That's something to be taken very seriously. Those are the rules."

Foolish Question: "Mumbai's Trauma: How Quickly Will Recovery Come?"

Today's news brings a foolishly short-sighted question:  Mumbai's Trauma: How Quickly Will Recovery Come?

Soon enough, the buses will roll, telephones will ring, and everyone will return to work.  There will be no "recovery," however, until the sources of these terror attacks are hunted down and destroyed.

What kind of "recovery" can Mumbai possibly have if the butchers who planned this vile attack remain free to launch additional attacks on innocent civilians at will?

The cancer of Islamic terrorism has already metastasized to almost every country on earth.  Killing the tiny band directly carrying out the Mumbai attacks was necessary, but was expected and planned into the attacks.  It has nothing to do with the underlying problem.  To kill the immediate perpetrators is merely to hit the pause button.  It is not the end game.

This wasn't the first attack and it won't be the last.  If India wants to "recover," it will take a sustained military, law enforcement, and intelligence effort, on its own and in cooperation with other nations of goodwill.  It will take a long-term effort at least partially resembling the all-out effort George W. Bush has led on America's behalf for the past seven years.

Samantha Power, Advocate of Isreali Surrender to Islamists, Re-Joins Obama Team

By DemocracyRules

This is a sad story which presages the trouble to come.

Samantha Power's claim to fame is that she blames the US and the West for almost all genocides committed by non-Communist regimes in the  20th Century.  The US should have stopped all of them. (Canada and the UN escapes blame for some reason, even though our peace-keepers were right on scene in Rwanda). A summary of her views is here .

Power mainly ignores the 94 million that were killed under Communism. She also ignores the fact that the allied democracies actually stopped many of the genocides of the 20the Century.  Had he won, Hitler would have exterminated all Russians and all Semites, including the Arabs.  All Africans and Chinese would have been next.  Need I remind anyone that in his speeches, Hitler was not kidding?

Also, when Khrushchev pounded the table in 1956 and proclaimed to the West, "We will bury you", he was not speaking figuratively.

The Western democracies stopped many 20th Century genocides before they got worse.  We did this by conducting a long series of expensive and lethal wars, some hot, and some cold.  These wars produced the collapse of Fascism and Communism, which together had murdered about 200 million people in the 20th Century.

This logic has escaped Ms Powers notice, and apparently Obama's as well, as she rejoins his team.  She is destined for a senior job at the State Department, where she will make Israeli's lives more difficult.

You may remember Samantha Power. She previously served as a senior policy adviser to Obama, until she called Hillary "a monster".  Ms Power uttered mea culpa's and stepped down, but she is now slated to work with Hillary at State.  That should work.

Samantha Power is a pro-Communist and Palestinian sympathizer who advocates the US invading Israel and forcing a Palestinian "solution" onto the Israelis.  Her "solution" actually resembles the one that Ahmadenijad proposes for Israel.  Essentially, she will use US troops to force Israelis and violent Islamists to live together and mingle freely.  What could go wrong? 

Here's Samantha Power's "final solution" video.

Trampled to Death in America: Materialism Trumps Humanity

The America I know and love is better than this.

NEW YORK —  A worker was killed in the crush Friday after a throng of shoppers eager for post-Thanksgiving bargains burst through the doors at a suburban Wal-Mart, authorities said.

At least four other people were injured, and the store in Valley Stream on Long Island was closed.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in Bentonville, Ark., called the incident a "tragic situation" and said the employee came from a temporary agency and was doing maintenance work at the store.

"He was bum-rushed by 200 people," co-worker Jimmy Overby, 43, told the Daily News. "They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me. They took me down too. ... I literally had to fight people off my back."

Nassau County police said the 34-year-old worker was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead at about 6 a.m. The man's name was not released and the cause of death was not immediately known.

A police statement said shortly after the store's 5 a.m. opening time, shoppers "physically broke down the doors, knocking (the worker) to the ground."

A metal portion of the door was crumpled like an accordion.

Shoppers around the country lined up early outside stores in the annual bargain hunting ritual known as Black Friday. Many stores open early and stay open late, and some of the most dramatic bargains are available in limited quantities.

Among the bargains offered by Wal-Mart for Friday were Samsung 50-inch high definition Plasma TVs for less than $800.

Witnesses told the Daily News that before the store was closed, eager shoppers streamed past emergency crews as they worked furiously to save the worker's life.

"They were working on him, but you could see he was dead," said Halcyon Alexander, 29. "People were still coming through."

How far adrift have some of us gone -- how bereft of any moral compass must some Americans be -- that shoppers can take a man's life and rush past his body lying on the ground in pursuit of the Almighty Sale?

Trampling fellow human beings to death happens in heartless corners of the world far too often (the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia comes to mind), but how can an innocent worker be trampled to death in America in pursuit of material things?

Someone will find a way to blame Wal-Mart for this tragedy, because Wal-Mart is not unionized and is therefore to blame for everything, but that's a cop-out.  How dare Wal-Mart offer amazingly low prices and fail to anticipate that some if its customers would treat each other like animals?!

There is a place for moral blame, and it belongs on the pushers and shovers and tramplers.  They should be deeply ashamed, if not prosecuted.  Every one of them should be visiting the dead man's family in due course, supporting his survivors, if any, and begging for forgiveness.

"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?"  Matthew 16:26

"If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."  Mark 9:35